Let's start with some obvious bits. First, the Boomer MSM (BMSM) is heavily invested in Watergate. Just as they ALL claim they went to Woodstock and changed the world while smoking dope in the mud, they all hold a personal claim to Watergate. This were their moment to expose deep-seated corruption in the US government and to bring down a president who needed to be stopped because of his abuse of power. To them, this was a personal mission and why they all claim victory in it personally. That's why they keep writing about it, why they see it as their achievement, and why they always have to include themselves in their articles.
Of course, little of that is true. First, almost none of them were involved in the least. To the extent journalists drove this, it was a tiny cabal of Washington and New York based journalists. Moreover, Nixon went down because Nixon mishandled the whole thing, not because journalists brought him down. As prior and subsequent scandals have shown, a plan of deflect, deny, and issue fake apologies works just fine to save political careers from almost anything, and it would have worked for Nixon except that Nixon was a paranoid on the verge of collapse the whole time anyway. Said differently: Nixon is the reason Nixon went down.
Not to mention, even if the BMSM did bring him down, that's not something to be proud of because it's deeply hypocritical. Indeed, unlike the wall to wall coverage of every scandal they could find about Nixon, Bush, Reagan and Bush, the BMSM turned a blind eye to vote stealing by Kennedy. Unlike the wall to wall coverage of Watergate, Iran Contra and other Republican scandals, the BMSM was already choosing to ignore all the Kennedy and Johnson scandals. Not a word was said about JFK's well-know drug use, his affairs, his connections to the Mafia. His near-criminal failure at the Bay of Pigs was written off as one of those things. His starting of Vietnam was greeted with enthusiasm rather than the usual ultra-skepticism and cynicism reserved for Republicans, as was Johnson's escalation. And his taking the world to the brink of destruction in Cuba was deified rather than excoriated. Imagine the response if that had been Reagan.
The BMSM also likes to claim that the country was innocent until Watergate. Of course, they make the same claim about the JFK assassination. So something doesn't add up there. And as we've discussed before, the cynicism seems to have started at the beginning of the 1950s, and reached a peak during the McCarthy hearings. So Watergate added little to that, if anything.
So what legacy did Watergate give us? Well, it gave us a special counsel, which the Democrats used against Republicans and then conveniently let die once it was used against them. It gave us more cynicism, but it's not like we didn't already have that -- we were already trending up. They claim Watergate made the media adversarial to the government, but any Republican can tell you that's just a matter of who's in the White House at that particular time. Some claim this changed journalism from being about hard-nosed reporting to being about smug opinion-journalism. But then, the Boomers were smug from day one, and they were never hard-nosed reporters. To the contrary, right out of the gates, they went into journalism to change the world with their opinions and their choice of coverage, not by being reporters. Not to mention that the MSM has changed a dozen times since then, so any changes Watergate caused have long since been changed again.
The more I think about it, the only real change Watergate caused was the use of the word "gate" on the end of political scandals.
Am I missing something?
no, I think you got it covered pretty well. Nixon brought down Nixon is spot on. I will admit "Woodstein" helped keep the story going, periodically giving it new legs just when it was about to die. Don't forget, it gave Hillarybeast her first lib creds, too. Then there was that little prick John Dean who has made a whole new life writing "new" books about it. Compare him to G. Gordon Liddy "just tell me what street corner to stand on" and tell me who has more honor.
ReplyDeleteBut, I'll say this. I voted for Nixon twice. And I was disappointed by him. I think Obama is equally corrupt, probably way more so. Yet the media turns a blind eye. I think between us, we about covered it all
well, I don't want to completely downplay the significance either. Forcing a sitting president out is a historically important event. And yes, generations tend to remember and celebrate those events they remember. What actually makes people remember it was television. The whole hearings were covered gavel to gavel. It became an "event" just like O.J.
ReplyDeleteJed, Agreed about this being on TV.
ReplyDeleteIn so many ways, Obama is a clone of Nixon, only the MSM treats him completely differently. In fact, there isn't really a way that Obama and Nixon aren't similar, right down to both having enemies lists and even similar foreign policy problems.
So, its boomer onanism?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Jed is right, ousting a sitting President is pretty big and having live television coverage of it "gavel to gavel" would've made it a big thing in people's lives. But it is interesting how every event between 1963 and 1975, from the JFK assassination to Watergate, (and the formative years of the Boomer generation) is seen as the MOST IMPORTANT EVENT IN HISTORY!
