Clinton, Kissinger and the Corruptions of Empire

Of all the corruptions of empire, few are darker than the claim that diplomacy must be kept secret from the citizenry.

This hide-it-from-the people faith that only a cloistered group of unelected and often unaccountable elites – embodied by the nefarious and eminently indictable Henry Kissinger – is capable of steering the affairs of state pushes Americans out of the processes that determine whether their sons and daughters will die in distant wars, whether the factories where they worked will be shuttered, whether their country will respond to or neglect genocide, whether their tax dollars will go to pay for the unspeakable.

It allows for the dirty game where foreign countries are included or excluded from contact with the U.S. based on unspoken whims and self-serving schemes, where trade deals are negotiated without congressional oversight and then presented in take-it-or-leave-it form and where war is made easy by secretive cliques that are as willing to lie to presidents as they do to the people.

Unlike the excluded and neglected people, however, presidents have the authority to break this vicious cycle by making personal contact with foreign leaders, by publicly meeting with and debating allies and rivals, by taking global policymaking out of the shadows and into the light of day. When the president is personally and publicly in contact with the world, diplomacy is democratized.

As the most scrutinized figure on the planet, an American president who meets and maintains contact with leaders who may or may not follow the U.S. line on any particular issue involves not just him- or herself in the discussion but also the American people. The president lifts the veil of secrecy behind which horrible things can be done in our name but without our informed consent.

So it matters, it matters a great deal, whether those who seek the presidency promote transparent and democratic foreign policies or a continuation of a corrupt status quo that has rendered the United States dysfunctional, misguided and hated by most of the world – and that has caused more than 80 percent of Americans to say the country is headed in the wrong direction.

In the race for the Democratic nomination for president, the two frontrunners are lining up on opposite sides of the question of whether foreign policy should be conducted in public or behind the tattered curtain of corruption that has given us unnecessary wars in Vietnam and Iraq, U.S.-sponsored coups from Iran to Chile, trade policies designed to serve multinational corporations and a seeming inability to respond to the crisis that is Darfur.

Hillary Clinton, the candidate of all that is and will be, wants there to be no doubt that she is in the Kissinger camp.

The New York senator's campaign is attacking her chief rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, for daring to suggest that, he would personally meet with foreign leaders who do not always march in lockstep with the U.S. government.

In Monday's night's YouTube debate, candidates were asked it they would be willing to meet "with leaders of Syria, Iran, Venezuela during their first term," Obama immediately responded that, yes, he would be willing to do so. He explained that "the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

Clinton disagreed in the debate and now her camp is declaring that, "There is a clear difference between the two approaches these candidates are taking: Senator Obama has committed to presidential-level meetings with some of the world's worst dictators without precondition during his first year in office."

Leaving aside the fact that Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, a popularly elected leader, is not one of the "world's worst dictators," it is particularly galling that Clinton -- in her rush to trash Obama -- is contradicting her own declaration in an April debate that, "I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people."

Unfortunately, Clinton's vote to give Bush a blank check for war in Iraq and her defense of that war, her support for neo-liberal economics and a Wall Street-defined free trade agenda and her general disregard for popular involvement in foreign-policy debates suggests that the senator is showing true self when she dismisses the value of presidential engagement with the leaders of foreign lands.

Clinton is playing politics this week. But in a broader sense she is aligning herself with a secretive and anti-democratic approach to global affairs that steers the United States out of the global community while telling the American people that foreign policy is the domain only of shadowy Kissingers.

She is not just wrong in this, she is Bush/Cheney wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (69)

1. Excellent and very timely point, Mr. Nichols. As with all "things," our nation, and the very notion of what constitutes the construct of nationalism, is evolving. It's high time we recognized, from the field of counseling, we're only as sick as our secrets.

   Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2007 @ 1:58pm

2. Great post, John!

   Secret diplomacy has its place, but should not be the the normal mode of operation. Too many diplomatic decisions escape public scrutiny and then the public is stuck with the consequences!

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/25/2007 @ 2:06pm

3. Nichols:

   But in a broader sense she is aligning herself with a secretive and anti-democratic approach to global affairs that steers the United States out of the global community while telling the American people that foreign policy is the domain only of shadowy Kissingers.

   That is true in a deeper sense than many would care to acknowledge.

   As stated by Chalmers Johnson in Nemesis, and by many others as well, we are facing the choice of losing our empire or losing our democracy.

   Hillary is clearly siding with empire.

   Will The Nation begin to speak with one voice against a "Democrat" who has shown us many glimpses of her true colors as a corrupt insider to the pretensions of empire in Washington DC?

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/25/2007 @ 2:14pm

4. John Nichols,

   Do you care to comment on The Nation's gag order on Inherent Contempt? Is this self imposed by each of the writer's or is it Katrina's call?

   Posted by freedomplease at 07/25/2007 @ 2:30pm

5. There are some good points made in the article, but it seems that the "without precondition" aspect of the issue is being glossed over. I am not sure it is true that The New York senator's campaign is attacking her chief rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, for daring to suggest that, he would personally meet with foreign leaders who do not always march in lockstep with the U.S. government. She is attacking him for being willing to do so without precondition. I think that her criticism of Obama is unfair (for reasons I stated in the Comments to David Corn's "Obama Flub" post), but I don't think that she is "Bush/Cheney wrong" on the issue.

