HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Anthony Bourdain Really, ...

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 12:47 AM

Anthony Bourdain Really, Really Hated Henry Kissinger


The late chef and television host Anthony Bourdain traveled extensively in Southeast Asia, including in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, where his shows repeatedly highlighted the legacy of the Vietnam War. In particular, Bourdain frequently trained his ire on former Secretary of State–Nobel Peace Prize winner–secret bombing of Cambodia facilitator–accused war criminal Henry Kissinger.

Bourdain had the following to say about Kissinger in his 2001 book, A Cook’s Tour:

“Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands. You will never again be able to open a newspaper and read about that treacherous, prevaricating, murderous scumbag sitting down for a nice chat with Charlie Rose or attending some black-tie affair for a new glossy magazine without choking. Witness what Henry did in Cambodia – the fruits of his genius for statesmanship – and you will never understand why he’s not sitting in the dock at The Hague next to Milošević.”


He stood by the passage in a tweet earlier this year, writing, “Frequently, I’ve come to regret things I’ve said. This, from 2001, is not one of those times.”

Then there were his comments to the New Yorker’s Patrick Radden Keefe in a profile last year:

He then launched into a tirade about how it sickens him, having travelled in Southeast Asia, to see Kissinger embraced by the power-lunch crowd. “Any journalist who has ever been polite to Henry Kissinger, you know, fuck that person,” he said, his indignation rising. “I’m a big believer in moral gray areas, but, when it comes to that guy, in my view he should not be able to eat at a restaurant in New York.”

I pointed out that Bourdain had made similarly categorical denunciations of many people, only to bury the hatchet and join them for dinner.

“Emeril didn’t bomb Cambodia!” he said.


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/anthony-bourdain-really-really-hated-henry-kissinger.html


60 replies, 8614 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 60 replies Author Time Post
Reply Anthony Bourdain Really, Really Hated Henry Kissinger (Original post)
progressoid Jun 2018 OP
Lordquinton Jun 2018 #1
InAbLuEsTaTe Jun 2018 #2
PoliticAverse Jun 2018 #3
Hassin Bin Sober Jun 2018 #11
progressoid Jun 2018 #47
The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #4
shanny Jun 2018 #5
roamer65 Jun 2018 #6
GoneOffShore Jun 2018 #23
madaboutharry Jun 2018 #7
pnwmom Jun 2018 #12
oberliner Jun 2018 #14
pnwmom Jun 2018 #15
oberliner Jun 2018 #31
pnwmom Jun 2018 #33
oberliner Jun 2018 #35
ehrnst Jun 2018 #38
betsuni Jun 2018 #39
melman Jun 2018 #16
pnwmom Jun 2018 #17
melman Jun 2018 #19
betsuni Jun 2018 #21
smirkymonkey Jun 2018 #25
progressoid Jun 2018 #50
pnwmom Jun 2018 #51
progressoid Jun 2018 #54
melman Jun 2018 #52
appal_jack Jun 2018 #34
CentralMass Jun 2018 #40
betsuni Jun 2018 #41
tammywammy Jun 2018 #55
betsuni Jun 2018 #20
GoneOffShore Jun 2018 #22
dembotoz Jun 2018 #24
mountain grammy Jun 2018 #8
LuvNewcastle Jun 2018 #28
Upthevibe Jun 2018 #9
Solly Mack Jun 2018 #10
ucrdem Jun 2018 #13
Hekate Jun 2018 #18
smirkymonkey Jun 2018 #26
malaise Jun 2018 #27
Crutchez_CuiBono Jun 2018 #29
no_hypocrisy Jun 2018 #30
progressoid Jun 2018 #36
former9thward Jun 2018 #32
thucythucy Jun 2018 #42
former9thward Jun 2018 #43
thucythucy Jun 2018 #44
former9thward Jun 2018 #45
thucythucy Jun 2018 #46
CanSocDem Jun 2018 #59
thucythucy Jun 2018 #60
Nevernose Jun 2018 #48
former9thward Jun 2018 #49
Nevernose Jun 2018 #53
LanternWaste Jun 2018 #57
thucythucy Jun 2018 #56
spanone Jun 2018 #37
Uncle Joe Jun 2018 #58

Response to progressoid (Original post)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 12:58 AM

1. People have forgotten

Or we're made to forget. Already forgetting what Bush did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Original post)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 01:00 AM

2. You gotta like AB for that reason alone!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Original post)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 01:02 AM

3. What decent person wouldn't? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 01:42 AM

11. Good question...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 02:29 PM

47. +1

Good question indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Original post)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 01:05 AM

4. Another reason to love Anthony Bourdain.

Gonna miss him.