Of course, it foisted G. Gordon Liddy upon us, who gets more annoying every time he appears on television. Seriously, how many people become famous for a screw-up? Jesus!
"even similar foreign policy problems."
ReplyDeleteNixon did do a good job of handling Vietnam, I think. Well, better than Lyndon Johnson... which was not a difficult feat to accomplish.
Oh! One thing Watergate did: Resulted in Charles Colson apparently becoming a Born Again Christian and starting the Prison Fellowship program. So... that's cool, I guess.
Every post-Nixon president has survived scandals which are roughly in the same ballpark and that is true of at least some of the presidents before him. Of course, everyone else responded better and had more charisma.
ReplyDelete(chuckling) Anthony, Barack proves charisma is truly in the eye of the beholder! Seriously, I admit when the guy was reading from a tele-prompter, and had true outsider status so he could get away with broad generalities, as he did in 2008, he could be quite impressive. But watching him stumble in press conference Q&A, and watching him to pretend he is an outsider has finally worn thin for a lot of people who originally bought his particular line of B.S.
ReplyDeleteAs I've pointed out to my lefty friends, Nixon was a big lib, a BIG LIB...most of these social programs in existence today got their start under him.....most of us people who were in the military at the time liked Tricky Dick. He doubled our pay, I was getting $178/mo it went to $360.00/mo under him. He didn't really do anything any worse than many other presidents,,,,it's just that the media really hated him.
ReplyDeleteOne thing thing that Watergate did give us was the series of G. Gordon Liddy vs. Tinothy Leary debates on cable television. I watched these with the can't-look-away fascination of a deer on the train tracks as the Midnight Express barrels down. These two were consummate debaters and you watched them bat an issue back and forth like a sewage-soaked ball in a champion tennis match. Then you turned off the TV, took a shower and several shots of bourbon to shake it all off.
ReplyDeleteI work with a lot of libs and progs - a lot - and sometimes for sport I will ask one of them what the crime was in Watergate. Not one of them has ever been able to tell me. I've been doing that for years. It always entertains.
I made the point earlier that G. Gordon Liddy came across at the time as much more honorable than, say, John Dean. It was the proverbial question of "who would you want at your back in a foxhole?" Remember, Liddy had not yet fashioned a career as ad pitch man and radio talk host. He gave the impression at the time that he would remain loyal to his king no matter what, where John Dean came across as a little worm who would do or say anything to gain a little leniency. Apparently, part of the latter deal was to kiss liberal butt for the remainder of his days, and periodically offer up so-called "fresh" revelations to keep the story going. Now Liddy may be a pathological liar, and I never followed his career afterwards, but that is the way it seemed at the time.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that made Watergate "hang around" with self-importance by the boomer libs is Hollywood. Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as "Woodstein." Crusading hip young journalists risk their lives to save the Republic from those wicked old men."!! *** (based loosely on real characters from real life.)
ReplyDeleteI've personally never felt that Nixon did anymore than try to defend his friends, not exactly a dishonorable thing....The American media went out of their way to defend Clinton and his antics.
ReplyDeleteKit, It's definitely Boomer onanism. When I look at all the events that followed, I just don't see other generations claiming that everything was THE BIGGEST EVENT EVER!! Even 9/11, which has a claim at being truly formative of the nation, is see as just another event in a long chain.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, I think that was the problem: Nixon. Nixon was paranoid, hostile, and ha zero charisma. So rather than dodge the scandal as everyone else does, he erupted and let it engulf him. In fact, in the scheme of things, Watergate was a ridiculously small scandal that never should have even reached his desk... but he let it.
ReplyDeleteKit, I don't know that Nixon did such a good job in Vietnam. He basically continued what Johnson did without really coming up with a plan for victory, and then he did zero to help the South Vietnamese take over the war. I think a better president would have found more stable way to exit the war.
ReplyDeleteJed, Obama's charisma came from his pandering to everyone by making vague promises of a better world without every saying how. That let everyone fill in the blanks with their own views. And by an adoring media that gave him Messiah treatment. The moment he needed to start delivering, he crashed to earth and things started to go wrong. And as his inexperience and incompetence have come to light, people are feeling betrayed by the image they were sold.
ReplyDeleteCritch, Nixon was a massive liberal. He was basically LBJ II when it came to that, and so many of the things conservative have fought against since the 1980s through the present were created by him.
ReplyDeleteI'm looking at this from a narrative perspective stretching across an entire century of politics in media. If the New Deal made the Democrats the heroes of the story that the MSM has been spinning since radio, then Watergate is the event with which journalists firmly assigned Republicans the role of villain.
