Don't Blame Nixon for Scuttled Peace Overture

[Douglas Caddy]

Poster's note: Immediately after JFK's assassination LBJ reversed JFK's Vietnam policy. Nixon inherited the Vietnam debacle that LBJ had engineered on behalf of the military-industrial complex, foremost being Brown & Root that profited immensely as U.S. war expenditures dramatically increased.

Don't Blame Nixon for Scuttled Peace Overture
By Jack Torry - August 9, 2015
Real Clear Politics

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/09/dont_blame_nixon_for_scuttled_peace_overture_127667.html

[Pat Speer]

Torry leaves a lot out, IMO. As I recall, Chennault admitted she'd served as Nixon's go-between, and that she'd told Thieu that if he boycotted the peace talks, Nixon would offer him a better deal. There is also The Palace File, a book written by a Vietnamese diplomat, in which he proved Nixon was lying to Thieu, and that the deal Nixon offered was essentially the same as the deal LBJ had on the table.

Torry also compares Apples to Oranges, IMO. While McGovern's people may have spoken to a North Vietnamese representative, there is no evidence (or even an allegation that I can recall) that they told the North Vietnamese to not cooperate with the U.S. Government, and that they would get a better deal if they resisted Nixon's peace efforts. I mean, there's a huge difference between speaking to the "enemy" and urging a supposed ally to continue fighting a war in which American soldiers are getting killed, in opposition to the desires of the current administration. The first action does not necessarily undermine the peace process, and might actually help the peace process. The second action trades American lives for votes.

Nixon, to my mind, was an immoral monster, who saw the world as a chessboard to be played. Sometimes it worked out for America--such as when he went to China, and played the Russians against the Chinese. Sometimes it did not--such as when he unnecessarily extended a war so he could get re-elected. In the end, he got off pretty light. Sure, he was discredited, and exposed. But the sheer nastiness of the man--his willingness to use power to help his friends and hurt his enemies, his unfounded belief his being president made him some sort of God--was somewhat obfuscated by Republican hacks unable to come to terms with what they'd forced upon the public. He was not "the one", after all. More like number two.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Jon G. Tidd]

Pat Speer,

I believe your view of Nixon is the conventional view. Pretty much as James Di's view.

I cut Nixon slack on Viet Nam but not on his 1973 deal regarding American POWs.

I'm a Viet Nam vet. FWIW, and I don't know how many Viet Nam vets would agree with me, Nixon saved my ass, to put it bluntly.

You have to understand the war completely and the times in the U.S.

When I'm in the war in 1971-72, I want to know what I'm doing is supported by the U.S. Government, I believed my actions were supported completely. I still do. That matters.

[Kenneth Drew]

Torry leaves a lot out, IMO. As I recall, Chennault admitted she'd served as Nixon's go-between, and that she'd told Thieu that if he boycotted the peace talks, Nixon would offer him a better deal. There is also The Palace File, a book written by a Vietnamese diplomat, in which he proved Nixon was lying to Thieu, and that the deal Nixon offered was essentially the same as the deal LBJ had on the table.

Torry also compares Apples to Oranges, IMO. While McGovern's people may have spoken to a North Vietnamese representative, there is no evidence (or even an allegation that I can recall) that they told the North Vietnamese to not cooperate with the U.S. Government, and that they would get a better deal if they resisted Nixon's peace efforts. I mean, there's a huge difference between speaking to the "enemy" and urging a supposed ally to continue fighting a war in which American soldiers are getting killed, in opposition to the desires of the current administration. The first action does not necessarily undermine the peace process, and might actually help the peace process. The second action trades American lives for votes.

