Henry Kissinger’s Vile and Inexcusable Remarks to Nixon
We all know that Henry Kissinger is one of the so-called “realists,” a misleading term that should be discarded, since the concept as they define it has been used most often as the reason to keep failed policies alive by advancing the illusion that they start by accepting the status quo as given.
Under that rubric, Richard M. Nixon and Henry Kissinger opposed the right of Soviet Jews to emigrate freely from their homeland prison. After all, they were trying to gain continued support for “détente,” and anything that stood in the way of accepting the USSR as a given power which the U.S. had to respect, had to be opposed. Thus they opposed the Jackson-Vanik amendment passed by Congress, that asserted American support for the right of Soviet Jews to leave their own country for sanctuary abroad, especially in Israel. The growing movement to save Soviet Jews, chronicled so well by Gal Beckerman in his new book, tells the story of the nascent protest movement that impacted the Soviet Union.
In one of his own books, Natan Sharansky wrote the following:
“…Kissinger saw Jackson’s amendment as an attempt to undermine plans to smoothly carve up the geopolitical pie between the superpowers. It was. Jackson believed that the Soviets had to be confronted, not appeased. Andrei Sakharov was another vociferous opponent of détente. He thought it swept the Soviet’s human rights record under the rug in the name of improved superpower relations…. One message he would consistently convey to these foreigners (the press) was that human rights must never be considered a humanitarian issue alone. For him, it was also a matter of international security. As he succinctly put it: “A country that does not respect the rights of its own people will not respect the rights of its neighbors.”
So we already knew for many years that as a man who favored realpolitik over upsetting the apple-cart, Henry Kissinger did not approve of moralistic movements that advocate achieving change by waging vigorous protest against oppressors.
Nevertheless, yesterday’s news story about Kissinger’s remarks, revealed in the latest Nixon tapes release, was a shocker:
The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy,” Mr. Kissinger said. “And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.”
“I know,” Nixon responded. “We can’t blow up the world because of it.”
Of course, Kissinger had no idea that his chief and the American President was taping all the conversations held in the Oval Office. He would, if asked, ably defend the first sentence. But why did Kissinger, who with his own parents were émigrés from Nazism who had they stayed in Germany would have ended up in the gas chambers, even say anything like this to the Commander-in-Chief?
Did he really believe this, or was he just trying ineptly to assure Nixon that he was not subject to “dual loyalty,” the old bromide of anti-Semites about American Jews, so that the President would know he was fully on board with the policy of détente? Was he just capitulating to Nixon’s virulent personal anti-Semitism, so that his chief would see him as different than those other bad Jews he always railed about? Did he want to show him, that he, Henry Kissinger, was not really among those whom Nixon said shared a character trait with all other Jews, that they had to compensate for an “inferiority complex” since, as Nixon put it, they all have “latent insecurity?”
I used to think there was nothing worse in the world than a self-hating bigot. That was until I found out there are bigots who don’t hate their entire race, but only certain segments of it. Those are the worst. I guess Henry Kissinger now falls into the latter category.
Ron – for more of Kissingers’ perfidy -
Kissinger’s Guilt
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/9640
——-
Kissinger also hinted to Defense Minister Moshe Dayan of a Soviet atomic threat if Israel didn’t comply with his demands. Katz says this was a bald-faced lie. The Soviets had made no such threat. Katz writes:
Dayan later realized that he had been hoodwinked, and indeed, on examination of Kissinger’s blow-by-blow negotiations with the Russians, there is not a smidgen of a hint of an atomic threat by the Russians. In a public lecture in May 1974, Dayan declared:
“The Americans denied us the fruits of victory. It was an ultimatum. Had the US not pressed us, the Third Army and Suez City would have had to surrender. We would have captured 30,000 to 40,000 soldiers and Sadat would have had to admit it to his people. We might have held them only for a day and let them walk out without their arms, but it would have changed the whole Egyptian attitude about whether they won the war or not.”