   Corn's recent article on the Obama "flub" was an overreach on the anti-Obama side, and I think this article is an overreach on the anti-Clinton side.

   Posted by BlueSpark at 07/25/2007 @ 2:38pm

6. Incidentally, what would be the point of meeting only with those nations with which we agree? If international diplomacy is about more than leaders sticking their tongues down the back of each other's trousers (and I think it should be), then meetings between nations that are at odds with one another are vital.

   Posted by BlueSpark at 07/25/2007 @ 2:42pm

7. 1st....Don't dig the hole TOO deep, Mr. Nichols. In less than a year (or so), "The Nation" will have to issue their "strong, if not whole-hearted" endorsement of Her Worshipfulness and you don't want to have to backpedal too much....heheh.

   2nd...."Leaving aside the fact that Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, a popularly elected leader, is not one of the "world's worst dictators..."

   Give him time. You think shutting down RCTV and threatening to expel foreigners he doesn't like THIS year...won't be topped next year? Of course, he'll still have his defenders here and elsewhere when he does.

   Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 2:52pm

8. This is a terrible mistake on the part of Obama. It highlights his nascent view of the role of the Presidency in a complex world, as well as his tendency to dismiss important details while indulging his preference for the broad and ambiguous.

   The question, while complex, was clear: As President, would you be willing to meet, individually, with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela within a year of taking office and without preconditions.

   Obama: "Sure!". Clinton: "Not so fast!".

   This would be a second time where Obama didn't pay attention to the details of a question.

   In the first debate, when asked about how, as President, he would respond to a double-attack by Al Quaeda, Obama rambled on about first responders, Katrina and determining who was behind the attack.

   It's not Clinton's fault that Obama failed to grasp the pertinent details of thoughtful questions. And, she has every right to point out his lack of understanding and attention to detail in his answers.

   David Corn wrote about why Obama put himself in unecessary danger here:

   "By the way, after the debate, Obama's campaign disseminated a memo saying, "On issues of national security, Obama made clear that making America safer would require using tough diplomacy with countries like Iran and North Korea that have seen dramatic expansions of their nuclear programs during the seven years of the Bush presidency." During the debate, though, that's not how Obama put it. He did not call for "tough" diplomacy and did not raise the issue of Iranian and North Korea nukes. Certainly, "tough" diplomacy does not entail offering presidential meetings before the negotiating begins.

   "I write the above and the original piece as someone who is not rooting for Obama to fail. But it's clear to me he's going to have to be both bolder in his overall campaign strategy and more careful in his responses to questions about foreign policy, an area in which he has good instincts but not a lot of working experience...."

   You have to get up pretty early to beat Clintons. Obama, it seems, is still sleeping in.

   Posted by JoeCHI at 07/25/2007 @ 3:09pm

9. Posted by JOECHI 07/25/2007 @ 3:09pm

   If you want an ACCURATE analysis of a political situation from a "Nation" writer....David Corn has been much more on target than John Nichols.

   Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 3:16pm

10. NICHOLS: When the president is personally and publicly in contact with the world, diplomacy is democratized......

    ......it matters a great deal, whether those who seek the presidency promote transparent and democratic foreign policies or a continuation of a corrupt status quo that has rendered the United States dysfunctional, misguided and hated by most of the world – and that has caused more than 80 percent of Americans to say the country is headed in the wrong direction....

    How serious of a `scholar' can NICHOLS be??? How is any POTUS supposed to be "personally and publicly in contact with the world"??? Is there anyone that can achieve NICHOLS' babyish `ideal'???

    Don't much like to agree w/HRC (this one's for you, FRANK!) but foreign policy, beyond a general goal briefed to the public, belongs in the backroom where intricate details of `deals' are made....that's the Reality that modern day liberals can't understand.

    I'd venture another off-the-beaten-path reason for the country's foul mood: there has been TOO MUCH transparency in how gov't works! NOBODY and most of us know that shady `deals' are part of life and most certainly in gov't...always has been and always will be. Problems is, what used to be kept quiet (ie JFK's romantic escapades) now ges `transparented' into "Depends on what is the meaning of "is" is..."

    There are lots of aspects of gov't we simply don't want to know--as long as the gov't is generally effective in its general goals such as Peace through Strength, Fight Them over there so Not here, Kill/Jail AQ by whatever means,.....

    There is far too much shit being exposed worldwide from selling of nuclear goodies, Oil for Frauds, British pol in the pocket of Saddam, poisoning of dissidents, assassinations of Prime Minister & such.......My guess is, a lot of this stuff that doesn't affect your average Joe & Mary, is best left UNtransparent....just deal with it the old cloak-and-dagger way....like what Sandy Berger tried to do but was, you guessed it, Transparented!!!

    Posted by Happy at 07/25/2007 @ 3:46pm

11. In governments, there are two type of secrecy! Our elected officials, Democrats and Republicians and in George Washington's time, the Federalist Party. Their secrets are, they don't listen to the people that elected them into office but they listen to the one who has control of the money. Another secret our elected officials do not want you to know that they (Eighty percent of our elected officials) belongs to that secret society of the Freemason the one who controls the money and rules over our elected officials. These Illuminati, the thirteen families clan of the riches families in the world who are now striving to establish a new world order: A one world government, a one world religion and of course a one world banking system. That's the big secret.

