Kudos to Bob Sellers at Fox News Channel who pointed out that the New York Times put its Terrorist Finance Surveillance program story on the front page and buried the story about the arrest of the Miami Seven.
Additional thoughts: I’m refering to the placement of the articles in print edition of the New York Times.
Excellent point Heralder …
The problem with Lint, Lee and the folks over at the New York Times is that they lack any imagination – all their imaginative energies are concentrated on elaborate fantasies involving Bush entering the bedrooms of gay couples and stopping them from getting it on, etc.
After the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program was revealed, most of them started screaming that the New York Times’ revelation of the program did not do any damage because the terrorists must already know they were being watched.
Of course, it has been reported that terrorists have modified their methods of sending information to each other. Nowadays, instead of sending an e-mail, they write it up, save it as a draft and their colleagues at the other end simply accesses the e-mail account through their commonly known password (which they change regularly) and read the draft.
There is no transission from one place to another so there is hardly any chance of interception.
Heck, the fact that the New York Times revealed that the US is aware of a number of terrorist contacts probably caused a significant number of terrorists and their sympathizers to change phone numbers, addresses and contact procedures. Chances are the United States has had a huge amount and source of intelligence rendered useless.
How about just the alerting of terrorists who may have gotten complacent after not being captured despite their activities, not knowing that they were being watched?
The fact is; the Left does not want America to lose the War on Terror. But they believe that the Republican Party is a greater threat to them than Terrorism.
Heralder:
The problem is if you tell someone “hey, I’ve got my eye on you” you won’t catch them doing anything wrong. By revealing every program we have running to catch domestic terrorists to the general public, you are also revealing it to them, and making it a useless program
You can’t be serious. The bad guys didn’t think we were looking for them? Lame.
We should start issuing information on false programs with false operational procedures for catching domestic terrorists to the newspapers so they can break it.
Then we can go on with the secret programs that actually work because they’re secret.
It’s a shame we should have to resort to this type of behavior to prevent newspapers from shooting this country in the foot at every turn.
Mac
The LAT, AP, NYT and WSJ are national newspapers. There is no local angle. This was a national story, which was reported by different sets of reporters under different bylines in different newspapers in on the same day.
The SUBJECT of the story is the same. The content is different. Dude, what about this is hard to understand?
You rail and rail against the NYT, but I point out that the WSJ also penned the same story (written by DIFFERENT reporters) on the same day and you don’t bitch about that at all. Why?
I’ll post an AP wire story about the newspapers covering the story.
No Lee,
The point is not that they don’t know were looking for them, it’s that they don’t know how. Every time these programs are revealed they know how and change their operations to reflect that.
This point was covered in my second paragraph.
By The Associated Press
06.23.06
WASHINGTON — Several major newspapers yesterday rejected Bush administration requests to keep secret a program to track people suspected of bankrolling terrorism.
Treasury Department officials acknowledged that in the weeks immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks they obtained access to an extensive international financial database in order to track down the sources of terrorist financing.
The information was obtained through use of subpoenas, which Stuart Levey, Treasury’s undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, called a “legal and proper use of our authorities.”
The existence of the program was first reported last night on the Web sites of The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal.
While confirming the newspaper reports, administration officials expressed concern that disclosure of the program could undermine efforts to track terrorism-related activities.
“We know the terrorists pay attention to our strategy to fight them, and now have another piece of the puzzle of how we are fighting them,” said Dana Perino, deputy White House press secretary.
Under the program, U.S. counterterrorism analysts could query an international data base known as Swift to look for information on activities by suspected terrorists as part of specific terrorism investigations, the Treasury Department said. They would do so by plugging in a name or names.
“One of the most important tools in the fight against terror is our ability to choke off funds for the terrorists,” Perino said.
The decision to publish was “a tough call; it was not a decision made lightly,” said Doyle McManus, the Los Angeles Times’ Washington bureau chief.
Treasury Department officials spent 90 minutes yesterday meeting with the newspaper’s reporters, stressing the legality of the program and urging the paper to not publish a story on the program, McManus said in a telephone interview.
