Hillary: Kissinger Stands Up for American Values

[markpkessinger]

I have no words for this. Is this really who we want to field in 2016? Aaargh!

[font size=5]Hillary Clinton Praises a Guy With Lots of Blood on His Hands[/font]
[font size=3]In lauding Henry Kissinger, the possible Democratic presidential nominee goes far beyond her usual hawkish rhetoric.[/font]
—By David Corn | Fri Sep. 5, 2014 1:44 PM EDT

<. . . .>

Sure, perhaps there is secretary's privilege—an old boy and girls club, in which the ex-foreign-policy chiefs do not speak ill of each other and try to help out the person presently in the post. Nothing wrong with that. But former-Madam Secretary Clinton had no obligation to praise Kissinger and publicly participate in his decades-long mission to rehabilitate his image. In the review, she calls Kissinger a "friend" and reports, "I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state. He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels." She does add that she and Henry "have often seen the world and some of our challenges quite differently, and advocated different responses now and in the past." But here's the kicker: At the end of the review, she notes that Kissinger is "surprisingly idealistic":

Even when there are tensions between our values and other objectives, America, he reminds us, succeeds by standing up for our values, not shirking them, and leads by engaging peoples and societies, the sources of legitimacy, not governments alone.

Kissinger reminds us that America succeeds by standing up for its values? Did she inhale?

Corn goes on to remind us of the "values" Kissinger upheld in places like Chile, Argentina, East Timor, Cambodia and Bangladesh. He continues:

<. . . . >
And there's more. Kissinger's mendacity has been chronicled for years. See Gary Bass' recent and damning book on the Bangladesh tragedy, The Blood Telegram. There's Seymour Hersh's classic, The Price of Power. In The Trial of Henry Kissinger, Christopher Hitchens presented the case against Kissinger in his full polemical style. As secretary of state, Kissinger made common cause with—and encouraged—tyrants who repressed and massacred many. He did not serve the American values of democracy, free expression, and human rights. He shredded them.

< . . . . >

[Autumn]

1. Kissinger Stands Up for American Values? About as much as Dick Cheney

[markpkessinger]

2. Corn's last paragraph says it all . . .

Democrats uneasy with Clinton as their party's standard-bearer have often wondered if there is a limit to what she might say or do to win the White House. Embracing Kissinger in this manner shows how low she can go. It likely will cause cringing among not-there-yet Democrats who can only fear that, with plenty of time before the campaign truly starts, Hillary Clinton is not yet done disappointing them.

[ChiciB1]

9. So Very True... Love David Corn... n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

101. Yup, right on the money; Corn has Hillary pegged. Time for Hillary to exit stage right.

[rhett o rick]

111. I think the lowest she has gone was when she gave up her integrity to George Bush, The Dim-Son.

Think of the consequences.

[Le Taz Hot]

3. And this is who I'm supposed to unquestionly

vote for because of --- D? Kissinger is a war criminal and Hillary is PRAISING him! Fuck that!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

103. It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

[enough]

4. Please Hillary, stop making it impossible for me to vote for you.

As a person who has been following US politics many decades, Henry Kissinger is one (not the only one) of those people who makes me wonder about the possibility that evil actually exists as an independent force in human events.

The worst of it is that, given how much evil he has fomented, he keeps returning as a personage in our public life. That's the reason I begin to wonder about a force beyond just specific humans playing their part. Why can this zombie never rest? Why is he perpetually resuscitated?

Of course I know that from Ms. Clinton's point of view, the number of voters who have even the slightest awareness of past history is negligible. She also knows that by the time the election arrives, her enemies will have been so egregiously hideous that all the last old-time liberal hold-outs like me will vote for her as a protest against her enemies. So there's no down-side for her in consorting with the devil.

[trumad]

5. +1

[markpkessinger]

6. She's certainly making it harder and harder for me to vote for her! n/t

[Gidney N Cloyd]

10. I'm wondering if it may be a cry for help.

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. Lol if you were making a joke.

Sad re: Hillary if you were not.

i did not spend all my time and energy in the anti-war movement, to stand quietly by and watch Hillary consort with an un-indicted war criminal.

[morningfog]

90. Please Hillary keep being honest so we won't vote for you.

[FiveGoodMen]

131. Yup. That's where I'm at!

[hifiguy]

149. This times a googolplex.

[daleanime]

137. Amen....

[bread_and_roses]

144. She did that for me a long time ago (n/t)

[BillZBubb]

7. That is disgusting. Kissinger is an amoral scumbag.

[ChiciB1]

8. WOW, The Crap Just Keeps Rolling Along!

Never was a real big Hillary supporter, but as time goes by I'm beginning to think she's almost a Repuke! Pretty much a DINO anyway, IMO. I sincerely think Democrats had better wake up and do some thinking. I do realize I will get attacked for what I'm saying, but it's how I feel. I do NOT intend to get into post counter-post situation with anyone, say what you will!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

104. Nope, I'm right there with you. Nominating and electing Hillary will be a disaster for this country, mark my words.

[PatSeg]

133. Oh you're definitely are not alone

Every week there is another story about her that totally turns off Democrats. A few remarks might fade with time, but if she keeps up this pace, she won't have to worry about republicans going after her. It will be her own party that will bring her down.

Once again, Hillary is NOT inevitable and right now NOT desirable.

[scarletwoman]

11. Kissinger, the Evil Undead.

Eater of souls, drinker of blood.

Yeah, Hillary, you go right ahead and buddy up to a monster. Some of us will never forget, never forgive, the suffering and death Kissinger's "statemanship" brought to millions. I won't forget this, either.

[bread_and_roses]

145. [phone]....

[wyldwolf]

13. Praising Kissinger is bad, yes. But David Corn?

Comment from this piece:

Zounds! Sink me!

Two whole weeks have gone by without David Corn and Mother Jones attacking Hillary Clinton!

