A Confluence of #Evil: #Conspiracies of Silence…From #Arafat To #Benghazi

March 29, 2013
(U.S. Ambassador Cleo Noel Jr.
who died by Arafat’s hand)
(Adina Kutnicki) Welsh at the time was monitoring radio communications between Palestinian leaders in Beirut and the Sudanese capital. Audio tapes made in Cyprus and U.S. embassies in Beirut and Khartoum left no doubt that it was Arafat’s voice directing the operation from Feb. 28, 1973, – the day before the men were kidnapped – to their execution two days later.

Welsh believes the purpose of the initial cover-up was to prevent embarrassment to the State Department and the Richard Nixon White House. After Nixon was gone, the matter was kept quiet to protect the future viability of the NSA’s signals intercepts.
But ultimately, Welsh asserts, the cover-up persisted to protect Arafat’s role as a “peacemaker” and leader of the Palestinian cause.
If transcripts of the tapes had been released, it would have destroyed Arafat, Welsh believes.(MORE)


Did Nixon have a gay affair with a Mafia fixer? Forget Watergate. A new book claims America’s most corrupt President hid a far more personal scandal…

December 27, 2011

(dailymail.co.uk) More personal scandal than Watergate? Richard Nixon with Bebe Rebozo at Key Biscayne, Florida

He carpet-bombed Cambodia, spewed out anti-Semitic slurs and crude misogynistic jokes in the White House and smeared his political opponents with ruthless ‘dirty tricks’ campaigns.
And, of course, he lied to his country about his involvement in the Watergate scandal and went down in history as America’s shiftiest, darkest President.
Given everything that Richard Nixon has been accused of, it’s difficult to believe there could be any more skeletons left in his cupboard. But it seems there are.
A new biography by Don Fulsom, a veteran Washington reporter who covered the Nixon years, suggests the 37th U.S. President had a serious drink problem, beat his wife and — by the time he was inaugurated in 1969 — had links going back two decades to the Mafia, including with New Orleans godfather Carlos Marcello, then America’s most powerful mobster.
Yet the most extraordinary claim is that the homophobic Nixon may have been gay himself. If true, it would provide a fascinating insight into the motivation and behaviour of a notoriously secretive politician.
Fulsom argues that Nixon may have had an affair with his best friend and confidant, a Mafia‑connected Florida wheeler-dealer named Charles ‘Bebe’ Rebozo who was even more crooked than Nixon.
The book, Nixon’s Darkest Secrets, is out next month — by coincidence at the same time as the UK release of a new film directed by Clint Eastwood about another supposed closet gay among Washington’s 20th-century hard men.
But while FBI boss J. Edgar Hoover, played in Eastwood’s film by Leonardo DiCaprio, allegedly had an affair with his squeaky-clean deputy Clyde Tolson, Nixon’s supposed secret paramour was a very different character.
Bebe Rebozo was a short, swarthy,  good-looking Cuban-American businessman with a history of failed relationships with women and close alliances with Miami’s Mafia chiefs.

The veteran TV newsman Dan Rather recalled how Rebozo ‘transmitted the sense of great sensuality’, paying tribute to his ‘magnetic’ personality and ‘beautiful eyes’.
Fulsom uses recently revealed documents and eyewitness interviews — including with FBI agents — to shed new light on long-standing suspicions among White House insiders that Nixon may have been more than just good buddies with Rebozo.
He claims Nixon’s relationship with Pat, his wife of 53 years, was little more than a sham. A heavy drinker whom his own staff dubbed ‘Our Drunk’, Nixon used to call his First Lady a ‘f***ing bitch’ and beat her before, during and after his presidency, says Fulsom.

Richard Nixon hugs his wife, Pat, as they leave Republican headquarters in Los Angeles to return to their hotel following his election victory

Richard Nixon hugs his wife, Pat, as they leave Republican headquarters in Los Angeles to return to their hotel following his election victory

The pair had separate bedrooms at the White House — and in Key Biscayne, the exclusive resort near Miami where Nixon holidayed, Mrs Nixon didn’t even sleep in the same building. Rebozo, however, was in the house next door.
Fulsom claims one of Nixon’s former military aides had a secret job ‘to teach the President how to kiss his wife’ so they would look like a convincing couple.
How much of this can we believe? Nixon died in 1994 and his reputation is pretty much irredeemable. As with Eastwood’s Hoover film, there is no definitive proof, but plenty of ‘supporting evidence’.
Fulsom quotes a former Time magazine reporter who, at a Washington dinner, bent down to pick up a fork and saw the two holding hands under the table. It was, the reporter judged, sufficiently intimate to suggest ‘repressed homosexuality’.
Another journalist related how, loosened up by drink, Nixon once put his arm around Rebozo ‘the way you’d cuddle your senior prom date. Something was fishy there’.

