Jealous of James Baker? Kissinger Changes Tune

-

kissinger naf.jpg
According to Bob Woodward’s recent book State of Denial, Henry Kissinger reportedly advised the Bush administration that “victory was the only way out of Iraq.”
Now, according to this AP report, Kissinger seems to be changing his tune.
In an interview Sunday with the BBC, Kissinger stated:

If you mean by ‘military victory’ an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible.

Note that Kissinger has dropped the semantic idiocy of debating whether a civil war is underway in Iraq. He finally acknowledges that it is.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

44 comments on “Jealous of James Baker? Kissinger Changes Tune

  1. MP says:

    “Any reference to Henry’s Jewish heritage by his critics are identifying that HUGE contradiction (as did the quote id-ing HK as a “Wagnerian Jew”) In other words, criticism of Henry Kissinger is not anti-Semitic–it’s pro-Semitic. Oy.”
    I see your point, but these comments are anti-Semitic. Why? Because they AREN’T saying that Henry isn’t living up to Jewish ideals. They aren’t arguing anything per se; more like copping a feel. By critiquing Henry and casually bringing in his Jewishness, they are SUGGESTING a connection between the two. They’re also getting some joy out of the fact that Jews can be as bad as Naziis, which bring ups the corollary: Maybe the Naziis didn’t have it all wrong. I say copping a feel, because the person who cops the feel is gone before he can be confronted and, in a crowd, there is always plausible deniability. “Well, he IS a Jew, right? He did some bad things, right? And these bad things were kind of like what the Nazis did, right? And he was born in Germany with that oh-so-German name, Heinz, right?”

    Reply

  2. wowgold says:

    Do you want to know who are the several most famous swindlers NPCs in the CWOW ?game

    Reply

  3. DonS says:

    Agreed. I have never connected darth Kissinger with anything vaguely Jewish. He’s actually an embarrassment to anyone with a humanistic bent.

    Reply

  4. Rich says:

    Kissinger was right to support Israel at that juncture. The cost wasn’t huge at th time, and the US could and should have been willing to bear it.
    But Henry the K’s policy obviously does NOT derive from his Jewish heritage.
    Nor is it really even biased due to the convergence of allied interests.
    NONE of Henry’s critics claim that his policies are rooted in his ethnicity or religion.
    Quite the opposite. They observe that his relationship TO Power, and his use and abuse of that power, is entirely AT ODDS with a) American Constitutional principles; and b) the Jewish experience and suffering in relation to state power.
    Kissinger demonstrates that he failed to learn the lessons of WWII & the Holocaust in the way he wielded power, and in the way he wields power NOW. Kissinger uses the tools that were used to harm Jewish people during wwii and prior years.
    When he ordered Allende overthrown and Chileans murdered, or when he had civilians in Vietnam & Laos carpet-bombed, that is not driven by the Jewish experience. The death squads and torture are deployed DESPITE that experience. Any reference to Henry’s Jewish heritage by his critics are identifying that HUGE contradiction (as did the quote id-ing HK as a “Wagnerian Jew”)
    In other words, criticism of Henry Kissinger is not anti-Semitic–it’s pro-Semitic. Oy.

    Reply

  5. winnipeger says:

    quit with the paranoia, poa.
    i’m NOT roberthume!

    Reply

  6. Pissed Off American says:

    Hume’s post is obviously meant to install a bit of anti-semitism on a forum that is relatively devoid of it. Intersting that Hume isn’t a regular poster. But fear not, our caped crusader has rode to the rescue with a yawn. What a coincidence!

    Reply

  7. winnipeger says:

    I have read elsewhere stronger statements than the above indicating that one can trace a strong bias in Kissinger’s policies towards Israel that work to the detriment of the US that presumably derive from his being Jewish. But I can’t find them. Perhaps others could help.
    Posted by RobertHume at November 22, 2006 09:34 PM
    here we go again… and again… and again…
    yawn.

    Reply

  8. RobertHume says:

    From the Wikipedia article on Kissinger:
    “In 1973, Kissinger negotiated the end to the Yom Kippur War, which had begun with a surprise attack against Israel by the Syrian military and by the Egyptian army one day later. Kissinger has published lengthy and dramatic telephone transcripts of his activities during this period in the 2002 book “Crisis.” With Kissinger’s support—which was reluctant at first—the U.S military conducted the largest military airlift in history. American action contributed to the 1973 OPEC embargo against the United States, which was lifted in March 1974.”
    I have read elsewhere stronger statements than the above indicating that one can trace a strong bias in Kissinger’s policies towards Israel that work to the detriment of the US that presumably derive from his being Jewish. But I can’t find them. Perhaps others could help.

