It’s a big, complicated world out there, afterall. Henry knows all about that.

In the recent Univision Debate, Secretary Clinton went to some lengths to conflate Senator Sanders' 1980’s Latin American visits (and indeed Sanders' current "revolution") with the abuses of dictators and depots: "that you oppress people, you disappear people, you imprison people or even kill people for expressing their opinions" …

Here’s the latest Clinton conflation which feels a lot like a pre-prepared right-wing red-baiting attack to me:

CLINTON: [...] And I just want to add one thing to the question you were asking Senator Sanders. I think in that same interview, he praised what he called the revolution of values in Cuba and talked about how people were working for the common good, not for themselves. I just couldn't disagree more . You know, if the values are that you oppress people, you disappear people, you imprison people or even kill people for expressing their opinions, for expressing freedom of speech, that is not the kind of revolution of values that I ever want to see anywhere.

She failed to mention however, that she does NOT apply the same disingenuous “disappearing” critiques to Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who often deployed/fostered these same deplorable tactics himself, as part of America’s Foreign Policy. To him, she’s quite willing to turn one-blind-eye … that is, if her continuing defenses of Henry in each new debate are any indication.

Hillary Clinton apparently understands the duality of Henry Kissinger and is fine with it, and she “chooses” to focus only on the positive aspects of his long and tortured track record. If only the world were that simple — that you get to wipe the slate clean whenever (or wherever) you might have made a colossal interventionist blunder.

Sadly in a world without journalism (or least a serious scarcity of same), the political dynamic is becoming just that simplistic, more so all the time. It’s like those mistakes of yesteryear — never even happened.

…..

by Adam Howard, msnbc.com -- 02/12/16

[...]

“I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger ,” Sanders added on Thursday. ”And in fact, Kissinger’s actions in Cambodia, when the United States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some three million innocent people, one of the worst genocides in the history of the world . So count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger.” --- Meanwhile, Clinton stood by her man so to speak, highlighting one of the least controversial portions of his resume, his diplomatic ties with China . “I think it is fair to say, whatever the complaints that you want to make about him are, that with respect to China, one of the most challenging relationships we have, his opening up China and his ongoing relationships with the leaders of China is an incredibly useful relationship for the United States of America,” she said. Clinton had previously praised Kissinger in her 2014 memoir and de-facto campaign manifesto, “Hard Choices,” during which she fondly recalled watching Kissinger’s 1972 trip to China on television. There are in essence two Henry Kissingers. There is the respected and influential elder statesman, who shaped U.S. foreign policy as national security adviser and the secretary of state for eight years. He was indeed credited with helping open diplomatic relations with China in 1972, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, which eventually led to the end of the Vietnam War. And then there is the other Kissinger, who is far more insidious as far as progressives are concerned: A man who played a significant — and some would argue decisive role — in prolonging the Vietnam War at the needless cost of thousands of American and Vietnamese lives. A man who encouraged former President Richard Nixon to wiretap and intimidate his political enemies. A man who supported the secret bombing of Cambodia and Laos, killing thousands of innocent civilians. A man who masterminded an illegal 1973 coup in Chile and other covert politically motivated military interventions in countries like Rhodesia, East Timor and Argentina. [...]

Henry did not “oppress people, disappear people, imprison people or even kill people for expressing their opinions " — NO he was doing those kind of things for the sake of extending America’s Military Footprint , and strengthening American worldwide Dominance. Extending it all corners of the down-trodden and under-defended world. It’s our never-explained Birth-Right afterall, to exploit the resources of others, for some still Unquestioned, and god-forsaken reason(s).

..…

Henry Kissinger, Hillary Clinton’s Tutor in War and Peace

by Greg Grandin, theNation.com -- Feb 5, 2016

[...]

Let’s consider some of Kissinger’s achievements during his tenure as Richard Nixon’s top foreign policy–maker. He (1) prolonged the Vietnam War for five pointless years; (2) illegally bombed Cambodia and Laos; (3) goaded Nixon to wiretap staffers and journalists; (4) bore responsibility for three genocides in Cambodia, East Timor, and Bangladesh; (5) urged Nixon to go after Daniel Ellsberg for having released the Pentagon Papers, which set off a chain of events that brought down the Nixon White House; (6) pumped up Pakistan’s ISI, and encouraged it to use political Islam to destabilize Afghanistan; (7) began the US’s arms-for-petrodollars dependency with Saudi Arabia and pre-revolutionary Iran; (8) accelerated needless civil wars in southern Africa that, in the name of supporting white supremacy, left millions dead; (9) supported coups and death squads throughout Latin America; and (10) ingratiated himself with the first-generation neocons, such as Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, who would take American militarism to its next calamitous level. Read all about it in Kissinger’s Shadow! --- A full tally hasn’t been done, but a back-of-the-envelope count would attribute 3, maybe 4 million deaths to Kissinger’s actions, but that number probably undercounts his victims in southern Africa. [...]

Many voters in America are disgusted with these “Monroe Doctrine” policies, tactics and hemispheric-interventions, that somehow continue to embolden our leaders to view the world as their own personal chessboard — with its so-many pawns to be sacrificed, as the issues of the day demand.

