HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Octafish » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 230 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 55,745

Journal Archives

Who calls the shots?

"The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It's possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government." - William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995


Can Hillary Clinton Renounce Henry Kissinger?

By Barbara Myers
TruthDig, May 29, 2016


Hillary’s Quandary

The critical question at this juncture is what this portends for Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy.

Kissinger is mentor and confidante to our presumptive Democratic nominee for president, whose own foreign policy—particularly her liking for regime change—mirrors Kissinger’s more than would be expected of someone claiming the mantle of “progressivism.”

Clinton referenced “differences” with Kissinger in her review of “World Order,” and, on the debate stage, performed a lukewarm distancing from a perpetrator of so many prosecutable crimes.

There is still time for our presumptive nominee to set her administration of foreign policy apart from the pack—or for the public to demand it with a resounding peace vote for Bernie Sanders in the remaining primaries. The alternative is perpetuation of the “liberal international world order” as writ most eloquently by Kissinger and perpetuated in Clinton’s own practice, most openly in regime change in Libya and her heretofore ignored support for the coup in Honduras.

If she declines to pursue a new foreign policy paradigm, Clinton, while not stooping like Trump to the demonization of nearly 25 percent of the world’s population, shows little promise of advancing the “progress” she claims to embrace.



So, yes, there is that.

Emails expose close ties between Hillary Clinton and accused war criminal Henry Kissinger

Emails expose close ties between Hillary Clinton and accused war criminal Henry Kissinger

Kissinger met regularly with Secretary Clinton, and applauded her hawkish foreign policy in a handwritten message

Salon, Jan. 16, 2016

“I greatly admire the skill and aplomb with which you conduct our foreign policy,” wrote Henry Kissinger in a 2012 letter to “the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton.” The compliment was included as a handwritten postscript added to the printed letter.


Yet Kissinger’s intimate handwritten note is just one sign of the close ties between the accused war criminal and Clinton, who is herself notorious for advocating a similarly aggressive, hawkish foreign policy.

In her glowing review of Kissinger’s new book “World Order” in The Washington Post in September 2014, Clinton returned the favor, expressing admiration for Kissinger. She proclaimed that Kissinger’s foreign policy analysis and approach “largely fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration’s effort.” Adopting Kissingerian language, the bellicose secretary of state said she yearns for “sustaining America’s leadership in the world.”

“Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state,” Clinton revealed in the review. “He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels.”

Several emails provide more insight into the cozy relationship between Clinton and Kissinger.

In a June 2009 email titled “Startegy memo,” Clinton mentions an upcoming dinner she will be having with Kissinger — along with Cold War-era statesman and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who pushed for the U.S. to arm Islamic extremist mujahideen militants in Afghanistan in order to fight the Soviet Union, giving rise to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.



Excellent point, Rose Siding. "Guilt by Association" is wrong. That's why the background and FOIA.

BTW: Do you think Nelson Mandela ever got the full story on what the CIA did to him in 1962? We've learned a lot more since then.

''I'm proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.''

"Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, 'The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.' (laughter) But since the Freedom of Information Act, I'm afraid to say things like that." -- March 10, 1975 in the Turkish Capital of Ankara with Mehli Esenbel, Turkey's Foreign Minister.

"It is firm and continuing policy that (the democratically elected government of) Allende be overthrown by a coup.... We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG (United States Government) and American hands be well hidden." -- October 1970 cable to CIA operatives in Chile from Henry Kissinger's "Track Two" group

What a guy: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/HKissinger.html

You are most welcome, RufusTFirefly! Thank you for not evolving!

That is the take-away.

One picture is worth a thousand journalists.

Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was reported to be fond of Diego Rivera's mural, Glorious Victory, which tells the story of the CIA-led 1954 coup d'etat in Guatemala, using it for a Christmas card one year.

Today, we can substitute the name of a modern day Secretary of State for John Foster Dulles and plop in Honduras 2009 in place of Guatemala into the painting. History repeats, sickeningly.

One Diego Rivera mural is worth a thousand newspaper articles. Study Guide in PDF.

It starkly reminded me of how Jean-Bertrand Aristide got The USA Special Treatment in Haiti:

Aristide told me the Generals ran Dope, Inc. on Haiti. Personally.