And that old war criminal Kissinger is still alive. The universe is not a just place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Original post)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 01:06 AM

5. If anyone is worthy of such hatred,

 

Kissinger is. A warmongering piece of SHIT. The Nobel prize? There goes any credibility there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Original post)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 01:17 AM

6. Kissinger is a war criminal.

Bourdain was right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roamer65 (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 04:37 AM

23. If there was a way to rec your post, I would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Original post)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 01:22 AM

7. Although I supported Hillary,

her friendship with Kissinger deeply bothered me. I didn’t understand it and I thought less of her for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madaboutharry (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 01:53 AM

12. She was being diplomatic. She was no more friends with him

than Justin Trudeau is with DT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 01:58 AM

14. That's kind of ridiculous

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 03:30 AM

15. No, it's not. She was literally a diplomat. A Secretary of State interacting

with a previous Secretary of State, and it was her job to promote Obama's goals. That meant getting along as well as she could with GOP people in Congress and in previous administrations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 07:38 AM

31. Yes, it is

 

Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger: It’s Personal. Very Personal.

The Clintons and the Kissingers regularly spend holidays together at a beachfront villa.

DAVID CORN
FEB. 12, 2016 11:32 PM

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/hillary-clinton-kissinger-vacation-dominican-republic-de-la-renta/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #31)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 08:01 AM

33. The de la Rentas owned a house that their various friends visited. So both the Clintons

and the Kissingers were friends with the de la Rentas. Big deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #33)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 08:09 AM

35. I'm not saying it's a big deal

 

I'm just saying it's ridiculous to claim the relationship between Kissinger and Clinton is similar to the relationship between Trump and Trudeau.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #35)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 08:45 AM

38. It's ridiculous to claim that it's not similar to the relationship any SoS has with a previous SoS.

 

And Mother Jones isn't the most unbiased source of analysis on Clinton.

But you know, "Clinton Rules" makes anything she does suspect, and unprecedented.

Especially when she behaves like a diplomat.

It's as bad as Obama Derangement Syndrome sometimes...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #31)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 08:51 AM

39. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 04:18 AM

16. That is just not true

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melman (Reply #16)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 04:21 AM

17. Yes, it is. I know Hillary haters like you disagree. But it was literally her job

as a diplomat, to be diplomatic with everyone -- including the previous secretaries of state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #17)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 04:26 AM

19. lol

 

I didn't say it wasn't.


But this part here ------> "no more friends with him than Justin Trudeau is with DT"


is not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melman (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 04:33 AM

21. Oh, melman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melman (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 06:16 AM

25. Do you Trudeau is a genuine friend of DT?

Because I don't. He's being diplomatic. I can't believe there is a person in the world who genuinely considers Trump to be a friend out of anything but expedience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #17)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 04:25 PM

50. Clinton said that "Kissinger is a friend" and admitted that she "relied on his counsel"

But whatever Hillary Clinton might have once felt about Kissinger’s invasion of Cambodia or the role he played in sidelining healthcare legislation she worked so hard on, she has made her peace and accepted the elder statesman as her tutor too. Last year, reviewing Kissinger’s World Order for The Washington Post, Clinton said that “Kissinger is a friend” and admitted that she “relied on his counsel” and that he “checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels.” The “famous realist,” she said, “sounds surprisingly idealistic.” Kissinger’s vision is her vision: “just and liberal.”

Over at Salon, Ben Norton and Jared Flanery went through Clinton’s e-mails from her tenure as secretary of state and found that Clinton and Kissinger did, indeed, often “check in” with one another, each flattering the other. One e-mail reveals Clinton worried that her relationship with Obama didn’t quite rise to the inimitable level of Kissinger’s to Nixon: “I see POTUS at least once a week while K saw Nixon everyday,” Clinton wrote. “Do you see this as a problem?”

https://www.thenation.com/article/henry-kissinger-hillary-clintons-tutor-in-war-and-peace/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #50)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 04:32 PM

51. She's being diplomatic. Canada also says the US is Canada's friend.

Despite all the shit we've been throwing in Canada's direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #51)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 05:48 PM

54. Kissinger's vision is her vision: "just and liberal."

Option A: She's being diplomatic. However, that's pretty bad diplomacy. There are much better ways to say nice things about him than flattering him as "just and liberal".