——–
The Secret War Against the Jews, by John Loftus, tells the whole sordid story of world leaders and their perfidy against Israel, of which Washington has always been in the forefront.
Loftus, as a high up Justice official had the highest security clearance available.He got his hands on archived documentation that defies belief.
ALL people with a conscience will read it and weep.
I am bemused as to why we are digging up old garbage in this day and time of real hardship and failed economic policies and two wars ongoing for 10 years.
It is actually new garbage. And it should inform our current attitudes if we will only let it.
Not to be a contrarian here, but there weren’t any gas chambers in the Soviet Union, and Nixon and Kissinger knew this. I don’t particularly believe that he actually meant what he said; I suspect that it was more along the lines of him trying to draw and extreme example to make the point that he had to “keep his eye on the ball” so to speak. Sort of to make him and Nixon concentrate on U.S. diplomacy, as opposed to the lives of citizens of another country.
Does that mean I think the Soviets were fair with the Jews, or that those Jews didn’t deserve assistance. Of course not. But the last quote, about it not being worth blowing up the whole world, explains what they thought they were doing. Agree with it or not, they believed they had other, bigger priorities. This sounds to me like another version of the argument that some lefties have, that if we could feed all the children in the world, and all we had to do was impoverish all the wealthy people in the world to do it…well, you get the picture. Without rich people, everyone else would be broke too, and the whole world would starve…but you can’t convince some people that their priorities are out of whack.
DavidN: They don’t want to feed the poor children; they want to abort them. If, by chance, the children survive, the Lefties want to control them, exploit them, dispose of them whimsically and arbitrarily. Only they , the Ruling Elite have rights. All others are disposables; dirty diapers, in effect.Such is the nature of communism; of Islam. These two are very closely related, only one denies God and one worships a ficticious “god”.Both are vile and vicious. As were Nixon and Kissinger.
“And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.”
Kissinger’s point is simple, if the commies murder some of the Soviet people, it’s not something America will go to war over. Whether it is gas chambers or gulags.
“And if they murder Jews in gulags in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.”
How is this any different? It’s not, not really.
Oh wait, maybe it’s the murder of Jews, specifically? The world can let others be murdered, but not Jews?
“And if commies put Jews into Killing Fields, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.”
“And if commies put Asians into Killing Fields, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.”
The biggest shame in my life is that America, led by “realists” like Kissinger and useful idiots like J. Kerry & Carter (the only Dem I ever voted for), did not use military force to stop the murderous commies and the post (Kissinger sponsored) Peace Accords genocide in SE Asia.
I’m sick and angered at all the endless Shoah discussion, without addressing the more fundamental issue of nation-states oppressing and murdering groups of their own people, and what the appropriate response of America should be.
Any condemnation of Kissinger from those who were against the US fighting commie genocide in SE Asia, like Hitchens, seems worse than hypocritical.
Of course, the biggest current issue is whether the US should use military force to stop Iran from getting a nuke, which they will constantly threaten to use on Tel Aviv (if not Jerusalem, & ?nuke plant at Dimona); and about as likely as Russian Roulette use against the Jews within the first 5 years of getting one.
(My answer, since 2004, is yes, the US should have a stronger blockade, and strategic bombing.)
Being outraged at realpolitik Kissinger for his expressions is about as silly as being outraged at LBJ for using the “N” word instead of MLK’s Negro.
Kissinger had a reputation for being smart. Rather, he was simply a liar His work has never led to any greater good, except for him, personally. As Secretary of State and NSA his record is failure after failure, with the horrifying debacle of Viet Nam the grimmest of them all.
But he did succeed with women: Diane Sawyer, Candice Bergen, Shirley Maclaine…now that lot should give you a clue.
You can tell a lot about how a Jewish man views his identity by how many Jewish women he dates/ marries.
Kissinger’s remarks nearly 40 years ago are irrelevant in and of themselves, disgusting as they might be. What makes them important is that Kissinger is still breathing, and runs an NGO/consulting firm, and therefore continues to pose a mortal threat to the State of Israel.