Henry Kissenger is believed to have resented the way Rebozo would fly on Air Force One, the Presidential plane, wearing a blue U.S. Navy flight jacket bearing the President's seal and with his name stitched on it
Henry Kissenger is believed to have resented the way Rebozo would fly on Air Force One, the Presidential plane, wearing a blue U.S. Navy flight jacket bearing the President’s seal and with his name stitched on it

But who exactly was Bebe Rebozo, and how did a shady Florida businessman of unclear sexual leanings end up as the bosom friend of one of the most paranoid and buttoned-up political leaders of the 20th century?
Born two months before Nixon in 1912, Charles Gregory Rebozo was the son of a Cuban cigar-maker and, as the youngest of nine, was stuck with the nickname ‘Bebe’.
He came from poverty but worked his way up through property speculation and then banking. According to the FBI, he had close links with Mob bosses such as Santo Trafficante, the Tampa Godfather, and Alfred ‘Big Al’ Polizzi, a stooge of Meyer Lansky, the Cosa Nostra’s financial brains.
By the 1960s, an FBI agent was describing Rebozo as a ‘non- member associate of organised crime figures’. He bought land in Florida with a business partner who was believed to be a front for some of the most powerful Mafiosi.
When Rebozo started his own bank in Florida in 1964, Nixon — then a lawyer — wielded a golden shovel at the ground-breaking ceremony and became its first depositor.
According to Mafioso Vincent  Teresa, the bank was used by the Mob to launder stolen cash. It hardly seems possible that Nixon, who pledged to make fighting organised crime a priority of his presidency, could not have known of his best friend’s Mafia links.
Nixon had just won one of California’s U.S. Senate seats when he first met Rebozo in 1950. Fearing Nixon was facing a nervous breakdown, fellow Senator George Smathers suggested a holiday in Florida and enlisted his old school friend Rebozo to show the socially awkward Nixon a good time.
Their first jaunt together — in Rebozo’s 33ft fishing boat — did not go well. Rebozo later complained that Nixon just sat reading papers and, according to his host, barely said half a dozen words to him.
Smathers said Rebozo later told him: ‘Don’t ever send that son of a bitch Nixon down here again. He’s a guy who doesn’t know how to talk, doesn’t drink, doesn’t smoke, doesn’t chase women… he can’t even fish.’
But Rebozo persevered — and according to a cynical Smathers, Nixon’s rising stardom in Washington and the potential influence it offered ‘had a lot to do with it’.
In months, the pair were inseparable, holidaying with Nixon’s wife Pat — and without her. Rebozo became an ‘uncle figure’ to the Nixons’ two daughters, Tricia and Julie. The dapper Cuban-American chose Nixon’s clothes and even selected the films he watched at the White House.

President Richard Nixon (left) says goodbye to family and staff in the White House East Room on August 9, 1974

President Richard Nixon (left) says goodbye to family and staff in the White House East Room on August 9, 1974

On Nixon’s solo visits to Key Biscayne, they swam and sunbathed, indulging in their shared passions for discussing Broadway musicals and barbecuing steaks.
Both men were also extremely secretive, and their relationship — described as the ‘most important unsolved mystery in Nixon’s life’ — was kept so discreet that the New York Times did not mention it for nearly 20 years.
Observers noticed their intimacy became most apparent when they were drunk. An aide recalled them playing a game called King of the Pool at Key Biscayne: ‘It was late at night, the two men had been drinking. Nixon mounted a rubber raft in the pool while Rebozo tried to turn it over. Then, laughing and shouting, they’d change places.’
They were seen together at the same British-themed hostelries in the Key: the English Pub, where they drank beer from tankards engraved with their names, and the Jamaica Inn, where they ate at a discreet booth.
Both spots were owned by another businessman with Mob links and the secret service asked Nixon to find another place to eat.
Why the President’s minders didn’t raise alarms about Rebozo’s Mafia connections has puzzled experts, but they probably didn’t dare. When a New York newspaper investigated Rebozo’s Mob links in the 1970s, its staff suddenly found themselves under secret service surveillance.
A White House aide once dismissed Rebozo’s role as ‘the guy who mixed the Martinis’, but he was far more important than that.