Senator Sanders is not a fan of such American exercises of military intervention and undemocratic regime changes, as was made patently obvious once again in the latest Democratic debate:

.....

Transcript: The Post-Univision Democratic debate, annotated

by Team Fix, washingtonpost.com -- March 9, 2016

[...]

SALINAS: In South Florida there are still open wounds among some exiles regarding socialism and communism. So please explain what is the difference between the socialism that you profess and the socialism in Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela. --- SANDERS: Well, let me just answer that. What that was about was saying that the United States was wrong to try to invade Cuba, that the United States was wrong trying to support people to overthrow the Nicaraguan government, that the United States was wrong trying to overthrow in 1954, the government -- democratically elected government of Guatemala. Throughout the history of our relationship with Latin America we've operated under the so-called Monroe Doctrine , and that said the United States had the right do anything that they wanted to do in Latin America . So I actually went to Nicaragua and I very shortly opposed the Reagan administration's efforts to overthrow that government. And I strongly opposed earlier Henry Kissinger and the -- to overthrow the government of Salvador Aliende (ph) in Chile. I think the United States should be working with governments around the world , not get involved in regime change. And all of these actions, by the way, in Latin America, brought forth a lot of very strong anti-American sentiments. That's what that was about. [...] SALINAS: In retrospect, have you ever regretted the characterizations of Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro that you made in 1985? SANDERS: The key issue here was whether the United States should go around overthrowing small Latin American countries . I think that that was a mistake...

And in the recent PBS debate, we got a glimpse of what a ‘Hillary Doctrine’ might be like — you know, given that it’s such “a big, complicated world out there” that a president must reserve the right to “pick and choose” just who they listen to, when. Even if such “choosing” ends up soliciting the advice of Nobel Prize winner Henry Kissinger. (Nevermind all that ‘bad stuff’ he supposedly did, that’s all water under history’s bridge … Because of … China, and Henry’s open-market accomplishments there).

Hillary Clinton explained her “pick and choose” strategy in the PBS debate, which presumably would allow her “choose” the counsel of Kissinger, if the complexity of the pinned-down chess pieces demanded it. ( It was in her reply , to Sanders blanket dismissal of such counsel.)

Bernie Sanders went to great length to assure Americans, that Kissinger’s regime-changing knowledge would NOT be sought out in a Sander’s Administration. Hillary made no such assurance.

.....

Transcript of the Democratic Presidential Debate in Milwaukee

by nytimes.com -- Feb 11, 2016

[...]

WOODRUFF: Just a final word. --- SANDERS: Where the secretary and I have a very profound difference, in the last debate — and I believe in her book — very good book, by the way — in her book and in this last debate, she talked about getting the approval or the support or the mentoring of Henry Kissinger . Now, I find it rather amazing, because I happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country. (APPLAUSE) I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger . And in fact, Kissinger’s actions in Cambodia, when the United States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some 3 million innocent people, one of the worst genocides in the history of the world. So count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger. (APPLAUSE) IFILL: Secretary Clinton? CLINTON: Well, 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. (LAUGHTER) You know, I listen to a wide variety of voices that have expertise in various areas. I think it is fair to say, whatever the complaints that you want to make about him are, that with respect to China, one of the most challenging relationships we have, his opening up China and his ongoing relationships with the leaders of China is an incredibly useful relationship for the United States of America. (APPLAUSE) So if we want to pick and choose — and I certainly do — people I listen to , people I don’t listen to, people I listen to for certain areas, then I think we have to be fair and look at the entire world, because it’s a big, complicated world out there. [...] SANDERS: I find — I mean, it’s just a very different, you know, historical perspective here. Kissinger was one of those people during the Vietnam era who talked about the domino theory. Not everybody remembers that. You do. I do. [...] And then, after the war, this is the guy who, in fact, yes, you’re right, he opened up relations with China, and now pushed various type of trade agreements , resulting in American workers losing their jobs as corporations moved to China . The terrible, authoritarian, Communist dictatorship he warned us about, now he’s urging companies to shut down and move to China. Not my kind of guy. (APPLAUSE) [...]

‘Desperate times, sometimes require desperate measures’ — I seem to recall some Torture-enabling Administration, in the not so distant past, “picking and choosing” just who they were willing to listen to too, that ‘all options were on the Table’. Yes, and that “complicated, big world” advice, and its resulting Bush Doctrine — worked out so very well for them too.

Umm … NOT! But, at least they got to “wipe their slates clean” of all that bad stuff. So …. let’s not dwell in the past, shall we?

Someone’s got to “Turn that next page” of unaccountable History … that’s still yet to be written.

Let’s hope it’s someone who still respects the innate sovereignty of people-driven democracies, wherever in the world it inevitably springs up.

And let’s hope America’s future Foreign policy, actually include paying those nascent democracies a “fair price” for their resources (assuming they are willing to sell) — instead of just assuming we have the Right to Take Them (simply because we have the Power to do so).

The horrific era of such regime-change tactics, needs to be over — Like, yesterday!