A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN |
A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN |
|
|
It’s Not Too Late for a Kissinger Reckoning |
By David Corn December 2, 2023 |
Henry Kissinger, then secretary of state, at a news conference in in Salzburg, June 11, 1974. AP |
|
|
The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic. That observation has long been attributed to Stalin, though there’s no evidence he ever said this, and the remark most likely originated with a 1932 essay written by Kurt Tucholsky, a German journalist, satirist, and pacifist. Whatever its source, the comment applies to Henry Kissinger. As I noted this week in my anti-appreciation of the statesman who died on Wednesday at the age of 100, Kissinger left behind a bloody legacy that includes full or partial culpability for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians—perhaps more than a million—around the globe.
Kissinger, as President Richard Nixon’s national security adviser, orchestrated the arguably illegal secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War (150,000 to 500,000 civilians killed). He and Nixon supported the strongman ruler of Pakistan when he sent troops into East Pakistan who slaughtered Bengalis (300,000 civilians killed). He and Nixon used the CIA to foment instability in Chile, encouraged a military coup against a democratically elected socialist government, and supported the murderous dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet (several thousand civilians killed). In 1975, Kissinger, now secretary of state, and President Gerald Ford gave Indonesian President Suharto a green light to invade East Timor (200,000 civilians killed). They also provided the okay signal to the Dirty War conducted by the antisemitic Argentine junta (30,000 civilians killed).
It all adds up. If Kissinger had strangled with his bare hands a Cambodian (or an East Pakistani, East Timorese, Argentine, or Chilean), he would have been cast out of polite society. But all these dead people—that’s just a statistic. He paid little, if any, price for his role in these massacres—which he justified as the necessary acts of realpolitik diplomacy. Sure, protesters would sometimes razz him. Journalists and authors would chronicle his misdeeds. That certainly was no fun. But following his government service—in which he achieved diplomatic successes, such as the opening to China and the negotiation of nuclear arms treaties with the Soviet Union—he spent decades making millions as a consultant. He was an op-ed titan, always invited to share his grand thoughts in the most prestigious outlets. A regular at Davos and other elite gatherings. He advised presidents and secretaries of state of both parties. He lived well. He was routinely and roundly praised, hailed as the wisest of wise men.
One example: Hillary Clinton was a fangirl. She and hubby Bill protested the Vietnam War. But when they joined the power elite, they befriended Kissinger. Reviewing one of his books in 2014, she referred to him as a pal, cited the counsel she received from him when she was secretary of state, and wrote, “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 standing up for American values? That was bunk. What Clinton did not disclose in that review was that she and Bill had spent winter holidays with Kissinger and his wife, Nancy, at the beachfront villa of fashion designer Oscar de la Renta and his wife, Annette, in the Dominican Republic.
Thinking about Clinton and Kissinger brings to mind one of the more memorable moments of the 2016 Democratic presidential contest. During a debate in New Hampshire, Sen. Bernie Sanders jabbed Clinton for having cited Kissinger as a supporter of her stint at Foggy Bottom. “I happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country,” Sanders huffed, adding, “I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger.” He referred to the secret bombing of Cambodia as a Kissinger-orchestrated move that eventually led to genocide in that country. “So count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger,” Sanders roared. Clinton defended her association with Kissinger by replying, “I listen to a wide variety of voices that have expertise in various areas.”
Sanders was once again expressing an outsider’s sentiment. That’s not how the ruling class viewed dear Henry.
Kissinger’s past never caught up to him. And his résumé of wrongdoing included more than the slaughters mentioned above. During the 1968 presidential campaign, while he advised President Lyndon Johnson’s team at the Paris peace talks, which were aimed at ending the Vietnam War, he underhandedly passed information on the talks to Nixon’s camp, which was plotting to sabotage the negotiations. After the secret bombing in Cambodia was revealed by the New York Times, Kissinger urged the FBI to wiretap journalists and his own aides to discover who was leaking. This effort led to more Nixon White House spying on its enemies (real or imagined) that eventually yielded Watergate. When Kissinger in the Ford years learned that the military dictatorships of South America had organized a joint operation to assassinate their political foes inside and outside their countries, he blocked a State Department attempt to thwart these international killings. That operation subsequently exploded a car bomb in Washington, DC, and killed former Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier and his young American colleague, Ronni Moffitt. One of his favorite quips: “The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.”