Nixon, to my mind, was an immoral monster, who saw the world as a chessboard to be played. Sometimes it worked out for America--such as when he went to China, and played the Russians against the Chinese. Sometimes it did not--such as when he unnecessarily extended a war so he could get re-elected. In the end, he got off pretty light. Sure, he was discredited, and exposed. But the sheer nastiness of the man--his willingness to use power to help his friends and hurt his enemies, his unfounded belief his being president made him some sort of God--was somewhat obfuscated by Republican hacks unable to come to terms with what they'd forced upon the public. He was not "the one", after all. More like number two.

Sometimes it did not--such as when he unnecessarily extended a war so he could get re-elected. I basically don't agree with that statement. While I certainly think the Eisenhower/Nixon government was going to a war in Viet Nam, the fact that JFK got elected changed all that. It was 8 years later when it fell back on Nixon to do something. I think his original plan (after he was elected) was that he could take a few 'big actions' that would show if 'winning the war' was viable or not. I think that he made somewhat of an effort, for a couple years to swing the war direction, all the while drawing down the number of troops. Once it was clear that it wasn't going to be won, the congress had given up to the point that they took control away from him. It was more on their hands from that point on.

Nixon, to my mind, was an immoral monster, who saw the world as a chessboard to be played. If that is the case, what would be your opinion of LBJ or Obama? While I'm certainly not a fan of Nixon, I think his biggest fault might be that he was a Republican.

his willingness to use power to help his friends and hurt his enemies, his unfounded belief his being president made him some sort of God Is there any president since Herbert Hoover that would not fit that description fairly well? Well, other than RR and Jimmy Carter.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Pat Speer]

Torry leaves a lot out, IMO. As I recall, Chennault admitted she'd served as Nixon's go-between, and that she'd told Thieu that if he boycotted the peace talks, Nixon would offer him a better deal. There is also The Palace File, a book written by a Vietnamese diplomat, in which he proved Nixon was lying to Thieu, and that the deal Nixon offered was essentially the same as the deal LBJ had on the table.

Torry also compares Apples to Oranges, IMO. While McGovern's people may have spoken to a North Vietnamese representative, there is no evidence (or even an allegation that I can recall) that they told the North Vietnamese to not cooperate with the U.S. Government, and that they would get a better deal if they resisted Nixon's peace efforts. I mean, there's a huge difference between speaking to the "enemy" and urging a supposed ally to continue fighting a war in which American soldiers are getting killed, in opposition to the desires of the current administration. The first action does not necessarily undermine the peace process, and might actually help the peace process. The second action trades American lives for votes.

Nixon, to my mind, was an immoral monster, who saw the world as a chessboard to be played. Sometimes it worked out for America--such as when he went to China, and played the Russians against the Chinese. Sometimes it did not--such as when he unnecessarily extended a war so he could get re-elected. In the end, he got off pretty light. Sure, he was discredited, and exposed. But the sheer nastiness of the man--his willingness to use power to help his friends and hurt his enemies, his unfounded belief his being president made him some sort of God--was somewhat obfuscated by Republican hacks unable to come to terms with what they'd forced upon the public. He was not "the one", after all. More like number two.

Sometimes it did not--such as when he unnecessarily extended a war so he could get re-elected. I basically don't agree with that statement. While I certainly think the Eisenhower/Nixon government was going to a war in Viet Nam, the fact that JFK got elected changed all that. It was 8 years later when it fell back on Nixon to do something. I think his original plan (after he was elected) was that he could take a few 'big actions' that would show if 'winning the war' was viable or not. I think that he made somewhat of an effort, for a couple years to swing the war direction, all the while drawing down the number of troops. Once it was clear that it wasn't going to be won, the congress had given up to the point that they took control away from him. It was more on their hands from that point on.

Nixon, to my mind, was an immoral monster, who saw the world as a chessboard to be played. If that is the case, what would be your opinion of LBJ or Obama? While I'm certainly not a fan of Nixon, I think his biggest fault might be that he was a Republican.

his willingness to use power to help his friends and hurt his enemies, his unfounded belief his being president made him some sort of God Is there any president since Herbert Hoover that would not fit that description fairly well? Well, other than RR and Jimmy Carter.

