Hey, he was a great negotiator! Who else gets 100 years out of Satan?
Ah, Henry! So little time, so many crimes against humanity! How many died in Chile?
Possibly his greatest moment, though, was when an interviewer asked him about why he knocked over Prince Sihanouk's precarious regime in Cambodia. The interviewer pointed out that our man in Phnom Penh, Lon Now, was completely corrupt, and used to plan battles and campaigns according to astrological charts.
Henry replied, "Well, that may be so, but he was our ally, so we should have supported him."
Ah, yes: once I put your country's fortunes behind a lunatic incompetent, it was YOU who blew it by not propping him up with your lives and money.
It's a wonder Henry never served in the Yankees' front office.
I can't judge the man on what I know about him, he was always dealing with the lesser of evils. But, looking at him in the worst light, far better that he was OUR Doctor Strangelove than Russia's....
@ Wezil....We may be mean but all we seek is justice. Perhaps that should be your goal as well.
@ Kevin...There is no greater evil than the man who blindly killed tens of thousands of innocent children and families. People who did no harm to us. Collateral damage is a nice term but what if they were your family?
Carl, I totally agree. But is it certain that the rulers that we helped to overthrow wouldn't have had an even greater taste for blood? I well remember (as many of you guys do) when Vietnam fell, and especially Cambodia how many millions of people were slaughtered. In our country nobody wept for those people. So we have to be careful when reviewing history that we consider the full picture. That difficult task falls to trained historians, and the passage of time (no, I'm NOT channeling Kamela).
Many people cried and a lot of them did more than that. They got involved and protested en masse in DC including yours truly. And I'm not sure about the logic used concerning speculation about what other would-be leaders might have done. That doesn't mitigate or excuse what Kissinger did.
I hear what you're saying, Kevin. And you know, Kissinger helped negotiate the re-establishment of relations with China and detente with USSR—both things that at least helped ease the Cold War somewhat, and reduced the chance of nuclear war. So, good for him regarding that. As Churchill once said, better jaw-jaw than war-war—particularly when nukes are involved.
But frankly, I think a lot of good American diplomats, Republican or Democratic, could've done that—and I think a lot of them would also have been decent enough to have balked at what he did in Chile or Cambodia.
Yes, the largest responsibility for the Cambodian genocide falls on the Khmer Rouge, of course. But Henry blindly knocking over a precarious but peaceful, largely democratic regime in favor of a military dictatorship, went a long way toward putting Pol Pot in power. And Chile was just despicable. Allende's regime was failing, he probably would've been out of power in months.
...The thing with Henry K. was, he was one of those guys who, even when you're supposedly his friend, he's just bad news. He gets you in trouble, and skips any responsibility.
The big case in point was Watergate. Nixon, never the most stable of personalities, was paranoid about government leaks. Kissinger was worried because a guy he brought into that government, Daniel Ellsberg, leaked the Pentagon Papers.
A person who really had Nixon's best interest at heart would've told him, "WTF do you care? The Pentagon Papers show all the dumb decisions THE DEMOCRATS made, getting into Vietnam. Don't worry!"
Kissinger was afraid he would get blamed for Ellsberg—so he ratcheted Nixon's paranoia up, loudly insisting that, yessir, he had to do something about those leaks! The next thing we know, Nixon's resigning—and Henry's still secretary of state.
Horace, Pol Pot would have gotten in earlier without the US in the region. Pinochet was replacing a despot with another despot. But I agree with you in the general scheme of things. Still, he wielded considerable power and influence in the country probably on his death bed. He wasn't the greatest human being, but he was a great statesman. We could use a young version of him right now. All I see in our foreign affairs sector are PR men. And our country is toeing the brink in more ways than I'm comfortable with. FWIW, yeah, Soto for crumbs is ok, anything beyond that, no. Of course, why are any of us worried about prospects? They were all born under a bad sign...
I think Sihanouk might have hung on without our interference. And after, what, 1-3 million dead there? It's hard to argue it could have gone worse.
And far from being a despot, Allende's coalition was elected. He was simply unable to put through his far left agenda—whether through incompetence or opposition, you can make a case either way. But the people of Chile did not deserve 16 years of murder and brutality.
We did best in the Cold War when we backed democracies and democratic movements; worse, usually, when we backed dictators and "strongmen." Sure, there were certain exceptions. South Korea and Taiwan come to mind.