Option B: She actually thinks he's "just and liberal." Which is, well, f***ked up.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #50)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 05:09 PM

52. Yes

 

Her actual words. But those are inconvenient so..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 08:06 AM

34. Justin Trudeau sat on DT's lap?

 

I'd be interested in seeing an analogous photo:

https://goo.gl/images/Bt8Zrv|

Cozying-up to war criminals is wrong, even when a major Democratic politician does it.

-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #34)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 08:55 AM

40. She was just being polite ;-)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CentralMass (Reply #40)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 08:58 AM

41. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #34)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 06:03 PM

55. Hillary isn't sitting in his lap in that photo you linked to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madaboutharry (Reply #7)


Response to madaboutharry (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 04:36 AM

22. I'm going to agree with you on this.

She should have walked away from Kissinger many, many times.

Fuck Kissinger -

'Although I supported Hillary,
her friendship with Kissinger deeply bothered me. I didn’t understand it and I thought less of her for it.'

And that's not bashing a 'Democratic figure', that's a true statement of your feelings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoneOffShore (Reply #22)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 05:45 AM

24. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Original post)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 01:23 AM

8. Kissinger is treated like some kind of genius.

He's a corrupt war criminal, in my opinon. My skin crawls when I see pictures of him at glittering black tie events where he's treated like royalty. Disgusting!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 06:38 AM

28. Same here.

I smell sulphur every time I see him popping up somewhere. Bet he has goat legs under those tuxedo pants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Original post)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 01:29 AM

9. I completely agree with him....

A friend of mine and I were watching some of the Parts Unknown marathon tonight and the Vietnam episode (with President Obama) was on. Anthony quoted something that Westmoreland said (about the Vietnamese) that was simply despicable. I don't remember the exact quote but in essence it was that people from other countries aren't worth very much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Original post)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 01:34 AM

10. All the best people do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Original post)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 01:56 AM

13. ... and then an early death alone in a hotel room.

By suicide of course. Okay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Original post)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 04:22 AM

18. Yet Kissinger lives on. RIP, Anthony Bourdain, RIP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #18)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 06:20 AM

26. How effed up is that?

Why does evil never seem to die? All of these old, evil republican bastards seem to live long past their natural expiration date. Kissinger should have kicked off 20 years ago.

RIP Anthony Bourdain. The world needs more people like you in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Original post)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 06:32 AM

27. What did Kissinger do that was different from Dumbya and Cheney?

Kissinger is an evil fuck but many persons here at DU defend American foreign policy.
I could also post pics with Kissinger and Democratic bigwigs.

I do wonder if how people everywhere are talking about the US post-Trump added to Bourdain's depression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Original post)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 06:39 AM

29. So true AB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Original post)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 06:51 AM

30. Kissinger called NBC in 1975, trying to comp tickets to SNL.

Al Franken overheard the phonecall and yelled loud enough for Kissinger to hear: Tell Mr. Kissinger he can have the tickets if he apologizes for bombing Cambodia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #30)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 08:25 AM

36. Al Franken for the win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Original post)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 07:57 AM

32. The far eastern section of Cambodia was bombed.

Most of the country was not touched. What really destroyed Cambodia, and strangely AB is silent on in the excerpt, is Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Pot murdered up to 2 million of his own people in the 1975-79 period, while the U.S. (and other countries) turned their eyes away. Or worse, they said it was not happening. Anyone with the slightest education was murdered.

I have been to Cambodia three times. The first time, in 1992, when the Khmer Rouge were still fighting, I noticed the people were very dull. It was clear the Pot genocide had drastically affected the average intelligence of the population. On my last visit several years ago people were significantly brighter as new generations are rapidly increasing in average intelligence.

That is the real problem and cause of the situation in Cambodia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #32)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 11:18 AM

42. A couple of questions. Wasn't the neutralist government of Cambodia overthrown

by a military coup, supported if not instigated by the US while Kissinger was Secretary of State?

And didn't that military junta crack down on all opposition, leaving only the most violent opposition groups (like the Khmer Rouge) intact? It reminds me of what JFK once said, "Those who make peaceful protest impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

And didn't the US and ARVN invade eastern Cambodia which, along with the bombing, created a refugee crisis that helped the Khmer Rouge insurgency?

Isn't it possible that, without US meddling in Southeast Asia the Khmer Rouge might never have been in a position to commit genocide?

It's convenient to try to draw a neat divide between US intervention in Southeast Asia, and the humanitarian disasters that occurred immediately after the US withdrawal. But generally speaking I'm not sure history is so cut and dried.