ReplyDeleteNazis and Communists make fine foils, but the problem with them is that either party can rail against them in an election campaign. It's tricky being the good guys when every couple years you have to make a show of beating up some other good guys. (Especially when you sympathize with those sickle-swingers a little bit.) Things get much simpler when the enemies are at home and in the other party.
If there is any doubt about this, just go ahead and read a handful of "remembering Watergate" articles. The subtext to all of them is the same: "remember who the bad guys are." It'd be pitiful if it weren't so effective.
Andrew,
ReplyDelete9/11 really did have a huge impact. The entire decade operated under its shadow. Hell, we are STILL living under its shadow.
How many people died because of Watergate? 0
4,486 Americans have died in Iraq and 2,201 in Afghanistan. That adds up to 6,687 total. Over 6,500 Americans have died fighting in the two wars that flowed from 9/11.
Then there was the PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo, and the massive impact on foreign policy since 9/11 with America shifting to the Middle East, the rise of Islamic extremism, increased concern over a nuclear attack, etc.
In fact, if you want an idea of how much 9/11 changed things. look at Bush in the 2000 campaign.
In 2000, Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" with traditional values who would "restore honor and dignity to the White House" after the Lewinsky Scandal. His foreign policy was that we need a "strong military" and was over-all rather vague. Most of his campaign was focused on lowering prescription drug prices, protecting Medicare and Social Security, cutting the income tax, and improving education. He was someone who would give America a "fresh start" after the scandal-ridden Clinton years.
Within a year of the election he was governing as a War President and in 2004 many of his ads were focused on foreign policy.
KRS, I've noticed that too. When you ask liberals what the crime was behind Watergate, they generally have no idea. They just know that Nixon was Satan and needed to be stopped and Watergate was some massive crime which was worthy of him being brought down. They just don't know what the crime was.
ReplyDeleteBut then, that's how liberalism works. It doesn't really matter what the facts are. What matters is the intent and that a "good" result was achieved.
Jed, I've never really followed Dean and Liddy as I honestly don't care about either.
ReplyDeleteThe movie, by the way, is the ultimate example of glorification. Notice that the story isn't about the event at all. No. The story is how the heroes overcame total opposition to uncover this crime against humanity and save us all. It's very "Me Generation."
In fact, it's like the sportswriter I despise -- Peter King. Whenever he writes about an event, like the Super Bowl, he writes about himself, using the event only as a backdrop.
Critch, In politics, you can have no friends, and underlings are meant to be expendable to keep the government in power. That may not be nice, but people recognize that is the risk of being near power. Nixon's circle should have kept him a mile away from this... so far that the media couldn't even put it in the same city with him. And Nixon should have stayed out of it.
ReplyDelete"When you ask liberals what the crime was behind Watergate, they generally have no idea. They just know that Nixon was Satan and needed to be stopped and Watergate was some massive crime which was worthy of him being brought down. They just don't know what the crime was."
ReplyDeleteI DO! I DO! And I'm a Republican. His campaign office used gov't agents and resources* to spy on Democrats culminating in agents breaking into the Watergate Hotel to plant a(nother**) listening device in the hotel and being caught***. After that my knowledge gets sketchy. Apparently Nixon tried to cover it up and committed obstruction of justice or something. Then came Woodstein, the hearings, and Bush and some other guy coming up to Nixon and telling him they did not have the votes to stop impeachment. Cue resignation.
*"government agents and resources"; read as: "Government agents too incompetent for actual espionage and law enforcement work."
**The earlier listening device they planted had failed.
***They planted tape on the door to keep it from locking. A security guard came by, took the tape off and continued his merry way. The break-in guys put another piece of tape on there and continued trying to plant the device. Guard came back, saw the tape put back on there and thought "You know, maybe there is some kind of break-in" and everything went south from there.
These guys were not that bright, were they?
tryanmax, That's true. Watergate has evolved into a self-congratulatory story of having identified "the enemy" and defeating their vile leader. But as you note, the moral to the story always remains: "all Republicans are criminals."
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, there is also a sense, btw, that the liberals are all hip and smart, and the Republicans are all square and stupid.
Kit, 9/11 has had a massive effect, but in the Boomer world, it doesn't compete with the "loss of innocence" from Watergate or the JFK assassination or Vietnam, or whatever else upset them.
ReplyDeleteKit, Now compare that to the thing Obama does that doesn't bother liberals -- NSA spying, IRS targeting, drones, Gitmo, wars without resolution, etc.
