Welcome to my Forever Ignored Club.

Hillary on the other hand is a believer of the Bush Doctrine, Overthrowing governments for business opportunities and appears to agree With Kissinger's belief that take those ideas and multiply them by a factor of ten and you arrive at a pragmatic use of American military power.

Do you know of a war she has never liked?
She votes for or advocates for war every chance she gets.

As any reasonable adult SHOULD be, unless they're getting something in return - like "donations" to their "Foundation" from the MIC and the House of Saud.

The fascism part is what worries me with the present trends in income inequality and the impotence of the public in regard to public policy.

You might be interested in the conversation where I posted this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1161965

the person I was responding to understands the danger we are in also, so it was a good conversation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016144276

US Marine Major General Smedley Butler.

Thanks for the thread, backscatter.

Make it past review for publication.

So yeah, this is true.

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/12/emails_expose_close_ties_between_hillary_clinton_and_accused_war_criminal_henry_kissinger/

Tuesday, Jan 12, 2016 10:15 AM EST
Emails expose close ties between Hillary Clinton and accused war criminal Henry Kissinger
Kissinger met regularly with Secretary Clinton, and applauded her hawkish foreign policy in a handwritten message
Ben Norton and Jared Flanery

Critics say Kissinger helped carry out egregious war crimes in this critical period, during which he served as secretary of state under presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

The late journalist Christopher Hitchens devoted an entire book to detailing the war crimes overseen by Kissinger, who infamously declared “The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.”

In “The Trial of Henry Kissinger,” Hitchens argues the former secretary of state should be tried “for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap and torture.”

Hitchens described Kissinger as a master of “depraved realpolitik” with “a callous indifference to human life and human rights,” who was behind U.S.-backed atrocities in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, East Timor, Chile, Bangladesh, Cyprus, Kurdish Iraq, Iran, South Africa, Angola and more.

Despite the alleged crimes he oversaw, Kissinger was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, leading critics like dissident scholar Michael Parenti to condemn what he said should be more accurately referred to as the “Nobel Peace Prize for War.”

----snip

Yet Kissinger’s intimate handwritten note is just one sign of the close ties between the accused war criminal and Clinton, who is herself notorious for advocating a similarly aggressive, hawkish foreign policy.

http://www.salon.com/2016/01

/12/emails_expose_close_ties_between_hillary_clinton_and_accused_war_criminal_henry_kissinger/

(A scanned copy of Kissinger’s printed message to Clinton)

And frankly if ever there was a time for "guilt by association" ...

if not now when? Kissinger is that associate.

The PTB are lonely. That's why they organized the Bilderbergers, doncha know?

http://www.alternet.org/world/top-10-most-inhuman-henry-kissinger-quotes


Ten quotes illustrate his megalomania and indifference to the deaths of untold numbers of civilians.


The Global Oligarchy embraces war criminals - and I'm supposed to vote for one?

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

Nice company you keep, Hillary.

On video:

even if it's on video

The ugly statement certainly fits with other crap he's said and done

in many books. Why would anyone believe a word this murderous monster says?

Woodward - who claims he said it in a private conversation with Alexander Haig.

It was not said on record or written anywhere by Kissinger.

Kissinger is usually pretty unapologetic about where he stands on things.

So what? That does not mean she agrees with everything Kissinger has said or done.

If you are going to master the intricacies of practical foreign policy, you don't have many good options among former Secretaries if State who have taught international politics at top universities for manyyears. A SOS has to be appointed by a President, most of whom in recent decades have been Republicans.

HRC is close to Madelyn Albright too. But learning options for realpolitik takes more than one mentor.

There's her vote for war in Iraq.

There's her support of the military coup in Honduras.

There's her clusterfucking of Libya, which has turned it into ISIS hell today.

MUCH better choice, huh?

elaborates on the point I'm making about the #BernieSoPure meme in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511222636.

Thank you for helping me make my point about the very few options for mentorship from a former SOS.

SBS supporters can make these kinds of charges with no fear of blowback, because their candidate never has been accountable for handling issues he did not choose for political reasons, comes from nowhere, and has accomplished nothing except robotic bloviating like a broken record.

How long did it take you to think up that response? She hangs out with a WAR CRIMINAL because she has few options???

Holy shit. Just Holy.Shit. and your link is a 404, so I'm not sure what any of this means except that you really really need to take some creative writing classes or something. Hours to reflect and maybe just not saying anything about something that once again shows questionable judgement on HRC's part and THIS is what you come up with? WAAAAHHH THE OTHER KIDS WON'T PLAY WITH HER!!!!

SHE BROUGHT KISSINGER UP LIKE IT WAS SOME POINT OF PRIDE. He's a fucking war criminal and Albright is only marginally better.

MENTORSHIP?? The most important job she's ever been given and she PICKS KISSINGER AS A MENTOR BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE WAS AVAILABLE?


I'm actually speechless. And that's saying something.

And in typical HRC supporter fashion, instead of admitting you have a VERY OBVIOUSLY FLAWED candidate, you start with the purity bullshit.

HENRY KISSINGER

You may as well choose Martin Bormann as a "mentor."

Was one of her mentors is so benign, isn't it.

The man is evil. That he still has currency in our political world only emphasizes how utterly corrupt it is.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+horror+apocalypse+now&&view=detail&mid=ADD08E0C658506BDE091ADD08E0C658506BDE091&FORM=VRDGAR

... A traitor, he's been a chief architect of the money trumps peace for empire-n-big oil ever since.

An Insider’s View of Nixon’s ‘Treason’

Special Report: A recently released oral history by one of President Nixon’s secretive operatives sheds new light on perhaps Nixon’s darkest crime, the sabotaging of Vietnam peace talks so he could win the 1968 election, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry
ConsortiumNews.com, July 5, 2014

Tom Charles Huston, the national security aide assigned by President Richard Nixon to investigate what President Lyndon Johnson knew about why the Vietnam peace talks failed in 1968, concluded that Nixon was personally behind a secret Republican scheme to sabotage those negotiations whose collapse cleared the way to his narrow victory – and to four more years of war.

“Over the years as I’ve studied it, I’ve concluded that there was no doubt that Nixon was – would have been directly involved, that it’s not something that anybody would’ve undertaken on their own,” Huston said in an oral history done for the Nixon presidential library in 2008 and recently released in partially redacted form.

Huston, who is best known for the 1970 Huston Plan to expand spying on the anti-Vietnam War movement, said he was assigned the peace-talk investigation after Nixon took office because Nixon was told by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover that President Johnson had learned of Nixon’s sabotage through national security wiretaps.

Those wiretaps had revealed that Nixon’s campaign was promising South Vietnamese President Nguyen van Thieu a better deal if he boycotted the Paris peace talks, which Thieu did in the days before the U.S. presidential election in 1968.

“I think clearly there was no doubt that the Nixon campaign was aggressively trying to keep President Thieu from agreeing,” Huston said in his oral history [To see the transcripts, click here and here.]

Johnson’s failure to achieve a breakthrough stalled a late surge by Vice President Hubert Humphrey and enabled Nixon to prevail in one of the closest elections in U.S. history. Nixon then expanded the war with heavier strategic bombing over Indochina and with an invasion of Cambodia before winding down U.S. troop levels by 1973.

In those Nixon years, a million more Vietnamese were estimated to have died along with an additional 20,763 U.S. dead and 111,230 wounded. The war also bitterly divided the United States, often turning parents against their own children.

Hoover’s Double Game

According to Huston, Hoover briefed Nixon on his potential vulnerability regarding Johnson’s wiretap evidence even before Nixon took office. “That goes back to the meeting that Nixon had with Hoover at the Pierre Hotel in New York after the election, at which Nixon made it clear to Hoover that he was going to reappoint him, which is what Hoover wanted.

“But, you know, Hoover was a piece of work. I mean, at the same time that pursuant to instructions from Lyndon Johnson he’s got his agents scurrying all over the damn Southwest, you know, trying to dig up dirt on the vice president-elect [Spiro Agnew for his purported role in the peace-talk sabotage], [Hoover]’s sitting with the President-elect and telling him that Johnson had bugged his airplane during the ’68 campaign,” a specific claim that was apparently false but something that Nixon appears to have believed.

Faced with uncertainty about exactly what evidence Johnson had, Nixon ordered up a review of what was in the files, including whatever obstacles that the peace talks had encountered, an area that Huston felt required examining the issue of Republican obstruction, including contacts between Nixon campaign operative Anna Chennault and senior South Vietnamese officials.

“I wasn’t really asked specifically to address Chennault, but you couldn’t really look at [Johnson’s] bombing halt and the politics of the bombing halt without — at least in my judgment, without looking at what Johnson was looking at,” Huston said. “What Johnson was looking at was this perception that the Nixon campaign was doing whatever it could to sabotage his efforts to achieve a bombing halt.”

Huston found that nearly all the national security files at the White House had been packed up and shipped to the Johnson presidential library in Austin, Texas, so Huston began piecing together the material from records recovered from the FBI and other federal agencies. According to the National Archives, Nixon, as the sitting president, would have had relatively easy access to the material shipped to Austin if he had wanted it.

The X-Envelope

But Johnson had taken no chances that Nixon’s team might recover the file containing the evidence on what Johnson called Nixon’s “treason.” As Johnson was leaving the White House in January 1969, he ordered his national security aide Walt Rostow to take that file and keep it in his personal possession. Rostow labeled the file “The X-Envelope,” although it has since become known to Johnson archivists as the “X-File.”

Describing his investigation, Huston said he eventually “got so frustrated … because I knew I wasn’t getting all of the information that would allow me to really understand what had happened in Paris. And so I decided to go out and start bird-dogging on my own,” reaching out to other federal agencies.

Huston said “there is no question” that the Nixon campaign approached senior South Vietnamese officials with promises of a better deal if they stayed away from the Paris peace talks.

“Clearly, [campaign manager John] Mitchell was directly involved. Mitchell was meeting with her [Chennault], and, you know, the question, was the candidate himself directly involved, and, you know, my conclusion is that there is no evidence that I found, nor that anyone else has found that I can determine, that I regard as credible, that would confirm the fact that Nixon was directly involved.

“I think my understanding of the way in which — having been in the ’68 campaign, and my understanding of the way that campaign was run, it’s inconceivable to me that John Mitchell would be running around, you know, passing messages to the South Vietnamese government, et cetera, on his own initiative.”

Though Huston reported to Nixon that the Johnson people apparently lacked a “smoking gun” that personally implicated him in the scheme, the whereabouts of the missing evidence and exactly what it showed remained a pressing concern to Nixon and his inner circle, especially in June 1971 when major American newspapers began publishing the leaked Pentagon Papers. That report revealed the deceptions that had pervaded the Vietnam conflict from its post-World War II origins through 1967, covering mostly Democratic lies.

A Dangerous Sequel

But Nixon knew what few others did, that there was the potential for a devastating sequel, the story of how the Nixon campaign had torpedoed peace talks that could have ended the war. Given the intensity of anti-war sentiment in 1971, such a revelation could have had explosive and unforeseeable consequences, conceivably even impeachment and certainly threatening Nixon’s reelection in 1972.

Huston had come to believe that a detailed report on the failed Paris peace talks, possibly containing the evidence of the Republican sabotage, had ended up at the Brookings Institution, then regarded as a liberal think tank housing many of Nixon’s top critics.

“I send [White House chief of staff H.R. “Bob”] Haldeman a memo and I said, basically, ‘You’re not going to believe this.’ Here I’ve spent all these months, I’ve been chasing all over the God-dang’d government try to get everybody to give me bits and pieces and trying to do this job that you told me to do, and the God-dang’d Brookings Institution is sitting over here with a God-dang’d multi-volume report that I don’t have. And if Brookings can get the damn thing, I don’t see any reason why I can’t get it.”

According to Brookings officials and U.S. government archivists, Huston appears to have been wrong in his conclusions about the existence of such a “multi-volume report” hidden at Brookings, but his memo would have historical repercussions because it became the focus of a frantic Oval Office meeting on June 17, 1971, as Nixon and his top aides were assessing their own exposure as the Pentagon Papers filled the front pages of the New York Times.

Blow the Safe

Nixon summoned Haldeman and national security advisor Henry Kissinger into the Oval Office and – as Nixon’s own recording devices whirred softly – pleaded with them again to locate the missing file. “Do we have it?” Nixon asked Haldeman. “I’ve asked for it. You said you didn’t have it.”

Haldeman: “We can’t find it.”

Kissinger: “We have nothing here, Mr. President.”

Nixon: “Well, damnit, I asked for that because I need it.”

Kissinger: “But Bob and I have been trying to put the damn thing together.”

Haldeman: “We have a basic history in constructing our own, but there is a file on it.”

Nixon: “Where?”

Haldeman: “Huston swears to God that there’s a file on it and it’s at Brookings.”

Nixon: “Bob? Bob? Now do you remember Huston’s plan [for White House-sponsored break-ins as part of domestic counter-intelligence operations]? Implement it.”

Kissinger: “Now Brookings has no right to have classified documents.”

Nixon: “I want it implemented. … Goddamnit, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.”

Haldeman: “They may very well have cleaned them by now, but this thing, you need to –“

Kissinger: “I wouldn’t be surprised if Brookings had the files.”

Haldeman: “My point is Johnson knows that those files are around. He doesn’t know for sure that we don’t have them around.”

But Johnson did know that the key file documenting Nixon’s peace-talk sabotage was safely out of Nixon’s reach, entrusted to his former national security advisor Walt Rostow.

Forming the Burglars

On June 30, 1971, Nixon again berated Haldeman about the need to break into Brookings and “take it [the file] out.” Nixon even suggested using former CIA officer E. Howard Hunt to conduct the Brookings break-in.

“You talk to Hunt,” Nixon told Haldeman. “I want the break-in. Hell, they do that. You’re to break into the place, rifle the files, and bring them in. … Just go in and take it. Go in around 8:00 or 9:00 o’clock.”

Haldeman: “Make an inspection of the safe.”

Nixon: “That’s right. You go in to inspect the safe. I mean, clean it up.”

For reasons that remain unclear, it appears that the Brookings break-in never took place – although Brookings officials say an attempted break-in was made – but Nixon’s desperation to locate Johnson’s peace-talk evidence was an important link in the chain of events that led to the creation of Nixon’s burglary unit under Hunt’s supervision. Hunt later oversaw the two Watergate break-ins in May and June of 1972.

While it’s possible that Nixon was still searching for the evidence about his Vietnam-peace sabotage when the Watergate break-ins occurred nearly a year later, it’s generally believed that the burglary was more broadly focused, seeking any information that might have an impact on Nixon’s re-election, either defensively or offensively.

As it turned out, Nixon’s burglars were nabbed inside the Watergate complex during their second break-in at the Democratic National Committee on June 17, 1972, exactly one year after Nixon’s tirade to Haldeman and Kissinger about the need to blow the safe at the Brookings Institution in pursuit of the missing Vietnam peace-talk file.

Ironically, too, Johnson and Rostow had no intention of exposing Nixon’s dirty secret regarding LBJ’s Vietnam peace talks, presumably for the same reasons that they kept their mouths shut back in 1968, out of a benighted belief that revealing Nixon’s actions might somehow not be “good for the country.” [For details, see Robert Parry’s America’s Stolen Narrative.]

The Scandal Grows

In November 1972, despite the growing scandal over the Watergate break-in, Nixon handily won reelection, crushing Sen. George McGovern, Nixon’s preferred opponent. Nixon then reached out to Johnson seeking his help in squelching Democratic-led investigations of the Watergate affair and slyly noting that Johnson had ordered wiretaps of Nixon’s campaign in 1968.

Johnson reacted angrily to the overture, refusing to cooperate. On Jan. 20, 1973, Nixon was sworn in for his second term. On Jan. 22, 1973, Johnson died of a heart attack.

In the weeks that followed Nixon’s Inauguration and Johnson’s death, the scandal over the Watergate cover-up grew more serious, creeping ever closer to the Oval Office. Meanwhile, Rostow struggled to decide what he should do with “The ‘X’ Envelope.”

On May 14, 1973, in a three-page “memorandum for the record,” Rostow summarized what was in “The ‘X’ Envelope” and provided a chronology for the events in fall 1968. Rostow reflected, too, on what effect LBJ’s public silence then may have had on the unfolding Watergate scandal.

“I am inclined to believe the Republican operation in 1968 relates in two ways to the Watergate affair of 1972,” Rostow wrote. He noted, first, that Nixon’s operatives may have judged that their “enterprise with the South Vietnamese” – in frustrating Johnson’s last-ditch peace initiative – had secured Nixon his narrow margin of victory over Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

“Second, they got away with it,” Rostow wrote. “Despite considerable press commentary after the election, the matter was never investigated fully. Thus, as the same men faced the election in 1972, there was nothing in their previous experience with an operation of doubtful propriety (or, even, legality) to warn them off, and there were memories of how close an election could get and the possible utility of pressing to the limit – and beyond.” [To read Rostow’s memo, click here, here and here.]

Tie to Watergate

What Rostow didn’t know was that there was a third – and more direct – connection between the missing file and Watergate. Nixon’s fear about the evidence in the file surfacing as a follow-up to the Pentagon Papers was Nixon’s motive for creating Hunt’s burglary team in the first place.

Rostow apparently struggled with what to do with the file for the next month as the Watergate scandal expanded. On June 25, 1973, fired White House counsel John Dean delivered his blockbuster Senate testimony, claiming that Nixon got involved in the cover-up within days of the June 1972 burglary at the Democratic National Committee. Dean also asserted that Watergate was just part of a years-long program of political espionage directed by Nixon’s White House.

The very next day, as headlines of Dean’s testimony filled the nation’s newspapers, Rostow reached his conclusion about what to do with “The ‘X’ Envelope.” In longhand, he wrote a “Top Secret” note which read, “To be opened by the Director, Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, not earlier than fifty (50) years from this date June 26, 1973.”

In other words, Rostow intended this missing link of American history to stay missing for another half century. In a typed cover letter to LBJ Library director Harry Middleton, Rostow wrote: “Sealed in the attached envelope is a file President Johnson asked me to hold personally because of its sensitive nature. In case of his death, the material was to be consigned to the LBJ Library under conditions I judged to be appropriate. …

“After fifty years the Director of the LBJ Library (or whomever may inherit his responsibilities, should the administrative structure of the National Archives change) may, alone, open this file. … If he believes the material it contains should not be opened for research [at that time], I would wish him empowered to re-close the file for another fifty years when the procedure outlined above should be repeated.”

Ultimately, however, the LBJ Library didn’t wait that long. After a little more than two decades, on July 22, 1994, the envelope was opened and the archivists began the long process of declassifying the contents.

Yet, by withholding the file on Nixon’s “treason,” Johnson and Rostow allowed for incomplete and distorted histories of the Vietnam War and Watergate to take shape – and for Nixon and his Republican cohorts to escape the full opprobrium that they deserved.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

SOURCE w/links: https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/05/an-insiders-view-of-nixons-treason/

Thanks for grokking, enthusiast.

FTW: Robert Parry allows DUers to post entire article as "Thanks!" for helping ConsortiumNews out back in 2006. The great DUer blm helped arrange it.

Seems to be a thing with Republicans as they repeated the same sort of trick with G H W Bush and Reagan.

Which at least would have prevented his acts of genocide and crimes against humanity.

Pinochet, Nixon, Poppy and Kissinger ran in the same murderous circles.



Unsealed Documents Show Pinochet 'Directly' Involved in Capitol Hill Assassinations

Orlando Letelier and Ronni Karpen Moffitt became 'symbols of the broader human rights catastrophe of the Pinochet dictatorship'

by Sarah Lazare, staff writer
CommonDreams, Oct. 8, 2015

Loved ones have long charged that U.S.-backed dictator Augusto Pinochet had a direct hand in the 1976 assassination of former Chilean diplomat Orlando Letelier and his Institute for Policy Studies colleague Ronni Karpen Moffitt. Now, they may finally be vindicated.

The administration of President Barack Obama on Thursday publicly released documents that appear to show that Pinochet was behind the murders of Letelier and Moffitt, who have become "symbols of the broader human rights catastrophe of the Pinochet dictatorship," Sarah Anderson, director of the Global Economy Project at IPS, told Common Dreams.

The materials, which include CIA papers, were given to Chilean President Michelle Bachelet on Tuesday by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

SNIP...

Letelier’s son, Chilean Senator Juan Pablo Letelier, is one of the few people who has reviewed the trove and confirmed to the Guardian that they conclusively show Pinochet directly ordered the killing. In addition, the documents reportedly reveal that Pinochet had intended to cover up his role in the assassination by killing his spy chief.

"In (Pinochet’s) predisposition to defend his position he planned to eliminate Manuel Contreras to keep him from talking," Senator Letelier told the Mesa Central show on Tele13 Radio.

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/10/08/unsealed-documents-show-pinochet-directly-involved-capitol-hill-assassinations

Strange how we see the victims of murder, chronicle the treason and crimes, name names yo all the fingerprints, yet no one is held to account. What a coincidence, hifiguy.

called the "assorted meat-packing glitterati" of South America.

Pinochet's favorite means of executing "leftists" of any stripe was taking them for a plane ride. And throwing them out at 25,000 feet. Bet that ol' Hank was grumpy he didn't think that one up himself.

This is a serious issue. I'm glad that you serve as a historian on this forum. That's important.

Kissinger and the people for whom he toils have zero respect for human life, apart from their own. In the too near future, liberté, égalité, fraternité and ideas like justice, commonwealth and democracy may be missing from humanity's thoughts if we don't wake the heck up now.



Like the fellah who just wants a bath and a shave in "High Plains Drifter."

Why does this matter, when my house is about to get foreclosed because my job got offshored? It's tied in, when Wall Street and War Inc. are where the really Big Bucks go to get made. For We the People are the ones who ALWAYS get "the haircut."



Sometimes a fortune rests on a mere scrap of information, like in a "Fistful of Dollars."



Then there's the signature tradition of playing both sides off the middle, like selling rifles to both the Allies and the Central Powers during World War I, or the bounty hunters in "For a Few Dollars More" getting one inside to work out.



Banks is where the money is.





Then, there's Booz Allen, NSA's go-to private spyhaus, vacuums and filters the right stuff for Carlyle Group, a buy-partisan business which always seems to know where and what to bomb and make a buck, but the lines between sides turned out be fuzzy and amorphous nebula-like -- like in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."



Sorry to repost ad nauseum, but thanks to Terror Inc, the subject needs mention and there's no time to reinvent the wheel. The reality is that underneath what shows for public navigators is one enormous iceberg made from blood-red ice, invisible to the proles and serfs who are doing their best to keep afloat in a frozen sea of austerity, endless war and debt servitude in what are, by far, the wealthiest times in human history. The fact the greedheads would rather make a World War instead of building a better world for all shows who Terror most benefits.

PS: You are most welcome, H2O Man. Thank you for the kind words. I really appreciate you grokking what I do.

for a minute there my browser stopped scrolling and he kept staring at me like he wanted to suck out my soul. I had to avert my eyes. Next time a warning please before you put up a picture like that.

History untaught and unreported: The admiral on the right in the picture below ran a spy operation on the president at left.



The reason? He thought Nixon was going soft on communism.

Yeoman Radford stole from Henry Kissinger's briefcase on secret trip to China...



...in all he may've copied more than 10,000 documents.



History shows that the brass hats who run the Pentagon are just as liable as any lowly journalist to forget for whom they work. Thanks to NSA and all the rest of the oxymoronic alphabet soup of an Military Industrial Intelligence Community, while we don't need to remind them what we think of that, as they're listening and reading just about everything that's transmitted, they know. We do need to remind them of who's the boss. And as long as there's a Constitution, We the People will.

The Clintons have been way too close to the Bushes for my taste, too. Really reinforces the "both parties are the same" meme.

That meme would be better with a little tweaking.

More precisely, it's the old good cop bad cop game. The good cop is not the same as the bad cop, but they're both playing the same game, in service of the same masters.

Kissinger belongs in prison, or worse, not in some lush Dominican beachfront villa vacationing with the Clintons.

There are few things that would disgust me more about a candidate.

Bernie for the win.

"Like a sister-in-law." Jeebus, people, how more obvious can it get? The Clintons are honorary members of the Bush Crime Family.

Victoria Nuland, who was promoted up the State Department by the Clintons, who worked for regime change in the Ukraine, and who is married to PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan.

These are the type of people the Clintons will have in their administration, making foreign policy.

It sounds like a slam, but it's actually the truth. Foreign policy should be the albatross around her neck, not a strength in any way.

Expertise, knowing where Fallujah is (Hillary's comment), Dick Cheney would pass these tests as well as Hillary. I don't want Dick Cheney in charge of foreign policy. Hillary is not Dick Cheney (though Nuland also served under Cheney), but she is neoliberal on economics and neoconservative on foreign policy, not my idea of who I want to be president or representing the Democratic Party.

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/

Choosing th best excerpt from this article was a challenge, better to read all of fit. I went with this one:

A Family Business of Perpetual War

Herself is just another neocon imperialist fascist asshole. Another Kissinger.

Kissinger has the blood of millions on his hands. DicKKK is a pretender compared to Henry the K.

Fascinating.

still hoping more the FBI to finish her off so that dilemma would be presented.

What does that mean exactly?

she is our nominee come Nov. '17.

I am so fucking sick of Bushes and their adopted grifter siblings the Clintons I could projectile vomit for a week. Blights on the republic and blots on the landscape of democracy. Fuck the lot of them with a red-hot poker.

This is not a surprise.

I dropped my jaw when she mentioned him. In whose world is the mention of Kissinger good? In what country would the mention of Kissinger be a positive thing? Honestly, she really said it and I was stunned. Is she really so certain that the little tidbit about him would go over well with people? Does she think we are all so stupid we don't remember or have the ability to look this shit up?

So now we get a little bit of the rest of the story. Honestly, if I even was in the same room with the man I would make a quick escape. I know they have to be better behaved than I do but this takes that to the extreme. I cannot even imagine being able to get past what he did to appreciate any of the other good things he must bring to friendship.

Poor Judgment by mentioning him at all. If she's that close to Kissinger, she has to know his history. Guess Madame Secretary thought she could get by with it.

The thing that worries me the most is that if she and everyone else in our government knows what all he did, and they most certainly do, then for her to use him as a name to drop thinking it is A Okay with everyone since they all respect him is a stunning comment on almost everyone IN our government.

It is either that or poor judgment or both. I wonder how many people were sitting there listening to the debate whose heads snapped up in alarm at the mention of that disgusting war criminals name as her go to.

Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger: It's Personal. Very Personal., February 12, 2016



Henry Kissinger and Hillary Clinton receive the Germany Freedom Award in 2009. Gero Breloer/AP (Via MotherJones)





I hope Senator Sanders expands on her ties to this heinous war criminal. The electorate needs to know Hillary Clinton thoroughly, as she asks for their votes.

THAT picture!!!!!!!!!!!

He is a WANTED war criminal who cannot set foot an a substantial number of nations without facing the threat of being thrown into prison.

Read the entire article ... !!!

Hillary Clinton is NOT one of us.

Her insinuation into the top-of-the-top of the power elite is startling and profoundly disappointing.

I could tolerate a 'courtesy' call of two with a former Secretary of State, even one as odious as Henry K.

But to party, relax, and socialize at the Oscar de la Renta estate with Henry and Nancy is, well, unbelievable.

And the arrogance of Hillary that we plebeians are just supposed to excuse this and shrug and accept that this is her lifestyle -- but we can trust her to know what is in our best interests???

Unbelievable.

That so many establishment Democratic Party officials and officeholders have endorsed her -- there is something deeply wrong in the party of FDR and Robert Kennedy.

For a while, both Hillary and Bernie were reasonably competent on stage during the debates.

When both candidates aren't making errors, generally, a debate won't really swing voters all that much.

However, while it's nearly impossible to "hit a home run" that will knock out your opponent in a televised debate, it is very much possible to really hurt yourself with an own goal.

And that's what Hillary did when she name-dropped Kissinger. She should have known that the Democratic base hates that war criminal with a passion. But now it's done, and Bernie pounced on the opportunity, and the Democratic voters are tearing her to pieces over this. And rightly so.

For the past decade, the Democratic party has become the party for toning down the wars, bringing our troops home, and using our words instead of our guns to work things out across the globe. And then Hillary went and invoked the name of the person that orchestrated bombings, coups, and countless deaths. It goes against everything today's Democratic Party stands for.

Hillary should have known better.

That was a very unwise move on her part, imo.

She models herself after him. War Forever Everywhere.

Never, ever.

She is just awful.

Good gawd, the more I've learned...

It shows his true authenticity because it's something that could have backfired on him. Yet, he chose to be honest about his evaluation of this blood soaked criminal.

As for Hillary, I hope a few more of these cozy arrangements with one percenters and other dispicable establishment types continue to surface. We, the people, need to know about our would be leaders before we place them in power.

notorious recent butchers/mass murderers, who also happens to be a wanted war criminal. By choice. What a peach she is. What next? An endorsement from the Charlie Manson fan club?

Self-advancement by any means possible. The question of fair or foul never enters into it.

The first woman president...can't we just ignore that to have one?...is it not worth it?
I mean what is the worst that could happen...another war?...it just means profit and increased defense stocks value. It won't be your kids dying in that war for gods sake.
I guess I need this.

Just another example of how out of touch Hillary Clinton is, and how dangerous having her in the White House would be in terms of American foreign policy.

What is she thinking? Satire alert below.

Hillary Surprised So Many Americans Recall Kissinger a War Criminal

+

some of us remember the history through which we lived.

Buddying up to a wanted war criminal, butcher and mass murderer is not a plus for you. You buddies with Charlie Manson too?

Jeebus wept.

That's a hard right government that has been ethnic purging black people over the border into Haiti.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/6/17/the_dominican_republics_ethnic_purging_edwidge

The Clintons should KNOW BETTER.

while Bill was schtooping Monica.

That's as bad as Jerry Hall schtooping Rupert Murdoch. eom

Whew, that was close.

There is no hope of a bright future for us if she gets the job. More of the same - and worse.

Thank you for this!

that happens. Kissinger might have insights into a lot of things.

This whole thing is stupid - overwrought cherry picking just to swfitboat Hillary.

Nothing else, though. Buddying up to the likes of Kissinger is like hanging out with Martin Bormann. There is NO excuse.

Not going to fly with most voters They just aren't seething with hate over every politician they disagree with.

the things and people Clinton supporters have to defend is just sad.

joining the Martin Bormann fan club. It boggles the mind.

Yeah, everyone who doesn't tow the pure ideological line is a Nazi.

No defending Hillary taking advantage of whatever knowledge he has.

That he is the Most Evil who Ever Eviled I don't think registers with voters.

What is swifitboat?

Latin Americans in this country who... vote.

who care enough for their vote to be about only that.

Most voters don't subscribe to the anti-US CTs about how the US causes every problem in every remote country in the world.

Most Latin Americans aren't even from Chile. If you are an immigrant from Chile, you usually won't be if you are furious with the US over things happening 40 years ago.

From 2006: Know your BFEE: Los Amigos de Bush

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html

Hillary's record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern US history. Some experience. Hilary was a staunch defender of the military-industrial-intelligence complex at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches from Mali to Afghanistan. Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria.

Hillary has been much attacked for the deaths of US diplomats in Benghazi, but her tireless promotion of the overthrow Muammar Qaddafi by NATO bombing is the far graver disaster. Hillary strongly promoted NATO-led regime change in Libya, not only in violation of international law but counter to the most basic good judgment. After the NATO bombing, Libya descended into civil war while the paramilitaries and unsecured arms stashes in Libya quickly spread west across the African Sahel and east to Syria. The Libyan disaster has spawned war in Mali, fed weapons to

Boko Haram in Nigeria, and fueled ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In the meantime, Hillary found it hilarious to declare of Qaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died."

Perhaps the crowning disaster of this long list of disasters has been Hillary's relentless promotion of CIA-led regime change in Syria. Once again Hillary bought into the CIA propaganda that regime change to remove Bashir al-Assad would be quick, costless, and surely successful. In August 2011, Hillary led the US into disaster with her declaration Assad must "get out of the way," backed by secret CIA operations.

Five years later, no place on the planet is more ravaged by unending war, and no place poses a great threat to US security. More than 10 million Syrians are displaced, and the refugees are drowning in the Mediterranean or undermining the political stability of Greece, Turkey, and the European Union. Into the chaos created by the secret CIA-Saudi operations to overthrow Assad, ISIS has filled the vacuum, and has used Syria as the base for worldwide terrorist attacks.