Disclosure of the program follows intense controversy over President Bush’s directive ordering the National Security Agency to monitor, without court approval, calls and e-mails of Americans when one party is overseas and terrorism is suspected. That program, which also began shortly after 9/11, was disclosed by The New York Times.
The New York Times and Los Angeles Times quoted their editors as defending their decision to publish the financial data-tracking effort despite being asked by the Bush administration to withhold publication.
Bill Keller, The New York Times’ executive editor, said it considered the administration’s arguments but in the end decided to publish. “We remain convinced that the administration’s extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use it may be, is a matter of public interest.”
Dean Baquet, editor of the Los Angeles Times, said: “We weighed the government’s arguments carefully, but in the end we determined that it was in the public interest to publish information about the extraordinary reach of this program.”
News of the program drew protests from Democrats in Congress today, while Republicans defended the effort as vital to waging a global war against terrorism.
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. and co-chairman of the Congressional Privacy Caucus, said today that there were disturbing similarities between the bank-monitoring program and the secret surveillance program for telephone calls that was revealed last year.
“Like the domestic surveillance program exposed last December, the Bush administration’s efforts to tap into the financial records of thousands of Americans appear to rely on justifications concocted without regard to current law,” Markey said in a statement.
“If the administration wants to fight terrorism legally, then it should ask for the authority it needs and then follow the law that Congress passes,” Markey said. “Don’t claim ‘temporary emergency’ and then operate in secret for five years.”
However, Republicans defended the effort. Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Senate Republican leader Bill Frist, said today that he had been briefed on the program and had “full confidence in the effectiveness of, and the legal authority for, this vital anti-terrorism tool.”
The program involved both the CIA and the Treasury Department.
Treasury Secretary John Snow insisted that the effort was not “data mining or trolling through the private financial records of Americans. It is not a fishing expedition, but rather a sharp harpoon aimed at the heart of terrorist activity.”
Both Snow and Levey scheduled a news conference for later today to answer questions about the program.
Swift, or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, is a cooperative based in Belgium that handles financial message traffic from 7,800 financial institutions in more than 200 countries.
The service, which routes more than 11 million messages each day, mostly captures information on wire transfers and other methods of moving money in and out of the United States. It doesn’t execute these money transfers. The service generally doesn’t detect private, individual transactions in the United States, such as withdrawals from an ATM or bank deposits. It is aimed mostly at international transfers.
In a statement, Swift said it had negotiated with the U.S. Treasury “over the scope and oversight of the subpoenas.”
“Through this process, Swift received significant protections and assurances as to the purpose, confidentiality, oversight and control of the limited sets of data produced under the subpoenas,” the service said. “Independent audit controls provide additional assurance that these protections are fully complied with.”
“Our subpoena of terrorist-related records from Swift has provided us with a unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks,” Levey said.
I think I’m addicted to italics.
Lint,
Could you just link the story next time?
Healder:
The point is not that they don’t know were looking for them, it’s that they don’t know how. Every time these programs are revealed they know how and change their operations to reflect that.
Prior to today terrorists wires money to AQ, or receives money from them, without any concern about that action being discovered? Still lame, and just downright false.
This is why the NYTs and others went ahead and published the story. That excuse doesn’t hold water. Revealing the existence of the program does not compromise national security. Terrorists already knew and were aware that money movement to and from sources and cells was under scrutiny.
It was no secret that Treasury was tracking money. There have been publicized cases (cited by others today as justification for this program) where money movement was used to capture and convict.
You’ve somehow fallen victim to the right-wing blog’s spin – that national security was somehow compromised when the program was revealed.
What was revealed by the NYTs and others was the extent to which innocent, ordinary citizens worldwide are being subjected to the same scrutiny, in secret.
Lee:
Revealing the existence of the program does not compromise national security. Terrorists already knew and were aware that money movement to and from sources and cells was under scrutiny.
So putting it in the news that we’re not even tracking the right people is a good idea? The less they know about any program used to to stop them the better. I don’t care how arbitrary is seems, knowledge is knowledge and we want them to have as little knowledge of our arsenal as possible.
What was revealed by the NYTs and others was the extent to which innocent, ordinary citizens worldwide are being subjected to the same scrutiny, in secret.
Scrutiny. What’s wrong with scrutiny? Isn’t that the whole point of the program?