Nixon's 1968 and 1972 campaigns were two of the most cynical campaigns in history. He exploited fear like nobody else in my lifetime. He knew the public was afraid of losing a war, so he lied and told them he had a secret plan to end the war. He knew middle-aged white people were scared of the rising consciousness of black people and young people, so he scapegoated those calling for social change and protesting the war, as immoral, and un-American.

And then there's the tapes... he was just a nasty nasty person. He hated Jews. He hated blacks. He thought everyone was out to get him, and that this justified his getting them first. Outside of LBJ, I doubt any recent president has been so awful. But even LBJ had a feeling for the little guy, something Nixon sorely lacked.

I suppose one would have to read as much about Nixon (and by Nixon) as I before one would come to this realization--that he was an awful little nobody with dreams of being a somebody. But that is what he was--for better and for worse. Only Nixon would roll the dice and have secret talks with China. But only Nixon would bomb civilians on Christmas in hopes of scaring the North Vietnamese into believing he was crazy. And yes, I'm paraphrasing Nixon himself. He liked to talk about himself in the third person. Go figure.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Kenneth Drew]

Torry leaves a lot out, IMO. As I recall, Chennault admitted she'd served as Nixon's go-between, and that she'd told Thieu that if he boycotted the peace talks, Nixon would offer him a better deal. There is also The Palace File, a book written by a Vietnamese diplomat, in which he proved Nixon was lying to Thieu, and that the deal Nixon offered was essentially the same as the deal LBJ had on the table.

Torry also compares Apples to Oranges, IMO. While McGovern's people may have spoken to a North Vietnamese representative, there is no evidence (or even an allegation that I can recall) that they told the North Vietnamese to not cooperate with the U.S. Government, and that they would get a better deal if they resisted Nixon's peace efforts. I mean, there's a huge difference between speaking to the "enemy" and urging a supposed ally to continue fighting a war in which American soldiers are getting killed, in opposition to the desires of the current administration. The first action does not necessarily undermine the peace process, and might actually help the peace process. The second action trades American lives for votes.

Nixon, to my mind, was an immoral monster, who saw the world as a chessboard to be played. Sometimes it worked out for America--such as when he went to China, and played the Russians against the Chinese. Sometimes it did not--such as when he unnecessarily extended a war so he could get re-elected. In the end, he got off pretty light. Sure, he was discredited, and exposed. But the sheer nastiness of the man--his willingness to use power to help his friends and hurt his enemies, his unfounded belief his being president made him some sort of God--was somewhat obfuscated by Republican hacks unable to come to terms with what they'd forced upon the public. He was not "the one", after all. More like number two.

Sometimes it did not--such as when he unnecessarily extended a war so he could get re-elected. I basically don't agree with that statement. While I certainly think the Eisenhower/Nixon government was going to a war in Viet Nam, the fact that JFK got elected changed all that. It was 8 years later when it fell back on Nixon to do something. I think his original plan (after he was elected) was that he could take a few 'big actions' that would show if 'winning the war' was viable or not. I think that he made somewhat of an effort, for a couple years to swing the war direction, all the while drawing down the number of troops. Once it was clear that it wasn't going to be won, the congress had given up to the point that they took control away from him. It was more on their hands from that point on.

Nixon, to my mind, was an immoral monster, who saw the world as a chessboard to be played. If that is the case, what would be your opinion of LBJ or Obama? While I'm certainly not a fan of Nixon, I think his biggest fault might be that he was a Republican.

his willingness to use power to help his friends and hurt his enemies, his unfounded belief his being president made him some sort of God Is there any president since Herbert Hoover that would not fit that description fairly well? Well, other than RR and Jimmy Carter.

edit

Edited August 11, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Mark Knight]

The Nixon tapes are pretty damning toward Nixon. Had LBJ released the FBI report about Nixon and his people sabotaging the Paris talks in '68, I firmly believe the results of the '68 election would have been quite different.