ReplyDeleteWe could also compare it to Columbine and the spate of suburban school shootings. How is that for "innocence-taking"?
ReplyDelete"In politics, you can have no friends, and underlings are meant to be expendable to keep the government in power. That may not be nice, but people recognize that is the risk of being near power."
ReplyDeleteLook at Reagan and Iran-Contra (the most convoluted scandal in American history). There you had Oliver North set up as a fall-guy who would go before a Congressional or Senate hearing and tell those bleeding heart liberal politicians that they don't have the guts to do what needs to be done in this dangerous world. He did his job well.
Boomers: "JFK Assassination and Watergate were the days America lost her innocence. It was not World War 2, the Great Depression, Flu Epidemic, World War 1, Philippines War, McKinley Assassination, Garfield Assassination, Lincoln Assassination, Civil War, War of 1812, Death of George Washington, or the Boston Massacre. Those did not take away America's innocence, it was the JFK Assassination and Watergate. Those two events (that we lived through) that ravaged America's virginal innocence. Woe is us boomers! WOE!"
ReplyDeleteEven the Wikipedia entry is filled with unnecessary adjectives.
ReplyDelete"...major political scandal..."
"...extensive illegal activities..."
All BS. This was a minor scandal involving a minor incident that the media and many members in government jumped all over. Just reading the sentences many of these guys were threatened with. 40 years for a non-stealing burglary. The scandal was the misuse of government for a political pissing match and I would bet the house the democrats had bugs planted in GOP offices.
This happened again with Scooter Libby. After he was tried and convicted then Richard Armitage reports that he was the Plame leaker but was told to remain quiet by the prosecuting attorney. Why isn't Fitzgerald disbarred for withholding evidence? Isn't that obstruction of justice? Isn't that why they (the media) went after Nixon?
Political parties play games with the law system and we get to pay for it.
Kit - The Kennedy assassination/MLK assassination/RFK assassination/Watergate/Vietnam etc. took away the innocence of the young adults/teenagers from the '60's. (the same people who are writing that it took away their innocence). Their parents' innocence was taken way during WWII and their grandparents' innocence was taken away by WWI, flu pandemics, Titanic, typhoid epidemics Spanish American War yada yada yada. However there has never been so much written about "innocence lost" than the children of the '60's...what whiners.
ReplyDeleteAh, Watergate. Wasn't he the guy who asked Dustin Hoffman "Is it safe?" :-)
ReplyDeleteIMHO it's an interesting subject insofar as it was simply the latest in a long line of World-Changing Events (TM) and it led to the resignation of a president.
Other than that, to the boomers, I politely say, "Get the f--- over it!!"
Bev -
ReplyDeleteI think today's generation has been far more scarred than any previous because of over-exposure of Uncle Joe's Mr. Happy.
It is not a question of it being "boomer world" that makes 9/11 something less than "the loss of innocence" of JFK, Vietnam, and Watergate. It is really quite simple. 9/11 made it cool to love your country, and retaliate militarily. 9/11 changed the headline from "Bush stole the election with the help of SCOTUS" and made him a hero (for a while anyway) when he was handed a bullhorn on a mound of rubble. Libs freaking hated that and will do anything possible to re-write history more to their liking. Nixon administration abused executive powers in unlawful ways. Nixon, like so many leaders when scandals hit, thought he could contain it and cover it up. He was brought down by the cover-up. Simple as that. I won't reiterate all the ways Obama has abused power. Clinton and Obama most likely both knew about a lot more than they claim. But in 1972-74, the press and t.v. miled the story each and every night. Now, most of the media dismisses it as a distraction.
ReplyDeleteKoshcat - You are SOOO right! I know I still haven't had a decent night's sleep since I read about it....the nightmares. :-)
ReplyDeleteActually, "losing innocence" means "becoming an adult" except Boomers are caught between "innocence" and "adult". Well the whiners are caught...Woodstock, sex, drugs, & Rock-n-Roll, burning bras, "speaking truth to power"...blah, blah, blah.
I find it interesting that Nixon is always getting the blame for Vietnam. And Nixon's greatest achievement for a generation which he gets no credit - abolishing the draft - in 1973.
ReplyDeleteLINK to 1970 proposal
I would also like to point out that this was a proposal to Congress for their discussion and approval. Even Nixon knew how to work with Congress to get stuff done.
"However there has never been so much written about "innocence lost" than the children of the '60's...what whiners."
ReplyDeleteExactly. They never shut up about it. Its THEIR lives that were the most traumatic.