Richard Nixon died on April 22, 1994, four days after suffering a major stroke in New York. He was 81
Richard Nixon died on April 22, 1994, four days after suffering a major stroke in New York. He was 81

When Nixon became President, Rebozo got his own office and bedroom at the White House, and a security clearance that allowed him to go in and out without being logged by the secret service. Using a false name, says Fulsom, Rebozo even got into Nixon’s hotel suite during a trip to Europe.
The President’s closest colleagues complained at the way Rebozo monopolised Nixon’s time. General Alexander Haig, his last chief of staff, is said to have imitated Rebozo’s ‘limp wrist’ manner and joked that Rebozo and Nixon were lovers.
According to Fulsom, Henry Kissinger resented the way Rebozo would fly on Air Force One, the Presidential plane, wearing a blue U.S. Navy flight jacket bearing the President’s seal and with his name stitched on it.
Away from Nixon’s side, Rebozo surrounded himself with glamorous women and threw Miami parties that descended into orgies, but was it all a front?
Aged 18, Rebozo reportedly enjoyed an ‘intense’ affair with a young man, Donald Gunn. He later wed Gunn’s teenage sister. The marriage lasted four years and, according to his wife, was never consummated.
Rebozo didn’t marry again until middle age, when he entered what Newsweek magazine described as an ‘antiseptic’ alliance with his lawyer’s secretary. ‘Bebe’s favourites are Richard Nixon, his cat — and then me,’ the lady complained later. A fellow Miami resident told Nixon biographer Anthony Summers that Rebozo was definitely part of the city’s gay community.
Summers and co-writer Robbyn Swan, however, question whether there is enough evidence to suggest Nixon was gay. ‘They held hands on occasion, and both men had problems with consummating physical relationships with women, but we found no evidence that Nixon was actively homosexual,’ Summers told me this week.
Physical or not, Nixon’s attraction to Rebozo has struck many as politically reckless. Nixon expert Professor Fawn Brodie couldn’t understand how he would be ‘willing to risk the kind of gossip that frequently accompanies close friendship with a perennial bachelor’. After all, she added, Nixon was, in public, a virulent gay-hater.
When Walter Jenkins, a trusted aide to President Lyndon Johnson, was caught providing sexual favours to a retired sailor in a YMCA lavatory, Nixon denounced him as ‘ill’. People who suffered this ‘illness’, he added, ‘cannot be in places of high trust’.
Rebozo was certainly in a position of ‘high trust’, and not only because he was a key fundraiser. He was with Nixon when he announced his successful run for President and again in June 1972 when Nixon learned that five men hired by the White House to break into the Watergate building had been arrested.
‘We were swimming at Key Biscayne in front of my house,’ Rebozo recalled. ‘They came out and told him. He said: “What in God’s name were they doing there?” We laughed and forgot about it.’
Rebozo also ended up being investigated by the Watergate committee, which found that a £64,000 cash contribution from the industrialist Howard Hughes that was meant for the Republican Party was actually in Rebozo’s safe deposit box.
It also emerged that both Nixon and Rebozo’s personal wealth had soared during Nixon’s first five years in the White House, Rebozo’s rising nearly seven-fold from £432,000 to nearly £3million.
Rebozo escaped prosecution — allegedly because of a White House deal — and he stood by his disgraced friend. He was at Nixon’s bedside during his final days.
When Rebozo died in 1998, he left more than £12million to the Nixon memorial library, whose executive director eulogised him as a ‘consummate gentleman’ on whose ‘wise counsel, shrewd political insight and ready wit’ Nixon relied.
Typically, Nixon had been rather less charitable — he always described Rebozo as just a ‘golfing partner’.

  • Nixon’s Darkest Secrets: The Inside Story Of America’s Most Troubled President by Don Fulsom (Thomas Dunne Books, £16.62) is published on January 31, 2012.

