Vietnam left us all with jaded eyes

By Michael H. Maguire

As one who is to the left of David Limbaugh, I must respond to his latest column.

Limbaugh focused on two issues that consumed the 1960s and 1970s: Watergate and Vietnam. I do not think you can separate the two, particularly with regard to Watergate, because the division over that war had so much to do with it.

The only simple thing you can say about Vietnam is that it completed the change from the "good war" we fought in World War II to the "police action" in Korea to a war that tore through the heart of the country.

It is impossible in a single column for anyone to conclusively state the Vietnam War was, or could have been, won. The impact of that conflict, beyond the incalculable loss of lives, was to forever change how we viewed our government and how fare we would trust government officials.

That brings us to President Nixon. Every Republican apologist worth his weight always cries foul about Watergate. Surely there were worse crises than this botched cover-up. You do not have to be an eminent historian to realize we have had people of questionable personal character in the White House. I include in that company President Clinton as well as President Harding, whose mother liked to tell him it was a good thing he was a man, because otherwise he would always be in a family way.

The one thing the right can never answer about Watergate is why. President Nixon could not have picked a better opponent than George McGovern. McGovern's candidacy, his botched convention and its far-left agenda were exactly the types of radicalism that played into Republican hands. If the Democrats had nominated Hubert Humphrey again, I could have understood the Watergate break-in, because it was a very close election when they ran.

The fact is that Nixon and his cronies were threatened by the protesters, as we later learned, for acts they had taken which were illegal. That, plus the belief that those in power could get away with anything, led them to believe they could get by with this.

I will concede that FDR's attempted court packing was a naked attempt to unbalance the government. I also will concede that President Lincoln illegally suspended the right to habeas corpus -- the right to be freed -- during the Civil War. The difference between them and President Nixon is they did their work in the open.

Whether Nixon ordered the initial break-in at Democratic headquarters or whether it was ordered by the Committee to Re-elect the President, the fact remains that when a criminal investigation began, President Nixon tried every way he could to obstruct the inquiry.

Maybe the passage of time has dimmed the memory of its urgency, but I well remember the tension, especially after the Saturday Night Massacre, when Attorney General Elliott Richardson resigned rather than go along with Nixon's order to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor, who had demanded that the president turn over secret tapes. William Ruckleshaus, assistant attorney general, also resigned rather than fire Cox. Robert Bork, next in line, had no problem and promptly fired Cox and became acting attorney general.

When the Supreme Court ordered the president to turn over the tapes, there was a real question as to whether or not he would obey the order. Fortunately, men of conscience from all sides of politics held their ground, and the tapes were released. Once that happened, President Nixon's days were numbered.

From that day, good or bad, we have looked at everything with a jaded eye. We all may wish for the simpler times of the 1950s when everything seemed like an episode out of "Father Knows Best," but the legacy of Vietnam and Watergate is that you cannot go back. That's probably for the best.

Michael H. Maguire of Cape Girardeau is a partner in the Johnson, Montgomery & Maguire law firm.