Crocodiles take exception to comparison with Henry Kissinger

Croc with butterflies May 18 2014

Perhaps I should reconsider my comparisons of the crocodile to the detestable Henry Kissinger after viewing this photo. Such an endearing creature & such an ignoble comparison!

How did it happen in human history that animals were once the models of stupidity, cruelty, & violence & now it’s politicians!? Maybe in the future when we want to make a point about bestiality & depraved behavior we can just reference Kissinger & leave the animals out of it.

(Photographer not identified.)

Mary Scully

| War Criminal: Why Is Henry Kissinger Walking Around Free?

Why Is Henry Kissinger Walking Around Free?Andy PiascikZNet.


Two months ago, hundreds of thousands of Chileans somberly marked the 40th anniversary of their nation’s September 11th terrorist event. It was on that date in 1973 that the Chilean military, armed with a generous supply of funds and weapons from the United States, and assisted by the CIA and other operatives, overthrew the democratically-elected government of the moderate socialist Salvador Allende. Sixteen years of repression, torture and death followed under the fascist Augusto Pinochet, while the flow of hefty profits to US multinationals – IT&T, Anaconda Copper and the like – resumed. Profits, along with concern that people in other nations might get ideas about independence, were the very reason for the coup and even the partial moves toward nationalization instituted by Allende could not be tolerated by the US business class.

Henry Kissinger was national security advisor and one of the principle architects – perhaps the principle architect – of the coup in Chile. US-instigated coups were nothing new in 1973, certainly not in Latin America, and Kissinger and his boss Richard Nixon were carrying on a violent tradition that spanned the breadth of the 20th century and continues in the 21st – see, for example, Venezuela in 2002 (failed) and Honduras in 2009 (successful). Where possible, such as in Guatemala in 1954 and Brazil in 1964, coups were the preferred method for dealing with popular insurgencies. In other instances, direct invasion by US forces such as happened on numerous occasions in Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and many other places, was the fallback option.

The coup in Santiago occurred as US aggression in Indochina was finally winding down after more than a decade. From 1969 through 1973, it was Kissinger again, along with Nixon, who oversaw the slaughter in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. It is impossible to know with precision how many were killed during those four years; all the victims were considered enemies, including the vast majority who were non-combatants, and the US has never been much interested in calculating the deaths of enemies. Estimates of Indochinese killed by the US for the war as a whole start at four million and are likely more, perhaps far more. It can thus be reasonably extrapolated that probably more than a million, and certainly hundreds of thousands, were killed while Kissinger and Nixon were in power.

In addition, countless thousands of Indochinese have died in the years since from the affects of the massive doses of Agent Orange and other Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction unleashed by the US. Many of us here know (or, sadly, knew) soldiers who suffered from exposure to such chemicals; multiply their numbers by 1,000 or 10,000 or 50,000 – again, it’s impossible to know with accuracy – and we can begin to understand the impact on those who live in and on the land that was so thoroughly poisoned as a matter of US policy.

Studies by a variety of organizations including the United Nations also indicate that at least 25,000 people have died in Indochina since war’s end from unexploded US bombs that pocket the countryside, with an equivalent number maimed. As with Agent Orange, deaths and ruined lives from such explosions continue to this day. So 40 years on, the war quite literally goes on for the people of Indochina, and it is likely it will go on for decades more.

Near the end of his time in office, Kissinger and his new boss Gerald Ford pre-approved the Indonesian dictator Suharto’s invasion of East Timor in 1975, an illegal act of aggression again carried out with weapons made in and furnished by the US. Suharto had a long history as a bagman for US business interests; he ascended to power in a 1965 coup, also with decisive support and weapons from Washington, and undertook a year-long reign of terror in which security forces and the army killed more than a million people (Amnesty International, which rarely has much to say about the crimes of US imperialism, put the number at 1.5 million).

In addition to providing the essential on-the-ground support, Kissinger and Ford blocked efforts by the global community to stop the bloodshed when the terrible scale of Indonesian violence became known, something UN ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan openly bragged about. Again, the guiding principle of empire, one that Kissinger and his kind accept as naturally as breathing, is that independence cannot be allowed. That’s true even in a country as small as East Timor where investment opportunities are slight, for independence is contagious and can spread to places where far more is at stake, like resource-rich Indonesia. By the time the Indonesian occupation finally ended in 1999, 200,000 Timorese – 30 percent of the population – had been wiped out. Such is Kissinger’s legacy and it is a legacy well understood by residents of the global South no matter the denial, ignorance or obfuscation of the intelligentsia here.