Dearest Jackie

November 9, 2011

History is going to start looking at the Nixons in a different light. They were not the elitists we made them out to be. Dick’s bigotry was not the ramblings of aristocracy, but rather the ramblings of a man who knew his family was not from old money. Vassar girl Jacky Kennedy elucidates the rest of us on the perception war they faced.

(Spectator.org)(VINTAGE JOAN KENNEDY and PAT NIXON ORIGINAL PHOTO / eBay)

And then there is poor Pat Nixon. “I used to see her at bandage rolling,” Mrs. Kennedy recalls. “You know, the Senate wives have to go roll bandages every Tuesday and the vice president’s wife is always the chairman of it.” To which Schlesinger snidely interjects, “I think she’d be perfect at bandage–bandage rolling.” The other references to Mrs. Nixon are too painful to cite; they all emphasize her deplorable dress sense and hair style. Poor thing–her mother died young and she had to go to work almost immediately; she didn’t get to go to a finishing school in Paris and become elegant like Jacqueline Bouvier. (MORE PAIN)


WikiLeaks and the First Amendment

April 3, 2011
Bradley Manning
May Face Death Penalty…

Julian Assange might be hostile to Jewish interests, but I have some reservations about prosecuting him. For one thing… the Wikileaks were very good for Israel because it exposed how the United States had double crossed their ally… not just through Obama, but through the CIA who lied to G W Bush. I don’t like Assange, but he does a public service. If these classified documents were that vulnerable then there is something very wrong with the leadership in our country. It also highlights to me some of the problems with “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”… which created distrust in the army. The military should accommodate humanity and it’s human nature for men to feel threatened by Homosexuality…. we are not Spartans and we don’t have a pure military culture like the Greeks. To deny any correlation between power and sexuality is a poor decision by any army… and yet we did it. The fact that a Gay man got into the position he did so that he could leak such information, highlights the problem.  Further… on a technicality… it appears Julian Assange is innocent….

WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange at a press conference during a court appearance in London, on February 24, 2011. (Photo: Andrew Testa / The New York Times)
Wrapping himself in the First Amendment, Julian Assange recently told “60 Minutes” that “our founding values are those of the American Revolution,” those of Jefferson and Madison. Assange may not know that our Constitution was written in secret in Philadelphia, behind closed doors; there were no leaks. But the most imminent First Amendment question confronting WikiLeaks is whether it or Assange can successfully be prosecuted for violation of the Espionage Act. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, in an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, aggressively interpreted the 1917 Act and demanded prosecution. The act’s virtually unintelligible provisions arguably make it a felony not just to collaborate with a spy, but to publish information “relating to the national defense.” However, prosecuting a publisher raises serious First Amendment issues. In the 1971 Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court decided that the government could not prevent The New York Times from publishing classified Defense Department documents. The Nixon administration then tried to prosecute the leaker, Daniel Ellsberg, but not the newspaper. In fact, no publisher has ever been prosecuted under the act.
We don’t know whether WikiLeaks was simply the passive recipient of classified documents that came in “over the transom” as we used to say. If it was, that’s like the Pentagon Papers case. To be sure, publicizing documents that demonstrate high-level official lying and duplicity, as Ellsberg did, is different from the wholesale dumps that WikiLeaks threatens. Disclosing government secrets just because you can is not necessarily in the public interest.
In recent months, WikiLeaks seems to be moving away from anarchism toward journalism, perhaps motivated by the wish to seek shelter under the First Amendment umbrella. The WikiLeaks site has changed its tune somewhat, now repeatedly emphasizing that its “journalists” review leaked material and exercise some judgment about what it puts in the public domain. It has not foresworn indiscriminate dumping or doctrinaire hostility to any government secrecy, but using responsible judgment would give it a better chance at First Amendment protection.
In deciding whether WikiLeaks would have a First Amendment defense, one question is whether it actively solicited the leaks, perhaps paying the leaker or providing software assistance to facilitate the leaks. Another is whether the information is of legitimate public interest. And whether a disclosure actually caused harm ought to be relevant. (No harm ever resulted from the publication of the Pentagon Papers; the government has not yet identified any specific harm from WikiLeaks disclosures.)
Actively engineering leaks of sensitive information of no legitimate public concern (e.g., the identity of a mole in another country’s government), causing actual harm, would subject WikiLeaks to a charge of conspiracy (always a prosecutor’s favorite). The government could avoid the First Amendment contention that mere publication can’t be made a crime. But a successful prosecution under the messy Espionage Act would remain problematical.
In a sense, WikiLeaks owes its existence to two gaps in First Amendment protection for speech and press freedoms, gaps created by unfavorable Supreme Court decisions.
First, the court decided, in a case that I lost (Houchins v. KQED, 1978), that there is no First Amendment right of access to government information. That is, unlike in some countries in which government transparency is constitutionally mandated, American citizens have no constitutional right to know what their government is up to. All we have is a not very strong statute, the Freedom of Information Act, with a lot of exceptions, including a broad exemption for documents relating to national security. To the extent that WikiLeaks informs us citizens what the government is doing in our name, it partially repairs this flaw in our constitutional protection for speech and press. With better access to government information, there would be less point to WikiLeaks.
Second, the court decided in 1972, in another case on which I worked for the losing side (Branzburg v. Hayes), that reporters have no First Amendment protection against compelled disclosure to a grand jury of their confidential sources. While many states have enacted “reporters shield” laws, Congress has thus far declined to act, and the latest WikiLeaks disclosures seem to have antagonized enough senators to torpedo any chance of enactment soon. The result is that reporters can’t honestly promise confidentiality to would-be whistleblowers. A source with sensitive information about government malfeasance can’t trust that a reporter will not be subpoenaed to spill the beans about who leaked the information. To the extent that WikiLeaks provides complete anonymity (as it promises on its web site, representing to prospective leakers that it has “never” revealed a source), it again partially repairs a gap in our First Amendment protection. If there were a meaningful shield law that reporters and would-be sources could rely on, WikiLeaks might be superfluous.
However the First Amendment issues play out, let’s hope our government’s hands are clean. We now know that President Richard Nixon’s “plumbers unit” burglarized Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office while he was on trial for violating the Espionage Act. An outraged federal judge dismissed the prosecution because of the government’s misconduct.
We have no evidence that the Obama administration was complicit in developing sexual misconduct charges against Assange after WikiLeaks made public thousands of classified military communications about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and sensitive State Department cables. It may be just a coincidence that, following upon the disclosures, friendly Sweden issued an extraordinary international arrest warrant seeking Assange’s extradition on a charge of failing to use a promised condom; there can’t have been many instances of using such heavy legal artillery for such a charge. Companies that supported the WikiLeaks site, like PayPal, Amazon and Visa, may have decided independently, without any government prompting, to withdraw their support. And hacker attacks on WikiLeaks servers may have been orchestrated by freelancers without any government encouragement. It would be really distressing to learn that our government was involved in any of this. Imagine the irony if any government complicity were established by secret government documents some day to be leaked through WikiLeaks.
via truth-out.org <—- link was taken down

….I wouldn’t call Sweden a good ally.  I believe they had their own reasons… perhaps they knew how hurtful the documents were to the Islamic world?

If he goes after Wikileaks too broadly using the notorious Espionage Act of 1917 and other vague laws, how is he going to deal with The New York Times and other mass media that reported the disclosures?


Kissinger: Gassing Jews would not be a US problem

December 21, 2010

New tapes show Kissinger and Nixon opposed helping Soviet Jews escape Communist repression because it did not affectUS interests.” 

Henry Kissinger is heard saying the genocide of Soviet Jews would not be an American problem on newly released tapes chronicling President Nixon’s obsession with disparaging Jews and other minorities.

Kissinger’s remarks come after a meeting between the two men and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir on March 1 1973, in which Meir pleads for US pressure on the Soviet Union to release its Jews.

