Skip to comments.Henry Kissinger: This Man Is On The Other Side
Posted on 11/28/2002 2:39:34 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
click here to read article
"If it walks like a duck etc."---why is it so far-fetched that this guy is not what he is cracked up to be? I don't see anyone disputing the facts in this article.
Those that disagree are caught up in that old Republican-Democrat sideshow. Clinton was not the first home-grown traitor--that's a tradition that goes way back and brings us right up to the present.
Thanks, Tailgunner, for posting.
I also suspect your quote would have been taken by most (certainly most foreign) listeners as hyperbole at the time.
Which just goes to show you that civilized listeners can't really hear what their attackers are saying. Their very civilization prevents it.
The Jews didn't believe it could happen to them. Patriotic Americans don't believe that their own leaders intend to sell them out to "Transnational Progressivism" or whatever they're calling Marxism these days.
In 1972, Henry Kissinger and Chinese Foreign Minister Qiao Guanhua included a paragraph in the Shanghai Communique with the phrase ". . .there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China."
Carter abrogated the 1954 mutual security treaty in 1979 when he recognized the mainland government as the sole government of all of China and dropped all official ties to Taiwan.
President Bush has recently said publicly we will do whatever is necessary to defend Taiwan, as he has reestablished our assistance in Taiwan's defense and acquisition of defensive weapons.
President Bush has appointed Condoleeza Rice his National Security Advisor; she distinguished herself by counselling firmness toward China in a key article for Foreign Relations--this at a time that Henry Kissinger warned the U.S. not to interfere in the interests of China.
President Bush's appointment of Henry Kissinger as head of a blue-ribbon commission to investigate the causes of the surprise attack on September 11, 2001, is for the purpose of bestowing maximum credibility in the form of a figurehead atop a ceremonial commission.
President Bush's appointment ought not be viewed as endorsing the China policies of Kissinger, or of seeking his advise on international matters.
Lt. Gen. Charles G. Cooper, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.) writes in the May 1996 Proceedings in "The Day It Became the Longest War" that a key meeting of the Joint Chiefs and LBJ at the White House in November 1965 set the outcome of the war.
During that fifteen minutes, at which Cooper was an aide to the chiefs, the service heads pitched their plan to bomb Hanoi and mine Haiphong. LBJ listened, then cursed them, humiliated them, and dismissed them.
Cooper closes with:
We shall never know. But had General Wheeler and the others been given a fair hearing, and had their recommendations been given serious study, it is entirely possible that 55,000 or so of America's sons would not have been killed in a war that its major architect, Robert Strange McNamara, now considers to have been a tragic mistake.
President Bush's prosecution of the response to the attack of September 11, 2001 was to use Special Forces, CIA, and precision bombing to win the hearts and minds of the al Qaeda (see also Buried Briquets).
Henry Kissinger to the contrary notwithstanding, President Bush is not likely to go wobbly vis a vis China.
I found this article about Kissinger on Drudge..
The Latest Kissinger Outrage - Why is a proven liar and wanted man in charge of the 9/11 investigation? By Christopher Hitchens
BS. He played the hand he was given (eroding popular support, no way to win without going the Dresden route, economic strains, dope spreading throughout the ranks, tension among generations within the upper middle class) as Nixon told him to play it. There were few choices, and what choices there were all sucked.
The quote should have read "Henry's puppetmasters wanted us to lose"...Henry was told what to do...and blame current events
The mistake was McNamara. McNamara was a devote of socialist Norman Thomas as decribed in McNamara's own book, In Retrospect He had more sympathy for the communists than serious disagreement. That sympathy directed his subversive direction of the war. He is quite happy to attribute the failures there to be thr result of the strength and motivation of the communists and the inherent impossibility of winning the war rather than to his role.
Two movies are instructive. The first is Saving Private Ryan's depiction of D day. The Second is We were Solders which was a true stoy. In the beginning of Soldiers Colonel Moore protests the order given that he move his people 60 at a time by helicopter into an area heavily infested with enemy troops. At the end of winning the battle the American units were taken back out by helicopter and the area relinquished to the enemy. Several months later the operation was repeated and so on for several years.