No mistake, Henry Kissinger is barely human, and has a lot of human blood and misery on his hands. He shouldn't be praised. Kissinger should have spent the last 40 years in prison for war crimes and crimes against humanity. But this criticism by David Corn is curious, given who Corn chooses to hobnob with.

David Corn is happy to sit on the set of Hardball with Chris Matthews. The same Chris Matthews who was personally hired by Jack Welch of General Electric, which owned NBC. Jack Welch pioneered "downsizing," firing 10% of managers every year, regardless of overall performance. And he cut over 25% of the workforce within 5 years. At MSNBC, Welch hired Irish Catholic men who all hewed the Republican line, and they went to work praising all things GOP. In the 2000 election, when a reporter submitted a neutral piece on Gore, Welch went to MSNBC and personality and publicly fired her, yelling and screaming at her throughout the episode.

Once at MSNBC, Chris Matthews spent 5 years attacking Democrats and fawning over Republicans. During the 2000 election, he said that Al Gore "would lick the bathroom floor" to become president over 25 times in 2 months; he mocked everything about Gore, and repeated Republicans' lines with glee. Of course, nearly the entire Washington Press Corps told lies about Gore and failed to report on the record of Bush as governor of Texas. In an interview Matthews once said that "I hate the Clintons and everything they stand for." Matthews fawns over Ronald Reagan and attacks anyone who differs with him on this view.

This is the man that Corn chooses to sit across from. Calmly smiling, Corn also laughs at Matthews' attempts at humor. Even this week, as Matthews calls for all out war against ISIS, because they've killed Americans.

As I see the people who say that they will never vote for Hillary Clinton, I wonder what this is based on. Clinton was one of many Democratic senators who voted for the resolution giving Bush the authority to use force in Iraq.

An authority that Bush and every one of his administration officials said would never be used, as long as the inspectors continued their work. As a US senator, I doubt that anyone thought an American president would ever start a war. They and the American citizenry were told that the resolution was needed just to show the world that the US was united in wanting Iraq to give up its chemical and biological weapons.

Did Hillary Clinton know that Bush, having secured that authorization would promptly kick out the weapons inspectors and conduct a full scale invasion and occupation of Iraq? There is no evidence to support that conclusion.

And if you sit out this midterm election, and the 2016 election, then you have failed to perform even the most basic of democratic duties. If you want a nominee other than Clinton, you can join the party, or you can work to build a new one. But if the 2016 election is a close one, and the choice is Clinton or a Republican, and no 3rd party candidate is close, then you may want to remember the country under the Bush administration. Then vote.

For president, my state is safely blue, so I have the luxury of voting for the Green Party candidates. For those in toss up states, remember how great it was to have President Al Gore.

[Ken Burch]

16. Chris Matthews has issues...but appearing on his show is worse than praising a war criminal?

By that same logic, do you feel that Van Jones is now an apologist for Newt Gingrich...given that they host the revived CROSSFIRE together on CNN?

If not, how can you imply that Corn's decision to appear on Hardball(a decision likely made simply because that gives Corn a chance to be heard by larger numbers of people than boycotting the show would allow) somehow equates to absolving Matthews of every wrong he's done?

BTW. from what I've seen in your posts here, it NEVER bothered you that Bill and HRC were ok with letting the Contras, a bunch of blood-soaked fascist thugs who engaged in such "freedom-fighting" acts as invading a wedding reception and cutting the face off of the bride) train in Arkansas during the Eighties. Am I wrong about your views on that?

[wyldwolf]

17. did anyone say it was worse?

LOL, no.

Is there some invisible line only some of us can see when it comes to what's permissible for 'progressives' to do? Apparently so.

Corn is chummy with an Iraq War cheerleader pro-Republican talking head. His message on Kissinger gets lost in that fact.

[Ken Burch]

21. Not comparable at all.

Nothing Corn does there compares with HRC praising the man who caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians and who oversaw the bloodsoaked coup in Chile that replaced a democratic socialist government with a "free-market" military junta, OR abet the murderous Indonesian takeover of East Timor in 1975.

Matthews has made bad choices, but, unlike Kissinger, he has no one's blood on his hands.

And neither Chris Matthews NOR David Corn are going to seek the Democratic nomination for president, with huge numbers of posters here DEMANDING that we all just give either of them the nomination right now, while expecting nothing important from them in exchange.

Besides which, what does Corn's relationship with Matthews have to do with the significance of this at all? If he hadn't written about HRC's praise for the worst American war criminal of all time, someone else would have. So Corn's individual foibles, assuming he really has any, are irrelevant in this case.

[wyldwolf]

25. Completely comparable. Corn is a hypocrite.

There is an estimated 128,982 – 144,450 deaths from the Iraq War. Chris Matthews was a cheerleader for that war. David Corn loves him some Chris Matthews.

Corn is a hypocrite.

[Ken Burch]

26. Does what you think about Corn as a person mean HRC's endorsement of Kissinger doesn't matter?

Why does Corn matter here all? It's not as if nobody else would have cared if Corn hadn't written this.

[wyldwolf]

27. Are we going to keep going around in this circle? Are you even reading my posts?

Read post 13 (for the first time, I guess)

[Ken Burch]

36. I read your post. Chris Matthews is NOT comparable to Henry Kissinger.

A commentator who endorses a war(an endorsement Matthews later admitted was wrong)is NOT comparable to a government official who actually orders bombings and coups.

There's a massive difference between being on the same show with a person(being on the same show does not equate to absolving the person you're appearing with of wrongdoing...it just means getting airtime...it's neutral)and HAVING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE KILLED.

Chris Matthews didn't kill anyone. And he admitted the Iraq War was wrong.

And again, what do Matthews and Corn, as private individuals, have to do with the validity of this story at all? Does what happens between them mean that HRC's implicit endorsement of the continuation of the Vietnam War for four more pointless years, the secret bombings of Cambodia, the overthrow of Allende and the fascist takeover of East Timor by the Sukarno dictatorship of Indonesia(the last at a cost of at least 500,000 lives)doesn't matter?