If the government knew which people to NOT put under the microscope I’m sure they’d just cut to the chase and do it. You can’t find someone by not looking at anybody…I’m not sure what everyone is up in arms about.
Would I be right to think I’ll be sent to a “black gulag” in Eastern Europe and questioned about buying a new video card online with my debit card?
I’m not particularly worried about being linked to Al-Queda, and I don’t think you should be either.
The less they know about any program used to to stop them the better.
All they learned today is that the program exists, and they knew that already.
I’m not particularly worried about being linked to Al-Queda, and I don’t think you should be either.
I’m not worried about that, but I am worried a program which some officials who are intimate with the details of the program, more so than you or I, make statements like
and
You see, if some of the officials who are on the inside have reason to express concerns, then I think you and I should be concerned as well. They know a lot more about this program, and its safeguards, then you and I do.
Lee:
“That access to large amounts of sensitive data was highly unusual, several officials said, and stirred concerns inside the administration about legal and privacy issues.
While tight controls are in place, the official added, “The potential for abuse is enormous.”
People on the inside have concerns, that’s good…it shows they care and that they’re thinking about these things.
Good to know tight controls are in place as well.
What struck me as important here is POTENTIAL. You know, the potential for the abuse of your spouse can be enormous as well, but that doesn’t mean no one should get married.
I trust that they will not abuse this though, and that’s where we don’t see eye to eye.
“Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified.”
Aren’t we trying to concern ourselves over legality issues and here we have anonymous people leaking classified information to the public press?
“Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program,
The telling statement here is “Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program”. Is “some” quantified by 2 of 20, or 19 of 20? And what did the others that are not “some” have to say? Were they positive about it, and if so, what did they say? I like balanced reporting, it helps me to make informed decisions, which apparently is not the aim here.
saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization
Okay, that’s good, it was an urgent measure, but it apparently worked so they wanted to make it permanent. So if it was urgent to begin with, did they want to make it standing in twenty years as opposed to “nearly five years later”?
I’d also like to know what the word “specific” means exactly in reference to Congressional approval.
I guess it’s apparent why I don’t read the NYT.
I never railed against the NYT. Where do you come up with such things?
I read the story early and I’m well aware that these three news organizations posted this same story on their web sites Thursday night. Only a fool would believe these three news organizations developed their story’s independently and then posted the results at the same time. One of the choices I gave you in my initial post is that there was a conspiracy to break this story, and that would have been the correct answer. Dude, what about this is hard to understand?
Lee,
Yes, Bush is personally supervising this program, but only at a high level. Do judges or members of congress personally supervise clandestine programs they authorize? Of course not.
Good question. I think we can agree that someone has to authorize and supervise any such program. Should it be someone who is elected or someone who is appointed? I think someone who is elected is a better choice. If it has to be someone who’s appointed, then appointed by who? The highest standard would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The lowest standard is someone who appoints themselves, like the NYT editors.
And I was trying to make the point that it’s better to trust the President (the highest elected official in the U.S) in general, not Bush specifically.
It’s also not possible given any practical limitations. Besides that, it’s like saying the best computer security is to never turn them on. While absolutely true, it’s irrelevant.
We can only hope so. It’s like security in depth. Get past one checkpoint and still catch the bad guy at another checkpoint.
If we were to water down everything that is “potentially abusive” it wouldn’t be a good place to live. People abuse cars, medicine, food, fire, you name it.
The power of investigative programs is degraded when they are exposed in the press. What would you think of the New York Times if it published details of a criminal investigation before the big fish is on the hook? It’s the same with these programs and the self-appointed partisans at the New York Times are the least trustworthy to be making the call as to what’s best left secret and what’s not. I’m hoping for a successful criminal prosecution of the editors.
Heh. You state that as a fact, as if you know it to be true., but I suspect that’s just conjecture on your part, Mr Lorry.
Regardless, the President is way too busy, and is not in a position to catch abuses of the program. Those would have to be reported to him by others – and it’s the integrity of the unknown “others” we rely on that is still unknown, and its their integrity and motives that is the present danger for abuse.
I want to know who is in charge, and whether they can be trusted to not abuse the process.