Then again....IF....

[Douglas Caddy]

Exposing Nixon’s Vietnam Lies
By James DiEugenio
Consortiumnews.com
August 11, 2015

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/08/no_author/nixons-vietnam-lies/

[Kenneth Drew]

The Nixon tapes are pretty damning toward Nixon. Had LBJ released the FBI report about Nixon and his people sabotaging the Paris talks in '68, I firmly believe the results of the '68 election would have been quite different.

Then again....IF....

Then again....IF.... yes, a big IF. That's why presidents since Nixon ensure that their confidential conversations in the Oval office are not recorded.

If that statement is true about the FBI report, then that's likely a good thing because it spared the country from the disaster of Hubert Humphrey. Yes, I realize we got Nixon, but he was largely as big a failure as he was because he had two parties working to sabotage him.

[Kenneth Drew]

Exposing Nixon’s Vietnam Lies

By James DiEugenio

Consortiumnews.com

August 11, 2015

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/08/no_author/nixons-vietnam-lies/

Read the article. While it has many good points, it also attempts to make some that don't work.

In particular, he attempts to put the blame for Vietnam on Richard Nixon. I think a huge part of that debacle can be placed squarely on LBJ's shoulders. While the US would have gotten involved had Nixon been elected in 1960, it would have or could have been quite a bit different situation. The entire strategy may have been totally different if it had fallen on Nixon rather than LBJ. While Nixon likely would have pursued it in 1961 with some intent to win over time, LBJ never had that objective. His sole objective was to enrich a lot of his friends and the power brokers of the world. But LBJ got everything so screwed up, Nixon had zero chance to win from the day he took office.

I don't think the US was going to win there, regardless of who the CinC was.

Not quite sure what the objective of throwing in the little bash of Ronald Reagan: All of this history renders absurd the speeches of Ronald Reagan at the time:

I think Ronald Reagan was a person that wanted to help the people of this country have a higher opinion of themselves and think that there is some good in the world. I don't think he had an objective of pushing Nixon's agenda.

I believe that this same article could have been written about almost all presidents. Certainly if a microscope were placed on LBJ, he would not smell like a rose. In fact, he would likely stink the place up more than most former presidents.

I would/could say the same about others, Clinton, Obama, for example, but it would serve no purpose. If someone has an objective to point out all the faults of a person, then almost anyone can be made to look as bad as they want the image to be.

It seems as if the intent of this article is to make Nixon look bad on his handling of VietNam. I would point out that when you are handed a pile of excrement, it is hard to change it into the smell of a rose.

I did not write this in defense of Nixon, I think he was a total failure as a president, but I will point out that pales in comparison to the failure of the man he succeeded. I'm not too sure that can't be said about the present occupant of the White House as well.

[Kenneth Drew]

Torry leaves a lot out, IMO. As I recall, Chennault admitted she'd served as Nixon's go-between, and that she'd told Thieu that if he boycotted the peace talks, Nixon would offer him a better deal. There is also The Palace File, a book written by a Vietnamese diplomat, in which he proved Nixon was lying to Thieu, and that the deal Nixon offered was essentially the same as the deal LBJ had on the table.

Torry also compares Apples to Oranges, IMO. While McGovern's people may have spoken to a North Vietnamese representative, there is no evidence (or even an allegation that I can recall) that they told the North Vietnamese to not cooperate with the U.S. Government, and that they would get a better deal if they resisted Nixon's peace efforts. I mean, there's a huge difference between speaking to the "enemy" and urging a supposed ally to continue fighting a war in which American soldiers are getting killed, in opposition to the desires of the current administration. The first action does not necessarily undermine the peace process, and might actually help the peace process. The second action trades American lives for votes.