Chris Matthews isn't running for president. Neither is David Corn. Neither has ever served in a presidential administration in charge of implementing that administration's foreign policy. HRC has been Secretary of State and wants to be president.

Therefore, your point in post #13 is bogus. It doesn't discredit Corn's point at all. And it doesn't mean that HRC's endorsement of everything Henry Kissinger ever did(which is what her review of his book means)doesn't matter.

HRC's position here doesn't even make practical political sense. Hardly anyone out here in the electorate is a supporter of Henry Kissinger's treatment of the rest of the world. Nobody who would even think of voting Democratic, or even think of voting HRC, would DEMAND that HRC have a Kissinger-like foreign policy.

[wyldwolf]

39. Apparently you didn't because you had to ask that silly question:

"Does what you think about Corn as a person mean HRC's endorsement of Kissinger doesn't matter?"

When post 13 clearly answered that before you even asked.

It's a completely comparable situation.

Matthews used his status in the media to cheerlead a war that killed thousands of innocents. David Corn LOVES him some Chris Matthews. Corn is Clinton in this.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

43. This is a delusional set of posts

I get that you like Hillary, but you're not going to exonerate her by attempting to besmirch David Corn. And I think I'll just leave it at that.

[wyldwolf]

46. and that is a delusional reply

I get that you don't like Hillary, but David Corn is a hypocrite, calling someone down who praises Kissinger while he's chummy with someone who backed the Iraq War.

And I think I'll just leave it at that.

LOL. Yeah, right. You'll reply.

[Ken Burch]

54. Again, Corn doesn't matter here.

Corn isn't running for president. His credibility isn't at issue here.

HRC actually DID write a review praising Kissinger's book(which equates to an endorsement of all that Kissinger ever did).
That isn't just typical political glad-handling. It isn't just politeness. It's praise for a war criminal.

There's no difference between writing praise for a book by Kissinger and writing praise for a book written by Mengele.

[wyldwolf]

57. Says who? Of course he matters. He wrote the piece in the OP.

He's just as relevant in this thread as HRC and Kissinger. And he's a hypocrite for being chummy with an Iraq war cheerleader. Where's his "OMG, did you hear what he/she said" article on Matthews?

[Ken Burch]

102. Corn isn't the one who may run for the presidency.

And Chris Matthews isn't going to run for the presidency. HRC will. Do you not understand the difference there?

[Scootaloo]

119. You have an indefensible argument

First off, you're trying to draw direct comparisons between Henry Kissinger and... Chris Matthews? You're really going to try to equate those two men? That's unbelievably stupid. Kissinger is a war criminal. An architect of death and destruction in over a dozen nations. Tweety is a mediocre journalist. There's kind of a gulf there.

Second, if you find Tweety's voiced support for the iraq War reprehensible, why are you making that position known... in defense of someone who voted for that war during her tenure as Senator? I mean hey, okay, supporting hte war is pretty gross, but... matthews had no yay-or-nay power. Clinton did, and she chose to green-light it.

You've got some awfully harsh cognitive dissonance here.

[frylock]

150. an unfathomable amount of cognitive dissonance

[Ken Burch]

44. No it doesn't

And clearly, Corn's appearance on Matthews' show does not equate to an endorsement of Matthews' early(and later recanted) position on the Iraq War. And HRC didn't just appear on a panel show with Kissinger...she wrote a review praising his book...which CLEARLY equates to endorsing all that Kissinger ever did.

HRC and Corn are not the same in this, and Corn isn't going to run for president.

What matters is that HRC endorsed the deeds of a war criminal...which Corn did not do at all.

Besides which, I didn't call for a vote for the Green Party-so don't post something that implies that I did.

Opposition to HRC does NOT equate to hostility to the Democratic Party.

[wyldwolf]

51. Yes it does

clearly, Corn's appearance on Matthews' show equates to an endorsement of Matthews' early position on the Iraq War. And HRC didn't constantly appear on a panel show being chummy with an Iraq war cheerleader ...she wrote a review of his book...which doe not equate to endorsing all that Kissinger ever did.

HRC and Corn are the same in this, and Corn is a hypocrite.

[Ken Burch]

56. Even if Corn was a hypocrite, he doesn't matter.

Corn isn't the presidential candidate here. Corn isn't going to end up deciding which countries we should and shouldn't invade.
And HRC's actions in endorsing Kissinger and all his acts was out there whether Corn was the one to write about it or not.

Corn, as a person, is irrelevant. What matters is HRC's praise for Kissinger's foreign policy legacy, a legacy with no non-barbaric aspects whatsoever(as to China, we were going to engage with China anyway, no matter who became national security advisor in 1969...that Kissinger was involved was happenstance, and trivial).

[wyldwolf]

59. Of course it matters. He wrote the piece in the OP.

He's just as relevant in this thread as HRC and Kissinger. And he's a hypocrite for being chummy with an Iraq war cheerleader. Where's his "OMG, did you hear what he/she said" article on Matthews?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

73. Here you are again, further along in the thread and still making

it about Corn and not Hillary and what she said and what she has done.

Corn is a journalist who gets paid to write and talk. What about Hillary? Have you forgotten the OP is about what Hillary said and how she was praising the loathesome Henry Kissenger?

[2banon]

171. Ken, this guy has a very solid history of circle jerking strawman, I think he was in diapers

during all this if he was even born. has no fucking clue what he's jabbering on about, he thinks matthews or corn (or both held positions of high office or will be apparently).. there's no "there" there.

in such cases, ignore is your friend.

[Bjorn Against]

49. Post 13 clearly stated that no one thought Bush would go to war

In other words post 13 has no credibility what so ever because it was written by someone who was too stupid to know that Bush wanted a war. Do you have any evidence that David Corn loves Chris Matthews that comes from someone who is not as stupid as the person you just cited? Sitting at the table and being interviewed by him is not an endorsement of Matthew's positions.