    Posted by Theology at 07/25/2007 @ 3:49pm

12. Posted by THEOLOGY 07/25/2007

    Sounds pretty "theological" to me.

    In other words, not particularly logical.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/25/2007 @ 4:01pm

13. In a government by, of and for the people transparency is a must. If everything is on the up and up, then there should be no need to keep the public uninformed. You have only to look at the current mess the US is mired in Iraq to appreciate how crucial complete transparency is. Secrecy is anathema to democracy.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/25/2007 @ 4:15pm

14. Posted by THEOLOGY 07/25/2007 @ 3:49pm

    Did PLUNGER get a new account and nick? I figured he wouldn't show his PLUNGER face again, but not past him signing up for a new account.....or is this RESE?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 4:19pm

15. Here, hear, MT!

    Transparency IS key!

    Opacity's not for the likes of we!

    Let the light shine in.

    Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2007 @ 5:04pm

16. belongs to that secret society of the Freemason the one who controls the money and rules over our elected officials. These Illuminati, the thirteen families clan of the riches families in the world who are now striving to establish a new world order: A one world government, a one world religion and of course a one world banking system. That's the big secret.

    Posted by THEOLOGY 07/25/2007 @ 3:49pm | ignore this person

    omigod, not that again, that moldy old fig? hahahahahahaha.

    be sure to look under your bed for communists.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 5:29pm

17. Even that leftist FDR understood this even while negotiating agreements with communists that I deplore.

    Until you achieve some socialist/anarchist communal form of government, welcome to reality.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1

    It was the Soviets that beat Germany in WWII; FDR didn't have much of a choice but to negotiate--that's what is called reality.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/25/2007 @ 6:01pm

18. There are lots of aspects of gov't we simply don't want to know--as long as the gov't is generally effective in its general goals such as Peace through Strength, Fight Them over there so Not here, Kill/Jail AQ by whatever means,.....

    Posted by HAPPY

    It is our government and it acts in our name; we should know all that it does.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/25/2007 @ 6:03pm

19. we negotiate agreements with communists to this day. they are called Chinese.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 6:57pm

20. "From those according to their abilities. To those according to their needs" is the essential distilled credo of Marxist ecomomics, I believe. It's just that it doesn't work in practice because people conflate their wants and needs, and more pertinently in our consumer society, the expression of ability through work, vocationally, is too frequently begrudgingly undertaken, while expression of avocational creativity, play, is lampooned/ridiculed by the repressed, usually Puritanical if not Inquisitorial, moralists who decry others' joys about as much as they lament their own seemingly interminable sufferings behind this "veil of tears." Bah!!

    Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2007 @ 9:21pm

21. Full disclosure: I'm still beholden to my mother Leah, chugging along at 81, thus the Freudian slip in my first sentence above. Mea culpa.

    Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2007 @ 9:22pm

22. What the hell, there's a debate on the left!

    Posted by MyParadigm at 07/26/2007 @ 07:59am

23. Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/25/2007 @ 6:01pm |

    Please find a few hundred thousand European Theatre American vets, British vets, Free French vets, Free Polish vets, Yugoslav partisans, Greek partisans, etc.....

    and tell them that it was "the Soviets who beat Germany".

    Posted by Mask at 07/26/2007 @ 09:02am

24. Another thing that makes me "happy" and "love liberty" is that our friends on the right are already sticking up for their future commandress in chief.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 07/26/2007 @ 09:11am

25. Please find a few hundred thousand European Theatre American vets, British vets, Free French vets, Free Polish vets, Yugoslav partisans, Greek partisans, etc.....

    and tell them that it was "the Soviets who beat Germany".

    Posted by MASK

    Read the history. The war was fought and won on the Eastern Front. Around 90% of German casualties were on the Eastern Front, as were the vast majority of German divisions committed to battle.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/26/2007 @ 10:00am

26. One of our many history revisionist at work again. I guess your love Stalin and the USSR also loaned the U.S.A. money and sent them planes so they would not look so bad in the war!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/25/2007 @ 10:30pm |

    Posted by RIO BRAVO

    Yes, we sent them a great deal of aid; in return the Soviets did the fighting, killing and dying.

    Stalin is somebody you would like, rio bozo, a real authoritarian.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/26/2007 @ 10:03am

27. I'll be the first to admit that Henry Kissingers elitist mentality regarding diplomacy repels me. He's one of those guys for whom Jeffersons comment about eternal vigilance applies definitively. However, to not recognize his success level is to not understand the period: The threat of nuclear weapons use to stop the 1973 A-I war was primitive but effective (and a bluff? we'll never know.) and the opening of China was a brilliant stroke, kept secret as much I think to satisfy the Chinese than from any diplomatic ego trip. And for Nichols to call him indictable demonstrates incredible naievate regarding how the world works.

    Some of Kissingers comments, like the spin off of the SeaBees motto ("the illegal we do right away, the unconstitutional takes a little longer") and his observation that the best dinner company he ever had was when he dined alone in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles, give insight into the arrogance of the man, and I certainly wouldn't want him in any position to tinker with the Bill of Rights. But he knew how to play hardball with the Brezhnevs and Chou en lai's of the world, & credit should be given where credit is due.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/26/2007 @ 10:13am

28. By BENJAMIN SCHWARZ

    Published: February 21, 2004

    A plucky Britain refusing to bow to the Luftwaffe's blitz, Patton and Rommel dueling in the North African desert, the D-Day invasion and the Battle of the Bulge -- these tend to dominate American's conception of the Allied defeat of Nazi Germany.