Golda Meir agreed not to attack the Arabs first before Yom Kippur 1973 in return for an arms replacement deal that Kissinger welshed on. This basically shows where his loyalties are – the Rockefeller Foundation and those who would destroy Israel.
Take it from there.
I’m not a Kissinger fan, but the sad fact is that we were not going to go to a worldwide nuclear war over Soviet Jews, anymore than we would have over the 100+ million other people that were actually slaughtered by China and the USSR.
And for this Ron, you can blame your former friends on the left who controlled academia, media and the arts, that have made Communism acceptable and even chic, when it should be as dirty a word as Naziism.
Yeah, Ron, you can blame your former friends on the left for the sad fact that we didn’t start a worldwide nuclear war over Soviet Jews.
America’s interests come first.
So, we did not go war over Soviet Jews, nor did we bomb the extermination camps during the WWII, but the United States has supported Israel since the independence in 1948.
Kissinger is not the only American politician – or Jewish-American politician – who decides against Israel’s best interest at times. The One appears to be making decisions that are not in the best interest of Israel, yet 78% of American Jews voted for him.
Both won the Nobel Peace Prize, so they ought to have done something right.
As the Wikileaks and this tape revealed, the discussions behind the close doors in D.C., and all over the world, are very interesting. People tend to express themselves without politically correct restrictions.
The fact is that Israel can rely only in herself.
That both Kissinger and Obama have won the Nobel Peace Prize is part of a pattern that show how devalued it has become. Among the other “winners”: Le Duc Tho (Kissinger’s North Vietnamese counterpart); terrorist Yassir Arafat; Mohammed El Baradei (chief enabler of Iran’s nuclear project); the IPCC and Al Gore (based on the global warming fraud); and Jimmy Carter (enough said).
A good deal of those “persecuted” Jews emigrated and a lot of them set up shop in Brighton Beach, NY, where you can see the hammer and sickle flying aloft and organized crime is a family industry. Then too some might remember the stories about Israel being flooded with those fleeing “persecution” only to be questioned by the Israelis as to whether or not they were really Jews and not Soviet Infiltrators. We let in a lot of people, Jewish or otherwise, who came to exploit and destroy. Many of those freedom loving “Jews” were like those freedom loving Cubans who scrambled to get here on that infamous freedom flotilla to take advantage of this country and its generosity. The Jewish Mafia in America grew exponentially when the USSR allowed them to leave. Many still believe they are agents of the Soviets.
Kissinger is to Soros as Nixon is to Obama?
In some ways, yes.
Given the choice among the four of them, by way of hypothetical, which one would you place the fate of Israel in their hands? What a Hobson’s Choice indeed.
Pat Buchanan believes there are too many Jews on the Supreme Court. That is not surprising. The fact that J Street probably agrees with him and most assuredly would agree with him if they weren’t all left wingers, is more to the point.
There seems to be a common thread, throughout all of them.
Counting Jews
“One Jew means sorrow, two Jews mean joy, three Jews a wedding, four Jews a boy, five Jews mean silver, six Jews mean gold, seven Jews a secret that’s never been told
The “influence” of Jews in America, the “number” of Jews in media, the number of Jews on the Supreme Court, the number of Jews in settlements in East Jerusalem, …we just can’t be content unless we are counting Jews, it seems.
Perhaps this is because they are so easy to count. It would be a much more daunting task to count Muslims, Christians, Hindus or Buddhists. Like a victim of male pattern baldness, Jews are like hairs…there are so few, you stop counting them and start naming them.
Kissinger whispering in Nixon’s ear that we would not go to war over Jews in ovens, was a foregone conclusion. Does anyone believe that Axelrod would sing a different tune in Obama’s ear if Hamas or Hezbollah or any of the other Iranian puppets attacked Israel?
Or Soros?
Or Chomsky? Or even Hitchens?
Leftism has no use for Jews and less use for Israel.