[wyldwolf]

52. psst! that's not what me and KenBurch are discussing.

You've got little froth on your lips.

[Bjorn Against]

62. I have froth on my lips?

Are you trying to suggest I am a rabid dog or something?

I am talking about exactly what you are discussing, these are the exact words you cited in post 13...

An authority that Bush and every one of his administration officials said would never be used, as long as the inspectors continued their work. As a US senator, I doubt that anyone thought an American president would ever start a war. They and the American citizenry were told that the resolution was needed just to show the world that the US was united in wanting Iraq to give up its chemical and biological weapons.

When you cite ignorant crap like that how do you expect us to take the rest of that idiot's words seriously? It is quite ironic that the person who wrote those idiotic words wants us to be upset at David Corn for merely being interviewed by a former war supporter, yet in the same breath they defend Hillary for voting for the war by claiming that no one thought Bush wanted war.

[wyldwolf]

65. show me, in the discussion between Ken Burch and myself, the topic you're obsessed with?

[Bjorn Against]

74. I already quoted it for you directly

I responded directly to post 13 and provided a quote, you can not pretend that words which you posted in this very thread are irrelevent to the thread.

Responding to the source you cited does not show an obsession.

Rather than personally attacking me by suggesting I am frothing at the mouth and obsessed why don't you answer a simple question for me:

Do you believe that all of the words you cited in post 13 are accurate?

[wyldwolf]

76. dude, Ken and I were discussing whether I though this book review from HRC was a bad thing.

Him and I NEVER covered the point you're making.

[Bjorn Against]

79. Of course you covered it, you were the one who posted the words that I quoted

I will quote the post you made in this very thread once again...

An authority that Bush and every one of his administration officials said would never be used, as long as the inspectors continued their work. As a US senator, I doubt that anyone thought an American president would ever start a war. They and the American citizenry were told that the resolution was needed just to show the world that the US was united in wanting Iraq to give up its chemical and biological weapons.

That comes directly from your post which is the basis of this entire sub-thread.

You never answered my question, do you believe the source you cited is accurate?

[wyldwolf]

80. If you'll look at the conversation, him and I never cover that. BUT... and this is a big one...

... if you want to make a stretch like you just did, then every thread is a result of a prior thread and can therefore be taken off topic on a whim.

I'll bet you're a pleasure to talk to at a dinner table. So just to appease you and set your mind at ease, the person who wrote that line shouldn't have.

[Bjorn Against]

85. We are not talking about a prior thread, we are talking about this thread and the words you posted

It is good to see you acknowledge that the person whose words you cited should have never written the words you are using as the basis for your argument.

[wyldwolf]

87. Whatever, man.

Have a nice night.

[Ken Burch]

64. You are obsessed with the happenstance that David Corn happened to write this.

As I've shown, the fact that Corn was the one who told us about this is completely beside the point.

Why are you so obsessed with the source of this story, rather than the story itself?

You can't really believe that praising Kissinger's book(and thus, his deeds)doesn't matter.

[wyldwolf]

68. You think it's a happenstance that David Corn happened to write this?

As I've shown, the fact that Corn was the one who told us about this displays his hypocrisy.

You can't really believe that praising Kissinger's book(and thus, his deeds)doesn't matter.

Again, you're obviously not reading my posts.

[Ken Burch]

75. If Corn hadn't written that, someone else would have.

You make it sound like nobody OTHER than Corn would have cared about what HRC did here.

David Corn is simply the messenger. If not for him, another messenger would've delivered this message.

And you know it.

[wyldwolf]

78. several have written commentaries on it. None took the insidious tone of Corn's

Corn is a hypocrite. And you know what? This time next year he'll be singing HRC's praises on the Chris Matthews show.

[Ken Burch]

81. It IS insidious.

Obviously, the Beltway types, the insiders who don't CARE what anyone in power stands for, would see it as non-insidious.

How can you see it as "no biggie"? Your feelings about Corn aside, why SHOULDN'T what HRC said here bother us?
Don't we have to have SOME points beyond which we have the right to expect Dem politicians will not go?

If HRC were nominated, I would grit my teeth and vote for her-but that doesn't mean this is trivial. It's sickening, and you should see what she said here as horribly revealing.

Henry Kissinger had NO positive aspects at all of his foreign policy legacy. All he gave us was rivers of blood. It should horrify you that HRC thinks anyone like that should get any praise.

[wyldwolf]

83. and, like a true hypocrite, he'll be singing HRC's praises this time next year

[Ken Burch]

100. He might endorse her as the lesser-evil AFTER the convention...NOT in Sept 2015("a year from now").

Barely-lesser evil. If so, that means nothing.

It's not as if Corn is obligated to marginalize himself by going third-party in 2016 to be legitimate in his point here.

Besides, there's always the possibility that HRC might admit she was wrong to endorse a war criminal(most Americans hate Henry Kissinger and what he did)at some point.

And HRC may not even run. She doesn't have anything to offer to the voters anymore, after praising a war criminal.

[pocoloco]

175. Your circle....

getting dizzy?? LOL

[MannyGoldstein]

115. Let's both take a pledge.

We pledge not to support politicians who rooted for war in Iraq.

You've convinced me.

Deal?

[Cali_Democrat]

116. How about pledging not to vote for any politician who was previously a Republican...

Deal?

[MannyGoldstein]

117. Like a Goldwater girl?

LOL.

Given that Obama and Clinton are generally to the right of Reagan... well, that pledge would get weird, and quick.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014336360

[Cali_Democrat]

118. OK....Deal?

[Ken Burch]

120. Not the same thing.

It's possible for a former Republican, like Wayne Morse or Elizabeth Warren, to be a progressive hero.