Another Boomer Antic.
ReplyDeleteTaking Total Credit for the Civil Rights Movement: Boomers, especially very liberal ones, love talking about how they stood up to their parents and got the Civil Rights Acts passed and talking about how the Greats imposed things like Jim Crow.. First, Jim Crow was passed before most Greats were even born.
Second, how many Boomers were in congress when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed? The minimum age for congress is 25 years of age and most Boomers were about 18 or 20 when it happened. So… none.
So that means it was the GREATS that repealed Jim Crow, something they are never given credit for by the Boomers, who attack them as a bunch of old bigots.
Look at the footage of the marchers, anyone who was in the Baby Boom and is marching in it prior to 1962 is almost always black. The Civil Rights Acts passed in 1964 were written by and passed by Greats, not Boomers. Boomers only began to get involved en masse around 1962 or 1963. Now, the work they did was no doubt important but to hear them talk you'd think it was them taking on the evil Greats.
Now, some may mention John F. Kennedy's speech but… HE WAS NOT A BOOMER! He was a member of the Greats! He fought in World War 2!
Really, most of the early Civil Rights work done between 1955 to 1962 was done by Greats or Silents but we only hear about the Boomers, who, as I said above, only got involved in the mid-60s. While they did help, and in some cases helped a great deal, they do not deserve anywhere near the amount of credit they give themselves for it.
ReplyDeleteNote: This only refers to white boomers, black boomers were getting beaten by police in the 1950s and, in some cases, murdered (see 1963 16th Street Baptist Church Bombing).
But, actually, once the Boomers got control of the Civil Rights movement in the late-60s and early-70s it turned violent and nasty with groups like the Weathermen and the Black Panthers using "white oppression" as an excuse to carry out bombings and kidnappings.
all the dumping on boomers is a bit boring
ReplyDeleteSorry, Jed.
ReplyDeleteSome good things they did:
—Great music
—70s Filmmakers: The Spielberg/Lucas/Coppola Generation of filmmakers pumped new life into an increasingly ossified Hollywood.
—Many of them voted for Reagan.
Robin Williams has died. RIP.
ReplyDeleteKit, In all honesty, I don't buy that we were ever innocent in the first place. America has never been naive or sheltered. We've fought issues that have led to civil wars. We've seen assassinations and terrorist attacks. We've seen atrocities. What we are is not innocent, but optimistic.
ReplyDeleteApparently Robin Williams' death is likely a suicide.
ReplyDeleteKoshcat, That's exactly what this is. It's a minor political scandal of the type you see in every campaign, but they blew it into near treason and Nixon fell for it.
ReplyDeleteBev, "what whiners" is the issue. I honestly don't hear other people talking about their own lost innocence, but these people never stop, and they assume it applies to all of us as well.
ReplyDeleteScott, I think that was a Nazi on the run...Laurence Olivier.
ReplyDeleteKoshcat, LOL! We have indeed lost our innocence now. Blech.
ReplyDeleteYeah, just read that about Robin Williams. Very sad. No one could riff in iambic pentameter like Williams. R.I.P.
ReplyDeleteJed, I think liberals generally obsess about their opponents and come to hate them all viscerally. They HATE Nixon and have fixated on him since he took office. They hated Reagan too, but weren't able to win any victories. Ditto on Bush. So I think they probably stick with Nixon because they won that one.
ReplyDeleteBev, Speaking truth to power is really speaking opinions in a safe Democratic environment where you won't be punished for it... and kowtowing to dictators where it isn't safe.
ReplyDeleteAs for bra burning, they should do burqa burning.
Bev, I've always been amazed that Nixon gets blamed for Vietnam when two Democrats started the war and escalated it, and Nixon ended it.
ReplyDeleteJed, I'm only dumping on the ones who won't stop telling me how Watergate changed everything.
ReplyDeleteRobin Williams is a sad figure. He seemed very likable, but he also had major addiction problems and apparently suffered from very deep depression. It's too bad because he had such talent. He will be missed. RIP
ReplyDeleteAndrew -
ReplyDeleteI know it was Laurence Olivier. It was a joke. :-)
As for Williams, I know he's had issues, but if a rich, successful guy like him can succumb to depression in the worst possible way, what hope is there for us mere mortals?
Scott,I know you were joking! :D
ReplyDeleteOn Williams, the truth is that money and success are irrelevant to depression. It can happen to anyone and there is little that can truly be done about it. It's very sad.
The jokes aren't as funny when you respond "straight"!