    But as important as the episodes were, military historians have always known that the main scene of the Nazis' downfall was the Eastern Front, which claimed 80 percent of all German military casualties in the war.

    The four-year conflict between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army remains the largest and possibly the most ferocious ever fought. The armies struggled over vast territory. The front extended 1,900 miles (greater than the distance from the northern border of Maine to the southern tip of Florida), and German troops advanced over 1,000 miles into Soviet territory (equivalent to the distance from the East Coast to Topeka, Kan.). And they clashed in a seemingly unrelenting series of military operations of unparalleled scale; the battle of Kursk alone, for instance, involved 3.5 million men.

    In short, the war fought on the Eastern Front is arguably the single most important chapter in modern military history -- but it is a chapter that in many essential ways is only now being written. From evidence released from Soviet archives since the mid-1980's, scholars have learned, for example, that Soviet deaths numbered nearly 50 million, two and half times the original estimate; that the Red Army raped two million German women during their occupation to wreak revenge; and that an astonishing 40 percent of Soviet wartime battles were for deacdes lost to history.

    (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/21/arts/21WAR.html?ei=5007&en=dc1975817e d2ae27&ex=1392786000&adxnnl=1&partner=USERLAND&adxnnlx=1185459010-mx8bGU j6CO+Wc0WCC8vCaQ)

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/26/2007 @ 10:16am

29. MT, the second front was a neccesity to take the pressure off the Sovs, something Stalin himself pushed for intermitibly. The Germans made some strategic mistakes in 41 & 42. One was turning the Ukraine against them with the racial nonsense: the other was getting embroiled in Stalingrad in Sept 42 having missed their opportunity to walk into it in July. Once that had all happened, it was inevitable that the Sovs would beat the Germans in the end, with or without our help. However the Western front wasn't exactly a sideshow, nor was our supply of "soft" material to the Sovs all through the war, or their knowledge that they didn't have to worry about Japan after late '41.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/26/2007 @ 10:30am

30. Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/26/2007 @ 10:00am

    Empty, of COURSE, the Soviets played their part and an important part....but that's not what you said.

    You said "It was the Soviets that beat Germany in WWII..."----Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/25/2007 @ 6:01pm

    They helped, everybody helped. But by putting ALL the credit (which you did in your little generic remark) on the Soviets and not the pilots at the Battle of Britain, the navy crews in the Atlantic Battles, the guys at Normandy, the B-17 and B-25 pilots (like Senator George McGovern), the partisans, the French Resistance......

    you disparage their contribution.

    Just watch what you say next time, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 07/26/2007 @ 10:49am

31. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 07/26/2007 @ 10:30am |

    Forget it CHIP, we're wasting our time. Empty says something, he sticks with it to the bitter end, no matter how inaccurate it is.

    His ego is as big as his homophobia and hypocrisy (as him about the importance of voting....and then the importance of getting DC residents the right to vote for a sample of that!)

    Posted by Mask at 07/26/2007 @ 10:51am

32. Posted by CHIP THORNTON

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, chip, I know. My point is simply that the Soviets did all the heavy work while we--at the behest of Churchill--dragged our feet and made Italy safe for capitalism. ("Soft underbelly" my ass! How are you gonna get through the Alps? And if Churchill had gotten his way, we would have gone into the Balkans, too.) I am not in any way denigrating the service of the soldiers that fought on all the fronts, my point is simply that the Germans were beaten on the Eastern Front, a front that dwarfed all others in scale and death.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/26/2007 @ 10:53am

33. Posted by MASK

    It was the Soviets that beat Germany, mary. Without all those German divisions on the Eastern Front, there's no way the US and Britain could have gotten back on the continent. The Soviets did all the heavy work. It's that simple. Your grasp of the facts is, as usual, weak.

    And keep repeated your lies, Herr Goebbels. That's the only way you can win.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/26/2007 @ 10:59am

34. "repeating"

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/26/2007 @ 11:01am

35. "But as important as the episodes were, military historians have always known that the main scene of the Nazis' downfall was the Eastern Front, which claimed 80 percent of all German military casualties in the war."

    Just in case you failed to read that above, mary.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/26/2007 @ 11:03am

36. And, mary, your "ego" is very, very small, which explains your behavior, your need to compensate.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/26/2007 @ 11:05am

37. history is not a made in the USA product. WW2 can be looked at in a number of different ways. FDR concentrated on the war in the pacific to save India for the british empire. when FDR suggested that Britain give India its freedom, he refused. there was a small indian army who thought their chances for independence were better with the japanese, and they fought with the japanese against the british.

    the same is true in north africa. instead of invading France and forcing Hitler to fight on two broad fronts, the US saved Egypt for the british empire. had the allies invaded france in '42 as promised, by the time they would have reached Berlin, the soviets would still have been in Russia. the post war situation in europe would have been far different.

    from the point of view of the third world, the war was a bunch of empires slugging it out over their colonies. liberation from imperialism and colonialism did not come until the second half of the 20th century, when the empires of france england and Japan were exhausted.

    the number of german women raped by the soviets is a painful one for me. I do wonder how many russian women the germans raped.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/26/2007 @ 11:22am

38. Africa was not invaded to "save" Egypt for the British Empire. Egypt had already been saved when Montgomery "won" the Battle of El Alamein in October of 1942. "Torch" wasn't untill Nov., & the planning somewhat before that. The fear, probably valid when the planning started, was that if Rommel was able to cut off the Suez Canal, British ability to even maintain a force in the Med would be seriously curtailed, supplies having to come up the waterways southwest of Iran. There was also the inescapable fact that the Allies simply wern't ready in 1942 for anything as large as the Normandy invasion would turn out to be. The Dieppe raid was a testamant to that.And yes, India was a British prize that nobody wanted to lose to Japan, although at the time the strategic implication outweighed any colonial ambitions: It was also a source of supply with ports if needed.