    Reply

  9. hassel says:

    NOT a disaster, Mr Howard (“Howard praises ‘heroic’ Iraqis, defends invasion,” The Age, 20/12): an unjust, illegal, immoral, and non-democratically launched pre-emptive war of empire and conquest, predicated on transparent lies, that has already led to the deaths of an estimated 650,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children — plus the growing number of US and other coalition casualties.
    â– Not a disaster: the total destruction of education, health services, utilities infrastructure, and the fomenting of sectarian civil war in a country that formerly had one of the highest standards of living in the area?
    â– Not a disaster: the decimation of the cradle of civilisation, and the looting and wanton destruction of its irreplaceable artifacts?
    â– Not a disaster: Abu Ghraib and other unknown hell-holes of torture, and human degradation?
    â– Not a disaster: the repeal of the writ of habeas corpus and of civil liberties in the US, Britain, Australia and elsewhere?
    â– Not a disaster: the repeal of the Geneva conventions and the Nuremberg principles, the nullification of international law (our only protection from tyranny), and the trashing of international treaties?
    â– Not a disaster: Mr Howard quotes the kangaroo court and impending lynching of Saddam Hussein as the high point of his boy’s own Iraqi adventure. And this from a man who allegedly opposes capital punishment?
    How many lives does Saddam have on his conscience, Mr Howard? Best estimates put the figure at between 700,000 and 1.2 million during the term of his reign, most of them killed during the US-backed and supplied war against Iran.
    Every life is precious, but that figure pales into insignificance when compared to the estimated 1.5 to 2 million people who perished as a direct result of the sanctions imposed by the US and UK after the “first Gulf War”. Sanctions that the unspeakable Madeleine Albright said were “worth the price” when asked about the deaths of half a million innocent children under the age of 15.
    And how many lives do you and your willing allies have on your hands, Prime Minister? 650,000 — and counting!
    Yet still you indicate — no matter what the Australian electorate wants, no matter what the American electorate indicates; no matter what British Prime Minister Tony Blair now says, and no matter what the rest of the world telegraphs — that you have no intention of backing off until you and your allies have equalled or surpassed the unenviable total of the “Butcher of Baghdad”.

    Reply

  10. winnipeger says:

    POA wrote:
    “Lets all advocate divisive political labeling as a tactic of discourse, debate, and political posturing. I mean, if its already broke, why fix it?”
    you mean kind of like what you constantly do on this blog?! calling people who you disagree with “assholes,” “idiots,” “murderers” and worse? but, yeah, you’ve really demonstrated that you are an expert in civil and enlightened discourse and debate. ha!
    what a joke you are, POA!

    Reply

  11. Pissed Off American says:

    He just claimed that Iraq was a “state sponsor of terror” before we invaded. I despise these lying bastards.

    Reply

  12. Pissed Off American says:

    Gads. This Muravchik asshole is on CNN (“Washington Journal”) right now. A caller just called in and questioned Wolfowitz and Perle’s ties to Israel. Guess what? How’d he answer? By heavily insinuating that posing such questions was “anti-semitic”.
    Now he is prattling about how “we don’t know” how far along Iran’s weapons program is. But hey, “it would be very bad to find out too late”. Remember the crap we were thrown about impending “mushroom clouds” when these fucking zealots were selling us this mess in Iraq?
    Now he is calling another caller “unpatriotic” for bringing up the above mentioned CIA report.
    Fuck these people like Muravchik. If people like that asshole are in control, this planet will end up being a radioactive wasteland in very short order.
    A caller just called in and asked him if he or any of his “membership”, (neo-con), have ever actually served in the military. He admitted he hadn’t, but “wished he had”.
    Well, nows his chance, lets hand him an M-16 and send him to Iran. Or just shove the damned thing down his throat, (not exactly what I wanted to say; wrong orifice), and save ourselves the air fare.

    Reply

  13. AlanDownunder says:

    Funny how the Kissingers, Perles, Adelmans & Ledeens of this world all changed their tune about Iraq after a big reversal in Ir …. er, actually on the other side of the planet. If they were really wising up (to use the term loosely), why did they wait for the mid-term election result before letting on? For them, was there no bigger prospective calamity anywhere in the world for the US than the Democrats taking Congress?