ReplyDeleteI know... money and happiness can often be mutually exclusive. Sometimes you just don't know.
(On that note, I'm still trying to figure out why director Tony Scott committed suicide two years ago. He left a note but its contents were never revealed. Probably for the best.)
"I've always been amazed that Nixon gets blamed for Vietnam when two Democrats started the war and escalated it, and Nixon ended it."
ReplyDeleteVietnam was one of the few things he did right.
One Little Example: The Johnson administration feared releasing the information they had on the POWs' treatment because they feared it would lead to harsher treatment. Nixon administration released the info and, whaddya know? Their treatment improved.
Scott - Robin Williams had bipolar disorder. When you add a longtime drug addiction, it can lead to this. Wealth and success are no antidote for bipolar disorder.
ReplyDeleteScott, All right, I'll try to come up with something more comical next time. :)
ReplyDeleteAs to why someone would kill themselves, who knows? I think they just get to that point that they don't want to go on.
Kit, I think the answer is that the left, like always, prefers to pretend that they had no involvement in their own bad actions.
ReplyDeleteBev, Very true.
ReplyDeleteYou know, I have to say that the Robin Williams thing really makes me sad.
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
ReplyDelete"You know, I have to say that the Robin Williams thing really makes me sad."
Same here.
Andrew - It is so sad when someone gets to the point where they can't see tomorrow will be better. My favorite movie of his will always be "Dead Poet's Society". And he was truly a genius at riffing in iambic pentameter...just brilliant.
ReplyDeleteBev, What makes me sad is to realize how much joy he has given the world and that he couldn't find enough of that within him to keep going. It truly is sad.
ReplyDeleteI hate suicides.
ReplyDeleteAndrew said, "Kit, I don't know that Nixon did such a good job in Vietnam. He basically continued what Johnson did without really coming up with a plan for victory, and then he did zero to help the South Vietnamese take over the war."
ReplyDeleteObjection, Barrister Andrew!
When I was in college, I took a course on the Vietnam War. (I think it was required for my major.) Our professor- a Vietnam vet himself*- announced that we were going to hear things through the non-anti-war movement filter or the first time in our lives. His opening statement:
"If Richard Nixon had been elected in 1960, we would've won the Vietnam War."
Needless to say, he had my attention. Eventually, he listed everything Nixon did differently from JFK/LBJ:
-Allowed the unlimited bombing of military targets in North Vietnam. (Previously Hanoi and Haiphong were off limits for fear that bombs might hit the Soviet or Chinese embassies and bring them in alongside the North Vietnamese. Reality check: they were already involved!)
-Allowed bombing to commence at night, thus removing the Operation Rolling Thunder diktat that bombing would only be done at day. (LBJ wanted bombing filmed for the evening newscasts.) btw, my professor told us never to mention ORT to Vietnam vets for very obvious reasons.
-Opened Operation Linebacker I and II: these programs bombed NVA and VC training camps in Cambodia. They also bombed the massive Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos and Cambodia that North Vietnam had used as a 'back door' into the Iron Triangle of southern South Vietnam that came with easy access to the tunnels that led all the way to the doors of Saigon. (The thing had been untouched by bombs for so long that it was paved like a freeway and even had highway lights in some places!) Of course, peaceniks decried this. It didn't matter that the Cambodian and Laotian governments were entirely cooperative and working with our enemy, North Vietnam.
-Allowed the Navy to come into greater play. This proved very useful. In 1971, having lost the 'back door,' North Vietnam attacked across the border with conventional tactics that would've made Heinz Guderian and Erwin Rommel smile. (The idea that Vietnam was entirely a guerrilla war is one of the conflict's greatest myths.) Unfortunately for the NVA, their attack was along the coast, and so were our battleships. Bombs and shells away!
-Having blasted North Vietnam into submission, the Paris Peace Conference finally came around. This wouldn't have happened under JFK/LBJ.
-In summary, as my professor put it, JFK/LBJ treated Vietnam like a third-rate exterminator: killing the bugs in the cracks they were found in without bothering to find and destroy the nest. Nixon knew that to beat an enemy in war, you had to crush their will to fight and be willing to pay a price to do it.
*- My professor's credentials list included USAF Academy grad; 3 tours in 'Nam (2 as a Huey pilot in the mid-60's, one as an administrator just before Saigon fell), being sent to Harvard by the Army in the late 60's to finish his doctorate (ouch!), and being among the first guys to start teaching the war's history in the early '80's, when it was still a subject no one wanted to talk about.