And let’s not forget his cynical betrayal of the Kurds. In 1973, Kissinger and Nixon, as a favor to the repressive Shah of Iran, a US ally, had the CIA secretly assist Iraqi Kurds organize an uprising against Saddam Hussein. But when the Shah struck a deal with the Iraqi tyrant, Kissinger and the CIA cut off support for the Kurds. They were routed by Saddam’s forces. A secret 1976 congressional report that covered this tragic tale quoted a "high U.S. official" as having said, "Covert action should not be confused with missionary work."
So with all the blood on his hands and all the skullduggery in his past, why did Kissinger retain his high professional and social standing for so many decades until the day he died? MSNBC host Joy Reid asked me this question on her show on Thursday night. I replied that this has always been a puzzlement for me. Kissinger was never shamed. He was never shunned. The best explanation I could come up with is that the establishment protects its own. Once in the club, always in the club. Certainly, Kissinger was a smart fellow and could offer much in terms of experience and knowledge. I hear he could be quite witty and engaging at a cocktail party. But enough to outweigh the damage he wreaked at home and abroad?
Then again, I pointed out to Reid, look at the Iraq War. Many of the foreign policy pundits and experts who guided the United States into that calamity—which resulted in the deaths of several thousand American soldiers and 200,000 Iraqi civilians, the rise of ISIS, and the destabilization of an entire region—kept their perches as highly regarded op-ed pontificators and television commentators. No one booted them off the air or pulled their punditry licenses for contributing to such a catastrophe. They easily avoided retribution. Kissinger was the champion of that—an escape artist able to sidestep responsibility for his transgressions. That probably says more about the foreign policy elite and the opinion class than Kissinger himself.
Consider the Kissinger obituary that ran in the New York Times the morning after he expired. It began on the front page and continued across two pages on the inside. It was clearly drawn from a much longer article that was cut to fit into this space. The piece featured several paragraphs on Kissinger’s personal life. (He dated—platonically—actress Jill St. John!) It said virtually nothing about Chile. A more extensive version subsequently posted online included a whole section on Chile. But this shows us that editors at the paper the night he died had considered Kissinger’s romantic endeavors more important to include in the print edition than his role in destroying Chilean democracy. For that version, they also cut out an entire section that listed the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths that can be attributed to Kissinger’s decisions. A reader who turned to the online obit received a fuller picture. A reader who read the hard copy learned more about Kissinger’s skirt-chasing days than his actions that enabled massive slaughters.
But both opened with this description of Kissinger: “the scholar-turned-diplomat who engineered the United States’ opening to China, negotiated its exit from Vietnam, and used cunning, ambition and intellect to remake American power relationships with the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, sometimes trampling on democratic values to do so.” Sometimes trampling on democratic values? That was quite the undersell. (Two days after he died, the Times ran the full obituary in its print version.)
Kissinger might have been the first foreign-policy celebrity. He dazzled with his intellect and arrogance. He entertained seekers of gossip. Yet he lived the one-man-versus-millions maxim associated with Stalin. And his fame and fortune protected him from accountability. Call it the Kissinger Effect. Now that he is finally gone, perhaps it will be easier to see him for the malevolent force he was. History is not over, and it will never be too late for a reckoning.
Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com. |
|
|
Dumbass Comment of the Week |
The DCotW judges asked if we could create a new category for Elon Musk. He won our last contest for endorsing a tweeter who declared that Jews push “hatred against whites.” This week, if the judges weren’t so tired of his BS, he would’ve triumphed again for either (a) amplifying the much-debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory or (b) telling companies such as Disney and Apple that pulled their ads in response to his promotion of antisemitism and to the placement of ads on X adjacent to white supremacist material to “go fuck yourself.” Yes, that’s what he said at a much-watched live interview with New York Times journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin. This is not typically how you win back advertisers. Moreover, at that event, Musk came across as troubled and manic. It is scary to think he controls major aerospace and car companies, let alone an important public square. If you can stand an overdose of crazy, watch the entire interview.
|
Though Musk was scratched from this week’s competition, he did set up the winner. More on that in a moment. Let’s first go to the runners-up.
