"The Trials of Henry Kissinger" DVD Review

[Chris Alger]

Documentary films about history are usually as informative as photographs in history book: they satisfy a kind of craving to see part of what you've been reading about. But you have to do the reading unless you're satisfied with short summaries of events.

This DVD, just released and in most of the chain rental stores, has the same inherent flaws but is remarkable nonetheless. Inspired by Christopher Hitchens' "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" (published originally as two long articles in Harpers' Weekly), the book explores Hitchens' "case" -- more moral than legalistic but still grounded in law -- that Kissinger should be considered a war criminal for actions regarding Southeast Asia, Chile and Indonesia/Timor during the Nixon administration. It evidently has a small following seriously pushing for Kissinger to be put in the dock. More interestingly, Kissinger himself has apparently expressed the fear, inspired by the trials of Augusto Pinochet, that such an unimaginable thing could happen.

The best thing about the film is that it persuasively shapes an argument instead of parading a series of talking heads between stock news footage (although there's a fair amount of that). For example, about a year or so ago I read a magazine article citing excerpts from declassified notes regarding Indonesia. They were so revealing, so damning, that I still have the article somewhere. These same transcripts and other inside documents are used with great effect in the film. Any documentary that uses actual documents instead of just interview snippets is better than most.

There are two other pluses. First, the film gives a good summary of the worst aspects of Nixon's vaunted foreign policy in a plausible context that makes the viewer think "it figures" rather than protraying them as a series of incomprehensible, tragic mistakes. It's a brief but disturbing look at important events that few Americans understand, things that were rarely given reasonable attention when they happened and have disappeared into Orwell's memory hole since. It also gives fair emphasis on the victims rather than defining events in relation to a some nebulous set of unspecified "American interests."

The film also does an admirable job of contrasting the adulation given to a lionized hero of American statesmanship with facts that reveal him to be chiefly or at least considerably responsibile for some of the worst atrocities of the postwar era: a million or so dead in Southeast Asia, hundreds of thousands in Timor, the replacement of Latin America's oldest continuing democracy with one of its worst tyrannies. These are acts so foul for reasons so trivial that few Americans could accept that their government is capable of committing them, at least not "any more," although the record is clear and Kissinger's reputation remains largely untarnished.

This last is the more important point that I think the filmakers should have emphasized more. It's not all that interesting or even remarkable that Kissinger is a heartless Machiavellian self-promoter; we assume such people either abound or sometimes worm their way into official circles. (Maybe they felt bound to follow Hitchens' Ahab-like obsession with the man). Nor is it that in a politically competitive, pluralistic country can so much suffering can result from one guy.

The real problem is that there are U.S. institutions, unreformed and arguably stronger now, that not only propelled Kissinger into power but keep him there. It is extremely hard to reconcile such institutions with the way most Americans believe their country "works." At the very least, if there truly existed an adversarial media or intellectual culture in this country, much less avowedly "liberal" ones, one would expect more mainstream controversy regarding a senior statesman and Nobel Laureate who's body count compares unfavorably to those of Slobodan Milosovic and Saddam Hussein. Kissinger's career proves not only that "it can happen here," but that it already has, and that few people know or care.

If you bristle at that, then see the film or read the book. Or at least read the negative reviews of Hitchens' book available on the website (http://www.trialofhenrykissinger.org/) devoted to it and notice the telling patterns of eliding key facts in favor of venomous castigations of Hitchens' motives and background. One would expect, if the charges against someone of such power and renown were meritless, a point-by-point rebuttal so compelling that anyone who read Hitchens' book would be embarrassed to have wasted the time. Yet nothing like this, to my knowledge, exists.

[Boris]

I didn't know this was on DVD. I'll definitely check it out. Maybe MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM can provide some sort of well formed and logical apology for our venerable elder statesman.

What did you think of Hitchens' book about the Clinton's? It thought it was pretty good but maybe a bit skimpy on details.

[MMMMMM]

No Boris, I have little knowledge and less interest regarding Henry Kissinger, so I won't be providing an apology for him. I do admit I was a bit surprised at Chris' claim that Kisinger's body count was higher than Milosevic's or Hussein's, though. Be that as it may, it may also be that Chris is laying blame entirely on Kissinger which should perhaps be shared by others--I don't know.