    Reply

  14. Pissed Off American says:

    “moreover, i happen to think that the word “neoconservative” is the most highly overused term in american politics today. but hopefully, it’s a first step in leveling the playfield. after all, the conservatives successfully demonized the word “liberal” a generation ago. turn-around is fair play.”
    Posted by Winnipeger
    Yeah, by God, thats it. “Turn about is fair play”.
    Lets all advocate divisive political labeling as a tactic of discourse, debate, and political posturing. I mean, if its already broke, why fix it?
    Kind of like screaming “anti-semite”, eh? It ain’t the argument that gets ’em, its the label.
    One of these days, if the world survives mind sets like the poster above advocates, we might just get back to using truth as the instrument for change.
    Really folks, it could happen.
    Maybe.
    Someday.

    Reply

  15. Pissed Off American says:

    “Diplomacy is doing nothing to stop the Iranian nuclear threat; a show of force is the only answer.” -Joshua Muravchik
    Uuuhm, I meant to ask, in my post above….
    WHAT DIPLOMACY?

    Reply

  16. Pissed Off American says:

    “moreover, i happen to think that the word “neoconservative” is the most highly overused term in american politics today.”
    Maybe. But “anti-semitic” is surely running a close second.

    Reply

  17. Pissed Off American says:

    I think it is very important to note a recent McCain statement, as quoted in the Los Angeles Times today. On ABC’s “This Week”, he stated that U.S. troops were “fighting and dying for a failed policy”, which was one of his rationales for his advocation of sending even more troops to Iraq.
    Here’s the clincher. “The consequences of failure are catastrophic,” he said. “It will spread to the region, you will see Iran further emboldened. EVENTUALLY, YOU COULD SEE IRAN POSE A GREATER THREAT TO THE STATE OF ISRAEL”.
    Now, I ask you. Do you see anything there that mentions America’s security?
    There you have it, boys and girls, McCain, admitting, flat out, that our kids are dying in Iraq to protect Israel’s security. So, I guess in McCain’s mind, a “successful” policy, (versus the “failed policy” he now believes we are pursuing), is a policy through which we commit even MORE American blood and treasure to protecting Israel’s interests. Never mind that our arming of the Israeli military, and our almost unilateral refusal to condemn Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon has provoked the hatred and the ire of the world community. (Not exclusively, but particularly the international Muslim community).
    We are not FIGHTING terrorism and hatred against the United States, we are NURTURING it.
    I note that Steve, in a thread below, mentions Joshua Muravchik, (of the AEI), as participating on one of his group think panels. (Like a circle jerk, only its the egos that get stroked).
    I find it interesting that Steve is rubbing brain cells with one of these rabid asses that is calling for military action against Iran. The following is from today’s Los Angeles Times…
    “Bomb Iran”
    “Diplomacy is doing nothing to stop the Iranian nuclear threat; a show of force is the only answer.”
    By Joshua Muravchik, JOSHUA MURAVCHIK is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
    November 19, 2006
    “WE MUST bomb Iran.”
    continues at…….
    http://tinyurl.com/y3fqtu
    But gee, did he miss the CIA report that Hersh claims found NO evidence of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program?
    “CIA analysis finds no Iranian nuclear weapons drive: report”
    Sat Nov 18, 11:18 PM ET
    WASHINGTON (AFP) – A classifed draft CIA assessment has found no firm evidence of a secret drive by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, as alleged by the White House, a top US investigative reporter has said.
    continues at……..
    http://tinyurl.com/y9ttlf
    So here you have McCain citing Israel’s security as a reason for our kids to keep dying, and you have some someone like Joshua Muravchik telling us we gotta bomb Iran to curtail a weapons program our own CIA claims DOESN’T EXIST.
    Sound familiar? Is this deja vu, or what?
    I wonder, how old is this Muravchik clown? Does he have any kids we can sign up for a tour of duty in Iraq or Iran? After all, these lying pricks have John Doe’s kids doing their THIRD tour of duty, so don’t you think its time we made some cannon fodder out of the spawn of those such as Muravchik??? Cheney??? Where the hell are Bush’s kids? Lets sign those little upstarts up too.

    Reply

  18. wowgold says:

    Special sale for nonsuch account area6 1-60 level(rabbi, warrior or magician)sell sincerely!game

    Reply

  19. kim says:

    I love watching these right wing pundits and “intellectuals” suddenly telling the truth after losing the election… loyalty to the country has finally become more valuable than loyalty to the Republican party. I’m grimly waiting for when they revert to fogging the airwaves with their usual baloney (probably when an Iran attack is in the works).