    MT is right when he says Chrchill wanted the Balkan influence and fortunately FDR overruled him, Not that Italy was any easier of a fight. People bashed FDR later over this, but in light of the Socialist failure in the Balkans in the late 1980's and earlier 90's, its rather a moot point now except from what we can learn from it.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/26/2007 @ 12:08pm

39. BIDEN College Affordability Program Passes Senate

    Biden Program to Start College Financial Aid Process in 8th Grade

    Posted by gruntlife at 07/26/2007 @ 1:27pm

40. I'd love to see Empty Spence go to a VA or American Legion hall down in Texas, address some 80-95 year old men who watched their buddies get blown away on Omaha Beach, Anzio, or saw their B-17 explode when AA shrapnel hit a fuel tank and tell them...

    "Sorry, guys. Nice try. The Russians beat the Germans in World War-II. You wasted your time!"

    And any that disagreed, he could call "fruit" or "fags" because...

    "I'm not all that concerned with the speech police.

    And fruit is not something I would call a gay man. Fruit, faggot, butt pirate, sucker of cocks--these are epiteths for people like you."----Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/25/2007 @ 11:16am

    Posted by Mask at 07/26/2007 @ 1:27pm

41. Sorry, I have no faith in Clinton or Obama performing and less poorly for the people. We argue over platforms and campaign promises, but when have our presidential candidates comes through? They all prove to just as secretive as previous administrations. The supposedly somewhat liberal administrations all performed ghastly deads when it came to foreign policy. Everywhere except the first world nations didn't get the way they are from a few bad presidents. Most of the planet despising our nation and foreign policy didn't happen because of the Bush administration. Quible as we may like, but no major candidate right now will change US foreign policy except by a minor degree one way or the other. As the author states, it's not the statesmen that are in power. It's the same wealthy elite that rule and send down policy to the politicians of the day. In fact it's the same wealthy aristocracy that determines who will be the politicians of the day (with minor exceptions that they work around).

    Posted by annakis at 07/26/2007 @ 1:29pm

42. I'd love to see Empty Spence go to a VA or American Legion hall down in Texas, address some 80-95 year old men who watched their buddies get blown away on Omaha Beach, Anzio, or saw their B-17 explode when AA shrapnel hit a fuel tank and tell them...

    "Sorry, guys. Nice try. The Russians beat the Germans in World War-II. You wasted your time!"

    And any that disagreed, he could call "fruit" or "fags" because...

    "I'm not all that concerned with the speech police.

    And fruit is not something I would call a gay man. Fruit, faggot, butt pirate, sucker of cocks--these are epiteths for people like you."----Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/25/2007 @ 11:16am

    Posted by MASK

    The usual smear tactics of false face. Grow a pair, chump.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/26/2007 @ 2:25pm

43. And we have The Whitehouse Coup from the BBC:

    Document uncovers details of a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American businessmen.

    The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush's Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.

    Mike Thomson investigates why so little is known about this biggest ever peacetime threat to American democracy.

    Posted by dlg at 07/26/2007 @ 2:32pm

44. Chip, you don't know what you're talking about. it was the brits who pushed for a north africa invasion, when their fortunes there were at their nadir. the americans wanted a channel invasion. FDR promised the russians an invasion to be undertaken in '42.

    when the brit situation worsened, the americans reluctantly went along with Churchill. by the time Torch was launched, british fortunes had improved, but the decisions were made in summer of '42.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/26/2007 @ 3:00pm

45. The usual smear tactics of false face. Grow a pair, chump.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/26/2007 @ 2:25pm

    It's always a "smear" to you, Empty...when I post the logical outcome of your statements or WORSE...quote you!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 07/26/2007 @ 3:13pm

46. Posted by DLG 07/26/2007 @ 2:32pm

    Actually the BBC program makes no connection to Prescott and the Business Coup.

    This "Prescott was a Nazi" stuff is a mythology being created by the conspiracy guys, to foster some idea that there has been this SEVENTY YEAR "Bush Family" Cabal set up to impose fascism on the United States.

    Prescott was a LIBERAL Republican, who supported Planned Parenthood and the United Negro College Fund, and pushed for and got public housing funding for Connecticut inner cities. Bush-41 was about as moderate as his father (until he became Reagan's Veep, but then went back as Prez), and Bush-43 is 1000x more conservative than his grand-dad (not to mention dad).

    So unless "genetic evil" gets WORSE with time, not lessens with breeding....this dopeiness belongs with the RESE types.