Maybe, too, you could find a better place to direct your unprovoked and needless sarcasm. You seem to carry a chip on your shoulder and it imparts at times a foul aspect to your appearance. As Poor Richard says, many words won't fill a bushel, and a word to the wise is enough. But those who could most benefit from advice are generally the least likely to receive it.

[brad]

hes guilty.

[Boris]

Sorry M. My sarcasm is neither unprovoked nor needless. You pollute these forums with a methodology of thinking that is devoid of both logic and wisdom. My theory is that you post your posts because you are highly impressionable, lack the ability for higher level abstraction and are bored. I thought about trying to illustrate my point but you would never admit to believing me anyhow.

[brad]

careful boris, your blond hair will breed itself out and within 20 years you will have evolved into a very stupid person.

[MMMMMM]

"...My theory is that you post your posts because you are highly impressionable, lack the ability for higher level abstraction and are bored."

That's an interesting theory.

[Boris]

I don't get it. Anyways, I'll be very lucky to have any hair at all 20 years from now.

[adios]

Vanity Fair's Christopher Hitchens on What It's Really Like in Iraq (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92982,00.html)

Does this mean that Fox News has a conservative bias /images/graemlins/grin.gif? Short interview but interesting comments by Hitchens none the less IMO.

[brad]

i just cant get over the fact that M thinks

a) blonde hair being a recessive gene is being 'bred out' (as i guess all recessive genes are, according to M they r recessive because they are 'receding' )

b) people working at mcdonalds today are much stupider than 20 or 30 years ago because of evolution. (eg, 'selective' breeding program whereby low iq's breed with low iq's.)
----
of course any rational person knows that its the communists poisoning of our water supply via fluoride that is to blame /images/graemlins/smile.gif heh i crack myself up

[Wake up CALL]

"heh i crack myself up "

nothing like having an audience of one, easier to please.

[brad]

you actually 'beat me into the pot'

you replied before i could even view my own post. (dial up obviously)

[MMMMMM]

brad I guess you still don't undertstand what I wrote, so you're right, maybe you still don't get it.

1) The trait of blond hair is becoming less prevalent. Dark hair is becoming more prevalent. Feel free to hazard any guess you wish as to why this is occurring.

2) People with lower IQs are having more kids overall than people with higher IQs. This trend has become much more pronounced in more recent decades. If you want to believe this trend has ZERO effect on the population as a whole, you're certainly entitled to think so. Heck, you might even be right. Interesting too how they keep "dumbing down" the SATs and other tests, yet students overall keep doing worse. That's quite an accomplishment in itself, that this generation manages to score lower on dumbed down achievement tests (like some tests required for graduation or promotion to the next grade in certain locales) than the last generation did on tougher tests.

I'm actually sort of amazed that you find these statements amazing. Do you just buy hook line and sinker every politically-correct feel-good myth you have been told or do you like to figure things out for yourself?

By the way I'm not saying #1 above has anything to do with #2 above--just so I'm not misquoted or misinterpreted. In fact brad brought up the blond hair issue. Now let's see if he can come up with a reason why blond hair as a percentage of the total population is becoming less prevalent.

[adios]

"Sorry M."

I doubt it.

"My sarcasm is neither unprovoked nor needless."

You could always ignore posters you're not interested in.

"You pollute these forums with a methodology of thinking that is devoid of both logic and wisdom."

Whoa! See a lot of responses to Alger posts but in your words "pollute these forums", really? I notice the plural but I don't see a lot of posts on other forums from M so I'm wondering which others ones he frequently posts on although I don't read them all on a regular basis.

"My theory is that you post your posts because you are highly impressionable, lack the ability for higher level abstraction and are bored."

Wow! I feel down right inadequate myself.

"I thought about trying to illustrate my point but you would never admit to believing me anyhow."

Do tell.

[brad]

'Now let's see if he can come up with a reason why blond hair as a percentage of the total population is becoming less prevalent.'

im guessing fluoride. damn commies.