It is an interesting times we live in. We are coming upon a date in which on every continent of this planet, is a celebration of the birth of one little Jewish baby, thousands of years ago. If he were to be born today, he wouldn’t count for much more than one more Jew…so we go, so we go… merely counting Jews.
Couldn’t agree more, cfb. Well written.
Sounds like Billy Graham.
Only to a raging anti-Semite
Tell you what, Cee Lo. Rather than let your conflation of Kissinger, Graham and me go uncorrected, let’s give the readers a chance. I’ll report. They’ll decide. From the Chicago Tribune, February 28, 2002:
“Rev. Billy Graham openly voiced a belief that Jews control the American media, calling it a “stranglehold” during a 1972 conversation with President Richard Nixon, according to a tape of the Oval Office meeting released Thursday by the National Archives.
“This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain,” the nation’s best-known preacher declared as he agreed with a stream of bigoted Nixon comments about Jews and their perceived influence in American life.
“You believe that?” says Nixon after the “stranglehold” comment.
“Yes, sir,” says Graham.
“Oh, boy,” replies Nixon. “So do I. I can’t ever say that but I believe it.”
“No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something,” replies Graham.
Later, Graham mentions that he has friends in the media who are Jewish, saying they “swarm around me and are friendly to me.” But, he confides to Nixon, “They don’t know how I really feel about what they’re doing to this country.” . . .
The Nixon-Graham remarks came during a 90-minute session after a prayer breakfast the men attended on Feb. 1, 1972 . . .
“What Graham said that day is inexcusable. Did it ever occur to him that he should have countered the president?” said Martin Marty, a religious historian at the University of Chicago who noted the distinction some conservative evangelicals and pentecostals have made between supporting Israel but not American Jews.”
Me again . . . my favorite word in that whole story is “inexcusable” . . . the same word I would use for your baseless and raging accusation. Perhaps tomorrow you should have some prayers for breakfast, like these two guys did. Just be sure you’re buttering the right god. You squat corrected.
You obviously have a greater faith in the Chicago Tribune…well, than anything else.
Did you read their Dewey Wins! article as well?
You can believe anything you choose. Your hatred of religion doesn’t fool anyone. Your an anti-Semite…but you hate Christians equally.
You’re a white belt when it comes to morals of any sort. A sort of floundering spewer of hate…just waking up in the morning and looking for a place to spit out a little venom.
What a pathetic existence, you have my pity. It must truly suck to be you. I’m so sorry for your obviously painful and small existence.
Honestly, I expected more from you than “Oh, right, the Chicago Tribuuuuuuune. If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?” if you dispute the facts of the article, refute them. Instead, you stoop to re-assert the same wild-assed accusations I challenged you on. You got nothin’.
Don’t worry, I don’t hold it against you. Clearly you’re frustrated by the anemic 10 comments posted to your Bedford Falls homage. You wanna know how to rack up a really good comment count? Ask me to post to it. That’ll make the cash register sing. I’ll consider it and get back to ya. Ubetcha. (But you gotta ask me nice.)
Must be fun to harshly judge them from 40 years out. The fact remains that Nixon was the one candidate at the time that bombed Laos and Cambodia and took the most vituperative abuse from media of any US President in memory or perhaps recorded history. He tried to stop inflation and was assailed for his inhumanity. The USSR knew Nixon meant business which was not the case with George McGovern, the darling of so many intellectuals of the time.
Had it not been for Nixon, there would have been far more evil to reckon with.
As for his alleged anti-semitism, Nixon, born dirt poor and having risen to the top, seems no different than many people his age at that time, yet he had numerous close friends and associates from Len Garment to Kissenger.
And yes, he was there for Israel when lots of people in the US, of all creeds, would have let Israel go.
Judging Nixon and Kissinger on stray remarks is like judging Lincoln on one part of speech with Douglas and excluding all else. Misleading. Misguided. reprehensible.
Hi Smith:
I’ve been reading all the comments on this article and yours is the best.
I’m a US-born Jew.. and I will support anyone anywhere anytime.. even anti-semites.. who support Israel.