It's NOT possible to praise Henry Kissinger's foreign policy legacy and have any progressive or humane ideas for dealing with the rest of the world.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

69. Why are you talking about Corn here when Hillary, and what she has

done and said, are the issue?

Classic obfuscation: when you don't like the direction the conversation is going, you attempt to redirect it. There's a whole process of how this is done but I can't remember the details, it was posted in the old DU. Perhaps someone will know what I'm referring to.

[Ken Burch]

86. He's denouncing Corn because he thinks Corn's authorship of the link discredits the story.

He thinks that being on a show with someone who ONCE backed the Iraq War(and later recanted)is just as bad as praising the life's work of a war criminal...and he also thinks it's possible to write a glowing review of Kissinger's book(which was also, as phrased, a glowing review of Kissinger's deeds)WITHOUT endorsing all that Kissinger did.

HRC COULD have said "What Dr. Kissinger did in Chile, Vietnam, Cambodia, and East Timor, among other places, was indefensible" but she didn't say anything like that. Her review contained no qualifications of the praise at all, no acknowledgement at all of the massive harm the man caused.

This is why wyldwolf is obsessed with making Corn the issue, with Corn was hardly the only person who thought this mattered.

[rhett o rick]

113. Forgive us if we missed your point. Seems to me like you were saying that H. Clinton-Sachs is

above reproach because you don't like David Corn. If he mislead us in the article, point it out.

[2banon]

168. Wow. CNN revived Cross Fire and Van Jones is co hosting the show with Newt Gingrich???!!!!

Really? wow. I have to check out a clip of that! Is Van Jones holding it fairly well against that turd ? I'm trying hard to wrap my mind around that. wow.

[Ken Burch]

169. It's been on for awhile now, and Van's doing just fine.

Van The Man always seems to land on his feet.

[2banon]

172. I don't do cable or sat.. wasn't aware..

I've had the privilege with working with him several years ago, and yeah.. "he's the man".. glad to know he's holding well on that rigged show. good on him.

[arcane1]

34. "I doubt that anyone thought an American president would ever start a war"?

I want to live on THAT planet!

[Bjorn Against]

38. Whoever wrote that is extremely ignorant

How could anyone with any memory of the Bush years honestly believe this statement?

As I see the people who say that they will never vote for Hillary Clinton, I wonder what this is based on. Clinton was one of many Democratic senators who voted for the resolution giving Bush the authority to use force in Iraq.

An authority that Bush and every one of his administration officials said would never be used, as long as the inspectors continued their work. As a US senator, I doubt that anyone thought an American president would ever start a war. They and the American citizenry were told that the resolution was needed just to show the world that the US was united in wanting Iraq to give up its chemical and biological weapons.

Seriously? No one ever thought Bush would start a war? Whoever wrote that is either completely ignorant or they hope the rest of us have amnesia and have forgotten Bush's constant push for more war.

[cui bono]

45. Praising Kissinger is bad yes, so let's attack the messenger!!!

YAY!!!!!!!!!

Now go talk about David Corn instead of what a travesty it would be if Clinton gets elected president, or doesn't but takes the Dem primary.

[RufusTFirefly]

58. Yes indeed. The Distractivists are out in force.

Their precious playbook may be old and tattered, but they still rely on it religiously.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

105. Shows you how desperate they are to overlook Hillary's many shortcomings. We can do better.

[Perseus]

98. Well said...

I too hope that people will not stay at home on voting day in retaliation for what Hillary may have said, do remember that it doesn't matter how nasty and immoral a statement a republican may spew, no republican is going to sit at home and not vote for him/her, so like the post I am answering to said, "Remember the Bush years."

I would place a bet with anyone that if McDonnell, who was just found guilty of, was it eleven counts?, comes back after his time in jail, that many republicans will still want to vote for him...

Not voting for a democrat, even if you don't like Hillary, is casting a vote for a republican.

[frylock]

152. I live in California, and have no intention of voting for Clinton..

your bullshit premise that not voting for Clinton is a vote for the republicans is just that; bullshit.

[Kelvin Mace]

109. I can make this argument simple

I do not know David Corn, do not read his work or watch his show. But I do know Henry Kissinger's work and have watched his career. He is steeped in the blood of of hundred's of thousands, a war criminal who were his crimes tried at Nuremberg, would have been hanged.

Clinton just praised him.

Kissinger is America's Eichmann and HRC praised him.

That tells me she is one of three things:

1) A rightwing admirer of Kissinger.

2) Someone too stupid to know Kissinger is a monster.

3) A slime ball who will curry favor from anyone, no matter how criminal, if she thinks it will get her elected.

None of these possibilities incline me to vote for her.

[rhett o rick]

112. What does your dislike of David Corn have to do with this particular article on H. Clinton-Sachs?

If the article is wrong, attack the article not the author.

[Ken Burch]

121. He thinks that the fact that Corn is friendly with Chris Matthews

means that it doesn't matter that HRC praised a war criminal. He also thinks that Chris Matthews is morally equivalent to Henry Kissinger because Matthews(in a position he later recanted)once backed the Iraq War.

Mainly, wyldwolf is desperate to make people think HRC's endorsement of the man who caused the Cambodian bombings, four more pointless years in Vietnam, the overthrow of Allendea and hundreds of thousands of deaths in East Timor and Bangladesh DOESN'T MATTER.

[rhett o rick]

125. The harder people try to rebrand H. Clinton the worse it gets. She is a war hawk that was happy to

give up her integrity and support the Bush/Cheney Iraq War that is still tearing this nation apart. The American Aristocracy is a club that sticks together whether they call themselves Democrats or Republicans. H. Clinton and Kissinger are members of the same club.

[rhett o rick]

126. Can you spell "ad hominem"? nm

[bread_and_roses]

143. Deflect fail, since Corn is not running for President (n/t)

[EEO]

164. Nice deflection.

Don't defend, support, or help to try to explain Hillary's position, just use some circumstantial evidence on someone else and attack him.