[Chris Alger]

Hitchens is hard to categorize. He's a journalist with left-wing UK academic roots, a passionate critic of the Vietnam war (a country that "never threatened anybody"), intervention in Central America and U.S./Israel rejectionism regarding Palestine. He has also done considerable service as Noam Chomsky's bulldog, unmasking the crude libels against him.

More recently, he's supported U.S. intervention in the Balkans, including defending (IMO indefensible) Kosovo bombing, and the war in Iraq. This last position, which led to his quitting his bi-weekly column in The Nation, has predictably given him access to the mainstream outlets like Fox, and has led most to conclude that he's no longer "among the left." This might be true.

I think he's just eccentric and exhausted from hanging around obnoxious left-wing types to the point that obnoxious right-wing types seem like a welcome change. He's been skewered by and probably has some personal animosity toward some of his former friends (Chomsky, and less politely, Alex Cockburn). It's hard to imagine him doing anything as peverse as endorsing Bush, much spending the rest of his life defaming former friends and turning his about face into a money-maker, like David Horowitz.

OTOH, there’s junk like that Fox interview. Although Hitchens is partly right about the press overplaying the “quagmire” angle in the first days of the war, his claim that American soldiers are “building schools” – technically false – and that one “never” hears about such things is absurd.

In fact the contract to Bechtel to “rebuild or refurbish” up to 6,000 Iraqi schools was widely reported (a Google search for “Bechtel Iraq contract schools” yields 3,730 hits), as were White House statements that the U.S. intended to do the same. And why “rebuild and refurbish” and not just “build?” Because the schools already exist, but wrecked by UN sanctions and U.S. bombing and shelling. Even before the war, 70% of Iraqi schools run down and overcrowded and a quarter of the Iraqi children – formerly among the most educated in the Arab world – were out of school altogether. This is the usual standard for the mainstream press: when the U.S. rebuilds what it destroyed, it proves the constructive, magnanimous intentions and effects of U.S. policy. Imagine your reaction to seeing some Soviet apologist making the same boasts during the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, yet here it passes without comment, save the occasional self-pitying laments that the U.S. is underappreciated, that one "never" hears about the wonderful things we do, etc.

[Chris Alger]

I think he's right and that Clinton deserved to be impeached, but that lying in a deposition is trivial compared to Clinton's unprovoked, senseless bombing of Sudan and Iraq, which were themselves trivial compared to the more violent actions by other presidents. I think Hitchens wasted his time jumping into that partisan media-driven sideshow.

[Chris Alger]

"Pollute the forums" is fair.

After all, what would you say about someone who ranted and raved that Blacks or Jews are violent, ignorant, barbaric, savage, they don't derserve the same political rights as other groups, and that they threaten virtually the entire world, and then, after repeated complaints about blatant racism, tries to excuse it with the old dodge of "gosh, I don't mean the people, I just mean their culture, although I'm no expert."

You'd dismiss such a person as someone who like to say horrible things about large groups of people that he knows little about. In other words, a plain and simple bigot. But when the targets are Arabs or Muslims ....

[MMMMMM]

I never said Arabs or Muslims don't deserve the same rights as other people.

If a custom or belief is harmful, criticizing it isn't being hurtful, it is being honest, although the truth can sometimes hurt. Islamic and Arab culture contains many very harmful beliefs and customs.

Criticizing a culture or custom is not racism. Culture and race are two things.

Do do you think that the following customs are not harmful?

The killing of people for leaving Islam (crime of apostasy),

Forced female genital mutilations (removal of the clitoris),

"Honor killings" (when male relatives kill their daughter/niece/sister who was raped or had premarital/extramarital sex, in order to avoid bringing dishonor to the family),

The issuing of murder-warrants (fatwas) for blasphemy and other religious "crimes",

"Martydom" encouragement and the promulgation of a delusive belief in attainment of Paradise through suicide-bombing,

The horrific widespread oppression of women in Arab/Muslim countries.