God bless.
bravo
the smartest comment on here
we should all shed a tear when we watch genocide in a Speilberg movie but
shrug our shoulders when it is on CNN?
what gives
The case against Hitchens in the article is a slightly tortured one it seems to me. Much of it is a “bad company” scenario when in fact Hitchens may simply be a poor historian.
Hitchens may spotlight Judaism because he considers himself to be more knowledgeable about it. That not being so doesn’t equal anti-semitism.
If a guy comes right out and says he hates religions, dislikes anti-Semites, gets his ass kicked over defacing a Nazi symbol and has never denied the Holocaust, then we should take him at his word and not attempt to qualify his remarks.
The idea that Hitchens is a closet anti-Semite who speaks in code is not a persuasive one.
Holocaust deniers are in a class with Roswell UFO enthusiasts as are 9/11 dancing Mossad advocates.
I will not attempt to qualify Kissinger’s remarks but merely point out that American foreign policy which sees itself as a player in any and all world affairs and interferes at the point of a nuclear gun is a disaster. It seems absurd to suggest that genocides are not an American affair but just as absurd to suggest that they are always an American affair. America is not the President of the world. What the middle ground could be I honestly don’t know but it should lean towards staying out of other countries affairs and shaming people into getting themselves involved in their own regional affairs so Americans don’t have to be bombing frickin’ Serbia.
Having said that, the story I once read of US service men in WW II liberating a concentration camp and then making the inhabitants of a nearby town walk through it is a good story. It is not a story we can repeat endlessly as we cannot have American boots in the slums of Rio de Janeiro and Bogota, the Sudan, Rwanda, the West Bank, Mexico City. Hell, we can’t even control the inner city of Chicago nor do we have the will to. Can’t we just be another country and concentrate on our own massive problems?
Anyone who has read Matt Taibbi’s exposé on Birmingham and Jacksonville knows we are in trouble, big trouble. Also, the illegal immigration problem is here to stay in a massive flood until we have wholesale changes in our attitudes towards it across the nation as a people. Brutal crime is endemic in America and at times it seems as if women and children are being murdered wholesale. We need to see what is an American affair and deal with it because as much as we want to, we cannot manage the world’s affairs as we have shown that we cannot even manage our own.
Well let’s be entirely fair, going to war against Hitler was a vastly different proposition than potentially starting a nuclear conflagration which would wipe out all of mankind.
Everyone seems to be missing a point: Detente was a terrible failure. It allowed the Soviet Union to expand into Africa, So. America and eventually Afghanistan starting a chain reaction we still haven’t solved.
President Reagan specifically ran against Detente and reversed the appeasement started by Kissinger and lovingly continued by Carter. I know conservatives want to cast all the blame on Carter but Carter was just blazing the trail originally started by Nixon. Kissinger, reviled by the left in the 70s, was canonized by the left in the 80s because he continuously criticized President Reagan. When Reagan pushed the Soviets into the dustbin of history Kissinger looked like the idiot he always was.
Good comment and the only one here that takes the long view of things.
I doubt Nixon was a virulent anti-Semite, and we already knew he was no sweethart. It is likely he despised the suicidal political philosophies common to Jewish intellectuals, and their predilection for sedition in that cause. Lenin and Stalin didn’t need gas chambers to exterminate the Jewish Bolsheviks when it finally suited them to do so. The Jews waited their turn in resignation, prepared to do whatever the revolution required of them. Lovely.
Horrifying and Indescribably Evil
It is tragic and frightening that the same horrific Jew hate continues. The Palestinian Authority security services (army) are financed, armed, and given continual advanced military training by the U.S. One of the U.S. trained terrorists told journalist, Aaron Klein, that all of the training is used against Israel. They are America’s proxy army against the Jewish people.
The US/EU/UK/UN ruthlessly demand Israel surrender half her tiny land to rabid Jew-haters, bent on Jewish genocide, PLO/Palestinian Authority Muslim terrorist organization, who greatly honor the savage Muslim killers of Jewish innocents.