If the United States is ever to become a democratic society, and if we are ever to enter the international community as a responsible party willing to wage peace instead of war, to foster cooperation and mutual aid rather than domination, we will have to account for the crimes of those who claim to act in our names like Kissinger. Our outrage at the crimes of murderous thugs who are official enemies like Pol Pot is not enough. A cabal of American mis-leaders from Kennedy on caused for far more Indochinese deaths than the Khmer Rouge, after all, and those responsible should be judged and treated accordingly.

The urgency of the task is underscored as US aggression proliferates at an alarming rate. Millions of people around the world, most notably in an invigorated Latin America, are working to end the “might makes right” ethos the US has lived by since its inception. The 99 percent of us here who have no vested interest in empire would do well to join them.

There are recent encouraging signs along those lines, with the successful prevention of a US attack on Syria particularly noteworthy. In addition, individuals from various levels of empire have had their lives disrupted to varying degrees. David Petraeus, for example, has been hounded by demonstrators since being hired by CUNY earlier this year to teach an honors course; in 2010, Dick Cheney had to cancel a planned trip to Canada because the clamor for his arrest had grown quite loud; long after his reign ended, Pinochet was arrested by order of a Spanish magistrate for human right violations and held in England for 18 months before being released because of health problems; and earlier this year, Efrain Rios Montt, one of Washington’s past henchmen in Guatemala, was convicted of genocide, though accomplices of his still in power have since intervened on his behalf to obstruct justice.

More pressure is needed, and allies of the US engaged in war crimes like Paul Kagame should be dealt with as Pinochet was. More important perhaps for those of in the US is that we hound Rumsfeld, both Clintons, Rice, Albright and Powell, to name a few, for their crimes against humanity every time they show themselves in public just as Petraeus has been. That holds especially for our two most recent War-Criminals-in-Chief, Barack Bush and George W. Obama.

Getting in Kissinger’s face

By Scipes, Kim at Nov 16, 2013 14:35 PM

For anyone interested, here’s my account of an interaction I had with this war criminal!

________________________________________________________________________

KISSINGER XX

| War Criminal Kissinger: A diplomatic colossus who is still a key influence in US amid Syria crisis!

Henry Kissinger: A diplomatic colossus who is still a key influence in US amid Syria crisis ~ SEAN O’GRADYThe Independent.

His centrality to US foreign policy goes all the way back to 1960s but for his critics, the Kissinger realipolitik has yielded much that was little short of evil. 

There is a 90-year-old “war criminal” helping to frame the foreign policy of the Obama administration. Perhaps a little surprising. Until, of course, you realise that the old boy in question is Henry Kissinger, and he has been advising the White House on a subject he knows well – the Russians.

That the Americans are actively co-operating with Putin on the Syrian crisis and the eradication of Assad’s chemical weapons is as startling a development as it is a welcome one, and Kissinger, we are told, has been guiding thinking behind the scenes. Asked recently in public whether America and Russia can enjoy a fresh bout of the sort of détente with Russia he famously pioneered in the early 1970s, Kissinger replied that “it will be extremely difficult, but if they can it will be beneficial to all. Russia will gain prestige, Obama will be vindicated and Assad will be removed, and that would be the best possible outcome.” Sharp as ever, then.

Although recent developments are nowhere on the scale of the strategic arms limitations talks and treaties between the US and the Soviet Union driven by Kissinger four decades ago – the first thawing in the Cold War and the first meaningful limits placed on the nuclear arms race – it is a hopeful development. It is also one that suggests that the two superpowers are relearning the merits of another doctrine Kissinger was associated with – “realpolitik”, the recognition that where raw national interests can be made to converge through diplomacy, then lasting good can emerge.

Its apogee was the Paris Peace Accord of 1973. This, formally, ended the Vietnam War, which President Nixon and Kissinger had concluded was unwinnable. Kissinger achieved the signal honour of jointly gaining the Nobel Peace Prize for that achievement. His North Korean counterpart, Le Duc Tho, declined the award, indicating that the accords didn’t represent real peace at all – an accurate view. The American humourist Tom Lehrer quipped that Kissinger’s award represented the “death of satire”. But it did allow the US to start to extricate itself from its agony.