But Kissinger...he reminds me of those lines in The Great Gatsby: "They were careless people...they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their carelessness, or whatever kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."
The US has never met a dictator that they didn't like or not find useful. After all, it's much easier to deal with a despot by cutting them in with a percentage than a democratically elected leader who cares more for his country's citizens and natural resources than a dictator who only cares about money and power. I believe it was ex-CIA undercover operative in South America, Ric Prado, who said their standard line to a target was " We can roll out the red carpet or carpet bomb you".
Horace, your arguments are not without merit. My argument boils down to the difficulty in assessing the history of events that are still mostly classified. There is no doubt that our guvment has done "questionable things".
"AA, let me get my air "tool". Look at my photo..💀"
I am perplexed. Not unusual on a Friday evening. Photo sorta looks like Javier Bardem. Please educate the ignorant masses, of which I am a card carrying member. Well not that kind of member, but...
Yes, "The No Country for old Men" Javier. Anton Chigurh has become one of my all-time favorite characters in movies, strangely enough (or disturbingly enough). Thought you'd appreciate his sense of manners and kindly face.😰
Members of the blog can comment. To receive an e-mailed invitation, write to johnandsuzyn@gmail.com. And check spam if it doesn't show up. (Google account required.)
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Of course.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, I'm pissed that he lived so long. There's one guy who didn't deserve it.
And way back when, Jill St. John denied rumors that she was dating this creep. She has an IQ of 162 (no shit, really), so I'm willing to believe her.
I hope the war criminal roasts in hell where the coffee is never hot or cold, only lukewarm!
ReplyDeleteFuck Henry x 1000!
My takeaway is simple:
ReplyDeleteSTANG LIVES!
Hey, he was a great negotiator! Who else gets 100 years out of Satan?
ReplyDeleteAh, Henry! So little time, so many crimes against humanity! How many died in Chile?
Possibly his greatest moment, though, was when an interviewer asked him about why he knocked over Prince Sihanouk's precarious regime in Cambodia. The interviewer pointed out that our man in Phnom Penh, Lon Now, was completely corrupt, and used to plan battles and campaigns according to astrological charts.
Henry replied, "Well, that may be so, but he was our ally, so we should have supported him."
Ah, yes: once I put your country's fortunes behind a lunatic incompetent, it was YOU who blew it by not propping him up with your lives and money.
It's a wonder Henry never served in the Yankees' front office.
Maybe Henry DID do time in the Yankees front office.....
ReplyDeleteI can't judge the man on what I know about him, he was always dealing with the lesser of evils. But, looking at him in the worst light, far better that he was OUR Doctor Strangelove than Russia's....
ReplyDeleteKevin - You are the 'Seller(s)' of good reason.
ReplyDeleteI h O.P. E. it is a good Thursday for everyone.
They are making it hard to be a lifelong fan.
ReplyDeleteNah, not mean old men. Just dirty. ;)
ReplyDelete@ Wezil....We may be mean but all we seek is justice. Perhaps that should be your goal as well.
ReplyDelete@ Kevin...There is no greater evil than the man who blindly killed tens of thousands of innocent children and families. People who did no harm to us. Collateral damage is a nice term but what if they were your family?
Carl, I totally agree. But is it certain that the rulers that we helped to overthrow wouldn't have had an even greater taste for blood? I well remember (as many of you guys do) when Vietnam fell, and especially Cambodia how many millions of people were slaughtered. In our country nobody wept for those people. So we have to be careful when reviewing history that we consider the full picture. That difficult task falls to trained historians, and the passage of time (no, I'm NOT channeling Kamela).
ReplyDeleteMany people cried and a lot of them did more than that. They got involved and protested en masse in DC including yours truly. And I'm not sure about the logic used concerning speculation about what other would-be leaders might have done. That doesn't mitigate or excuse what Kissinger did.
DeleteAA, please sir, I need you to step out of the car.
ReplyDeleteHEY, so where do you guys stand regarding "rent a Soto"? What about free agency, or trades? Any thoughts?
ReplyDeleteI hear what you're saying, Kevin. And you know, Kissinger helped negotiate the re-establishment of relations with China and detente with USSR—both things that at least helped ease the Cold War somewhat, and reduced the chance of nuclear war. So, good for him regarding that. As Churchill once said, better jaw-jaw than war-war—particularly when nukes are involved.
ReplyDeleteBut frankly, I think a lot of good American diplomats, Republican or Democratic, could've done that—and I think a lot of them would also have been decent enough to have balked at what he did in Chile or Cambodia.