    Reply

  20. Marky says:

    If you google “Leon Hadar neoconservatives” you get links to lots of articles.
    Here’s another one: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/hadar4.html
    He sounds a bit like a grand bullshitter to me—not enough specifics in this article or the one cited above.

    Reply

  21. Winnipeger says:

    i happen to disagree with much of what mr hadar supposedly wrote above (a link would be helpful, robert), especially the section on “born again zionists:”
    “Israel, as a political cause, has become a substitute for religion for them, and by extension for many other American Jews.”
    this seems like a sweeping generalization to me. i wonder how mr hadar could possibly substantiate this claim.
    and this:
    “For the past year, neoconservative intellectuals have focused on the need for the US to confront the new transnational enemy from the East, radical Arab nationalism and Islamic “fundamentalism,” or what Krauthammer termed the “global intifada.” The operational implication of this type of reasoning is that the original intifada can be forgotten.”
    i happen to believe in the fact that an increasingly intolerant wahabism/salafism IS spreading like wildfire in the greater ME and around the world(no doubt exacerbated by our misadventures in iraq). i don’t belive in Hadar’s “operational implication” above; i don’t believe that is the implication at all.
    i think that it’s also important to keep in mind that the israeli governement isn’t a likud government any more than ours is a republican government. in fact, likud lost in a landslide during the last israeli elections, falling far behind labor and kadima.
    moreover, i happen to think that the word “neoconservative” is the most highly overused term in american politics today. but hopefully, it’s a first step in leveling the playfield. after all, the conservatives successfully demonized the word “liberal” a generation ago. turn-around is fair play.

    Reply

  22. Carroll says:

    Also in regard to the mention of the Jerusalem Post,the drumbeat for the US to attack Iran has become deafening. Looking at the JP today, the whole edition is devoted almost entirely to why Iran must be blown away. Eventually all this talk will reach a emotional boiling point among the public and they will most likely not only support it but demand it.

    Reply

  23. Carroll says:

    Posted by Robert at November 20, 2006 02:47 PM
    >>>>>>>>>
    I think that is the best short summary of the how, who and why of US/Isr entanglement I have seen.