via jpost.com


Thirty-Six Years Ago Today, Richard Nixon Saved Israel—but Got No Credit

December 11, 2010


Precise details of what transpired in Washington during the first week of the Yom Kippur War, launched by Egypt and Syria on October 6, 1973, are hard to come by, in no small measure owing to conflicting accounts given by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger regarding their respective roles.
What is clear, from the preponderance of information provided by those directly involved in the unfolding events, is that President Richard Nixon — overriding inter-administration objections and bureaucratic inertia — implemented a breathtaking transfer of arms, code-named Operation Nickel Grass, that over a four-week period involved hundreds of jumbo U.S. military aircraft delivering more than 22,000 tons of armaments.
This was accomplished, noted Walter J. Boyne in an article in the December 1998 issue of Air Force Magazine, while “Washington was in the throes of not only post-Vietnam moralizing on Capitol Hill but also the agony of Watergate. . . . Four days into the war, Washington was blindsided again by another political disaster — the forced resignation of Vice President Spiro Agnew.”
“Both Kissinger and Nixon wanted to do [the airlift],” said former CIA deputy director Vernon Walters, “but Nixon gave it the greater sense of urgency. He said, ‘You get the stuff to Israel. Now. Now.’”
Boyne, in his book The Two O’Clock War, described a high-level White House meeting on October 9:

As preoccupied as he was with Watergate, Nixon came straight to the point, announcing that Israel must not lose the war. He ordered that the deliveries of supplies, including aircraft, be sped up and that Israel be told that it could freely expend all of its consumables — ammunition, spare parts, fuel, and so forth — in the certain knowledge that these would be completely replenished by the United States without any delay.

White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig concurred:

As soon as the scope and pattern of Israeli battle losses emerged, Nixon ordered that all destroyed equipment be made up out of U.S. stockpiles, using the very best weapons America possessed. . . . Whatever it takes, he told Kissinger . . . save Israel.

“It was Nixon who did it,” recalled Nixon’s acting special counsel, Leonard Garment. “I was there. As [bureaucratic bickering between the State and Defense departments] was going back and forth, Nixon said, this is insane. . . . He just ordered Kissinger, “Get your ass out of here and tell those people to move.”
When Schlesinger initially wanted to send just three transports to Israel because he feared anything more would alarm the Arabs and the Soviets, Nixon snapped: “We are going to get blamed just as much for three as for 300. . . . Get them in the air, now.”
Haig, in his memoir Inner Circles, wrote that Nixon, frustrated with the initial delays in implementing the airlift and aware that the Soviets had begun airlifting supplies to Egypt and Syria, summoned Kissinger and Schlesinger to the Oval Office on October 12 and “banished all excuses.”
The president asked Kissinger for a precise accounting of Israel’s military needs, and Kissinger proceeded to read aloud from an itemized list.
“Double it,” Nixon ordered. “Now get the hell out of here and get the job done.”
Later, informed of yet another delay — this one because of disagreements in the Pentagon over the type of planes to be used for the airlift — an incensed Nixon shouted at Kissinger, “[Expletive] it, use every one we have. Tell them to send everything that can fly.”
Nixon acted despite threats of reprisal by Arab oil producers — indeed, the day after Nixon asked Congress for an emergency appropriation of $2.2 billion for Israel, Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal announced an embargo of oil to the U.S. — not to mention Europe’s overwhelming opposition to aiding Israel. 
Some revisionists have taken to claiming Nixon’s actions on behalf of Israel were prompted by Golda Meir, who supposedly threatened to go public with all manner of juicy political and personal information she had on the president. Another commonly cited blackmail scenario, popularized by the play Golda’s Balcony, has Meir putting the squeeze on Nixon by threatening to use nuclear weapons.

But Mordechai Gazit, who at the time of the Yom Kippur War was director general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and the Prime Minister’s Office, told authors Gerald Strober and Deborah Hart Strober in Nixon: An Oral History of His Presidency: “The airlift was decided not because we asked for it. Our relations with the United States were not at a point where we could have asked for an airlift; this was beyond our imagination.”           
As for Meir herself, to the end of her life she referred to Nixon as “my president” and told a group of Jewish leaders in Washington shortly after the war: “For generations to come, all will be told of the miracle of the immense planes from the United States bringing in the materiel that meant life to our people.”           
Wrote Nixon biographer Stephen E. Ambrose:

Those were momentous events in world history. Had Nixon not acted so decisively, who can say what would have happened? The Arabs probably would have recovered at least some of the territory they had lost in 1967, perhaps all of it. They might have even destroyed Israel. But whatever the might-have-beens, there is no doubt that Nixon . . . made it possible for Israel to win, at some risk to his own reputation and at great risk to the American economy.
He knew that his enemies . . . would never give him credit for saving Israel. He did it anyway.