Nixon, to my mind, was an immoral monster, who saw the world as a chessboard to be played. Sometimes it worked out for America--such as when he went to China, and played the Russians against the Chinese. Sometimes it did not--such as when he unnecessarily extended a war so he could get re-elected. In the end, he got off pretty light. Sure, he was discredited, and exposed. But the sheer nastiness of the man--his willingness to use power to help his friends and hurt his enemies, his unfounded belief his being president made him some sort of God--was somewhat obfuscated by Republican hacks unable to come to terms with what they'd forced upon the public. He was not "the one", after all. More like number two.

Sometimes it did not--such as when he unnecessarily extended a war so he could get re-elected. I basically don't agree with that statement. While I certainly think the Eisenhower/Nixon government was going to a war in Viet Nam, the fact that JFK got elected changed all that. It was 8 years later when it fell back on Nixon to do something. I think his original plan (after he was elected) was that he could take a few 'big actions' that would show if 'winning the war' was viable or not. I think that he made somewhat of an effort, for a couple years to swing the war direction, all the while drawing down the number of troops. Once it was clear that it wasn't going to be won, the congress had given up to the point that they took control away from him. It was more on their hands from that point on.

Nixon, to my mind, was an immoral monster, who saw the world as a chessboard to be played. If that is the case, what would be your opinion of LBJ or Obama? While I'm certainly not a fan of Nixon, I think his biggest fault might be that he was a Republican.

his willingness to use power to help his friends and hurt his enemies, his unfounded belief his being president made him some sort of God Is there any president since Herbert Hoover that would not fit that description fairly well? Well, other than RR and Jimmy Carter.

Nixon's 1968 and 1972 campaigns were two of the most cynical campaigns in history. He exploited fear like nobody else in my lifetime. He knew the public was afraid of losing a war, so he lied and told them he had a secret plan to end the war. He knew middle-aged white people were scared of the rising consciousness of black people and young people, so he scapegoated those calling for social change and protesting the war, as immoral, and un-American.

And then there's the tapes... he was just a nasty nasty person. He hated Jews. He hated blacks. He thought everyone was out to get him, and that this justified his getting them first. Outside of LBJ, I doubt any recent president has been so awful. But even LBJ had a feeling for the little guy, something Nixon sorely lacked.

I suppose one would have to read as much about Nixon (and by Nixon) as I before one would come to this realization--that he was an awful little nobody with dreams of being a somebody. But that is what he was--for better and for worse. Only Nixon would roll the dice and have secret talks with China. But only Nixon would bomb civilians on Christmas in hopes of scaring the North Vietnamese into believing he was crazy. And yes, I'm paraphrasing Nixon himself. He liked to talk about himself in the third person. Go figure.

Pat, I don't really disagree with what you've written except to say that you give most of our other presidents way too much credit if you think they weren't a lot like Nixon in many ways.

Most presidents have not recorded a lot of their conversations so some of their inner thoughts are not on tape to be played, but if you think LBJ was a 'nice' guy toward anyone, then you haven't read the same books about him that i have. LBJ even had his own sister killed for his agenda. Can't credit Nixon at that level.

I am not and never have been a fan of Richard Nixon, but I recognize that he did not and has not set the standard for 'lowlife' in the white house.

Clinton was accused (seemingly rightly so) of raping several women. JFK was rightfully known as a womanizer. Most presidents have had faults, some very serious.

The present occupant certainly has some serious issues.

Talking about Nixon exploiting fear about losing the war. don't you think LBJ did that very thing in '64? Wasn't that a big argument on the behalf of FDR in '40 and '44?

Doing and saying what a candidate says is necessary to win election or re-election has always been a part of the game. Lying isn't really even considered as 'lying' it's only campaigning.

You mention Nixon's racism. Do you think it was worse than the racism we have in the presidency today?

that he was an awful little nobody with dreams of being a somebody Would he be a worse case of that than the present occupant? We have had a lot of 'little nobodies' that became president, that doesn't mean they are all bad people. Harry Truman would be considered in that vein. I think he did a terrific job.

[James DiEugenio]

There is no conventional view of anyone these days in view of the declassified records. The declassifieid record has not been kind to Nixon.

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/08/10/exposing-nixons-vietnam-lies/

If you want to argue that someone altered the tapes or memos, fine go ahead.

But I think its clear now that Nixon did not want these papers and tapes declassified because he knew what was in them. And they would contradict the upholstered image he was trying to build. Which was utterly false, at least on Vietnam.

Edited August 17, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Kenneth Drew]

There is no conventional view of anyone these days in view of the declassified records. The declassifieid record has not been kind to Nixon.

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/08/10/exposing-nixons-vietnam-lies/

If you want to argue that someone altered the tapes or memos, fine go ahead.

But I think its clear now that Nixon did not want these papers and tapes declassified because he knew what was in them. And they would contradict the upholstered image he was trying to build. Which was utterly false, at least on Vietnam.

I don't think I saw anything in the article that stated or implied that anyone altered the tapes. I don't doubt that someone would have if they had the opportunity, but I've seen nor heard no evidence that anyone did.

I think my comments were only to generalize that we don't seem to get any really good leaders, and especially the last 3 or so have been terrible. Certainly the order of the presidents, JFK getting elected in 60, instead of Nixon, altered the events every since, including the assassination of a president likely would not have occurred.

[James DiEugenio]

KD: I believe that this same article could have been written about almost all presidents. Certainly if a microscope were placed on LBJ, he would not smell like a rose. In fact, he would likely stink the place up more than most former presidents.

I don't agree with this Ken. We do have extensive tapes of Kennedy for example. They are called the Presidential Transcripts. I think the most current version is three volumes. Kennedy does not remotely approach the depths of cynicism and amorality that Kissinger and Nixon are at in the declassified tapes. Even for someone who is used to this kind of thing, what Kissinger and Nixon did is shocking. And what makes it even worse, they were wrong! The Russians and the North Vietnamese never bought the Madman Concept. It never worked. The nuclear threat never worked.

So when all that bluster failed, they went ahead and bombed Cambodia. And that turned out to be a disaster. BTW, LBJ never messed with Cambodia anywhere to the degree that Nixon and Kissinger did. For the simple reason that he did not think the risks justified the rewards. He was right.

But Nixon and Kissinger dropped more bombs on Cambodia and Laos than the US dropped on Japan in WW 2.

​I think that what Nixon did in Vietnam was worse than what LBJ did. Because Nixon knew by 1969 the war could not be won. Yet he continued it for four years for one reason: to make sure he got reelected.

LBJ is the opposite: He fought it for four years to the point he could not run again.

​And then Nixon deliberately disguised what he knew was a defeat just so he could blame it on congress. When in fact, he rigged it that way! He could have sustained a veto, and in fact did so once. But he wanted a scapegoat besides himself.

His book on the subject, No More Vietnams, is one long provable lie about what he did. And he knew he could get away with it because he fought so hard to keep his papers sealed. But now with the tapes and papers largely open, Nixon is the emperor with no clothes.

Edited August 17, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Steven Gaal]

see for full article http://www.salon.com/2015/04/17/the_ivy_leagues_favorite_war_criminal_why_the_atrocities_of_henry_kissinger_should_be_mandatory_reading/

golly POTUS NIXON brought in Henry K. gaal

1. Sabotaging U.S. Government Diplomacy

Five days before the 1968 election, President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered a bombing halt of North Vietnam to begin negotiating an end to the Vietnam War. Johnson needed to keep this decision a secret; any leak could jeopardize the peace he was seeking. Kissinger, who had been an adviser to the negotiators, called the Nixon campaign and said, “I’ve got some information. They’re breaking out the champagne in Paris.” In his own memoirs, Richard Nixon says that he had received advanced word of the negotiation “through a highly unusual channel.” Three days before the election, the South Vietnamese pulled out of the talks because a Nixon confidant named Anna Chennault informed them that they would get a better deal under a Republican administration. The number of Vietnamese and Americans killed because of Kissinger and Nixon’s sabotage of the Paris negotiations remain unaccounted.