Wait... it wasn't a nice deflection. Clumsy and obvious, more like.

[OnyxCollie]

167. "As a US senator, I doubt that anyone thought an American president would ever start a war."

Clinton on an Iran Attack: 'Obliterate Them'
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

[99th_Monkey]

14. I guess we are seeing exactly whose ass POTUS candidates need to kiss

to get the "stamp of approval" by our self-appointed 1% Oligarchs.

[Fearless]

15. 'Scuse me a sec...

[MannyGoldstein]

18. Hillary has become performance art.

I think she's Banksy.

[markpkessinger]

23. LOL -- perfect!

[MannyGoldstein]

53. Could he be more obvious?

The only real question left is whether he created the Hillary persona, or vice versa. Since she's been head-over-heels for banks since well before his art began, I'm leaning towards the latter.

[RufusTFirefly]

77. Haha! Perfect!

I think you may be onto something, Manny!

[MannyGoldstein]

89. Pshaw... it's like observing that water is wet

[truedelphi]

19. Well Mark, if only she was standing up for

Kessenger values!

[A Simple Game]

20. Are we getting a glimpse at one of the real Powers That Be behind the scenes.

Why else would anyone praise a known war criminal?

[awoke_in_2003]

32. I don't think...

they are even bothering to hide anymore.

[A Simple Game]

61. I think you may be right. n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

95. Yup. Like Bonasera and Vito

[A Simple Game]

122. Perfect. n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

124. Both Bonasera and Hillary honor "The Family" in their own special way.

Hillary, ‘The Family,’ and Uganda’s Anti-Gay Christian Mafia

Dozens of members of Congress, several Fortune 500 CEOs, generals and at least one Supreme Court Justice are members of “The Family,” the right-wing evangelical mission supporting Bahati as well as Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni. Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) among others have lived in what’s known as “C Street,” The Family’s subsidized lodging in Washington, DC. Hillary Clinton has been active with Family prayer groups since she was First Lady. In her memoir, Living History, Clinton described The Family leader Doug Coe as “a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.”

[JEB]

22. Kissenger and Cheney deserve nothing but scorn and prosecution.

They do not represent American values, they represent lust for power and blood.

[MyNameGoesHere]

24. Politicians never praise other politicians

It's unheard of.

President Reagan recognized the American people’s hunger for accountability and change — putting our nation on a bold new path toward both. And although he knew that conflicts between parties and political adversaries were inevitable, he also knew that they would never be strong enough to break the ties that bind us together. He understood that while we may see the world differently and hold different opinions about what’s best for our country, the fact remains that we are all patriots who put the welfare of our fellow citizens above all else.

Really it has never happened before.

Hillary is evil.

[Ken Burch]

29. This isn't about a politician praising another politician.

Henry Kissinger isn't a politician...he's a Nuremburg-grade war criminal.

Praising "Dr. K" means AGREEING with everything he ever did. And endorsing all of it.

Obama's comment about Reagan has nothing to do with this.
Obama wasn't endorsing Reagan's policies in that quote...he was just talking about Reagan's ability to make what he was doing look positive.

Besides, this thread has nothing to do with the Obama/HRC fight. Obama will probably endorse HRC for the nom if she runs in '16.

[wyldwolf]

33. so praising someone means "AGREEING with everything he ever did. And endorsing all of it. "

REALLY...?

[Ken Burch]

40. I said praising Kissinger, not praising anyone at all. The point applies in some other cases, too.

For example, when Bill Clinton eulogized Nixon and Reagan at their funerals, he implicitly endorsed ALL that they ever did(which is fitting, given that the DLC's whole approach was "Dems were wrong about everything and the GOP was right about everything-even killing Allende".

Obama, by contrast, merely praised Reagan for making what he actually did(which, unlike HRC or Bill, Obama actually never supported)seem like it would be positive.

It's impossible to praise Henry Kissinger WITHOUT endorsing everything he did in the Nixon and Ford years. There is no innocuous positive statement you could make about the man. He had no non-loathesome traits at all.

[wyldwolf]

42. so your statement ONLY applies to Kissinger? mmmm... k! (snicker)

[Ken Burch]

50. It also applies to Nixon and Reagan, Ollie North, Lt. Calley

And anyone else of that ilk.

HRC isn't the only Dem that can win. And the American people aren't demanding that we have a Kissinger-like foreign policy.

[wyldwolf]

55. ok, it only applies to them. Wait - anyone else you want to add to your expanding list?

We just need to be sure who we can praise and can't praise without it meaning we've "endorsed everything they've done."

[Ken Burch]

60. You don't have any valid point here.

There is no non-innocuous way to praise Henry Kissinger on his foreign policy legacy. It's not like she was saying he serves good canapes at his cocktail parties, for God's sakes.

[wyldwolf]

63. I have a completely valid point. Who can we praise without it being an endorsement?

[Ken Burch]

66. You can praise people who have done at least as much good as harm.

Henry Kissinger hasn't done any good at all(other than for Nelson Rockefeller and General Pinochet)in his entire life.

Kissinger was never just about "America looking strong". He was about our government crushing the hopes and dreams of most of the children of the Earth.

[wyldwolf]

70. Thanks! Now, who's the judge of this good vs. harm ratio?

[Ken Burch]

88. History:

Here's the historical record on Dr. K:

Vietnam: Nothing but horror.
Cambodia: Nothing but horror.
Chile: Nothing but horror.
East Timor: Nothing but horror.
Bangladesh: Nothing but horror.

China: A few nice photo ops in comfy chairs, leading eventually to slave labor production facilities for WalMart, plus pandas at America's zoos. Gave the bloodshed of Mao's "Cultural Revolution" a total pass(as Dr. K did in retirement when he basically endorsed the massacres in Beijing in 1989.

Pretty conclusive.

Nothing there you can really rebut.

[wyldwolf]

91. so your list shrinks to only include Kissinger again.