    Posted by Mask at 07/26/2007 @ 3:16pm

47. Yes MASK, the Bush family have proven throughout the years that they have the best interests of the US in mind. Sure. :)

    Posted by dlg at 07/26/2007 @ 3:38pm

48. Yes JR I know all that, and I know exactly what I'm talking about. I wasn't disputing who influenced who regarding the invasions. Your concept of history as exposed in your previous posts, always centers on either racism, colonialism or oppression, which is narrow minded. I was merely pointing out that there was more to it than that.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/26/2007 @ 3:40pm

49. Chip actually you don't.

    "Africa was not invaded to "save" Egypt for the British Empire. Egypt had already been saved when Montgomery "won" the Battle of El Alamein in October of 1942. "Torch" wasn't untill Nov., & the planning somewhat before that."

    the last part is just absurd. planning somewhat before that? ridiculous. the plans were made after much back and forth, in June and July, when british fortunes were at a low ebb. the Us very reluctantly abandoned their planned invasion of France.

    operation Torch did little to provide comfort for our ally Stalin, whose people did the very heavy lifting, and who had to bleed for two more years before Hitler had to move at least some of his forces to the west.

    while you may disagree with my interpretation, my facts are solid. I suggest you read B.H.Liddell, Hart, described as the foremost military analyst of our time.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/26/2007 @ 3:57pm

50. Liddell Hart. no comma

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/26/2007 @ 3:58pm

51. racism, colonialism or oppression,

    hmm, sounds about right to me. the US and racism? perish the thought. the US and colonialism? nah, couldn't be. the relations with the Phillipines? naw couldn't have been colonialism. honest. oppression? here in the Us? indians, blacks, immigrants, slaves both black and white? a vile distortion of history. see I can post a Chip post in my sleep. and speaking of sleep, don't let me disturb your slumber, everything is alright here in the US of A.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/26/2007 @ 4:06pm

52. Chip, you don't know what you're talking about.

    Are you just now picking up on that, Johannes?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/26/2007 @ 4:41pm

53. Posted by DLG 07/26/2007 @ 3:38pm

    I'm sorry, DLG...do facts not matter, just the "myth" of the "multi-generational evil of the Bushes"?

    Prescott was a LIBERAL Republican Senator from Connecticut, who got public housing funded and supported Planned Parenthood and the United Negro College Fund. Some analysts say he was more liberal than a lot of the DEMOCRATIC Party today.

    His "Trading with the Enemy" status with Thyssen/Harriman Brothers didn't seem to prevent EISENHOWER from liking him or BILL CLINTON from saying he was a "model for Republicans".

    Also men who were involved with him in that event, like Averill Harriman worked for Harry Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson....were they "Nazi sympathizers", too?

    Get off the left-wing blogs and tabloid TV (yes, even the BBC-4 can be tabloid) for your "history".

    Posted by Mask at 07/26/2007 @ 4:57pm

54. It's always a "smear" to you, Empty...when I post the logical outcome of your statements or WORSE...quote you!

    heheh

    Posted by MASK

    Then quote all of what I said, mary.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/26/2007 @ 5:19pm

55. From DavidCorn.com....Round 3, Extended Version now out on....... Ladies and Gentleman, in the Left corner of The Nation, we have David Corn (full of Hubris, I might add) and in the far, far, kinda loony corner, we have John Nichols....we hope you'll enjoy tonight's match....(bold mine).....LOL!

    -------------------------------------

    July 26, 2007

    The Catfight Continues

    Who thought the Democratic presidential contest would include a spat on whether or not to invite Kim Jong Il to the White House? After Senator Barack Obama promised to meet directly with the anti-American leaders .......I, too, thought his answer lacked the necessary sophistication. An Obama adviser told me, "Of course, it was a mistake, but Hillary has overreacted." Indeed he forces of Hillary have tried to exploit that misstep, and a catfight has ensued.

    In this battle between Clinton and Obama,.......

    I KNEW HENRY KISSINGER, AND SHE'S NO.... Meanwhile, back at my homebase of The Nation, John Nichols used the Clinton-Obama tussle to attack Clinton for being...a clone of Henry Kissinger. I'm no Clinton fan. But Nichols was engaging in historical revisionism regarding an event only three days old. He wrote:

    In Monday's night's YouTube debate,......

    All Clinton said at the debate--and afterward--is that diplomacy would have to precede any presidential meetings with the thuggish leaders of these states and that she would not commit to such top-level talks without this preliminary work. How does that translate into being "shadowy," "secretive," or "anti-democratic"? I'm all for kicking her for the Iraq war vote. But let's have a fair--and accurate--fight.

    Posted by David Corn at 10:50 AM

    ----------------------------------------------------

    And the Winner iiiiiiiiiiis.....David Corn!

    Posted by Happy at 07/26/2007 @ 5:38pm

56. Give him time. You think shutting down RCTV and threatening to expel foreigners he doesn't like THIS year...won't be topped next year? Of course, he'll still have his defenders here and elsewhere when he does.

    Posted by MASK 07/25/2007 @ 2:52pm

    Maybe those nefarious, deluded "defenders" simply realize that the accusations against Chavez are a crock, and a predictable crock as well. This strategy goes back to 1954, when a moderate social democrat (Jacobo Arbenz) who was democratically elected in Guatemala was overthrown by a propaganda campaign initated against him by the United Fruit Company, which had very close ties with the State Department, branding him a "communist." Similar stories abound, such as that of Salvador Allende in Chile and Mohammed Mossadegh (Mossadeq) in Iran.