    Reply

  24. Robert says:

    A Few Words… from American University Professor Middle East Studies and former UN Bureau Chief of Jerusalem Post.
    “Who are these neoconservatives, or the neocons,” as both admirers and enemies refer to them? The neoconservative movement was founded in the 1960s by a group of New York-based intellectuals, mostly academics and journalists, many of whom were concerned about the “anti-Israel” drift they detected among the ranks of the New Left and Black leaders who were gaining increasing power in the Democratic Party.
    Among the major figures in the movement were former Trotskyites who studied in the ’30s and ’40s at the then “poor man’s Harvard,” the City College of New York, a center for socialist activism. They included Irving Kristol, who in the 1950s launched an anti-Soviet CIA front, the International Congress for Cultural Freedom; Norman Podhoretz, the editor of the American Jewish Committee’s monthly magazine Commentary, which he turned into a major neoconservative outlet; Podhoretz’s wife, Midge Decter, the chairperson of the now-defunct Committee on the Free World; sociologists Nathan Glazer and Daniel Bell; and Democratic Party pamphleteer Ben Wattenberg.
    That neoconservative “nuclear family” was later joined by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Walt and Eugene Rostow, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams (Podhoretz’ son-in-law), Kenneth Adelman, and other Cold Warriors and advocates of hawkish Israeli policies. Individually and, later, as a group, they have had a major impact on the foreign policy of several administrations, beginning with that of Lyndon B. Johnson.
    Born-Again Zionists
    Israel became a central cause for these neocons after its victory in the 1967 war turned most of them into born-again Zionists. Neocons like the Rostow brothers and Ben Wattenberg, who served in the Johnson administration, helped LBJ drum up support for the Vietnam War among Jewish liberal Democrats who had been opposed to that military adventure. This was done by convincing such liberals that only a militarily strong and perpetually interventionist America can guarantee the security of Israel.
    The corollary was that a strong Israel is a strategic asset” as far as American interests in the Middle East are concerned, helping Washington to contain Soviet expansionism in the area. This was reduced to the neoconservative dogma that what is good for Israel is good for America, and vice versa. Neocons have treated questioning of this dogma as the equivalent of a declaration of war and immediately have sought, by innuendo, to brand such questioners as “anti-Semitic.”
    Ironically, many of the Jewish neocons were and are assimilated Jews with little interest in Jewish civilization or religion. Israel, as a political cause, has become a substitute for religion for them, and by extension for many other American Jews.
    All welcomed the possibility of an American-Arab war which would turn the Palestinian intifada into a sideshow.
    Interestingly enough, the American Jewish community as a whole has ignored the neoconservative agenda, continuing to vote for liberal Democratic candidates for local and national offices. Some also recognize that the effort to turn the Jewish state into a “strategic asset” and the granting of enormous amounts of American aid to Israel endangered both American and Israeli longterm interests. It strengthened those forces in Israel opposed to a land-for-peace settlement with the Palestinians, and as a result produced exponential growth of anti-American antagonism in the Arab world.
    In any case, Israel became one of the most important elements on the agenda of the neoconservative coalition that emerged as a counterforce after the 1972 victory of the McGovern forces in the Democratic Party. In 1968 the neocons backed the late Senator Hubert Humphrey from Minnesota for president. In 1972, they mobilized their support behind the late Senator Henry Jackson from Washington. Both Humphrey and Jackson represented staunch anti-Soviet and pro-Israeli positions in the party.
    Senator Jackson’s aides, Richard Perle and Elliott Abrams, who later became major figures in the Reagan foreign policy team, attempted to torpedo any effort by the Nixon and Carter administrations to improve relations with the Soviet Union or to launch peace efforts in the Middle East. From Jackson’s office, the two led the campaign to use the issue of Jewish immigration from the Soviet Union to sabotage detente between Washington and Moscow.The result was Jackson-sponsored legislation denying the Soviet Union a “most favored nation” status unless it permitted increased Jewish emigration. Ironically, that move not only froze the Nixon-era detente, it also froze the emigration of Soviet Jews.
    McGovern and his supporters were identified with a more skeptical approach toward Israel.Their 1972 victory within the Democratic Party was a major setback to the neoconservative forces. The neoconservatives formed the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (CDM) in 1973, aimed at rallying anti-Soviet and pro-Israeli Democrats in opposition to the McGovern liberals. That year also saw the beginning of the neoconservative drift toward the Republican Party, whose leaders saw in recruitment of the neocons an opportunity to improve Republican status in the media and in academic circles.
    Unilateral American intervention in places like Grenada and Libya began to resemble Israel’s own iron Fist approach to Middle East issues.
    One of the recruits was Moynihan who, while serving as the Nixon administration’s UN ambassador, used the position as a major pro-Israel platform. He did it to build a political base among Jewish voters in New York, which he then used to launch his successful campaign in that state for the Senate.
    It was the Carter administration’s foreign policy agenda, including its efforts to improve the relationship with the Soviets and to accommodate the national interests of the Palestinians, that accelerated the political transition of the neocons from the Democratic to the Republican Party. Carter did not bring any members of the CDM into his administration.