[Ken Burch]

93. You're making no meaningful point here.

Why are you belaboring this?

It doesn't matter whether it's Dr. K alone or not.

Stop already.

[wyldwolf]

94. Sure I am

Praising Kissinger means you endorse everything he's ever done. And that goes for a select few other people, too. But the qualifiers is history. And your historical benchmarks only included Kissinger stuff. So your list really only includes Kissinger. Unless it doesn't. Maybe only on weekends?

[Ken Burch]

96. In the first place, I SAID Kissinger...not the entire human race.

You were the one who dishonestly turned it into a question as to whether you could praise anyone at all without agreeing with all that that person said...which is totally different than what I was saying. And which you KNOW is totally different than what I was saying.

Kissinger is nothing but evil...and this thread is just about Kissinger, and HRC's support of him(which is what the quote Corn used in HRC's review meant). There's no difference between praising a Nuremburg-grade war criminal's book on foreign policy and praising the war crimes themselves. What HRC did here is not harmless "get-along to go-along" political schmoozing. It's not dismissable and it's not inadmissable.

It's not as if what I've applied to Kissinger here HAS to apply to everybody else or can't apply to anyone at all. I then simply extended it to a few other loathesome people.

No inconsistency there.

And it doesn't MATTER who the person is who told us about it. The story is the same, no matter the source.

[MyNameGoesHere]

123. Politicians, much like you did right here

compartmentalize much.

Perhaps you should run.

[blackspade]

35. You forgot the sarcasm thingy.

Reagan was none of these things.
He was divisive partisan that did huge amounts of damage to our political and social systems.

[Ken Burch]

72. Agreed. I'm no apologist for Reagan's actions.

What Obama was talking about was Reagan's ability to make his approach LOOK positive(which wasn't something Carter or Mondale, good men that both were, were able to do).

Obama wasn't endorsing Reagan's agenda...as opposed to HRC, who with Bill pushed the Democratic Party to endorse virtually all of it in 1992(as our platform did, to its eternal disgrace, because the American people weren't demanding that we move sharply to the right and apologize for ever disagreeing with the Right).

Can we put Obama's statement on Reagan to rest, already? It no longer matters. It's trivial to Clinton's gushing eulogies for Reagan and Nixon at their funerals(events Clinton should just have stayed silent at, if he had to go to them at all).

[Bodhi BloodWave]

129. hmm, wasn't what obama praised

simply how Reagan managed to shift the whole country's outlook on some issues and hoped he could do something similar(tho in a positive direction compared to Reagan's negative paradigm shift)

least thats how i seem to recall understanding what i read regarding his statement back then and quite honestly, if i became the leader of a country myself(unlikely to ever happen aside from computer games) I'd likely hope I'd be able to shift the country toward my views and values as well. I never saw it as an approval of his methods or results

[Louisiana1976]

28. I'd like to see Kissinger visit Argentina where he greenlighted the Dirty War. He's a war criminal--

he should see the inside of an Argentinian prison.

[RufusTFirefly]

71. If I remember correctly, there are a lot of places Kissinger can no longer travel

He's afraid of being arrested, just like his old buddy, Pinochet.

How great that he can still count Hillary Clinton as a friend at least.

[blackspade]

30. Are you fucking kidding me?

[ReRe]

31. K&R for EXPOSURE!

Every single day now, we hear an additional reason to not promote HRC. And this one pretty much knocks it out of the park: A home run to not vote for her, if you call yourself a Democrat.
Personally, I think she should change her party affiliation to Republican.

[DrBulldog]

37. I lived as an adult through the Nixon scandals ...

... and so I am now finally done with Hillary Clinton who has become a comedic farce - instead of a committed force - for progressive change.

I will be giving my full support for now to Bernie Sanders.

[cui bono]

48. Sen Sanders said on the Thom Hartmann show today that he is considering running.

He did say, although, that he's not the one who set up the exploratory committee or whatever.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

157. Bernie is also visiting

Iowa and Wisconsin this week - I hope huge crowds show up and that his appearances generate much national press. When was the last time we voted FOR someone? Oh yeah, 2008.

These revelations from HRC and Elizabeth's very pro-Israel stance need to be washed over with a tidal wave populist movement that Bernie is capable of engineering. That begins in 2014.

[JEB]

41. Dear Hillary,

If you can't bring yourself to condemn Kissinger, at least be smart enough to STFU.

[L0oniX]

47. This is the real true Hillary. Good luck! I'll bring flowers to the Democratic party funeral. RIP

[PoutrageFatigue]

67. Seriously? People are surprised at this?

Hillary is neither progressive, nor liberal, hell's bells I'm pretty sure this shows she's barely a Democrat... but this is not new news to most...

Run Bernie, Run!

[Le Taz Hot]

82. Check it out.

A Kissinger apologist. Un-fucking-believable!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025494973#post6

[elehhhhna]

84. fb€k

fv<k her

[Phlem]

92. Isn't this about the time the American people get setup?

Start it slowly, a few gaffes here and there, a few stupid words, then it's OMG we need to pile on and vote for her cause jeez look she's running against! She either doesn't get elected and it real bad, she gets elected and it's still bad but at a much slower pace. But she didn't lie. Cue beating each other up at DU.

[Barack_America]

97. Actually...he does.

If one is being honest about the reality of "American Values".

I doubt this is what Hillary was referring to though, which makes the comment rather vomit-inducing.

[alarimer]

99. I am not ever voting for her, even if she is the nominee.

I simply refuse to vote for someone who supports that war criminal Kissinger.

[grahamhgreen]

106. Like war, I guess.

[Dragonfli]

107. War is PEACE. yaknow...

[RufusTFirefly]

108. Come now. Be fair!

It isn't just about war.
Don't be such a cynic!
It's also about propping up dictators, overthrowing democratically elected governments, and both enabling and ignoring genocide.



What's not to like? Face it: President-elect Clinton has great taste in friends. And you're just envious.

[CanonRay]

110. Is she trying to piss me off?

[ZombieHorde]

114. No surprise from someone who voted for the Iraq war. nt

[fredamae]

127. Is she TRYING to Not

become a viable choice? Does she actually Believe "we" don't remember?
Geebus! I have grandkids who are registered voters....I've got to fill them in.
That is one of the dumbest statements I've heard a Dem Politician make in Quite some time!

[99Forever]

128. I don't know why this would surpise anyone.

This is exactly who Hillary Clinton is, and exactly why she'll never get my support for anything. Ever.

[progressoid]

130. WooHoo! Hillary/Kissinger 2014

That's the ticket!!11

[heaven05]

132. what BS!!!!

deplorable. Just one. Does anyone remember Allende? Evidently madam secretary doesn't or maybe she does. Hypocritical amerikan horseshit!!!!!

[antigop]

134. Christopher Hitchens on The Case Against Henry Kissinger (2001)

[Exultant Democracy]

135. Now that Madam is a disqualifying statment. I'm pretty amazed she made it seems like a slip

but how knows perhaps that knock on the head did more damage then we thought.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

154. Hillary lost it WAY before that knock on the head.

[YOHABLO]

136. She's naive if that's what she said and thinks. It's appalling. I may not vote for her regardless

who her opponent will be. It makes me sick she doesn't understand that Kissinger is just part of the thuggery of Washington.

[Billy Budd]

138. Kissinger Much worst than Putin

Kissinger is mega death itself .... he inflicted mafioso Pinochet on the people of Chile ...a trial and the rope for the old reprobate criminal bastard

[Initech]

139. If those values are war, war, and more war, then yes he does.

[ymetca]

140. The dilemma (for me at least)

is that the "lesser of two evils" is a rigged game, and that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". I am not sure how a representative Democracy can ever resolve this. To think otherwise is to delude ourselves.

We have to establish a global direct Democracy that transcends all national boundaries. I am a citizen of Planet Earth, and so are you. Nothing less will do.

Sigh. Yeah, I know. A pipe dream...

[radicalliberal]

141. Hillary Clinton: The Consummate Opportunist

From Goldwater Girl to Kissinger Kiss-Up. Absolutely disgusting!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

155. But not surprising, Hillary kissin up to Kissinger. Yuck!

[radicalliberal]

160. How about double "Yuck!" or make that a triple? (See below.)

[img][/img]

Look at the evil smile on his face as he beams with pride over his pet monster. No conscience whatsoever!

[Billy Budd]

142. Kiss... Quote

"The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves... l don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people."

-- Henry Kissinger on the US-backed coup d'etat in Chile.

[americannightmare]

146. I suppose that's appropriate...

since it isn't only Kissinger who has blood on his hands with all the killing, maiming and exploiting we've done all over the world for decades. Collectively we have allowed these people to warp our values - capitalism, not democracy, at the point of a gun, for a start...

[frylock]

147. good luck with your candidate, democrats..

I'm sure she'll carry California, but not with my vote.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

156. Surely we can do better than a warmonger, Wall Street corporatist like Hillary.

[MissDeeds]

161. +10000

Sickening. If she wins the primary, we'll have two Rethugs running for president. Hillary in no way embodies the values and principles of the Democratic Party.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

179. Truer words were never spoken.

[hifiguy]

148. That may be the most sickening thing I have

ever seen from someone claiming to be a Democrat. Kissinger is a fucking war criminal, and if he is not the term has no meaning whatsoever. He should have been hanged or locked away for life forty years ago.

I would not vote for this woman if a gun were placed to my head.

[ann---]

151. I think she

has lost it. Writing in Jimmy Carter's name next presidential election.

[loyalsister]

153. That statement guarantees protests if she or a surrogate visit my town in MISSOURI!

There's a group called peaceworks that protested when Kirsten Gore came to town. They would come out in force and the most faithful liberals would show up.
Not only that, the millenials are becoming a force in the electorate. Young people whose friends, and older siblings, parents, etc. just carried two wars. Why would she think that in any universe they vote for such a hawkishness???

[Katashi_itto]

158. Jeezus.

I knew she didn't have a clue before. But sweet Jeezus....

[MissDeeds]

159. OMG

Hillary is a Kissinger apologist, and she's considering a run for the White House as a Democrat? In what universe is this okay?

[OldRedneck]

162. WTF?????

I guess she never heard of Vietnam, bombing Cambodia, bombing Laos. Never heard of August Pinochet, car bombs on DuPont Circle.

[eShirl]

163. Haven't you ever heard of a "Kissinger Democrat" before?

No?
Neither have I.

[LoisB]

165. "I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state"...Jiminy Crickets!! To

rely on the counsel of one of the worst people on the planet says a lot about Hillary.

[pangaia]

166. One of many saving graces of living in New York,

is that I do not have to vote for this woman.

[rbrnmw]

170. really Hillary?

I'm very disappointed in her. I will be voting for some else in the Primaries.

[Ilsa]

173. ABH.

Anyone But Hilary will get my primary vote.

And if she is the nominee, I might vote Green Party.

[blkmusclmachine]

174. I'm getting an uneasy feeling that maybe the 1% WANTS Dem's to lose to the GOP in 2016. Maybe

it's the GOP's turn back in the White House, and Hillary is trying to damage DEM Credibility as much as possible to make that happen. NOTHING would surprise me at this point.

[cpwm17]

176. She appears to be trolling again.

She enthusiastically supported and voted for the world's worst crime this century: the Iraq War. And recently she made sick comments about dead children in Gaza and now she praises the world's worst living war criminal.

[Uncle Joe]

177. If Kissinger stands for "American Values" then we're in deep shit because our

moral values are bankrupt.

Thanks for the thread, markpkessinger.

[BlueMTexpat]

178. Blech ... just blech ... eom