It had also been Kissinger who paved the way for Nixon’s visit to China in 1972. America had treated Beijing as a pariah ever since the Communists won power in 1949; now Nixon opened up diplomatic channels and laid the foundations for China to rejoin the world community, with all the momentous consequences we see all around us today.

For Kissinger’s critics, though, the Kissinger realpolitik has yielded much that was little short of evil. Christopher Hitchens, in 2001, claimed to have amassed sufficient evidence to secure prosecutions for “war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offences against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture”. This is somewhat more than hyperbole; the experience of General Pinochet has made the travels of Dr Kissinger a little more risky.

The charge sheet is extremely long, even considering the eight eventful years Kissinger was running US foreign policy: he and the CIA helped orchestrate the coup against the elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende, and his murder in 1973; he and Nixon invaded neutral Cambodia in 1970; they indiscriminately bombed civilians in that long war; connived in the Indonesians’ brutal repression in East Timor; left the Kurds to their fate at the hands of Saddam as early as 1972; the list goes on. “War criminal” and Nobel Peace Prize holder; the unique genius of Henry Kissinger.

Among the American political establishment, there is no doubt, he is held in awe, reverence even. His 90th birthday celebrations earlier this year were a glittering affair, attended by Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, James Baker, John McCain, Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, Susan Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Bloomberg, former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, David Petraeus, Barbara Walters, Wendi Deng, plus Tina Brown and Harold Evans. Senator McCain summed it up: “His legacy is the stewardship of our nation in the most difficult of times and his continued important voice on national security policies. He is a man who has a unique place in the world. I know of no individual who is more respected in the world than Henry Kissinger.”

Kissinger is a sort of talisman, not for the sort of foreign policy America would like to have, and sometimes attempts – the idealism of a Woodrow Wilson or a Jimmy Carter – but the kind that they believe America has to have, hard-headed and realistic. Kissinger’s doctoral thesis – “Peace, Legitimacy and the Equilibrium” – was on the policies of Metternich and Castlereagh. These two practised great-power politics in a way Kissinger was to emulate – engagement with great powers of the time to win a stable balance of power. Then, Europe; in Henry’s time, the world. Kissinger was supremely good at that; subsequent holders of the office have been less successful.

Kissinger also has an abiding appeal because he is so emblematic of the American dream. This is not so much despite his German-Jewish background, but because of it. He was born Heinz Alfred Kissinger in Bavaria in 1923, about 100 miles from where an upstart Adolf Hitler was attempting his “beer-hall putsch”. According to the US constitution, Henry could never have been President, but he could still do everything but. His family fled Nazi persecution in 1938 – as a child in New York he would cross the street if he saw a group of kids coming towards him, having been beaten up so many times back home.

The family settled in New York, and he lived out the American dream. “When you think of my life, who could have possibly have imagined that I’d wind up as Secretary of State of the greatest country in the world?” he once said. “I mean, when I couldn’t even go to German schools… When I think I was a delivery boy in New York.” That thick Germanic accent, in a voice so earthy you could grow spuds in it, is a reminder of the dream. The only trace of his Bavarian origins, bar the accent, is a lifelong affection for the Fürth football team, from his hometown.

Young Henry – he’d dropped the “Heinz” – soon began to shine academically; his progress to Harvard interrupted by wartime service: He spent 1945 hunting down members of the Gestapo. By the 1950s he had begun his long march into the upper echelons of academia.

Despite his long intimate association with Richard Nixon, Kissinger in fact goes back so far as to have been a consultant to the National Security Council under President Kennedy, though he did not last long in post after he said “I wouldn’t recognise the Baluchistan problem if it hit me in the face” during an official visit to Pakistan. (Oddly, for such a diplomat, Kissinger cannot resist himself; Bangladesh dismissed as a “basket case”, and “it’s a pity they can’t both lose” about the Iran-Iraq war).

Henry and Dick first met at an elegant New York cocktail party hosted by Clare Boothe Luce, playwright, politician and one-time US ambassador to Italy, in 1967, at her home on Fifth Avenue. Nixon had been impressed by Kissinger’s analysis of superpower politics, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, and told him so. Kissinger, was not so impressed with Nixon: “not fit to be president”. Nonetheless, Kissinger was chosen to run Nixon’s foreign policy, and so was a remarkable partnership formed; it ended with Nixon’s resignation in 1974. The night before Nixon quit, Kissinger joined him in a tearful session; “Henry,” he said, “you are not a very orthodox Jew, and I am not an orthodox Quaker, but we need to pray.”

