I noticed George W Bush started being celebrated again in the past few years. And Obama has never stopped being a darling! Just astounding. Guess the whole Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc stuff were just little whoopsies. We really dance to their tune, don't we?
Foreign policy/tragedy simply just does not matter to US citizens, US culture, or US media for various reasons independent of any moral failings, or gullibility (though that certainly does help things along).
https://www.cartercenter.org/health/guinea_worm/case-totals....
Ask President Carter:
“ According to historian and Kissinger biographer Niall Ferguson, however, accusing Kissinger alone of war crimes "requires a double standard" because "nearly all the secretaries of state ... and nearly all the presidents" have taken similar actions. But Ferguson continues "this is not to say that it's all OK."”
“Kissinger served on the board of Theranos, a health technology company, from 2014 to 2017.”
I would probably scrub this if I were on his team.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_6
Like this that didn't make it to the front page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_4...
>"Dumb, stupid animals..."
>Indeed, Kissinger's quote is found on pg. 194 of Woodward/Bernstein book The Final Days, which is considered a notable secondary source. However, the quote in the book is in a section highlighting Kissinger's difficult, and often abusive, relationship with White House staff. The specific context is the contentious relationship with Alexander Haig, Kissinger's military aide - the quote is given as a demonstration of how Kissinger allegedly taunted and belittled Haig. Woodward/Bernstein do NOT use the quote as any kind of authentic evidence that Kissinger hated the military, or that this was an opinion that formed any of Kissinger's foreign policy decisions. By placing the quote in that section, WE'RE (Wikipedia and NOT Woodward/Bernstein) attempting to make the connection and asserting this was Kissinger's attitude in approaching foreign policy. That connection is NOT supported by the source so it's not acceptable in a biography of a living person.EBY (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
>I accept your rationale. There is nowhere else to put it unless I start a new section but I won't because it would be vexatious to do so simply to accommodate the quote. Sqgl (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)sqgl
>>It's tough because this kind of inflammatory quote IS indicative of one of the prominent aspects of Kissinger's personality, which is why Woodward/Bernstein included it in their book. But as you say, I don't see a place to integrate it that wouldn't blow the B:LP hatch. EBY (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
>He might shoot his mouth off more than others, and he may even be more guilty than others (Hitchens certainly thinks so, as noted), but realpolitik is ugly and examples of it as revealed in CableGate are educational. The reason the leaks were sensational is because so many are in denial of realpolitik and those in power want to keep it that way. Personally Obama reminds me of Gus from Breaking Bad so don't think I am being partisan here.Sqgl (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)sqgl
>>I agree that examples are educational. Which makes me wonder about articles and even venues outside the WikiWorld that could advance that knowledge. EBY (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
>I here what you are saying and defer to your experience on this site.Sqgl (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)sqgl
Or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_2...
>Slobodan Milosevic and Kissinger compared
>[From a public interview on June 11, 2004.] On May 27, the New York Times published one of the most incredible sentences I’ve ever seen. They ran an article about the Nixon–Kissinger interchanges. Kissinger fought very hard through the courts to try to prevent it, but the courts permitted it. You read through it, and you see the following statement embedded in it. Nixon at one point informs Kissinger, his right-hand Eichmann, that he wanted bombing of Cambodia.
>And Kissinger loyally transmits the order to the Pentagon to carry out "a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves."
>That is the most explicit call for what we call genocide when other people do it that I’ve ever seen in the historical record. Right at this moment there is a prosecution of Milošević going on in the international tribunal, and the prosecutors are kind of hampered because they can’t find direct orders, or a direct connection even, linking Milošević to any atrocities on the ground. Suppose they found a statement like this. Suppose a document came out from Milošević saying, "Reduce Kosovo to rubble. Anything that flies on anything that moves." They would be overjoyed. The trial would be over. He would be sent away for multiple life sentences—if it was a U.S. trial, immediately the electric chair. ~ Noam Chomsky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnow75 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
[Citation needed]
More specifically, if you make a claim like this, please link to an edit where it happened. The entire revision history is in the public record.
I am not saying I disagree with you. I'm no Kissinger fan. But your argument will be much stronger if you provide hard facts, not just an unsubstantiated claim.
Anyone with the time and stomach for it can look at TheTimesAreAChanging's edit history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheTimes...
I'm not saying he's a paid apologist for horrible people, but... (And you did ask for citations!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Trial_of_Henr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Kissinger&d...
Henry Kissinger Talk Archive 5: Kissinger Encomium (a speech or piece of writing that praises someone or something highly)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_5...
>Kissinger Encomium
>The Kissinger page reads like a paid publicity brochure. Any attempt to correct the record with verifiable sources is swiftly deleted unilaterally by TheTimeAreChanging. Here is a paragraph that I inserted (with sources) at the beginning that TheTimesAreAChanging deleted. If this keeps occurring, I plan to escalate this to Wikipedia.
>"Kissinger's legacy, including the Nobel Prize Award, remains controversial. [2] Critics point to Kissinger's role in overthrowing the democratically elected Allende government in Chile;[3]; his knowledge and possible abetment of Project Condor, a program of repression and political assassination carried out by Chile, Argentina and Uruguay;[4] and his support of the Pakistani army during its slaughter of Bengalis in 1971[5] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 11:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "
>>You can't use other Wikipedia articles as a source, and your other sources are poor. This material is covered in depth in the article itself, so repeated attempts to insert POV language about the "slaughter of Bengalis" and some such to the lead can only be seen as POV-pushing on a BLP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
>I don't use Wikipedia as a source. Since when is Time Magazine or the National Security Archives poor sources? I will continue make these edits and not be bullied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 17:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
>"slaughter of Bengalis" is not POV language. Do you dispute it occurred? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 18:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
>>"Slaughter of Bengalis" would undoubtably be a WP:NPOV violation, even if it the reliable sorces. Try again, if you wish to do so within Wikipedia policies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
>>>I don't get it. In the article on Irving Berlin, it states Nicholas II, the new Tsar of Russia, notes Whitcomb, had revived with utmost brutality the anti-Jewish pogroms, which created the spontaneous mass exodus to America. Such words are very strong, but they are generally accepted by reasonable people as the only correct way to describe pogroms. Is there something different about Bengalis, or Kissinger, that makes it biased to call it "slaughter of Bengalis", even with reliable sources? 178.38.168.13 (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
>I can confirm Malpaso's claim that the editor known as TheTimesAreAChanging is making tendentious editorial decisions, deleting criticisms of Kissinger on the basis that they come from bad sources. Among the sources he has rubbished are CNN and Christopher Hitchens. I have tried to add to the article lead a statement that several groups and individuals, from Hitchens to Code Pink, have tried to indict Kissinger for war crimes. TheTimesAreAChanging has deleted these on the basis that they are "just opinion", while having no problem with those opinions that praise Kissinger. I have tried to initiate a discussion with TheTimesAreChanging on his talk page, but he seems uninterested in justifying his actions. G.S.Bhogal (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
>>Code Pink? Are you serious? I am no great fan of Kissinger, but you seem to lack an elementary understanding of the relevant Wikipedia policies, e.g. WP:BLP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
>Third Opinion
>A third opinion has been requested, but it isn't clear what the question is, because the above discussion has not been civil. It also isn't clear whether a third opinion is applicable, because more than two editors are edit-warring the page. Please state a concise and civil question and I will try to answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
>The article as written is propaganda, not necessarily by the editor's design, but by the favoritism applied to official reports of Kissinger's career and the failure to credit any of the subsequent investigative journalism that has proven persistently over the decades how a legend of diplomatic genius conceals intrigue, bloodletting, and a willingness to dispense with democracy. Macdust (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
>From the beginning there are two Henry Kissingers being presented in alternation: the effective Kissinger presented over the years in official reports, his own writings, and derivative news stories, and the Kissinger held to account for political injustices, covert military and intelligence actions, and the suffering and casualties occurring as a consequence.
>So we have Kissinger the icon, then a passage of what appears to be mud thrown at him, then Kissinger the schoolboy, then the icon suffering more mudslinging, until by the end of the story all the international catastrophes sound like sour grapes.