Posted by Octafish in General Discussion (Through 2005)
Sat Mar 20th 2004, 06:49 PM

Sorry if the following is an old read. The thing held true then and holds true still…

I met Jean-Bertrand Aristide after he was deposed by the generals in the early 90s. He came to metro Detroit and spoke before the Cranbrook Peace Foundation.

The newspaper I then worked for didn’t see any reason for sending me to cover Aristide’s speech. The editors weren’t BFEE, but the events on a Caribbean island just weren’t “local” enough for their budget. So, I went on my own time.

The Cranbrook people were happy to see me. They wanted, of course, as much coverage as possible. So, they invited me and the other interested reporter types to have at him for an hour before his address.

I’m ashamed to report, at an important event in two nation’s larger media market, only a couple of CBC radio reporters out of Windsor and one local Detroit TV crew bothered to show. I was the lone print guy. Anyway…

Aristide answered every question asked in English or French. He also told us about life in Haiti, where there were four doctors to care for 4 million people. Another interesting stat: One percent of the population own 99-percent of the property.

I asked Aristide what the United States could do to help him restore democracy to Haiti? Aristide said all Poppy Doc Bush had to do was pick up the phone, call the generals and say, “Get out,” and they would quit their coup and the first democratically elected leader of Haiti in 75 years would be returned to power. Bush didn't and Aristide wasn't until Clinton sent the US Marines, many years and many Haitian lives later.

The reason for Bush Senior's inaction? Aristide said he didn’t know the answer, but he suspected Bush’s politics favored the landowners over the masses. (“Sounds familiar,” I then thought and still think today.)

Aristide said that the generals were deep into the wholesale cocaine importation business. Now who would be their partner in all that? Besides the wealthy landowners, for whom the Generals worked, I mean.


Which is why it matters.

Do you ever wonder what Hillary and Erik Prince talk about?

Lawmakers Ask Hillary Clinton to Explain Erik Prince’s Mercenaries in the UAE

“The implications of allowing a US citizen to assemble a legion in any foreign country, and especially in a combustible region like the Middle East, are serious and wide-ranging,” they allege.

By Jeremy Scahill
MAY 23, 2011

 Five members of Congress have called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to clarify if Blackwater founder Erik Prince’s recently disclosed deal to provide a small mercenary army to the United Arab Emirates complies with US law and export regulations. “We question whether private US citizens should be involved in recruiting and assembling forces, as well as providing military training and support to foreign governments and militaries,” wrote the lawmakers, led by Representative Jan Schakowsky, a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “The implications of allowing a US citizen to assemble a foreign legion in any foreign country, and especially in a combustible region like the Middle East, are serious and wide-ranging.”

On May 14, the New York Times revealed that Prince was leading an effort to build an army of mercs 800 strong—including scores from Colombia—in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. They would be trained by US, European and South African special forces veterans. Prince’s new company, Reflex Responses, also known as R2, was bankrolled to the tune of $529 million from “the oil-soaked sheikdom,” according to the Times, adding that Prince was “hired by the crown prince of Abu Dhabi” Sheik Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan.

According to the lawmakers, under US law, Prince’s company is exporting a defense product and therefore falls under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), requiring him to “first seek the approval of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls before the defense services are provided.” The DDTC is controlled by the State Department. “Has Mr. Prince, or any of the other Americans involved in the training contract, received such approval from DDTC?” the lawmakers ask Clinton in the May 23 letter [PDF], a copy of which was obtained by The Nation. Past attempts by The Nation to obtain certain DDTC records on Blackwater-affiliated companies have been rejected by the State Department.

They further ask Secretary Clinton for “any clarification as to US policy toward private US citizens who recruit, assemble, or train foreign militaries, and toward foreign countries that hire private US citizens to train their militaries.” They add: “We have long expressed concerns about the US government continuing to do business with Blackwater, despite that company’s growing list of misconduct, and we are concerned that Mr. Prince is now exporting his services. In addition, the Emirati regime’s use of an American-created and trained force of foreign troops has the potential to introduce further instability and suspicion into an already volatile region (and at a particularly sensitive time).” In addition to Schakowsky, the other signers of the letter are: John Conyers, Maurice Hinchey, James Moran and Peter Welch.

SOURCE: http://www.thenation.com/article/lawmakers-ask-hillary-clinton-explain-erik-princes-mercenaries-uae/

I can't find the answer online. Maybe if State had had an inspector general they could have asked Mark Penn about that. Maybe you could help, but I know you're busy with the strawman.

Calumny implies smear, slander, and libel. What's false in what I posted?

“Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state,” Clinton revealed in the review. “He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels.” -- http://www.salon.com/2016/01/12/emails_expose_close_ties_between_hillary_clinton_and_accused_war_criminal_henry_kissinger/

Seems to be a concerted effort this morning to discredit this post and me, personally. So, please, show where I'm in error.

Rather than the CT strawman, show where I've posted something in error.

If you want to go to the heart of the matter: Start with UBS, where these two work in the Swiss bank's Wealth Management department for the once rightwing Sen. Phil Gramm.

After his exit from the US Senate, Phil Gramm immediately found a job at Swiss bank UBS as its Vice Chairman. Gramm today works in the Wealth Management department, where he brought on, among others, former President Bill Clinton, former pretzeldent George W Bush and one James Carville.

See for you'self.

It's a Buy-Partisan Who's Who:

President William J. Clinton
President George W. Bush Heh heh heh.
Robert J. McCann
James Carville
John V. Miller
Paula D. Polito
Anthony Roth
Mike Ryan
John Savercool

SOURCE: http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html

Who would have thought President Clinton and Sen. Gramm -- the two key figures in repealing Glass-Steagall -- would work together in Wealth Management at a Swiss bank?

Since the New Deal, Glass-Steagall had protected the US taxpayer from the Wall Street casino by law. After its repeal, the US taxpayer got put on the hook for, among other things, the most recent $16 trillion Wall Street bailout.

In September 2008 on DU2 I described the situation: Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.

Those interested may also enjoy what Robert Scheer thinks about Phil Gramm.


Until the Panama Papers, this information wasn't much interest to the USA's "news media." They don't like to disturb their owners and operators any more than they have to.

Won't change the truth.

Nor can all the money in the world make a lie into the truth.

Kissinger? Kissinger who?

by Jim Naureckas
FAIR, Feb.

Last week, presidential challenger Bernie Sanders attacked his rival Hillary Clinton live on US television for taking advice from Nixon-era Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, whom he accused of paving the way for genocide with his bombing of Cambodia.

You know who wasn’t impressed? US television.

According to a search of the Nexis news database, there were exactly two references to Kissinger following the debate on the major broadcast networks. CBS‘s Gayle King (Early Show, 2/12/16) reported that “Sanders questioned why Clinton would praise former secretary of State Henry Kissinger,” and then played an excerpt from the exchange:

SANDERS: Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state. Count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger.

CLINTON: I know journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy and we have yet to know who that is.

SANDERS: Well, it ain’t Henry Kissinger, that’s for sure.

CLINTON: That’s fine. That’s fine.

On NBC‘s Today show, Andrea Mitchell (2/12/16) played an even shorter excerpt (beginning with “journalists have asked you…”) as an illustration of how the candidates “hammered each other…on foreign policy.”



Corporate McPravda is afraid of telling the truth about Kissinger. That's also why you resort to censor. You can't change the truth and you fear people knowing it.

Gen. Patton said if everybody's thinking alike, nobody's doing any thinking.

He wanted his staff to discover and recommend better strategy, better tactics, better plans than what he alone could think up. Confident in his faculties, Patton did not mind loyal officers standing in opposition to him when they had reason.

I believe Hillary is usually the smartest person in the room. I don't think she always listens to opposing views.

One whose views I fear she still considers is Larry Summers. He's the guy who helped convince Bill to sign the repeal of Glass Steagall. Larry also is the fellow Joseph Stiglitz reported was wont to ask "What would Goldman think?"

Larry Summers: Goldman Sacked

By Greg Palast
Reader Supported News, September 16, 2013

Joseph Stiglitz couldn't believe his ears. Here they were in the White House, with President Bill Clinton asking the chiefs of the US Treasury for guidance on the life and death of America's economy, when the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers turns to his boss, Secretary Robert Rubin, and says, "What would Goldman think of that?"


Then, at another meeting, Summers said it again: What would Goldman think?

A shocked Stiglitz, then Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, told me he'd turned to Summers, and asked if Summers thought it appropriate to decide US economic policy based on "what Goldman thought." As opposed to say, the facts, or say, the needs of the American public, you know, all that stuff that we heard in Cabinet meetings on The West Wing.

Summers looked at Stiglitz like Stiglitz was some kind of naive fool who'd read too many civics books.



I hope I answered your question, PJMcK. Thank you for asking and caring about Democracy.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 230 Next »