With a reputation as a ladies’ man, Kissinger has been married twice. His first marriage, to Ann Fleischer, was stormy, and ended in divorce, after 15 years, in 1964 (his two children are from that union). Ten years later his aphrodisiacs worked on the striking Nancy, with whom he is still together. In between there were reportedly many girlfriends.

According to some this “swinger” image was a conscious effort to humanise him and secure pictures in the society gossip columns. Kissinger said “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac… They are women attracted only to my power. But what happens when my power is gone? They’re not going to sit around playing chess with me.” Oddly, they still are, and he is still a player in the great game.

A Life In Brief

Born: Heinz Alfred Kissinger, May 21 1923, Fürth, Bavaria, Germany.

Family: Son of a schoolteacher and a homemaker. Kissinger has one younger brother, Walter. He first married Ann Fleischer. They divorced in 1964. The couple had two children, Elizabeth and David. He is now married to Nancy Maginnes.

Education: City College of New York and Harvard University (MA & PhD).

Career: After returning to the US from his Second World War deployment,  Kissinger enrolled into Harvard, planning to become an academic. He became a faculty member in the Department of Government, receiving tenure in 1959. His 1957 book Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy became a landmark text book. He went on to serve as the National Security Adviser in the Nixon administration. In 1973, he won the Nobel Peace Prize for his Vietnam War ceasefire agreement with Le Duc Tho. He was appointed chair of the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America and then of the President’s Foreign Intelligence under Reagan and Bush. His memoirs have been highly regarded, with the first of the trilogy, The White House Years, winning the National Book Award for History in 1980. He also written over 13 books on foreign policy.

He says: “We can’t be the world’s policeman but we can be the world’s last resort.”

They say: “He was the 20th century’s greatest 19th-century statesman.” Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic

_________________________________________________________________________

KISSINGER XX

 

“Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”

― Henry Kissinger

Did Henry Kissinger really say this about military men?

The sentence was reported in “The Final Days”, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein

It was said by Kissinger in front of Alexander Haig, newly appointed White House chief of staff, in Haig new office in 1973

I quote to you the sentences related: as you may notice the quote between brackets is “dumb, stupid animals to be used” that was never denied by Kissinger

Quote:
….
In Haig’s presence, Kissinger referred pointedly to military men as “dumb, stupid animals to be used” as pawns for foreign policy. Kissinger often took up a post outside the doorway to Haig’s office and dressed him down in front of the secretaries for alleged acts of incompetence with which Haig was not even remotely involved. Once when the Air Force was authorized to resume bombing of North Vietnam, the planes did not fly on certain days because of bad weather. Kissinger assailed Haig. He complained bitterly that the generals had been screamin for the limits to be taken off but that now their pilots were afraid to go up in a little fog. The country needed generals who could win battles, Kissinger said, not good briefers like Haig.
………
[paragraph]
On another occasion, when Haig was leaving for a trip to Cambodia to meet with Premier Lon Nol, Kissinger escorted him to a staff car, where reporters and a retinue of aides waited. As Haig bent to get into the automobile, Kissinger stopped him and began polishing the single star on his shoulder. “Al, if you’re a good boy, I’ll get you another one,” he said.

end of quote

Source:

Bob Woodward & Carl Bernstein 
The Final Days 
second Touchstone paperback edition (1994) 
Chapter 14, pp. 194-195

 

Kissinger A us kissin israel's ass3

| ‘Who controls the past controls the future’: Assange presents massive Project K leak!

‘Who controls the past controls the future’: Assange presents massive Project K leak ~ RT.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange formally unveiled on Monday the latest release from the whistleblower site, Project K, calling it “the single most significant geopolitical publication that has ever existed.”

Speaking via Skype from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Assange introduced Project K on Monday morning to a group of journalists at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

Nearly three years earlier to the day, Assange spoke at the Press Club in person to debut “Collateral Murder,” a video of US soldiers firing at Iraqi civilians that has since become one of WikiLeaks’ most well-recognized contributions to journalism. Since that release, WikiLeaks and the organization’s associates have become the target of a number of government investigations, with Assange himself having been confined to the embassy in London for nearly one year while awaiting safe passage to Ecuador where he was granted political asylum. Ongoing attempts to prosecute the journalists for sharing state secrets aside, however, Assange and company have now unloaded the organization’s biggest leak yet.