    The CDM, with the help of neoconservative columnists like Krautharnmer and Safire and of the New Republic, was the driving force behind a coordinated effort to weaken public support for Carter. For example, Michael Ledeen, a neocon conman and one of the founders of an Israeli front organization, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and whose name would surface later as one of the instigators of the IranContra affair, wrote an article in the New Republic which revealed ties between the late Billy Carter, the president’s alcoholic brother, and Libyan government officials.
    At the same time, members of the CDM and other neoconservatives played a leading role in shaping the agenda of the Reagan administration. For neoconservatives, like Kirkpatrick and Podhoretz, and for more traditional anti-Soviet officials such as Marine Colonels Robert McFarlane and Oliver North, Israel was a country that could combat Soviet mischief by no-nonsense foreign-policy realism, unbound by domestic legal contraints.
    The neoconservative propagandists proposed Israel as a model for recovering from 11 post-Vietnam syndrome” and for renewing American energy and drive. Unilateral American intervention in places like Grenada and Libya began to resemble Israel’s own iron fist approach to Middle East issues.
    Increasing Isolation
    The two countries found themselves increasingly alone in international organizations like the United Nations. A visitor from Mars to the UN headquarters in 1985 would have found it difficult to decide, after listening to Ambassadors Jeane Kirkpatrick and Benjamin Netanyahu, which of the two represented the United States and which Israel.
    In addition to Kirkpatrick, who got her job as US representative to the UN after an article she published in Commentary caught Reagan’s interest, other neocons occupied top positions in the Reagan foreign policy team. One was Max Kampelman, a former aide to Humphrey who was appointed to the position of director of arms control, and who was later replaced by another neocon, Kenneth Adelman. Richard Perle became the assistant secretary of defense. Richard Pipes, a regular Commentary contributor, joined the National Security Council. Elliot Abrams served as assistant secretary of state for human rights and later as assistant secretary for hemispheric affairs, where he played an active role in the Iran-Contra affair.
    To the Likud Party, the policies of the Reagan administration seemed to offer Israel time to consolidate its hold on the West Bank and Gaza. The neoconservatives occupying top positions on Reagan’s foreign policy team encouraged Washington to view the Arab-Israeli conflict through Cold War lenses, and to identify Palestinian nationalism as an extension of Soviet-induced international terrorism. In that context, Washington could view Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands with benign neglect.
    All this was accomplished at serious cost for both Israel and the United States. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the IranContra affair were among the harmful products, while the intifada highlighted the destructive consequences of the neoconservative “strategic asset” formula and its operational implication of placing the Palestinian issue on the back burner.
    However, it was the end of the Cold War that spelled disaster to the neocons, now at risk of being deprived of their favorite enemy and the justification for the strategic alliance between Washington and Jerusalem.
    Enter the Middle Eastern bogeyman. For the past year, neoconservative intellectuals have focused on the need for the US to confront the new transnational enemy from the East, radical Arab nationalism and Islamic “fundamentalism,” or what Krauthammer termed the “global intifada.” The operational implication of this type of reasoning is that the original intifada can be forgotten.
    The new, makeshift neoconservative line is that the removal of the Soviet threat in any Middle East calculation actually increases the value of the special relationship between the US and Israel, since the military strength of the Jewish state could serve as a deterrent to radical Arab regimes and help shore up shaky ones. By this vision, Israel becomes the contemporary crusader state, a bastion of the West. It was not a coincidence that writers like Krauthammer also supplied the ideological “Saddam-is-Hitler” formula that helped to press for the attack against Iraq.
    “Paleoconservatives”
    The neocons’ main antagonists in the successful effort to get the United States to start shooting in the campaign to contain Saddam were the so-called “paleoconservatives,” such as Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran, who since the end of the Cold War had been advocating a less activist American foreign policy. Indeed, neoconservative columnists like Rosenthal have accused the two of “anti-Semitism” for questioning whether there is a compatibility between the American interests and that of the Likud government.
    Contrary to assertions such as Rosenthal’s, Buchanan’s reference to the Israeli Defense Ministry’s “amen corner” in the United States that, according to him, was pushing the US to go to war immediately against Iraq, was not directed against the American Jewish community. (Actually, the Jewish senators and congressmembers were almost evenly split over the resolution authorizing Bush to go to war.) Buchanan was referring to the neoconservative writers who had been advocating the war option as opposed to the use of sanctions against Saddam.
    Most US proponents of sanctions, whether liberal or conservative, feared that a war in which thousands of Arabs died at American hands would, in the long run, increasingly isolate Washington in the region. Ironically, the only way to prevent such negative results of the neocon agenda would be decisive efforts by the Bush administration to follow up the rollback of Saddam with an Israeli-Palestinian settlement based upon land for peace. It is just such efforts, however, that the neocons can be counted upon to oppose.
    Leon T. Hadar, a former UN bureau chief for the Jerusalem Post, is an adjunct professor at the American University and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, where he is writing a book on American policy in the Middle East.

    Reply

  25. Rich says:

    Robert:
    Not much. I’m interested only in his politics.
    I’ve never equated being Jewish to holding a Zionist position, thank you very much. Way to jump to conclusions w/zero basis.
    Consider when and where Heinz Kissinger grew up.
    Consider Henry Kissinger’s relationship to Power and the exercise of that Power.
    Do the math.
    Kissinger’s JOB entailed that he do MidEast diplomacy for years. Since Saudis are among his clients, and Paul Bremer was his right-hand man at his firm–and he’s just been identified as an advisor to George Bush–I’d suggest that neocon policy and Israel and Iraq come into the picture. Are the picture.
    Stick to the facts, Robert. I won’t go down the viscerally unproductive & immature road of some posters on that issue–so baiting smearing accusations wont’ get you anywhere. Instead, tell me, what do YOU think is the most desirable option on the table for America? And why?
    (FYI–the comment I related was made by a Jewish person trying to drive home to Kissinger the precise nature of some of the orders he’d had carried out in Vietnam and Chile. If you don’t understand what that actually means, you should read some of the Jewish and German WWII/Holocaust-era memoirs published by the University of Wisconsin Press (some of which I edited). People have choices during wartime–at all levels.)

    Reply

  26. Robert says:

    “What does being Jewish(Kissinger) have to do with anything”?
    Ah, Perhaps “Being Jewish” increases the Probability of Being “Pro Israel” or a “Zionist”?
    The NeoConservatives were mostly “Zionists” and mostly Jewish, who conspired to invade Iraq primarily to protect Israel, not United States’ Interests! Douglas Feith was paid by Israel to write “Clean Break”, establishing a Hard Line Military Policy and “Break Oslo Peace Process”, following their “Program for a New American Century”.

    Reply

  27. Marky says:

    I would like to see Kissinger retire from the public scene and move as far as possible away from the West. I think East Timor would do just fine. He can live the rest of his days there, enjoying the hospitality of the natives.

    Reply

  28. RichF says:

    Kissinger’s clients included the Saudis.
    Paul Bremer was Kissinger’s right-hand man.
    I don’t remember the source of this anecdote, I think it dates from Kissinger’s Chilean “activities”–in which he ordered the overthrow of Allende and subsequent bloodshed–but apparently Heinz becomes apoplectic if you call him “a Wagnerian Jew” to his face.
    I’m not weighing in on the appropriateness of such a phrase, but there it is.
    Try it the next time you run into him. It could happen: Henry the K’s car broke down on a country road somewhere in Wisconsin a number of years back.
    Some farmer in an old pickup picked him up and delivered him to Luck, Wisconsin–the nearest hamlet, strategically outfitted with telephone and service garage. (kidding about the specific town, not about the strategic hamlet.)

    Reply

  29. RichF says:

    Kissinger’s clients included the Saudis.
    Paul Bremer was Kissinger’s right-hand man.
    I don’t remember the source of this anecdote, I think it dates from Kissinger’s Chilean “activities”–in which he ordered the overthrow of Allende and subsequent bloodshed–but apparently Heinz becomes apoplectic if you call him “a Wagnerian Jew” to his face.
    I’m not weighing in on the appropriateness of such a phrase, but there it is.
    Try it the next time you run into him. It could happen: Henry the K’s car broke down on a country road somewhere in Wisconsin a number of years back.
    Some farmer in an old pickup picked him up and delivered him to Luck, Wisconsin–the nearest hamlet, strategically outfitted with telephone and service garage. (kidding about the specific town, not about the strategic hamlet.)

    Reply

  30. Pissed Off American says:

    Golly, Steve, it’s a good thing you didn’t mention that Kissinger is Jewish. People here might have gotten really excited.”
    Posted by Zathras
    What does being Jewish have to do with anything?

    Reply

  31. Linda says:

    Don’t forget that Kissinger was the first choice to head the 911 Commission but refused the job because he would have to reveal his consulting firm’s international corporate clients. So he also has benefited enormously financially over the last 30 years.

    Reply

  32. RichF says:

    What lukaskiak said: Since Henry Kissinger’s been whispering ‘at all costs, stay the course’ in George W.’s ear, behind the scenes–this seems to be a bit of frantic face-saving.
    Josh Marshall at TPM puts emphasis on:
    “. . . in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support . .”
    –Thus performing routine maintenance on the fiction that it was the weak will of our duly elected representatives in Congress or the American People themselves that faltered and forced a withdrawal from Vietnam. Apparently, even Kissinger can see the remarkable parallels between Iraq and Vietnam.
    Kissinger would rather blame democracy than take responsibility for his ill-considered and poorly applied ‘strategies’–none of which WORK.
    None of which comport with America’s core values. None of which apply or are consistent with the Constitution, our Founding Father’s pragmatic understanding abuse of power, and of a citizenry’s natural and just / moral reaction to such abuse of power.
    That departure from America’s political culture and governing principles IS WHY such wars do not succeed.
    Kissinger can see the writing on the wall. He’s trying to make certain someone else is blamed, and the myth of cut-n-run maintained.
    It’s astounding really that no one has doggedly looked into the obvious congruence between the politics of Bush and that of Kissinger.
    It’s a 2-part strategy: Use (Maximal) Force; Never Respond to Citizen Input in a Democracy. It shoulda been obvious

    Reply

  33. rapier says:

    I’m a bit sceptical of Woodwards story. Is there a bigger context within to judge that victory comment? He was always pretty sceptical in public as I recall. Then again he knows how to play both sides of the street. It’s good for bussiness.

    Reply

  34. Zathras says:

    Golly, Steve, it’s a good thing you didn’t mention that Kissinger is Jewish. People here might have gotten really excited.