Those are some of the many harmful and backwards practices found in Muslim and Arab countries. Some are more widespread than others.

http://www.secularislam.org/women/

You can look further into these topics with Google. I am quite sorry now that I haven't saved the links over the years. Human Rights Watch has catalogued and addressed the issue of oppression of women in Arab countries and under Islam. You may have to search a bit to find the most pertinent articles.

Before you spout off that I know little about these cultures, that I am just practicing bigotry, you might do some reading and you will see that what I am doing is actually railing against bigotry. But sometimes, Chris, you have to look a little deeper than the surface.

Criticism of bigotry and superstition is not itself bigotry. It is the first essential step to awareness of what the problem really is.

[Chris Alger]

"I never said Arabs or Muslims don't deserve the same rights as other people."

Of course you have. You've repeatedly argued that Palestinian refugees don't have as much right to return to their country of recent origin as Jews have to return to their country of ancient origin. You've argued that the residents of Saudi Arabi, Syria, Iran and Iraq and god knows how many other Muslim and Arab countries don't have the same right to be free of foreign conquest that the U.S. does, largely because the dominant religions and cultures of the people living there should be considered threats. You've strenuously argued that Palestinian political rights should be premised on Palestinian popular willingness to embrace the rights of Israelis, but have never argued that Israeli rights should be similarly conditioned.

"If a custom or belief is harmful, criticizing it isn't being hurtful, it is being honest, although the truth can sometimes hurt."

I can't hurt anywhere near as much as the kind of oppression and mass bombing you've advocated that you now euphemize as mere "criticism."

"Criticizing a culture or custom is not racism. Culture and race are two things."

Race and culture are different but labeling racism "cultural criticsim" doesn't dodge the bullet. You have repeatedly attributed highly specific negative characterisics such as a tendency to commit mass murder against such huge groups as "Palestinians," "Arabs" and "Muslims." You've done the same thing here by taking highlighting extremely specific and often rare events (I mean, how many people in the Islamic world have been killed recently for apostasy?) to defend your broad polemics against hundreds of millions of people in scores of different countries.

You have repeatedly called for actions to be taken against these groups and entire countries where they thrive for reasons that you have admitted only apply to a few. By any common sense understanding of the term, this is racist, regardless if you dress it up as "cultural criticism." It also fits the definition of the term under The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: “Any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise, on equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, or any other field of public life.”

The negative aspects of Muslim societies, and I grant there are many, are not the issue. You haven't tried to raise these issues in any remotely constructive fashion. Instead, you've tried to do is make the case for considering large groups of people as a "threat" and for treating them accordingly, even to the point of going to war with them.

As for actually "railing against bigotry," by your own definition you aren't. You are railing against a culture that you claim causes bigotry, and are therefore railing against members and adherents of that culture regardless of their particular tendency to be bigots. Like all racists, you have a tendency to take one negative attribute and attribute it to an entire group (except, like many racists, the occasional "good ones").

Note that pretending to be opposed to bigotry and prejudice is exactly what you'd read in neo-nazi propaganda: "we're fighting racism directed against people from Blacks and Jews." It's all crap.

[nicky g]

Why would any of us be here if we weren't bored? I'll happily nominate myself as most bored of all.

[MMMMMM]

Chris I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and say you are genuinely misinterpreting my positions.

Since you seem to do this so frequently, over much time, I am close to giving up trying to explain my positions to you and instead simply reconciling myself to the fact that we are from two different planets after all, you and I. After all, you didn't even like the like the movie ET;-)

As for the Palestinian issue, and whether millions of descendants of the 200,000 or so now living originally displaced Palestinians should have the "right of return", I ask you to consider what would be the effect if such a policy were to be applied to every displaced people throughout history or even just the last 100 years. It simply isn't practical either in Israel or in the rest of the world. Also, I don't think you can draw general conclusions that I don't think Arabs and Muslims should have the same rights as other people from my views about the special case of the Palestinians.

As for Arab and Muslim countries being free from conquest: yes, of course, as long as they don't support organized terrorism, and as long as their governments are not dictatorship/thuggeries like Saddam Hussein's, or theocracies which control the military and the thugs while repressing the people, like Iran's. Governments which support al-Qaeda or the like should either stop, or be warned then face the consequences if they persist. Groups such as al-Qaeda and Hezbollah have literally declared war on us; are we to just sit still and wait for them to attack? Or must we take the fight to them if we are to win?