Who we think should be in charge isn’t really relevant to the question of whether abuses have or can occur.
The point is that the ends doesn’t justify the means. Scoooping up everyone’s data, becase you might find a bad guy’s data mixed in, doesn’t justify domestic spy programs in my mind. Just as searching everyone’s house doesn’t justify the possible gain…etc.
Well, I can’t really control or be concerned with your abuse of fire, etc. but I have very grave concerns about the White House staying within the lines drawn by the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and authorities provided by Congress. Waving you hand and saying we can’t be concerned about everything dodges the question about what we can and should concerned with.
How? If the only thing revealed was the existence of the program, how was the effectiveness of THIS program been degraded.
That is the question I keep repeating, that isn’t being answered by today’s critics of the NYTs.
Strawman argument. That wasn’t the case here. No details of a criminal investigation were published.
That’s your opinion. I disagree. I’ve already explained why revealing the program hasn’t helped the enemy, who already knew Treasury was tracking money movement, so I won’t repeat it.
As to your hope for criminal prosecution – I guarantee it will NEVER happen under this adminstration. They will NEVER get into a court of law, and be subject to discovery, and testimony under oath. You think Bush wants the internal critics of this program who were interviewed by the NYTs to be put on the stand under oath and forced to testify as to why this program is a bad idea?
It’ll never happen. That isn’t to say this adminstration is above trying to intimidate the press by threatening or filing such a suit, but the suit would only serve to galvanize the press against the adminstration which, despite the blatherings often heard around here, has given the adminstration a very fair shake, andd they know it.
The MSM gave this adminstration a free ride and a free hand for years. We were at war with terror, and the bad guys hit us hard on 9/11. The administration took full advantage of that free ride, and we’re only now finding out the extent to which domestic spying has taken place.
All that’s changed is that the facts around the Iraq war (ie no WMDs, it is taken WAY longer than they said, insurgency is not decreasing, there a risk of civil war etc.) have finally caught up with Bush and company, and that is causing public opinion to turn against the President.
The MSM reports on that, and gets blamed for it, but the vlame lies witht hose who lied and spied, not the people who reported that fact.
The MSM reports on that, and gets blamed for it, but the blame lies with those who lied and spied, not the people who reported that fact.
Sorry for the typos in the last paragraph.
Busy at work…missed the whole thread. Read Lee’s scree at the end…I’ll respond to THAT.
Horseshit.
Ok, let me elaborate.
Lee’s, and the Left’s, position is that PERFECT crime detection is permissable…indeed the AIM!
We may detain CRIMINALS, we may investigate the records of CRIMINALS, we may listen in on the conversations of CRIMINALS, and check out the bank records of CRIMINALS.
Of course, we don’t KNOW if they ARE criminals UNTIL we do those things…hmmm??
WHAT TO DO? Nothing!! Until, of course, they commit a CRIME!! THEN we will cry out loudly against the evil Bush Administration for not KNOWING (through perfect Leftist hindsight) that THAT ONE THERE is the criminal!!
again, HORSESHIT
Personally, I think Rove is feeding them these stories… Sure changes the story about the Dems … is it “a new direction” for them this week? Anyway I think this surely helps the 06 elections as there are quite a few dems who know without their heads . . . they won’t need Health Care!
Lee,
Of course it’s conjecture, but no more so than your conjecture that Bush doesn’t supervise this program at a high level.
That’s true for all clandestine investigative programs. If that’s the overriding principle; that some unknown “others” might abuse the program, then no clandestine program could be justified. From what I know of WWII, the very survival of nations depended on clandestine programs. Given the potential deviation of a biological or nuclear weapon, I wonder what liberals have to hide that’s so important. Certainly it can’t be the principle of protecting our constitutional rights, as liberals have never considered the 2nd amendment or property rights to be worthy of such protection.
When you say “Who we think”, I assume you’re talking about the public. The problem is that the public knowledge of clandestine investigative programs impinges their effectiveness. I know you disagree about that point, yet it’s a key issue. What has to be weighed is the potential benefits for such a program being clandestine verses the potential for abuse. That gets to the who is in charge question. The quick answer is that as long as that someone is human there is a potential for abuse. The only thing we have to go on is their reputation of service to the public. You believe self-appointed partisans are best for the job, but I feel elected or at least appointed civil servants are best for the job. We’ll just have to disagree on that point.