>Unless the article starts straightaway with a crisp discussion of Realpolitik, there is no context for understanding and evaluating what Kissinger thought he was doing or at least wanted others to think he was doing while acquiring and exercising immense power. Realpolitik holds the context where great international achievements and calamitous results make sense side by side. It is a much clearer lead-in for researchers making a first serious inquiry.
>(The non-career biography should in this instance be pushed toward the end of the article. Placed at the end, it is illuminating and humanizing. Placed where it is, it magnifies the incoherence.)Macdust (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
>>Kissinger is not a philosopher, nor does the concept of "Realpolitik" set Kissinger apart from other men in positions of power. Kissinger did what he felt he had to do to maintain the US as the dominant player in the world and to increase his own influence in the country. I guess you can call it Realpolitk - or you know just politics, Cold War politics if you want to be more specific.Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
He was also fooled by Elizabeth Holmes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5vo7jLGOb8
Although this is a more balanced, less melodic litigation of his charismatic virtues and war crimes:
Some anecdotes: on privacy, Schmidt famously said "if you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place". So CNET reporters published some of his personal information found through Google searches to demonstrate the need for privacy that he was denying to us peasants. Instead of reconsidering his position, he blacklisted CNET from speaking to Google.
In 2017 a think tank working on tech praised the European Commission's legal decision to fine Google for abusing its market power. Schmidt used his personal influence to have the author of the report fired from the think tank.
See also Assange's report: "Schmidt's world view equates progress with the geographic expansion of Google, supported by the US State Department – technocratic imperialism."
On tax, Schmidt has claimed that Google's tax avoidance is "capitalism" and that he is "very proud of it".
A personal anecdote: I remember Schmidt starting a conversation with a room of people barely making a living by discussing his latest vacation in the Caribbeans and how big his yacht was. He did not even consider that this could be perceived as rude or obscene. It was painfully obvious that to him these extreme levels of inequality are natural and perfectly justified, with himself on the right side of course.
He considers himself very bright. There is some evidence that he his slightly above average. But if you look at some of his strategic decisions, politically before Trump he bet all in on Clinton, positioning Alphabet very close to the Democrats. To a technocrat like him Clinton's victory was obvious. Of course he got things entirely wrong and completely missed the Trump populist backlash, which put Alphabet in a very difficult position politically for several years.
Schmidt is the embodiment of the modern technocratic elite, respects only power and money, complete spite and disregard for common people, entirely alien to the mere concept of common good or actual democracy, and absolute confidence that today's inequalities are perfectly natural, despite his own position being much more a consequence of his sociopathic tendencies than of his slightly above average skills, praising capitalism and liberalism while he got rich and powerful largely through monopolistic market dominance.
Of all the dim technocratic billionaires that pass for our so-called elite today, he is the one I despise the most.
I'm not saying you owe billionaires better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. Internet psychiatric diagnosis and personal attack rants, for example, don't belong here.
How it seems to work is if said person aligns with your own political views (i.e. the ends justifies the mean) then war crime are conveniently overlooked.
It also requires equating the ANC with the uMkhonto we Sizwe [0], making wrong claims about their targeting, and embezzling how the creation of the uMkhonto we Sizwe was a direct reaction to getting massacred when initially attempting peaceful, non-violent, protest [1].
Not to mention how the US's role in Cambodia is in not at all analogous with the role of the AMC in Apartheid Africa. Even attempting this comparison, to argue for some kind or ethical nihilism, is something very weird to do.
Wouldn't you agree these are generally "good" causes, unless you are the aggressor in that situation?
The inherent asymmetry of these conflicts, particularly in military power, leaves the "insurgent" side usually not much more choice than use cruder weapons and go for targets of opportunity that may involve a higher risk of civilian collateral.
Which is not a new dynamic, it's a very old dynamic that many militaries throughout history had to deal with when occupying populated territories hostile to them.
Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. That doesn't mean he can't write interesting books (and his intelligence & experience are obviously immense) but it does mean he doesn't deserve that kind of flattery and respect.