Here is a little history. 1973 war was pending between the Arab world and Israel. Golda Mayer was convinced not to launch preemptive strike by Kissinger. What was not expected was the success of the Arab attack both across the Suez Canal and the Golan Heights. Egypt attacked under an umbrella of Soviet made anti-aircraft missiles and stopped at the limit of the missiles range. Israel was baited into a counter attack. The Egyptians were waiting with all sorts of anti tank missiles. In effect, the entire Israeli tank corp was wiped out along with the Israeli air-force which tried to support the tanks. On the Golan things weren’t much different. The tank corp on the Golan started with 140 tanks and after three days was down to six damaged tanks. When Nixon heard the news coming out of Israel, he asked his trusted adviser Kissinger whether to aid the Israelis. (This is a direct quote.) Kissinger answered, “Let them bleed.” It wasn’t until a direct phone call from Golda Mayer to President Nixon, that things immediately changed. The next morning Nixon ordered (without consulting Kissinger) the resupply of the Israeli armed forces. Within hours planes, tanks, and anti-tank missiles arrived in Israel. The rest is history. Israel retook the Golan and marched toward Damascus. Israeli forces crossed the Suez and surrounded the Egyptian army. A little known benefit to the US was the capture of whole anti-aircraft missiles units in Egypt. With what was learned about the technology, it was applied to the US air-force fighting in Vietnam and saved many a pilot’s life.
Kissinger is in the tradition of old European realpolitik, of one that regards the interests of the state as supreme. If the Soviets killed not just the Jews, but 99% of their population, the realpolitik would focus on only the increased instability of the regime, not the fact that the most horrible crime of all time was being committed. This kind of belief is more common in established autocracies than democracies, but it still has a following. It is basically a nearly amoral worldview, with the interests of the state being the only virtue.
Kissinger played the Great Game and never hid that fact. To him preserving the balance of power as a way of fortifying the American position whilst securing peace was paramount and nothing was going to get in the way of it.
Overall his view of the world is probably more realistic than a messianic belief in American arms being able to heal the world.
We do like to set the bar low, don’t we?
Straw men notwithstanding, only an exceptionless messianism that no Administration of either party has yet exhibited would be less practical than the soi-disant “realists” such as Kissinger have proved to be. Certain kinds of people subscribe to the sour unwisdom that the more callous and low a man or policy is, the more practical and realistic he/it must be, actual results be damned. Nothing about the latest news will change their minds: quite the contrary.
I agree with Nixon and Kissinger.
Sorry for the millions of people murdered by the Soviet communists under Lenin and Stalin…but, it wasn’t our problem, nor was the issue of Soviet Jews wanting to emigrate.
Not our business.
I agree with you. The events that occur within other nations is not our business unless it becomes a matter of our national security or our national interest. Too many times American presidents have intruded in the business of other nations when we should have butted out; I think of the Clinton-contrived mess in Kosovo designed to cover his a** because of his sexual misconduct. It is time for the busybodies of this nation to turn their attention elsewhere, such as to their own lives, and refrain from interfering in the lives of others. BTW, why is an article like this being written when there is currently so much vile and inexcusable behavior occurring in the WH and Congress in this nation? Public sexual assault, serial lying, rogue government, questionable nationality, invasion of the nation, abuse of power, treason- these things are happening now. Seems like it would be time well spent to explore current events rather than historical ones.
This changes what, and how? We who lived through those times, and payed attention, mind you, could tell what was what. There have been no real surprises, neither of the principals are much decreased as they had already slipped below the muck. It impinges not on the present and even less on the future. All the sound and fury over dry bones . . . of jackals.
many great comments, but this one from Andy Gump (#19) is the most telling: “When Nixon heard the news coming out of Israel, he asked his trusted adviser Kissinger whether to aid the Israelis. (This is a direct quote.) Kissinger answered, “Let them bleed.” It wasn’t until a direct phone call from Golda Mayer to President Nixon, that things immediately changed. The next morning Nixon ordered (without consulting Kissinger) the resupply of the Israeli armed forces. Within hours planes, tanks, and anti-tank missiles arrived in Israel. The rest is history.”