And yet the left thinks it’s ok to take guns away from every law abiding citizen because they feel it would reduce the murder rate. Well, the right thinks it’s ok to spy on ever law abiding citizen because they feel it would reduce the murder rate.
Of course it was never about my use or abuse of fire. The principal is that anything with the power to do good can also be abused to do bad. If we only focus on the potential for abuse, then nothing with the power to do good can ever be justified.
If the terrorists were using encrypted e-mail to communicate and a news paper published details about how the government was able to break particular encryption algorithms, then terrorists either quit using e-mail or switch to a more secure encryption algorithms. One of the reasons the U.S. won WWII was because of our ability to read both German and Japanese encryption. Had the NYT published that informaiton, it likely would have extended the war. Knowing where your advisory is watching tells you more about where he is not watching. The NYT is a beacon of light alright, but one showing the terrorists how to avoid detection.
You’re joking. You don’t think terrorists are criminals? The anti-terrorism laws passed since 9/11/01 make terrorism a criminal matter and any investigation attempting to find them is a criminal investigation.
Knowing that the Treasury was tracking money movement is not the same as knowing how they were tracking money movement or to what extent. Saying the enemy knew the full extent of the program is pure conjecture unless you’re referring to the editors of the NYT as the enemy. If so, then we have a point of agreement.
You are right the administration will never be subject to discovery and testimony under oath, but because the administration wouldn’t be on trial in a criminal prosecution. The editors of the NYT would be on trial for breaking numerous federal laws covering disclosure of classified information.
Yes, let the NYT identify them so they can be prosecuted. The program is public now anyway.
I was trying to get Lint to say it, but they didn’t grasp the significance. Not only did the NYTs reveal classified information, but they conspired with the LAT and the WSJ to reveal classified information. They may never be convicted on the first crime, but conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime itself, and not one covered by the 1st amendment. There are numerous examples of people being convicted on such secondary charges even if they were never charged with the primary offense. At least it’s something worth pursuing in my opinion.
Heh. You state that as a fact, as if you know it to be true., but I suspect that’s just conjecture on your part, Mr Lorry.
Which means he as much behind his statements as you do.
I mean, you can’t have it both ways: Either Bush is a moron or Bush is this never-ending cauldron of evil seeking to oppress the world.
Regardless, the President is way too busy, and is not in a position to catch abuses of the program.
He can’t do that with social welfare programs, either. Let’s cut them, too. They don’t save as many lives as this program does.
Those would have to be reported to him by others – and it’s the integrity of the unknown “others” we rely on that is still unknown, and its their integrity and motives that is the present danger for abuse.
As opposed to the “others” who leak this info regularly and the ethics of the Times in reporting a program that is not illegal?
Good question. I think we can agree that someone has to authorize and supervise any such program.
That person is the President, not editor-in-chief of the NY Times. Especially since Bush has done a better job at what he does than the NY Times has done.
I want to know who is in charge, and whether they can be trusted to not abuse the process.
The President is.
The point is that the ends doesn’t justify the means. Scoooping up everyone’s data, becase you might find a bad guy’s data mixed in, doesn’t justify domestic spy programs in my mind. Just as searching everyone’s house doesn’t justify the possible gain…etc.
Seeing as how this doesn’t impact people’s financial records, it is moot.
The left is saying that this war on terrorism can’t be fought solely militarily — then the left fights all possible methods of fighting it.
Well, I can’t really control or be concerned with your abuse of fire, etc. but I have very grave concerns about the White House staying within the lines drawn by the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and authorities provided by Congress.
Seeing as how Congress, Constitutionally, lacks the power to reign in the White House (they are EQUALS — the President can’t limit Congressional powers as well), quite moot.
Waving you hand and saying we can’t be concerned about everything dodges the question about what we can and should concerned with.
How about showing concern when a valid reason is ACTUALLY presented? Paranoia is not proof.
How? If the only thing revealed was the existence of the program, how was the effectiveness of THIS program been degraded.
How was it degraded?
I’ll give you an OBJECT lesson: The press leaked that the gov’t has the ability to intercept emails sent from terrorists years ago.