Al-Qaeda attacked the U.N. recently because they believe "the U.N. is against Islam." We cannot merely defend against these crackpots who are intent on attackin;, we must proactively work to eliminate their organization. And if certain governments support this group (or other like groups) it is reasonable to consider that these governments must be given the chance to see the error of their ways and if they fail to act wisely, be replaced. An added benefit of this might be replacing some of the world's most totalitarian regimes with something hopefully resembling democracy. But they don't have to support terror groups in the first place. This concept has zero to do with your false claim that I don't think Arabs and Muslims should have the same rights as others. It has everything to do with not permitting our enemies (terror orgs) state support, and not automatically assuming that a government already in place has an automatic right to exist undert the concept of "sovereignty." Saddam's Baathist Party certainly had sovereignty well-established, but did that give them any moral right to exist? (I'm not asking here whether you think we had a moral right to invade; that is another question. But I doubt you truly think regimes such as Saddam Hussein's, Mugabe's or Kim's have a moral right to exist.

Islamic fanaticism is also far more widespread than Christian or Jewish fanaticism. Islamic fanaticism supports terror. This cannot be ignored or discounted. Acknowledging this fact is by no means racism.

I am not calling for action to be taken against countries merely because much of their populace holds backwards beliefs. I am saying that those countries which support aggression or terrorism against us or our allies must be dealt with very firmly. In most cases today, these are also countries in which a significant population does hold backward beliefs and support terror against us. Specifically, these primary countries are Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea.

I believe the fanatical Islamic terrorist groups should be hunted down and eliminated--as we are doing with al-Qaeda, but should be doing too with Hezbollah and a few others as well. That's not racism, Chris, that's just recognizing who the enemy is and who has been attacking you and who plans to do it again in the future. It's recognizing that and refusing to take it lying down. If the militant Islamists insist on having a war, give 'em one. They started the jihad, apparently it will be up to us to finish it.

[Chris Alger]

I'm not misinterpreting a thing. As this post shows, you think the basic rights of Arabs and Muslims to live in peace should be conditioned on whether and to what extent their governments have supported terror or other bad acts; you make no such qualification for the US and other countries. You think that the existence of fundamantal rights for Palestinians should be conditioned on the "practicalities" of their exercise, but would impose no such condition on Israelis or Jews. Then you argue that my claim that you don't "think Arabs and Muslims should have the same rights as others" is obviously false. Since you don't even understand what you have said, you are beyond redemption and I will stop arguing now.

You also continue to try to obfuscate by pretending the issue is whether the US has the right to defend itself from specific groups that have attacked it, and make up ridiculous facts (200,000 Palestinian refugees indeed) to support them. And, yes, the principle applies to every displaced person since the rights of refugees were promulgated by the UN.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
Hitchens is hard to categorize.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he's hard to categorize. From what I've read he's a walking bullshit detector. I like the guy.

[ QUOTE ]
OTOH, there’s junk like that Fox interview. Although Hitchens is partly right about the press overplaying the “quagmire” angle in the first days of the war, his claim that American soldiers are “building schools” – technically false – and that one “never” hears about such things is absurd.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't think the interview was junk. He was reporting what he had been observing. Are you saying that he was lying in the interview? That he was reporting a fantasy? I think you're pissed because Hitchens didn't blame the US for the deteriorated Iraqi schools. Notice also that Hitchens referred to work being done by American Soldiers, not US gov't contractors such as Bechtel.

[MMMMMM]

CA: "As this post shows, you think the basic rights of Arabs and Muslims to live in peace should be conditioned on whether and to what extent their governments have supported terror or other bad acts; you make no such qualification for the US and other countries."

Now that's what I would call obfuscating, Chris. You can't claim that I express a racist view because I disagree with your definition of what constitutes a legitimate government. If any Western, predominantly white countries were supporting terrorism against us, or were brutal dictatorships which slaughter their own people, imprisoned dissidents, etc. I would similar things. Don't forget that in other threads I said that we should probably have taken pre-emptive steps to prevent the USSR from developing the atomic bomb, or developing a nuclear arsenal. That's a strong suggestion, and you can't claim it's racist.