It was catastrophic. People were landed piece at a time into areas where they were massively outnumbered, where there was no cover or concealment, and there was little capacity for reinforcement or supply once the enemy attacked because helicopters couldn't operate in that environment. There was not even hindrance to the enemy moving into our lines. It was like having a D-day every two or three months.
No commander or Secretary of Defense would think of doing such a thing. It was slaughter of our troops.
If the area were to be attacked multiple times, instead of that strategy the area should have been held by permanent emplacements so that the enemy would need to take those emplacements to be able to operate in the area. At least one 155 should have been in the emplacement to attack any enemy within a radius of 19 miles. If the enemy gathered in concentrated numbers necessary to attack the emplacement, Napalm would have destroyed them. But that was contrary to the McNamara doctrine.
Because there is a group of people here blindly determined to believe George Bush is perfect and correct in anything he does regardless of the truth.
My contempt for Bush is something he has well earned. When I start believing your bullcrap and cease correct evaluation of Jorge Bush, you'll know age has debilitated me.
Actually, I was referring to Kissinger. But you bring up an interesting point regarding w. I think people are so happy he's not Clinton that they're not seeing that he is promoting the same agenda. (The Total Information Awareness databank; The NoChildLeftBehind Act; treasonous imigration policy; the Patriot Act with its broad definition of what constitutes terrorism; the Anti- Terrorism Bill just signed that provides for the federal govt.--as opposed to insurance companies--to pay victims of terrorism; setting a finite limit on cell lines to be used for stem cell research and then quietly remanding the regulation; faith-based initiatives; expanding the American Disabilities Act to churches; his interest in expanding NAFTA from Canada to Tierra del Fuego; his sucking up to the Chicoms; giving campaign finance reform the green light...)p> Somehow it is seen as unAmerican to criticize the man or his unAmerican policies.
If you combine Jimmy Carter with Bill Clinton, then subtract the Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones affairs, the result is George Bush. Mindless useless Republicans are mindless useless Democrats with less flamboyant sex lives.
Besides, who can stop to think at a time like this when jihadists are flying airplanes into buildings. That lack of thought is Bush's protection. When this is over we're going to be stuck with a lot of things in perpetuity that we should have thought about.
Time will tell. I don't believe that the Kissinger commission will do much better. And by the way.....I'm not crazy about any of these "commissions". My problem with the President's commision....no matter how well intentioned....is that he chose Henry Kissinger to head it. Talk about a man who has diminished percieved integrity! I mean, the name alone conjurs up words like conspiracy, deceit, betrayal, and genocide. And I'm not just making this stuff up. His record is there for the world to see. For cripes sake, he is a wanted man on the world stage. No...a commission to investigat 911 is one thing....but to bring in this irrelavent dinasaur.....well it has the same stench as the Mondale fiasco! And look how that worked out for the Democrats. I just hope that this affair doesn't leave a stain on Bushes record in 2004.
Thank you for this remembrance. I first heard his voice on radio in the early 1970's. I thought, "This is a voice of an evil man." I've never changed my mind. The photograph of him smiling at Mao later on this thread made me sick. How many people did Mao slaughter? Wasn't it Kissinger who led Nixon into the immoral disaster of befriending Red China? I didn't know of his KGB past, but always wondered who he was really working for. Well, Happy Thanksgiving to you, too. This is still one hell of a country, and I'm glad to be a free American as long as it lasts.
Anytime there was talk about sex Clinton won. One scategory of scandals was used to cover the other treasonous ones.
That should read: Is that why SOME Republicans promote sexual abstinence to avoid AIDS infection or pregnance?
There are at least four distinct subcultures within the Republican party who disagree on basic issues. Some are anti-abortion. Some are pro-abortion. Some are ant-abstinance. Some are pro-socialistic.
There are so many conflicting stories about Kissinger that it's hard to tell what to believe. In cases like that, I rely on my intuition. The guy gives me the creeps.
Try again...we're waiting.
He isn't clueless. I have been reading Robert L. Koch for a number of years on Zola Times and consider him to be one of the most incisive thinkers writing today.
Clueless he ain't !