Yes, the largest responsibility for the Cambodian genocide falls on the Khmer Rouge, of course. But Henry blindly knocking over a precarious but peaceful, largely democratic regime in favor of a military dictatorship, went a long way toward putting Pol Pot in power. And Chile was just despicable. Allende's regime was failing, he probably would've been out of power in months.
Both those things, I find unforgivable...
...The thing with Henry K. was, he was one of those guys who, even when you're supposedly his friend, he's just bad news. He gets you in trouble, and skips any responsibility.
ReplyDeleteThe big case in point was Watergate. Nixon, never the most stable of personalities, was paranoid about government leaks. Kissinger was worried because a guy he brought into that government, Daniel Ellsberg, leaked the Pentagon Papers.
A person who really had Nixon's best interest at heart would've told him, "WTF do you care? The Pentagon Papers show all the dumb decisions THE DEMOCRATS made, getting into Vietnam. Don't worry!"
Kissinger was afraid he would get blamed for Ellsberg—so he ratcheted Nixon's paranoia up, loudly insisting that, yessir, he had to do something about those leaks! The next thing we know, Nixon's resigning—and Henry's still secretary of state.
He was the fucking Eddie Haskell of government.
100%!
DeleteAs for Soto, no, I don't think he should be a rental. If we pay big, we should make sure he's down with a long-term deal. A rental makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteI am neither mean nor old - so Wez must be talking about me.
ReplyDeleteAnd Kevin - I am now outside of my car.
But it’s really cold outside.
Horace, Pol Pot would have gotten in earlier without the US in the region. Pinochet was replacing a despot with another despot. But I agree with you in the general scheme of things. Still, he wielded considerable power and influence in the country probably on his death bed. He wasn't the greatest human being, but he was a great statesman. We could use a young version of him right now. All I see in our foreign affairs sector are PR men. And our country is toeing the brink in more ways than I'm comfortable with. FWIW, yeah, Soto for crumbs is ok, anything beyond that, no. Of course, why are any of us worried about prospects? They were all born under a bad sign...
ReplyDeleteOne last comment on Kissinger. Here are 2 thoughtful essays on his shameful influence on American foreign policy by Spencer Ackerman and Ben Rhodes:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/henry-kissinger-war-criminal-dead-1234804748/
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/opinion/henry-kissinger-the-hypocrite.html
SOTO CRUMBS - coming soon from Kellogs
ReplyDeleteAgree to disagree, Kevin.
ReplyDeleteI think Sihanouk might have hung on without our interference. And after, what, 1-3 million dead there? It's hard to argue it could have gone worse.
And far from being a despot, Allende's coalition was elected. He was simply unable to put through his far left agenda—whether through incompetence or opposition, you can make a case either way. But the people of Chile did not deserve 16 years of murder and brutality.
We did best in the Cold War when we backed democracies and democratic movements; worse, usually, when we backed dictators and "strongmen." Sure, there were certain exceptions. South Korea and Taiwan come to mind.
But Kissinger...he reminds me of those lines in The Great Gatsby: "They were careless people...they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their carelessness, or whatever kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."
The US has never met a dictator that they didn't like or not find useful. After all, it's much easier to deal with a despot by cutting them in with a percentage than a democratically elected leader who cares more for his country's citizens and natural resources than a dictator who only cares about money and power. I believe it was ex-CIA undercover operative in South America, Ric Prado, who said their standard line to a target was " We can roll out the red carpet or carpet bomb you".
ReplyDeleteHorace, your arguments are not without merit. My argument boils down to the difficulty in assessing the history of events that are still mostly classified. There is no doubt that our guvment has done "questionable things".
ReplyDelete"He was the fucking Eddie Haskell of government."
ReplyDeleteHoss, you silver tongued devil, you!
Kevin.
ReplyDelete"AA, let me get my air "tool". Look at my photo..💀"
I am perplexed. Not unusual on a Friday evening. Photo sorta looks like Javier Bardem. Please educate the ignorant masses, of which I am a card carrying member. Well not that kind of member, but...
Yes, "The No Country for old Men" Javier. Anton Chigurh has become one of my all-time favorite characters in movies, strangely enough (or disturbingly enough). Thought you'd appreciate his sense of manners and kindly face.😰
ReplyDeleteOf course Kissinger was.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/1877rc6/the_words_of_anthony_bourdain_about_kissinger_are/