Project K, says Assange, contains roughly 1.7 million files composed of US Department of State diplomatic communications. And although the material has been classified, declassified and, in some instances, re-classified, the public’s inability to access and peruse the unredacted copies has made them nearly inaccessible.

“One form of secrecy is the complexity and the accessibility of documents,” WikiLeaks spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson said during Monday’s event. “You could say that the government cannot be trusted with these documents.”

“He who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past,” Assange chimed in using his webcam in London to quote from George Orwell’s novel 1984.

“The US administration cannot be trusted with its control of its past,” he said. “That is the result of this information being hidden by secrecy, but more often being hidden in the borderline between secrecy and complexity.”

The 1.7 million cables released on Monday span the period of time between 1973 and 1976 when Henry Kissinger sat at the head the State Department under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. WikiLeaks has now combined their latest files with the previously-released State Department diplomatic cables that they published starting in 2010 after US Army Private first class Bradley Manning gained access to military intelligence servers and sent over 250,000 documents to the site, along with “Collateral Murder” and a trove of other documents.

By combining the earlier State Dept. memos with the new collection of Kissinger cables, Assange says WikiLeaks has created a database that gives journalists unprecedented access to roughly 2 million documents that paint a unique picture of the United States’ relationships with foreign nations during a number of presidential administrations.

That infrastructure, dubbed the WikiLeaks Public Library of US Diplomacy (PlusD), “is what Google should be like,” Assange said.

“This is a search system that investigative journalists can use effectively,” he said.

With the publishing of the State Dept. cables credited to Pfc. Manning, WikiLeaks previously brought to the public periphery a tome of material that largely focuses on US foreign policy at the dawn of the twenty-first century. The Kissinger cables though, said Assange, reveals a multitude about the US and other nations during a time when western society as we know it today really began to take form.

“The period of the 1970s in diplomacy is referred to as the ‘Big Bang.’ This is when the modern international order came to be,” Assange said at the press conference. “There is really only two periods: post-World War Two and the 1970s.”

During the ‘70s, vast decolonization caused the number of countries on the planet to go from only 104 to roughly 160. “To understand all of that complexity, the US State Dept. put together a system to harvest intelligence from its diplomats across the world,” Assange said of Project K.

Today, he added, the White House has “more direct control of the periphery.” During the 70s, however, “the relationship between ambassadors and their host government was more essential.”Project K helps shine a light on exactly how those interactions played out during a time when the Vietnam conflict, Watergate and the Cold War warranted the US to embark in a number of conversations with persons of all affiliations around the world.

“The United States makes a priority gaining influence and contacts and informants within opposition movements. Partly in order to corrupt them, partly in order to have bets on both the lead horse and the second in case there is a transition of power,” he said. But while American interest in the Soviet Union was largely a focal point of the US during the 1970s as one might expect, Assange said that the “titanic struggle” between the two bodies represents only a small sampling of the State Department’s interests during that time. The Kissinger Cables, at roughly one billion words, show that the US “is essentially checking the activity and inactivity of other empires,” said Assange. France, Spain, the UK, Australia and Sweden are all discussed in length in the cables, and even politicians still relevant today make appearances.

“Margaret Thatcher died last night and of course there is a great many cables about her,” said Assange, who put the figure of memos relating to the recently passed former prime minister at around 400.

Kissinger, who is alive and active today, is referenced in over 200,000 individual documents included in the trove. Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt — a critic of the whistleblower site and today the nation’s foreign minister — also makes a number of appearances in Project K as well.

Speaking to RT at the conference, Hrafnsson said that neither Kissinger nor the current Department of State has yet to respond to the leak — nor does he expect them to. On his part, however, Assange told RT that any formal federal investigation into this project will likely not dwell on any damages spawned by the leak, but instead will focus on how his organization managed to take 1.7 million documents and reverse engineer them in order to publish them in the public domain.

“Essentially,” said Assange, it’s “what Aaron Swartz was doing.”

“If the Department of Justice was to go after us for this release like they are attempting to prosecute us for previous releases involving US embassies documents, the approach would probably be along the lines of the approach that was taken was Swartz,” said Assange, “which is the sort of manner of acquisition as opposed to the classification for the matter.”

Hrafnsson said that WikiLeaks has been working on Project K and the PlusD database for roughly one year.

_____________________________________________________________________

KISSINGER X

Kissinger A