    In this case, RCTV backed the violent overthrow of the Chavez government and was actively involved in the 2002 coup attempt against him. What do you think the US government would do to a similar station and its principals under similar circumstances?

    Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting suggests: "Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it's doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela."

    (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107)

    Moreover, RCTV REFUSED TO COVER Chavez's return to power, airing fluffy entertainment programming instead.

    "Regarding RCTV's refusal to cover the return of Chávez to power, Columbia University professor and former NPR editor John Dinges told Marketplace (5/8/07): 'What RCTV did simply can't be justified under any stretch of journalistic principles…. When a television channel simply fails to report, simply goes off the air during a period of national crisis, not because they're forced to, but simply because they don't agree with what's happening, you've lost your ability to defend what you do on journalistic principles.'"

    (Ibid.)

    More at the above, as well as at:

    --FAIR, "The Myth of the Muzzled Media," http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3022

    --David Edwards, "Chavez And RCTV - Tilting The Balance Against 'The Bad Guy'", http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13065

    An extended quote from the Edwards article follows:

    In a letter published in the Guardian (May 26, 2007), Gordon Hutchinson of VIC noted that despite claims made by opponents of Chavez, there is no censorship in Venezuela, where 95% of the media is fiercely opposed to the government. This includes five privately owned TV channels controlling 90% of the market. All of the country's 118 newspaper companies, both regional and national, are held in private hands, as are 706 out of 709 radio stations.

    While the British and American press focus intensely on the alleged crushing of free speech in Venezuela, little is written about comparable actions elsewhere. A report on 21 countries, including the US and in Europe, by J. David Carracedo published in the magazine Diagonal, found that there have been at least 236 closures, revocations, and non-renewals of radio and TV licences. (See: VIC, 'The truth about RCTV,' op. cit)

    There is also little media interest in genuine attacks on media freedom elsewhere in Latin America.

    In Honduras, beginning May 28, 2007, President Manuel Zelaya ordered all TV and radio stations to broadcast daily one-hour prime-time programmes for ten days to counteract what he called "misinformation" on his administration provided by the press. (Ibid)

    The BBC reported Zelaya's actions on May 25 (Will Grant, 'Honduras TV gets government order'; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6690217.stm) A June 11 media database search found that in the previous two weeks the US press had mentioned Zelaya's actions in four articles - the highest-profile outlet being the Miami Herald. Over the same period, the US press had mentioned the words "Chavez" and "RCTV" in 207 articles. The British press had not mentioned Zelaya's actions at all - Chavez and RCTV had been mentioned in 23 articles.

    In Colombia, President Álvaro Uribe was asked if he would have refused to renew RCTV's licence. Uribe replied: "I would not do that to anybody."

    The Inter Press Service News Agency commented wryly:

    "But the rightwing Uribe cannot shut down opposition TV stations for the simple reason that there aren't any." (Diana Cariboni, 'Easy to See the Speck in the Other's Eye,' May 30, 2007; http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37957)

    In October 2004, Uribe closed the public Instituto de Radio y Televisión (Inravisión). The Colombian government argued that Inravisión was "inefficient." But the underlying problem "was the strength of the union" of Inravisión employees, according to Milciades Vizcaíno, a sociologist who worked for nearly 27 years in educational programming for the channel. (Ibid)

    In Nicaragua in 2002, La Poderosa radio station lost its licence and had its equipment seized without any legal proceedings by the Enrique Bolaños administration. La Poderosa was an outspoken critic of the government.

    Posted by siegeljd at 07/26/2007 @ 6:25pm

57. Posted by SIEGELJD 07/26/2007 @ 6:25pm | ignore this person

    nicely done. one suspected as much.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/26/2007 @ 6:33pm

58. Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/26/2007 @ 5:19pm

    That was enough, Empty. The rest was just an ad hominem attack on me. Your homophobia is well known. CKA2ND, a socialist, noted it as well.

    Posted by Mask at 07/26/2007 @ 9:12pm

59. Posted by SIEGELJD 07/26/2007 @ 6:25pm

    Interesting defense....everybody does it.

    BTW, what's the latest from zmag.org defending Chavez' move to expel foreigners who criticize him?

    "They're all CIA or Big Oil agent provocateurs" would be my bet....it's a pretty standard "Emmanuel Goldstein" move.

    Posted by Mask at 07/26/2007 @ 9:15pm

60. Chip, you keep raving about that the allies were not ready to mount a channel invasion. this would have come to some surprise to Eisenhower and joint chiefs head Marshall, who were planning just such an invasion to take place in early '42.

    you might also consider the fact that the invasion of Sicily was of greater size than Normandy. facts courtesy of Liddle Hart. be sure to let me know your sources.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/26/2007 @ 9:43pm

61. ritish ability to even maintain a force in the Med would be seriously curtailed, supplies having to come up the waterways southwest of Iran.

    actually supplies had to come around South Africa.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/27/2007 @ 12:53pm

62. "Africa was not invaded to "save" Egypt for the British Empire. Egypt had already been saved when Montgomery "won" the Battle of El Alamein in October of 1942.

    complete nonsense. the threat of Rommel wasn't removed until May of '43.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/27/2007 @ 12:57pm

63. Chip, I can understand why you would not want to revisit this issue. you got nothing.read the book.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/27/2007 @ 12:58pm

64. John, good piece. I think I've stepped into the Democrats periodical rather than an independent progressive thinking mag.