The Palestinian/Israeli matter is a very special and complex case. You cannot legitimately claim that my disagreements with your positions on that specific issue imply racism towards Arabs or Muslims as a whole.

CA: "You also continue to try to obfuscate by pretending the issue is whether the US has the right to defend itself from specific groups that have attacked it, and make up ridiculous facts (200,000 Palestinian refugees indeed) to support them. And, yes, the principle applies to every displaced person since the rights of refugees were promulgated by the UN."

I think I can better let Daniel Pipes address your paragraph above. The refugee status of Palestinians is treated very differently than other refugee groups under U.N. auspices.

(excerpt) "The U.N. High Commission for Refugees applies this term worldwide to someone who, "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted . . . is outside the country of his nationality." Being outside the country of his nationality implies that descendants of refugees are not refugees. Cubans who flee the Castro regime are refugees, but not so their Florida-born children who lack Cuban nationality. Afghans who flee their homeland are refugees, but not their Iranian-born children. And so on.

The U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), an organization set up uniquely for Palestinian refugees in 1949, defines Palestinian refugees differently from all other refugees. They are persons who lived in Palestine "between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict." Especially important is that UNRWA extends the refugee status to "the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948." It even considers the children of just one Palestinian refugee parent to be refugees.

The High Commission's definition causes refugee populations to vanish over time; UNRWA's causes them to expand without limit. Let's apply each definition to the Palestinian refugees of 1948, who by the U.N.'s (inflated) statistics numbered 726,000. (Scholarly estimates of the number range between 420,000 to 539,000.)

The High Commission definition would restrict the refugee status to those of the 726,000 yet alive. According to a demographer, about 200,000 of those 1948 refugees remain living today.

UNRWA includes the refugees' children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as well as Palestinians who left their homes in 1967, all of whom add up to 4.25 million refugees." (end excerpt)

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1206?PHPSESSID=44a68b1cec07ac187a7ff3e4f36fe169

[brad]

do you know who daniel pipes is?

[Cyrus]

"From what I've read [Hitchens] is a walking bullshit detector. I like the guy."

Me too I like the guy, although trust me and don't rush : I don't think you would still like him if you'd read all his other stuff.

And, yeah, me too I think that Hitchens nowadays is being a walking bullshit artist. Almost in total agreement with ya!

[Boris]

what other stuff are you talking about?

[Cyrus]

"What other stuff are you talking about?"

Hitchens? Well, he demolished Bill Clinton in his book "No One Left To Lie To" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1859847366/qid=1061928495/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-0088231-9927877?v=glance&s=books).

Ooops, I guess you gonna like'im even more for that 'un. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Boris]

yea, I thought that was a pretty good book. Exposed the Clintons for being duplicitous to their friends and for being conservatves in a liberal's clothing.

[Chris Alger]

I'm about 95% sure that American soldiers are building schools anywhere. They wouldn't know how and the U.S. always gives this work to the private sector anyway. So I'm pretty sure that Hitchens was referring to the Bechtel contract.

I thought it was "junk" because of his absurd overstatement that one "never" reads or hears good things about US operations in Iraq. There have been countless stories about feeding the poor, purifying the water, dispensing health care, policng the streets, planning elections, and generally bestowing the benefits of liberalism and democracy on the country. Certainly most of these stories have been overshadowed by the more serious problem of the US not being able to generate broad support or even quell the resistance, but there's been a lot of positive stuff.

Hitchens knows this. He's just telling his sponsor of the day what it wants to hear, mo matter how ridiculous. After all, for Hitchens to say that the media have been downplaying the good side, that's the same as saying that the Fox network has been doing the same, and his host wouldn't have been so keen to agree.

[andyfox]

One of my favorite Kissingerisms:

"In Vietnam, the situation was generally worse than some reported and better than others reported."

Kiisginer has always, to me, looked like a serious Harpo Marx, but without the profundity. A murdering liar of staggering proportions.