Jump to content
The Education Forum

A vice POTUS and probable runner for 2020 elections opposed to Carter's decision to appoint Sorensen as CIA head


Recommended Posts

Quote

Democratic members of the committee who indicated their opposition to Mr. Sorensen included Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, Robert B. Morgan of North Carolina and Walter Huddleston of Kentucky. Adlai Stevenson 3d of Illinois and Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, the committee chairman, were reported by other senators to be also opposed.

 

Edited by Paz Marverde
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a question, but do you think there is a big difference between anyone at that level of the game? It just seems to me that anyone able to reach the highest levels of government have been tainted so long that there really isn't that big of a difference in anyone. Clintons and the Trumps go to the same parties and seem cordial, but on television you'd think that they've had a blood feud for three generations. 

 

 

 

Edited by Jeffrey Reilley
I turned that they've into one word: thaty've
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a good question.

Today, after the influences of the Clintons, I don't think there is.  Recall, the Clintons vacationed with Kissinger  each Xmas in the Caribbean.  Henry is the heavyweight champion of post WW 2 genocides: East Pakistan (Bangladesh), Cambodia, East Timor.

Whatever was left of the Kennedy imprint on the Democratic party was pretty much expunged by them.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is a good question.

Today, after the influences of the Clintons, I don't think there is.  Recall, the Clintons vacationed with Kissinger  each Xmas in the Caribbean.  Henry is the heavyweight champion of post WW 2 genocides: East Pakistan (Bangladesh), Cambodia, East Timor.

Whatever was left of the Kennedy imprint on the Democratic party was pretty much expunged by them.  

 

 

 Mr. DiEugenio,

I know this is off topic, but I will ask anyways, looking over Kissinger's timeline is it fair to say that he took over where Allen Dulles left off? I have always and will always believe that in 200 years, Dulles will be looked at as one of the worst villains in American History. Dulles was reaching his end as Kissinger was coming into his villainous prime. Where Dulles set the table in SE Asia and Latin America, Kissinger broke it down and washed the dishes. I could be way off, and am just curious. Thank you.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of look at Kissinger being the guy who took up where Foster Dulles left off.

Kissinger liked and believed in covert action, but he was more the public face of the dirty tricks.

And I should also add, Kissinger  served under Nixon.  Once you listen to their conversations in the White House, you understand why they fought tooth and nail to keep them classified.  And why Kissinger is still fighting to keep his personal papers closed.

If you ever had two men who created their own reputations and had a coterie of followers that helped in that regard, it was Nixon and Kissinger.  Now that much of the material is finally out there, Nixon is exposed and being nothing but a dyed in the wool Cold Warrior who learned at the foot of Ike and Foster Dulles and never adapted himself to a changing world.  Kissinger once said to Haldeman that when all Nixon's tapes are declassified, "history will not be kind to us."  If anything that was an understatement.

And when you compare them to JFK, I mean, forget it.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...