Just a quick analogy: I knew a bigoted woman who had a minority family move in next door to her in the early 60′s. She was the first to take them a pie, invite them to her annual neighborhood party and helped them often in many ways. She was a bigot – just not when it really counted.
In light of Nixon’s willingness to act on behalf of Israel, it seems weak to try and excuse Kissinger’s comments by claiming that he was just pandering to Nixon’s bigotry.
Though Nixon was a bigot and openly so, he was deeply religious. His main influence was his mother who told him to protect the Jews in Israel and that is what he did. The resupply was so fast that the Israelis had no time to repaint the aircraft and tanks. They just painted over the US ones and used the equipment without any markings. The fact that Israel exists today is totally to the credit of Richard Nixon, a bigot.
I remember the event that made me decide that Nixon was a crook and that was his pardoning of Jimmy Hoffa. According to an article in Look magazine some years before, the Mob had put up a lot of money for anyone who could get Hoffa out of jail. I suspect Nixon collected. Kissinger and Nixon were birds of a feather but, it is undeniable that Nixon helped Israel in its hour of extremity.
What event made you decide that BJ Clinton and Imam Obama were crooks? Or have you made that connection yet?
What has your question got to do with Kissinger and Nixon pray tell? If you want to find out my opinions of Clinton and Obama you might search out a bunch of my comments over the years. You might be surprised as it appears you take me for a liberal. Good day.
‘The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy,” Mr. Kissinger said. “And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.”’
That’s exactly right.
A couple of years after Kissinger said that, the Khmer Rouge REALLY DID kill millions of people (between one and two million is the usual figure) in Cambodia, and we didn’t get involved, because it was none of our business.
Sorry…that’s not our problem. The United States government has a job, but protecting foreign nationals from the oppressive internal policies of their governments ain’t part of the job.
And, if we’rte not going to make a big issue out of the slaughter of millions, we’re sure not going to make a big issue out of Soviet emigration policies.
Kissinger and Nixon had it right.
“I remember the event that made me decide that Nixon was a crook…”
You’re a fool if you believe that. He was one of our better modern presidents, who actually corrected some of the stupid policies and abuses of power instituted by the liberal Democrats, which is more than you can say for most presidents.
He wasn’t a great president (too liberal), but he was a better president than any Democrat that was ever spawned, and better than a lot of Republicans too.
Bottom Line:
At a time when EVERY American Congressman and senator of Jewish origin was screaming for nixon’s impeachment and removal from the presidency, he made the decision to save Israel.
When, in 1988 I, watching “Meet the Press” on the Sunday before the New York Democ-rat presidential primary heard Nixon say, “I SAVED ISRAEL,” I knew that becomming a Republican was the right decision!
Radosh mentions that Nixon was “obsessed by Jews.” “Obsessed” was the right choice of words but not for the reason the article states. Theodore H. White, when he was doing the legwork for his 1968 book went to Nixon’s apartment and was taken by the number of books on Nixon’s personal bookshelf on Jewish topics and subjects. As Herman Wouk wrote in “Inside Outside,” Nixon always had the hostility of the American Jewish community directed at him yet he came to Israel’s rescue. McGovern, it must be remembered, voted against the supplemental appropriation to send the needed supplies to Israel.
The majority of these kinds of problems occurring across the earth are undoubtedly not a coincidence. It is really time for humans to actually start preparing for difficult things coming, possibly possibly even apocalyptic times. It is literally not solely people on the fringe which tend to be thinking this anymore, progressively more individuals are undoubtedly opening up their attention towards the hostile political climate the actual earth is actually in. The most recent testing relating to mutating the actual avian bird flu happens to be merely 1 of the various types of the perils which our planet lives under. Thank you so much for creating a great online community to post our personal views on, carry on with the superb work.