    Reply

  35. RichF says:

    It’d be interesting to catalog how many times Henry Kissinger has negotiated with America’s enemies in the midst of a Presidential election.
    He did it in Vietnam, basically offering to work with the NOrth Vietnamese, regardless of who won the election. Encouraging certain steps, or lack of actions and decisions on the part of North Vietnamese leaders during the campaign, could easily have swung that election in a direction Henry Kissinger preferred.
    He actually used America’s national security as a tool, exploiting both our soldiers in the field and using the fate of the country, to further his own goals and maintain his own position of influence.
    I don’t recall the details off the top of my head, but his actions are thoroughly documented.
    I recently ran across an account of Kissinger negotiating with Iran behidn the scenes during the 1980 presidential campaign. He may have gotten what he wanted, but if true, the Iranians got taken. Pretty clear they’da been far, far better off with Carter the White House.

    Reply

  36. p.lukasiak says:

    “Why now? What pressure is Henry under?”
    the pressure of public ridicule, would be my guess.
    It was all well and good for Henry the K to tell Bush that “the lesson of Vietnam is that victory was the only option” when he was doing so privately — but now that his involvement has become public, and every sane person in the world recognizes that what Kissinger has been advising is completely assinine, he changes his tune — at least publicly.

    Reply

  37. An Australian says:

    Fucken ABC!No one will keep us in the dark!ALJAZEERA will enlighten us every night!Fucken Fascist ABC!!!!!Rightwing warmonger criminals!!!ABC is the mouthpiece of Evil murderers,carpet-bombers and agent-orange users!

    Reply

  38. Dan Kervick says:

    Why now? What pressure is Henry under?
    Perhaps the pressure of mortality? When Kissinger leaves the stage will he go out as a “sage” – dispensing wise, statesmanlike advice – or just another blind, stubborn fool, hanging on to a failed policy.

    Reply

  39. Jerome Gaskins says:

    Why now? What pressure is Henry under?

    Reply

  40. profmarcus says:

    the fact that dr. strangelove still carries sufficient weight in domestic and international circles to warrant a bbc interview, serve as an advisor to bush on the iraq war, or spew his twisted counsel to his many still-worshipful admirers, is a sad commentary on the media and world citizenry in general… along with mcnamara and nixon, he should have been tried for war crimes a long time ago… instead, there’s now a pantheon of his clones, the likes of cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, feith, perle, adelman, kristol, and, yes, hillary, joe biden, and all the other wise, war-mongering sages, who have joined him in the ranks of infamy… as noam chomsky has said in different words, giving deference to this man’s opinion is abdicating our own ability to think about and render opinions on serious issues… i think kissinger was born genetically incapable of speaking either plainly or honestly about anything…
    http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

    Reply

  41. Linda says:

    It all would be very funny if it weren’t so sad. It is semantic games since everybody was lied to by everybody else, and nobody said that they actually said. And nobody listened to what nobody said. And nobody did anything in response to what nobody said or what everybody said or what everybody really meant to say. Well, there is the old saying about victory having many parents and defeat being an orphan. So nobody is held responsible or accountable for anything.
    Business as usual while more and more of our troops die.

    Reply

  42. Carroll says:

    I have been thinking..how much do you suppose the Blackwater mercs would charge to kidnapp Kissenger and drop him off in France or whatever country it is that has warrent out on him for his past war crimes?
    In fact how about just snatching all the neo’s and parachuting them out over the Congo or some other suitable country?
    It really boggles my mind that we assasinate people all over the globe and upend countries and render terriers to third world torturers and no good guys in Washington, if there are any, have thought to just dispose of these criminals. It’s not like we still have habas corpus or anything so what’s the problem?

    Reply

  43. daCascadian says:

    Another war criminal that needs to “go down” along with the recently fired Field Marshall.
    SCUM
    “If you don’t deal with reality, reality will deal with you” – C.J. Campbell

    Reply

  44. DonS says:

    Can junior be far behind? What’s the new strategy, besides more blood and blame? Henry’s not bailing on junior is he?
    Reading the dispatch, it sounds like stay-the-course with with the addition of an “international conference” (on which to blame continued and ultimate failure?), that should last long enough to see junior out of office. We’re perhaps talking several fig leaves. Or maybe a trial balloon with a fig leaf attached?
    I mean junior breaking bread with Iran and Syria — even via itermediary? Hard to imagine. Olmert would not approve, and didn’t he recently say that he was confident that he and junior were on the same page going forward?

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *