The New Republic

McCain clearly has not decided whether Jim Baker or Robert Kagan is the more important source to his campaign for foreign policy matters. Apparently, though, the relationship between McCain and Brent Scowcroft was exaggerated, as the latter is neutral in the presidential race. Obama's stance on Iran probably is keeping some Republican realists from being closer with McCain.

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../brent-scowcroft-neutral-i_n_114588.html

- rozenson

July 27, 2008 at 1:52pm

Kissinger, huh?

So it turns out that *John McCain* is the one who has a close relationship with a violent, radical '60s extremist who should be rotting in prison but was never charged.

- WoodyBombay

July 27, 2008 at 2:27pm

Woody:

At least Ayers was charged. He only walked because W. Mark Felt and the FBI's COINTELPRO gang repeatedly broke the law in gaining evidence against him. Speaking of 60s radicalism and lawlessness. And, just for the record, I am no way defending the terrorism of Ayers of Dohrn.

- propositionjoe

July 27, 2008 at 3:07pm

WoodyBombay said:

"Kissinger, huh?

So it turns out that *John McCain* is the one who has a close relationship with a violent, radical '60s extremist who should be rotting in prison but was never charged."

What an asshole Woody Bombay is.

He wasn't charged because he didn't break any laws and because he was no "extremist."

You are the extremist, asshole.

- jacksondyer

July 27, 2008 at 3:56pm

"McCain's advisers were divided, for example, over a speech he gave on nuclear security policy in Denver in May. Two Republican pragmatists who advise McCain, former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, supported a call in the speech for a nuclear-free world, an idea they endorse as part of a "Gang of Four" of national security statesmen...."

Leaving aside the lame phrase "gang of four" the above comments is telling.

Does the fact that Kissinger is for a "nuclear free world  show that he is an extremist?

- jacksondyer

July 27, 2008 at 4:00pm

jackson:

I've been thinking about your defense of Kissinger. I think that you are accurate in noting that Kissinger is not a classic radical. The man built his career through established channels, developing mentors in the US Army and at Harvard that allowed him to make the most of his indisputable intelligence and talents. He did the same in cultivating ties to Nelson Rockefeller and then with Nixon. More to the point, he had an innately conservative view of world order: he believed that international stability was a worthwhile goal and that the best way to provide for such order was to create a world order based on hierarchical principles in which great powers reached agreements that prevented wars and contained conflicts. Detente grew from this sensibility, which is to his credit.

But what he did in service of this stability is, I think, worth questioning, and maybe these acts explain the tenor of Woodybombay's comments. I don't want to rehash the Vietnam War, but Kissinger's drive to maintain American credibility in the face of pressing bad news from the front resulted in a lot of people dying who might not have died if the US had accepted the terms that it did in 1969 rather than 1972/Jan. 1973. And then there is, to say the least, all that unresolved unpleasantness in Chile. The guy is far from a paragon is all I'm saying,  

- propositionjoe

July 27, 2008 at 4:38pm

This is OK but I'm looking forward to tomorrow:

Part II A Glimpse Inside McCain's Decision-Changing Process

Shultz, Kissinger and Lehman?  They make Graham's policies appear as "New As The 90's". And yes, it does explain. The first two may not recall what they tell him from one day to the next and Lehman sees this as a chance to float a battleship....one...more...time.

But we do gain insight that Lehman sees policy as One Cabal, Two Cabal. I think Hasbro has the rights to the game but it never sold.

But seriously, can we have some names who view the planet as Bush left it?  No wonder McCain imagines Iraq to be like Japan or Germany. Or South Korea without the DMZ?  Hey, I don't care if they have illusions of investing in vacation property. They might consider a villa outside the Green Zone to be a bit risky.

However, I would prefer to see the process as it spun around last week as opposed to this example from last May.  It may have been that old favorite Cabal, Two Cabal. Or it might have been, "John, Obama is winning and Bush sold out so you can't take the stay and fight plan to the GOP convention."

Face it. Obama is making policy, now. Bush had three options: Lead, Follow or Get Out of The Way. After Bush chose #2?  McCain could either raise his own funds or follow the follower.

- michael

July 27, 2008 at 5:24pm

"But what he did in service of this stability is, I think, worth questioning, and maybe these acts explain the tenor of Woodybombay's comments." propositionjoe

Screw Woody, I am not interested in his lame opinions.

One can question anyone's action, but that doesn't mean that they are guilty of anything.

" don't want to rehash the Vietnam War, but Kissinger's drive to maintain American credibility in the face of pressing bad news from the front resulted in a lot of people dying who might not have died if the US had accepted the terms that it did in 1969 rather than 1972/Jan. 1973."

Kissinger did not start the War. The war went way back to the Kennedy and Johnson administration and perhaps earlier if you count the advisors sent in during the 50's.

In any case, not accepting terms of surrender is hardly a war crime and besides Nixon was President and not Kissinger at the time. It's the Prez who sets policy.

" And then there is, to say the least, all that unresolved unpleasantness in Chile. The guy is far from a paragon is all I'm saying, "

As for Chili I have read Hitchens idiotic book and as I said he was never indicted and I doubt he would have been convicted of anything.  If every adviser where to be indicted for the advice they give then the jails would be full of advisors.

Lots of people died during WW2; does that mean that those advising Roosevelt should be in jail too?

Besides, the Allende folk weren’t exactly boy scouts.  He wasn’t a liberal democrat, Joe.

- jacksondyer

July 27, 2008 at 5:31pm

"My uneducated guess is that McCain sided with the prags because he liked the idea that calling for a world free of nuclear weapons is the right thing to do. "

After watching McCain try to claim he gave the names of the Steeler's front-four while being interrogated during an interview in Pittsburgh, and trying to claim a stellar record of voting *for* veterans benefits at a townhall in Denver which was attended by a large number of veterans, i would say McCain is siding with the prags because that is the answer that the voters who are not already on board the GOP Express want to hear.

- GSpinks

July 27, 2008 at 7:56pm

"...i would say McCain is siding with the prags because that is the answer that the voters who are not already on board the GOP Express want to hear."

and Obama of course neve panders to anyone. He just "wants to be liked by everyone."

- jacksondyer

July 27, 2008 at 8:18pm

What the fuck does/did it matter whether Allende was a "liberal democrat" or not?  He wasn't an America politician but a Chilean, and other nations are entitled to elect their own governments and conduct their own affairs irrespective of whether we like them or not, and vice versa.

How about extending to others the minimal respect we expect them to extend to us, jd?

- ironyroad

July 27, 2008 at 10:47pm

"What the fuck does/did it matter whether Allende was a "liberal democrat" or not?"

Ok, but if Allende repressive measures in the name of communism shouldn't matter to us, then neither should Pinochet Fascist ones. Why is the fact that Allende wasn't able to carry out his program make him more of a hero than his opponents.

You can't have it both ways Irony.

I wish the US would have toppled Pinochet just as it helped do Allende but in the era of the cold war there was no chance of that.

- jacksondyer

July 27, 2008 at 11:53pm

"Ok, but if Allende repressive measures in the name of communism shouldn't matter to us, then neither should Pinochet Fascist ones. Why is the fact that Allende wasn't able to carry out his program make him more of a hero than his opponents."

Chile under Allende and Chile under Pinochet may as well have been in different galaxies. Allende may have been a communist, but he was elected as one. Chile's democratic institutions were alive and intact under his presidency, and in fact the Chilean courts intervened when he was too overzealous trying to end a 24-day strike by truckers. The ensuing waves of strikes and attempted coups fed the belief that Allende was not repressive _enough_, not too repressive.

Meanwhile, one of Pinochet's first moves as ruler of Chile was to outlaw any leftist party associated with Allende. Political opponents, foreign journalists, or anyone else thought to be dangerous by Pinochet was tortured and imprisoned. Now are you really going to stand by your previous comment comparing the two rulers?

- rozenson

July 28, 2008 at 2:21am

"and Obama of course neve panders to anyone. He just "wants to be liked by everyone." "

You'll notice that I did not use the word "pander". This was intentional. There is pander, and then their is pander, and then there is lying. Panderer or not, I think McCain is a liar.

In the case of the Pittsburgh interview, I do not believe McCain is senile to any extent and therefore my options for why he would make this "mistake" are severely limited; of those options, I doubt sincerely this was an honest mistake because the interview was not done live (to my knowledge), and he had Cindy sitting right next to him who could have corrected him at any point kdka.com/.../Republican.John.McCain.2.767089.html.

The instance of the town hall is a little more complicated, but the MSNBC coverage of the story was good, and the section titled "From the Congressional Record:" on this link is a fascinating read: www.progressnowaction.org/.../CqyL.

- GSpinks

July 28, 2008 at 2:29am

joe,

Good catch - I should have said "brought to trial."

jacksondyer,

Unhinged, obscenity-ridden defenses of Kissinger *and* Pinochet? Quite a productive Sunday for you!

- WoodyBombay

July 28, 2008 at 2:58am

WoodyBombay, I compared Pinochet to Allende and not to Kissinger and didn't defend either of them.  My point was that Kissinger is no war criminal and that you are a  deranged Jew hater, now go fuck yourself.

- jacksondyer

July 28, 2008 at 9:43am

John McCain's call for a "nuclear-free" world demonstrates that he is not qualified to be president.  There are many countries that would retain their nukes, e.g., Pakistan, North Korea, India,  McCain would put the U.S. in a position where the nation could be nuked by others.

- richardt32

July 28, 2008 at 9:52am

Now we know what McCain was doing in May when Obama was still slugging it out with Hillary. An economy in free-fall, a two front war and McCain is coin flipping to arrive at "a world free of nuclear weapons"?  Yeah, that's a message for the Fall...

OK, but is that before or after he kicks China and Russia out of the G-8?

I wasn't being sarcastic when I wrote that outfit is creaky. Yesterday on 'Meet The Press' Obama took each of Brokaw's questions and rammed it into a well woven arrangement that only appealed to the future. No issue is singular in the mind of Obama. Race must be seen through the prism of education which is tied to the economy but we have to solve health care and can't while were pouring $'s into Iraq and NATO must do more while we lean on Pakistan none of this is simple but people have a choice of eight more years...

The current McCain configuration has been taken apart so many times in the past several years they really can't appreciate how the rehearsed and focused Obama machine is an asteroid streaking toward the nation. Fifty states? No, but McCain may have the same challenge as responding to a disaster that will hit thirty states.

Obama's task is tough or not, depending on how he shaves away the worry of race, age and experience. But that task and his plan to govern are one. Buy his package and you can't vote for John.

I recall a year ago when people were obsessing about the poll numbers Obama did not have.  Neither did McCain.

But Barack had an organization, a plan & McCain relied upon a reputation. With 90 days to go I'd wager on Obama's bestseller because McCain's reputation is spent. McCain still appears to be in the decision-making phase and Obama can do each song and dance routine in the show, blindfolded.

- michael

July 28, 2008 at 10:36am

jd,

Your moral depravity is breathtaking.

- WoodyBombay

July 28, 2008 at 1:07pm

I'd just like to second rozenson's comment.  There is no convincing evidence -- in any way -- that would support drawing parallels between Pinochet, a thug and military dictator, and Allende, a legitimately elected leader who, as much as any Latin American leader and much more than some, respected human and civil rights during his term in office.

Which was cut short for some reason, in a violent way.  Why?  Oh yes, I remember now -- wasn't it our friend Kissinger, that great defender of democracy, who commented that the Chileans had no business electing someone that he didn't approve of?

- ironyroad

July 28, 2008 at 2:03pm

WoodyBombay said:  "jd, your moral depravity is breathtaking."

Thanks, your one line insults are underwhelming, bigot.

- jacksondyer

July 28, 2008 at 2:30pm

"Chile under Allende and Chile under Pinochet may as well have been in different galaxies. Allende may have been a communist, but he was elected as one."

So? Hitler was elected too, rozenson. I could site other despicable dictators who were also elected.

Chile's democratic institutions were alive and intact under his presidency, and in fact the Chilean courts intervened when he was too overzealous trying to end a 24-day strike by truckers."

yes, they were still alive, but barelyl Do you really think they would have been alive a few years later had he stayed in power?