Added irony--I seem to recall that the Reagan administration recognized the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate representative of Cambodia, refusing to allow the government that succeeded it to be seated at the UN. The new government was installed after the Khmer Rouge was chased out of the cities by the military of the newly united Vietnam. Reagan so detested the Vietnamese for defeating the US that he preferred having a Khmer Rouge delegation in New York, as opposed to a government installed with the help of the Vietnamese.

US involvement in Southeast Asia, like French involvement before it, was a disaster from beginning to end. And Henry Kissinger prolonged that involvement--and in the worst possible way--for years after it was evident that the policy was flat out wrong from a moral standpoint and counterproductive even from the standpoint of US national security. He and Nixon prolonged US involvement and escalated and widened the war for no good reason other than to shore up American "credibility"--which ended up in tatters anyway.

Kissinger's tenure as National Security advisor and Secretary of State was one of the worst in history. Not only in Southeast Asia, but also in Latin America--the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Chile being the prime example. Chile is still recovering from the horror of Pinochet--a horror Kissinger was instrumental in inflicting. Even out of government his influence was nothing but baleful. It was Kissinger who urged President Carter to admit the Shah of Iran into the US for medical treatment, inciting the takeover of the US embassy in Tehran, leading to Reagan's election.

Kissinger is up there with Dick Cheney as a geo-political "expert." I wish the both of them could be held accountable for all the harm they've visited on the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #42)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 11:50 AM

43. Ford/Carter gave recognition to the Khmer Rouge not Reagan.

The Khmer Rouge came into power in 1975 and were overthrown by the Vietnamese in 1979. Reagan did not take office until 1981. The U.S. policy during this period was to unite with a Chinese ally (Khmer Rouge) because China was fighting the Vietnamese at that point.

We can go back into history all we want and try to say "what if" the U.S. had not intervened in southeast Asia. But it did and let loose demons which will never be gotten back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #43)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 01:22 PM

44. Reagan pursued the same policy

of supporting the Khmer Rouge, even after it was chased out of the government of Cambodia.

Just like the US for decades continued with the fiction that the government of Taiwan was the legal representative of mainland China long after 1949, Reagan continued the policy of supporting the Khmer Rouge delegates as the legitimate representatives of the people of Cambodia at the UN for years after the Khmer Rouge were driven from power. This even after news of the killing fields had reached the west (I give Ford a pass because, like the Holocaust, news of what was happening was initially slow to reach, and be believed by, the outside world).

Yes, we can "go back into history all we want"--and we should want to, in order to keep from repeating the same tragic mistakes. Had we learned the true lessons of Vietnam--that foreign interventions, especially invasions, almost always "let loose demons which will never be gotten back" we might not have been so eager to invade Iraq, which action released its own horde of demons, for instance the refugee catastrophe that destabilized Syria and threatens Lebanon and Jordan.

I made my post in particular in response to your comment about how progressives who criticize Kissinger don't often bring up the grotesque events that followed the bombing. I've seen the same point made by right wingers who cite the Khmer Rouge as an argument for why intervention in Vietnam was somehow justified, and how our "premature" withdrawal resulted in genocide.

My point is that none of that would have happened had we followed FDR's instinct on Southeast Asia, which was to oppose--or at any rate not support--the return of French (to Indochina) and British (to Malaysia) and Dutch (Indonesia) imperialists to that region. The Pentagon Papers revealed that Ho Chi Minh sent a message to Truman asking for US support for Vietnamese independence--in 1945. The Viet Minh at that point had been in an alliance with the OSS to wage a guerilla war against the Japanese, and it was a perfectly reasonable expectation on their part that that alliance should continue.

Instead we backed the French, and when they failed we intervened directly. This was the greatest American foreign policy blunder of the 20th century, second only to the US withdrawal from Europe in 1919-20.

We look right now to be on the verge of repeating all our worst mistakes. Refusing to acknowledge our history--and our responsibility for so much of what has gone wrong during "the American century" will only guarantee that we keep repeating those same mistakes, if not worse ones. The near beatification of Henry Kissinger by American media only gets in the way of any factual critique of why things in that region went so dreadfully wrong, and our role in making all that happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #44)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 01:31 PM

45. You seem to be skipping by Carter in this.

Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #45)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 02:26 PM

46. No particular reason

other than since the KR were only chased out in 1979, that meant they held onto their UN seat during the Carter administration until January 1981. Reagan continued the policy for another eight full years, during which time the atrocities were fully documented with the accounts receiving much broader coverage in the west.