2. Illegal War in Cambodia

Nixon-Kissinger expanded the Vietnam War to include carpet bombings of Laos and Cambodia. “It’s an order, it’s to be done. Anything that flies, on anything that moves. You got that?” is how Kissinger relayed his boss’s order. Nearly 3 million tons of bombs were dropped on Cambodia alone, more than the 2 million tons dropped during all of World War Two. Between 4,000 and 150,000 civilians were killed in carpet bombings codenamed Breakfast, Lunch, Snack, Dinner, Supper, and Dessert. The unintended consequence of this illegal expansion of the Vietnam War was the rise of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, a genocidal cult that killed between 1.5 and 3 million people. Kissinger, in a conversation with the Thai Foreign Minister in 1975, said, “You should tell the Cambodians (i.e., Khmer Rouge) that we will be friends with them.” This was not realpolitik but accessory to murder.

3. Complicity in Pakistan’s Genocide in Bangladesh

In 1971, Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) declared independence from Pakistan after winning a democratic election that was not honored by the military dictatorship in power. The Pakistani junta attempted to suppress the victors by mass-raping women, shooting indiscriminately, and murdering children. Bangladesh’s Hindu minority was specifically targeted. In one especially gruesome episode, Pakistani soldiers went room-to-room in Dhaka University, murdering every student and staff member in sight. Up to three million people were killed and 400,000 women mass-raped in the 1971 genocide.

The top American diplomat in Dhaka, Archer Blood, sent a telegram to Nixon and Kissinger that began: “Our government had failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pak[istan] dominated government.” As Professor Gary Bass recounts in his magnificent book, “The Blood Telegram,” this was not mere realism in international affairs: There was a certain emotional relish Nixon and Kissinger felt in mocking massacred Bengalis. Kissinger congratulated Pakistani dictator Yahya Khan for his “delicacy and tact.” Nixon said Indians needed “a mass famine.” Kissinger ridiculed those who “bleed” for “the dying Bengalis.”

advertisement

If presented with the content of such statements, with the names redacted, one would think that these were criminals speaking, not American statesmen.

4. More crimes in Chile, Iraq, East Timor, Cyprus

Kissinger aided the violent overthrow of Chile’s government by the war criminal Augosto Pinochet in 1973. “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its people,” he said. He encouraged Iraqi Kurds to rebel in 1975 only to abandon them when Saddam Hussein struck a deal with the Shah of Iran, and he gave the U.S.’s blessings to Indonesian strongman Suharto’s invasion of East Timor. Kissinger knew of plans to overthrow Archbishop Makarios in Cyprus and later of Turkey’s planned invasion of the island and yet did nothing. 180,000 Greek Cypriots had to flee their homes, 10,000 Turkish Cypriots were forced to relocate, and Turkey still has an undetermined number of settlers in Cyprus. The capital of Cyprus, Nicosia, remains divided.

The bitter irony of all of this is that Henry Kissinger spoke at Yale Law School — the institution I currently attend, and one with a long history of progressive thought and a commitment to educating public-minded lawyers. Kissinger should not be barred from giving lectures. Rather, his invitations—like all invitations to government officials—should come with an understanding that he will field challenging questions. Public officials are servants of the public first, and we must not allow them to be turned into demigods without protesting their past crimes and holding them to account.

The nameless victims of Henry Kissinger’s policies will never see justice. They will not be lavished with praise or given large contracts for consulting services or given ample space in major newspapers to correct the record. They will never see a courtroom. They will remain the anonymous dead, and those of us who stay silent or jump up like Pavlovian dogs to mindlessly clap for every grey-haired former official who comes into town regardless of their record, we too will be complicit in their fates.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Steven Gaal