House Speaker Mike Johnson made it to the starting line with a remark about the GOP’s impeachment crusade against President Joe Biden. He said: We lamented openly, we decried how the Democrats politicized that process. They were brazenly political. And how they brought those meritless impeachment charges against the president. What you’re seeing here is exactly the opposite. We are the rule of law team. The Republican Party stands for the rule of law.
|
Did you do a spit take when you heard that? The party that is on the path to nominate the inciter-in-chief who has vowed to pardon the rioters who assaulted the US Capitol to overturn an election is the rule-of-law party? Is Johnson delusional or gaslighting? More to the point, when the Democrats impeached Donald Trump, each time there was a clear predicate for the impeachment. First, Trump’s mob-boss-like attempt to pressure an ally to orchestrate a phony investigation of Joe Biden. Second, Trump’s promotion of the Big Lie and his encouragement of an insurrectionist attack. One can argue whether he deserved impeachment and conviction for this wrongdoing. But it was clear in both instances what impeachment was about. You cannot say that about the House GOP’s project. There is still no evidence of any Biden improbity that warrants impeachment. House Republicans do have cause to investigate the dealings of Hunter Biden and to determine if his business shenanigans were connected to his pop. Just don’t call that an impeachment.
This week, Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Pa.) made it into the running. On the House floor, he assailed Bidenomics and exclaimed, “This is the second worst jobs report of the Biden Presidency. The unemployment rate rose to 3.9 percent.” |
It rose one-tenth of a point from the previous month. When Biden took office, unemployment was 6.3 percent. It’s been under 4 percent for two years now. This is not something to complain about.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif), the former House speaker and that guy who still sticks around, uttered a mega-ignorant remark. Wearing a tuxedo, he (very self-righteously) proclaimed, “In every single war that America has fought, we have never asked for land afterward—except for enough to bury the Americans who gave the ultimate sacrifice for freedom.” |
Obviously, there’s no requirement you must read a history book to serve in Congress. (The founders messed up.) As commenters on X noted, the US grabbed half of what was then Mexico after the Mexican-American War of the 1840s. It also snatched Guam, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico during the Spanish-American War. And ask Native Americans about McCarthy’s observation that the US military has only fought for freedom.
On to the winner: Linda Yaccarino, the CEO of X and Musk’s wing-woman. He brought her into the company to soothe and attract advertisers. She was at the event when Musk told them to screw themselves and when he exclaimed that if X collapsed it would be the fault of these big corporations who declined to pay for ads on his site—not Musk’s for degrading the user experience and expressing alt-right and antisemitic sentiments on the site.
After Musk’s tantrum, she posted this message on X:
Today @elonmusk gave a wide ranging and candid interview at @dealbook 2023. He also offered an apology, an explanation and an explicit point of view about our position. X is enabling an information independence that's uncomfortable for some people. We're a platform that allows people to make their own decisions. And here’s my perspective when it comes to advertising: X is standing at a unique and amazing intersection of Free Speech and Main Street — and the X community is powerful and is here to welcome you. To our partners who believe in our meaningful work -- Thank You.
|
This was corporate-speak nonsense. Yaccarino was saying that advertisers who eschewed Musk’s X are wusses who are “uncomfortable” with “information independence.” That is, if a company doesn’t want to be associated with Musk’s hate-driven X-rants or with social media posts from Nazis and white supremacists, it’s just being prissy and can’t handle the rough-and-tumble world of “information independence.” Good luck, Linda, selling that to Disney and the rest. |
The mail this week covered a wide variety of subjects. Mike Jozwiak wrote in to direct our attention to an important piece: Margaret Sullivan’s recent article in The Guardian contained a strong warning to the mainstream media about the danger of “both sides, “balanced” reporting when it comes to dealing with the threats posed by the 2024 Trump candidacy.
I concur. Sullivan wrote that it is the media’s job to “get across to American citizens the crucial importance of this election and the dangers of a Trump win. They don’t need to surrender their journalistic independence to do so or be ‘in the tank’ for Biden or anyone else.” This is something I think about every day, and I hope her article was widely read in newsrooms across the nation.
Craig Jones had a request:
Please tell us your thoughts about the psychology of voters who would vote for Trump. We don’t have enough reeducation camps to detoxify the current cult numbers.
I wish I had an answer. This has been a mystery for me for eight years now. I can understand right-wing voters being pissed off and nurturing all sorts of resentments predicated on real or imagined grievances. Still, why be drawn to Trump, who is an obvious charlatan and con man? Is the desire to have a champion—even a phony one—so strong that you overlook his narcissism, incompetence, and lies? I know that his bigotry and hatred is, for many voters, part of the attraction. A feature not a bug. They want him directing that animus at their perceived enemies. That impulse, as destructive as it is, seems rather powerful for the MAGA cult.
Charlotte Dunham responded to my recent articles on Mike Johnson’s fundamentalist beliefs:
What is not spoken but relevant to this debate is that people like Mike Johnson reject the idea that the United States is built on the foundation of a secular state based on the rule of law. We thrive because our society is based on the principle that we are a democracy with majority rule but with protection of the rights of individual, including freedom of religion. The problem is that Christian nationalists, reject that fundamental foundation of our country.
Therefore, they are perfectly comfortable signing petitions that, no matter the outcome of the election in Ohio on abortion, they will override the will of the people because they think they are enacting the “will of god.” Our country survives because we provide individual rights to worship, or not worship, but we reject a state religion that tells us how to worship or what to believe. People like Johnson reject this basic foundation of who we are, and that is what makes him dangerous. For me, it’s not that he hates abortion based on religious beliefs, but it’s that he and people like him are willing to make those beliefs enforced by the state, even though this is not the faith of most Americans.
Peter Kovar emailed:
Thanks for the additional evidence of Johnson’s extreme views. In some ways it may make more sense to think—with people like him—that their conservatism controls their religious views rather than the reverse. In other words, his religious worldview is a convenient framework over which to drape his conservative opinions. But if the two come into conflict (say around Biblical urgings to aid the poor) the conservatism seems to win out. Even support for so-called moral living through perhaps not engaging in adultery (I’m thinking of a recent president here) is easily forgiven if the person in question can help the conservative political cause.
Bette Piacente reacted to the criticism I received from arch-conservative Catholic activist Bill Donohue for writing about Johnson’s fundamentalism:
That Donahue feels compelled to spew hatred on news people is very disturbing to me. Having read your book American Psychosis, and many other recent history discussions on American democracy, I continue to be alarmed at the goals of these hyper-fundamentalists. Fire and brimstone is their stock in trade. The fear and hatred they spread has poisoned our land and our future. I spent my youth in fundamentalist Lutheran dogma. The fear they instilled in me took years of hard work to overcome. That this small sect of maniacs has risen to such prominence in the US has done a lot to undermine my outlook on the future of a free and democratic society for my grandchildren.
I share your newsletters with my friends and family in an attempt to offer another world view: one based in the golden rule and science. That is all the religion I need!
Thanks, Bette. This is a good reminder: Please do forward Our Land to friends, relatives, colleagues, and nemeses, whenever you can—with, of course, the suggestion that the recipient sign up at www.davidcorn.com to receive their own copies. Peer-to-peer persuasion is the best persuasion there is, and readers can do much to help us expand the reach of Our Land and keep it a thriving enterprise.
|
“Is that really a dog, Moxie?” “Yes, don’t be so judge-y.”
“Species solidarity?” “Forever. You humans should try it.” |
Read Recent Issues of Our Land |
November 28, 2023: Nikki Haley’s idiotic proposal; Mike Johnson’s spiritual warfare; Dumb Money is a smart pick; a Laura Cantrell duet with Steve Earle; and more. November 21, 2023: The tragic indifference of “no ceasefire”; a Thanksgiving time-out; David Fincher’s silent Killer; Claire Lynch rides an “Empty Train”; and more.
November 18, 2023: Is it anti-Christian to criticize Speaker Mike Johnson?; the congressional ethics report on George Santos; a bizarre Albania-Russia-GOP caper; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Elon Musk); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
November 14, 2023: The Money Kings and Zionism, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories; the GOP’s minority rule; Oisin Leech’s “October Sun”; and more.
November 11, 2023: Donald Trump and revenge: a love atory; the GOP and minority rule on abortion; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more. November 7, 2023: Can we doomscroll to peace in the Middle East?; Mike Johnson in the Holy Land; “Now and Then” more Lennon than Beatles; the meta rock world of Daisy Jones & the Six; and more.
November 4, 2023: How the Hamas-Israel war threatens American democracy; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Jared Kushner); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
October 31, 2023: Scoop: Mike Johnson urged a religious test for politicians; Michael J. Fox can’t sit still in his new documentary; U2 goes atomic; and more.
October 28, 2023: Leonard Leo and the Deep State on the right; recent news about Mitt Romney and Mike Johnson; Dumbass Comment of the Week (House Republicans); the Mailbag; and more. October 24, 2023: Imagine Trump in charge during the Hamas-Israel war; Steve Bannon and Alex Jones conspiracy-mongering together; a Jim Jordan tale; George Santos speaks; and more.
October 21, 2023: Biden and Netanyahu’s delicate dance; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Ari Fleischer); the Mailbag: MoxieCam™; and more. |
|
|
Got suggestions, comments, complaints, tips related to any of the above, or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com. |
|
|
|