But to the extent that Carter went along with this policy, I hold him accountable as well. Though he of course had nothing to do with American support for the French, American support for Diem, American support for the succession of thoroughly corrupt and repressive regimes from 63 to 75, the American bombing and invasion of Cambodia. Like President Obama, he inherited the messes left by previous administrations, and his tenure was largely one of dealing with the aftershocks of their failures, at home and abroad. Iran, for instance, was the culmination of American (and British) support for the overthrow of its democratically elected government, and subsequent support of the Shah. He tried to shift that policy, but it was too little, too late. People tend to resent spending decades under the rule of an oppressive tyranny supported by foreign powers.

I think Carter's biggest mistakes came from taking the advice of foreign policy "experts"--like Kissinger--at face value. His greatest achievements came when he bucked the accepted wisdom, as when he brokered the Camp David Accords. The shame is that he wasn't able to follow up on that as he'd planned. Camp David, he said at the time and afterwards, was intended to be the first step toward a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. This was before any of the settlements had been built, before the invasion of Lebanon and the first Intifada. There was the possibility for an actual two state settlement, but Reagan pretty much scuttled that idea. In that regard Reagan was a lot like Trump--anything Carter accomplished or proposed Reagan opposed almost as a reflex. Ripping the solar panels off the White House roof was just one particularly petty example.

A second Carter administration is another of those great what-ifs. What if Carter had declined Kissinger's advice, and refused to allow the Shah into the US? Possibly no Iran hostage crisis, and no opportunity for the Reagan campaign to collude with the Iranians and reach their infamous bargain--hang onto the hostages until after the election, in return we agree to ship you billions of dollars in arms. A possible comprehensive Mideast peace settlement. An early push for renewable energy with the concomitant easing of the climate change crisis. No Star Wars boondoggle. No support of Salvadoran death squads. No support of Contra attacks on Nicaragua. No Justice Scalia. And on and on and on.

So I tend to cut Carter some slack, seeing as how he's been so maligned for so long. On balance his administration accomplished quite a lot, given what they had to work with. Especially compared to the clowns and knaves directing our nation today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #46)

Mon Jun 11, 2018, 01:06 PM

59. Carter's single term...

 



...was my first clue that your national elections were susceptible to fraud.

Thank you for the great background posts and confirmation of Kissinger's crimes.


.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanSocDem (Reply #59)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 09:54 AM

60. You're welcome

and best wishes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #32)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 02:37 PM

48. Simply not true

Unless of by “most of the country was not touched” you meant “many of the parts bordering Thailand.” I also suspect that “dull look in the eye” that you saw wasn’t stupidity, but an entire generation scarred by a war mostly enabled by US bombing. No US bombing, no Pol Pot, by the way. The two are directly, irrevocably corrected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #48)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 02:46 PM

49. I never said "dull look in the eye"

You made that up. I don't know what your graphic supposed to show but if it is bombing it simply is not true. The idea that Pol Pot would not exist absent U.S. bombing is ridiculous. Pot was a trained revolutionary and was backed by China which wanted to extend its influence in the region. They also wanted to counter Vietnam which has been an enemy of China for hundreds of years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #49)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 05:38 PM

53. Johnson bombed within 30 miles of the Vietnamese border

Nixon expanded the bombing range to include the entire country, and he did so secretly. You’re basically repeating lies concocted during the Nixon administration which were easily refuted when Clinton declassified the bombing coordinates in 2000.

http://www.taylorowen.com/Articles/06_GIS_Bombing_Analysis.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #49)

Mon Jun 11, 2018, 12:17 PM

57. Of course you're not moving the goalposts you initially erected.

Of course you're not moving the goalposts you initially erected. Your're simply ignoring their existence at this point.

I get it. It's a convenience we often dabble in to avoid admission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #48)

Mon Jun 11, 2018, 10:52 AM

56. Thanks for this info.

As you say, no bombing, no Pol Pot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Original post)

Sun Jun 10, 2018, 08:28 AM

37. and I really really hate trump

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Original post)

Mon Jun 11, 2018, 01:04 PM

58. One of the great things about Anthony Bourdain and his program

was in connecting or exposing the American viewer to the people and cultures that make up the nations of the world, it was casual and intimate.

It wasn't focused on the one dimensional, monolithic portrayal of nations based on conflicts, political leaders or governments as is most often portrayed whether intentional or not by vast majority of the corporate media conglomerates.

I believe in this, many of if not most of the standard members of the CMCs greatly envied Anthony's role and abilities to circumvent myopic caricatures of peoples abroad and expose the American Nation to a more inclusive, familial point of view.




Thanks for the thread progressoid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread