Monday, February 15, 2016

Kissinger as litmus paper

"The difference between the two views of Kissinger is not simply of academic or historical interest. How a presidential candidate feels about him is a clear sign of her or his worldview and indicates the kind of decisions she or he will make in office – and, perhaps even more importantly, suggests the kind of staffers she or he will appoint to key positions of authority in areas of diplomacy, defense, national security, and intelligence."

Here's an excellent look at what embracing Henry Kissinger means, and what, therefore, shunning him means. And why the media, especially the Washington press corps, doesn't even want to talk about it.

A taste:
The sparring during Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders over whether Henry Kissinger is an elder statesman or a pariah has laid bare a major foreign policy divide within the Democratic Party.

Clinton and Sanders stand on opposite sides of that divide. One represents the hawkish Washington foreign policy establishment, which reveres and in some cases actually works for Kissinger. The other represents the marginalized non-interventionists, who can’t possibly forgive someone with the blood of millions of brown people on his hands.

Kissinger is an amazing and appropriate lens through which to see what’s at stake in the choice between Clinton and Sanders.

Labels: ,

1 Comments:

At 2:30 PM, February 15, 2016 Anonymous Kathie had this to say...

Tom Lehrer famously observed that "awarding the [Nobel Peace] prize to Kissinger made political satire obsolete."

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post

Links to this post:

Create a Link

     <-- Older Post                     ^ Home                    Newer Post -->