SO…the terrorists simply wrote drafts of emails in email programs, left them there, and got passwords out to their collective cells with the info.
Since the email was not sent, it could not be intercepted.
The program was effectively killed.
Thanks to the press.
And, I’ll go ahead and say it: The press whines about how “secretive” Bush is. They haven’t seen ANYTHING yet. A President would be an idiot to be as open as Bush has been. It’d be wise for them to simple refuse to EVER speak to the media.
Strawman argument. That wasn’t the case here. No details of a criminal investigation were published.
Seeing as how this program DID catch terrorists, then yes, it is exactly what happened here.
That’s your opinion. I disagree. I’ve already explained why revealing the program hasn’t helped the enemy, who already knew Treasury was tracking money movement, so I won’t repeat it.
Except they didn’t know it for certain. They assumed it — possibly — but didn’t KNOW it (again, we captured the mastermind of the Bali bombing thanks to this). Now, it’s known and they’ll find a new way to finance themselves.
As to your hope for criminal prosecution – I guarantee it will NEVER happen under this adminstration. They will NEVER get into a court of law, and be subject to discovery, and testimony under oath.
You don’t have to reveal top secret info in court. You have to prove they printed top secret info, which is what they did.
Keep in mind that the Pentagon Papers case ONLY dealt with prior restraint: It said NOTHING on punishment for violating the law in printing the info.
You think Bush wants the internal critics of this program who were interviewed by the NYTs to be put on the stand under oath and forced to testify as to why this program is a bad idea?
It would be immaterial as it is not their power to declassify info. The moment they say “It was a bad idea because…” it will be struck down as irrelevant.
It’ll never happen. That isn’t to say this adminstration is above trying to intimidate the press by threatening or filing such a suit, but the suit would only serve to galvanize the press against the adminstration which, despite the blatherings often heard around here, has given the adminstration a very fair shake, andd they know it.
You’re patently blind to reality here.
The MSM gave this adminstration a free ride and a free hand for years. We were at war with terror, and the bad guys hit us hard on 9/11. The administration took full advantage of that free ride, and we’re only now finding out the extent to which domestic spying has taken place.
The same press that bitched about Afghanistan — BEFORE WE WENT THERE?
All that’s changed is that the facts around the Iraq war (ie no WMDs
Factually incorrect.
it is taken WAY longer than they said
Bush said it’d take years.
insurgency is not decreasing
Based on what?
there a risk of civil war
And Bush said this wouldn’t happen when?
The MSM reports on that, and gets blamed for it, but the vlame lies witht hose who lied and spied, not the people who reported that fact.
They report lies that people like you are either too ignorant or — more likely — willing to deny lap up eagerly.
They tried to take away his 2000 election win with some REALLY questionable calls, including FL before it closed and when Gore never led, at any point, in the count. They tried to blame him for Enron. For 9/11. For the recession.
They failed. Repeatedly. But, hey, when a group votes about 90% of the time with one particular party, assuming a potential for bias IS silly, I suppose.
-=Mike
BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT
I mean, you can’t have it both ways: Either Bush is a moron or Bush is this never-ending cauldron of evil seeking to oppress the world.
I agree that it pretty much boils down to those two choices – but then again – it could be a mixture of the two also.
‘The New York Times has nothing to fear but fear itself..”
We should be praising the NYT! I refuse to live in a country where the press isn’t truly free. As much as I despise FAUX News- who I think is basically a propaganda arm of the Bush white house. I still believe that they have the right to co-exist with other stations and news outlets that are more left leaning.
Without real journalist, many of the atrocities that took place during the civil rights era would not have been exposed; and we wouldn’t have had Watergate,-which forced a crooked President to resign- and a philanderer coming clean. [No pun intended]
Just remember that the next time you want to muzzle the NYT. I understand that living in a democracy poses certain risks, but that’s a price I will pay for my freedom. Anyone who feels otherwise, should hop on the next boat down to the land of great rum and cigars; where a certain leader with a funny beard agrees with your point of view.
Hey, Nixon normalized relations with China and ended our involvement with Vietnam.
I guess we should ignore all of the other problems he caused.
-Mike