    One exception is the person who notes Chalmers Johnson's Nemesis. The rest seem like the DailyKos - whatever it takes to win, just as long it's not a Republican - be damned the issues.

    Hillary is a throw back to Scoop Jackson Dems (aka precursor to neocons). Obama said he'd talk to world leaders in the first year of his term as president. He didn't say how he would approach it. Whoopy.

    I too have no doubt that we get what we see: 1) A war-hawk imperialist (Hillary Clinton) or 2) a guy who really isn't ready for this. Next.

    Makes you wonder: What would a Ralph Presidency be like?

    Posted by Maxmillian at 07/27/2007 @ 3:38pm

65. Well I'm just getting back today, and I see you, JR, have thrown your usual nonsense back at me, complete with insults whenever you hear something you don't care for. Make no mistake about it old boy, If I were a gambling man I could retire on what I'd make predicting your racially motivated, bitter & anti-almost- everything American-comments. Can you ever say ANYTHING good about this country, or would you lose your Howard Zinn Membership by doing so. If you Eeyore types woke up one morning and didn't have something to bitch about you wouldn't know what to do with yourselves. Why don't you use your "knowledge" of history, if it can be called that, more constructivly

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/27/2007 @ 4:15pm

66. JOHN NICHOLS, You wrote, "In the race for the Democratic nomination for president, the two frontrunners are lining up on opposite sides of the question of whether foreign policy should be conducted in public or behind the tattered curtain of corruption that has given us unnecessary wars in Vietnam and Iraq, U.S.-sponsored coups from Iran to Chile, trade policies designed to serve multinational corporations and a seeming inability to respond to the crisis that is Darfur."

    What do you mean inability to respond to the crisis of Darfur? Are you aware that the United States is already involved in the Sudan? Do a Google search for the article, "Darfur? It's the Oil, Stupid…" by F. William Engdahl. For some reason the "Save Darfur" actvists leave this information out when asking the United States to do something about Darfur

    Why aren't you and the rest of the media and politicians concerned about genocide in the Congo? Is it because we benefit from the diamonds and other natural resources that it doesn't count as genocide, which is similar to Iraq's situation.

    See wor ldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/congo.htm [worldpolicy.org] and zmags ite.zmag.org/JulAug2007/snow.html#author [zmagsite.zmag.org]

    Posted by RandallJones at 07/28/2007 @ 6:16pm

67. Interesting defense....everybody does it.

    Posted by MASK 07/26/2007 @ 9:15pm

    Bzzt. Nice mischaracterization, but that wasn't the "defense."

    The actual argument:

    1) Chavez revoked the license of a broadcast station that has repeatedly backed his violent overthrow, supported a coup attempt against him, and refused to even cover his return to power following the failure of the coup. As the NPR former editor and current Columbia journalism prof pointed out in the quote you ignored, this is indefensible from a journalistic viewpoint, and any outfit that acts in such a manner basically forfeits its right to defend itself on "journalistic" grounds. Under such circumstances, Chavez's move was quite reasonable, and again as FAIR pointed out (and you studiously ignored), "Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it's doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela."

    2) Far from "everyone does it," another point in the argument was that a large number of countries have done far worse than Chavez, and the British and American media (again, just like you) have ignored it in favor of a near-exclusive focus on Chavez. Now why would that be? I don't see them, or you, writing about Zelaya's actions in Honduras, or Uribe's in Colombia (where there is NO opposition press at all, in contrast to Venezuela). There is a word for this, and it is hypocrisy.

    3) We've seen this before: massive propaganda campaigns against leaders who don't happen to toe the corporate line, be they Allende or Mossadegh or Arbenz or Ortega or Lumumba or Sukarno, distorting their records, falsely branding them as "communists" or "dictators" or whatever, ignoring far worse abuses elsewhere, and on and on and on. This is deja vu all over again.

    Nice try, though. Argument by cheap shot, mischaracterization, obfuscation and distortion often works, until someone catches you at it.

    Posted by siegeljd at 07/29/2007 @ 03:06am

68. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 07/27/2007 @ 4:15pm:

    "Well I'm just getting back today, and I see you, JR, have thrown your usual nonsense back at me, complete with insults whenever you hear something you don't care for.",/i>

    Later in the same post:

    "Can you ever say ANYTHING good about this country, or would you lose your Howard Zinn Membership by doing so. If you Eeyore types woke up one morning and didn't have something to bitch about you wouldn't know what to do with yourselves."

    What color did you say that kettle was, Mr. Pot?

    Posted by siegeljd at 07/29/2007 @ 03:29am

69. Re-posting to correct formatting. I hit the Submit button by mistake instead of Preview.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 07/27/2007 @ 4:15pm:

    "Well I'm just getting back today, and I see you, JR, have thrown your usual nonsense back at me, complete with insults whenever you hear something you don't care for."

    Later in the same post:

    "Can you ever say ANYTHING good about this country, or would you lose your Howard Zinn Membership by doing so. If you Eeyore types woke up one morning and didn't have something to bitch about you wouldn't know what to do with yourselves."

    What color did you say that kettle was, Mr. Pot?

    Posted by siegeljd at 07/29/2007 @ 03:31am