Look, Pinocher like Franco were despicable tyrants, I agree, but  there is something that needs to be explained which those on the left (no real friends of democracy) rarley bother to mention. At the end of these brutal regimes both Chili and Spain reverted to or became democratic.

Communist regimes with the exception of Poland and the Czech Republic (and these because they were under domination of a foreign power and didn’t adopt communist willingly) have had a more difficult time adopting democratic institutions, why is that?

This doesn’t excuse the brutality of the regimes but it does means that those who made the distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian governments were not completely wrong.  

Was Pinochet any more brutal than Castro? Yet many people here who condemn him will never condemn the Castroite thugs.

- jacksondyer

July 28, 2008 at 2:42pm

"Oh yes, I remember now -- wasn't it our friend Kissinger, that great defender of democracy, who commented that the Chileans had no business electing someone that he didn't approve of?"

When and where did he say so, Irony?

- jacksondyer

July 28, 2008 at 2:43pm

JD, the quote I was thinking about is the following:  "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

I think I came across it in several places over the years, but wikipedia cites the source as an article in Foreign Affairs from 1975, by Richard Fagen.  There are some other gems out there, of course, it's not the only one.  This, for example, from the Nixon tapes, a couple of days after the coup in Chile:

Nixon: Nothing new of any importance or is there?

Kissinger: Nothing of very great consequence. The Chilean thing is getting consolidated and of course the newspapers are bleeding because a pro-Communist government has been overthrown.

Nixon: Isn't that something? Isn't that something?

Kissinger: I mean instead of celebrating – in the Eisenhower period we would be heroes.

Nixon: Well we didn't – as you know – our hand doesn't show on this one though.

Kissinger: We didn't do it. I mean we helped them. [Garbled] created the conditions as great as possible.

Nixon: That is right. And that is the way it is going to be played.

- ironyroad

July 28, 2008 at 5:07pm

"JD, the quote I was thinking about is the following:  "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.""

What you just quoted, Irony, makes more sense to me.

It makes a difference though to say that Kissinger believed that, as you said earlier, that "the Chileans had no business electing someone that he didn't approve of, " and your latest quote that

" don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist..."

This was the period of the cold war and we in a struggle often vicious with the Soviet Union and the idea of a pro Soviet regime being set up in Chili would probably have scared even Adlai Stevenson.

Having said that, the kind of cynical language both Kissinger and Nixon used to defend their actions isn't to my taste.

However, the original charge, by Woody who couldn’t think his way out of a paper bag, was that Kissinger was a war criminal and should be in jail and this is what I am responding to.

- jacksondyer

July 28, 2008 at 5:39pm

OK, and I was just responding to an implication that the best way to fight communism was to screw with other people's elections.  Generally free and fair elections too, to the best of my knowledge.

- ironyroad

July 28, 2008 at 6:57pm

"OK, and I was just responding to an implication that the best way to fight communism was to screw with other people's elections."

The fight against communism is over, Irony.

Lately the US has been in the business of calling for free and fair election everywhere. This is what helped Hamas take over Gaza.

- jacksondyer

July 28, 2008 at 7:37pm

And your point is that we should have made them come out our way?  If so (and I'm not dismissing that out of hand), how?

- ironyroad

July 28, 2008 at 9:44pm

"If so (and I'm not dismissing that out of hand), how?"

The old fashion way: you make the dead vote.

Just kidding.

My point is that we should neither insisting on election nor dismissing them.  Cultures where there is no viable legal system in place are not ready for universal suffrage.  

- jacksondyer

July 28, 2008 at 9:54pm

I hear you, JD -- in the old Irish ward politics, it was a short walk from the cemetery to the polling booth to do the right thing.

But I still think that messing with elections leaves a bad international taste for a country that prides itself on promoting democratic values.  Sometimes the principle is just that, the principle.

We have to work with what is, not what we'd like to be.

- ironyroad

July 29, 2008 at 12:09am

You get the last word, Irony.  This thread is in the grave yard already and  I feel like we are already speaking from the grave.

- jacksondyer

July 29, 2008 at 4:27pm