dagblog - Comments for "From One Nobel Peace Prize Winner to Another"

I don't think it is fair to

Aaron Carine — Sat, 14 May 2016 16:59:30 +0000

In reply to From One Nobel Peace Prize Winner to Another

I don't think it is fair to blame Kissinger for the slaughter in Bangladesh. I've read some of the State department records relating to the period. Nixon cut off military aid to Pakistan, and, both publicly and behind the scenes, advocated for a cease-fire. Nixon eventually ordered clandestine arms shipments to Pakistan, but they didn't arrive until after the war was over. I'd said that Bangladesh in 1971 was one of the few occasions when Dick and his boys acted fairly honorably.

I agree with you and

rmrd0000 — Sat, 14 May 2016 15:55:16 +0000

In reply to

I agree with you and therefore I won't be voting for Nixon.

Follow your conscience by all means. Martin Luther King Jr looked at Barry Goldwater like I look at Donald Trump. Martin Luther King Jr. said that a moral person could not vote for Goldwater. King worked with LBJ on the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. I will vote for Hillary Clinton with an open conscience.

I noted that there are some purity Progressives who differ very little from Christian fundamentalists. The purists and fundamentalists are always willing to promenade their moral superiority. My faith tradition tells me that we are never going to have prefect political candidates. On a secular level this translates as the lesser of two evils is less evil. LBJ was better than Goldwater. Gore and Kerry were better than GW Bush. Obama was better than McCain or Romney. I will take great personal pleasure in knowing that I did not fail to cast a vote against a bigot and a racist, just like Martin Luther King Jr could not stay on the sidelines and not oppose a man like Goldwater who sought support from white supremacists. I have no moral conflict.

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 14 May 2016 15:21:44 +0000

In reply to LULU, among other things

LULU, among other things Nixon and Kissinger likely prevented LBJ from making a deal to end the Vietnam War.

rmrd, here is a lot more detail on Nixon's treason involving the Vietnam Peace Talks. Notice that it was published two years before the column by George Will. Kissinger was deeply involved though that involvement is not detailed here.

The 1968 election had one shocking turn after another, but its final and arguably worst twist – still largely unknown to Americans – traded untold death in Vietnam for political power in Washington.

One doesn't have to look very closely to see that this sort of politics enabled by a complete abstraction of the lives of countless "others", and not only foreign others, is still a major factor in creating the world situation as it exists today. I cannot respect the candidacy of a person who would admire, respect Henry Kissinger and seek his council going forward.

I have gone back and forth regarding whether I could/would vote for the lesser evil. Right now I am in the mood to follow my conscience. Today's realistically available choice on the Democratic side is not enough of a lesser evil for me. I will not vote for it. My objections to choosing the lesser evil this time only coincidentally are the same ones I believe I would be obligated to act on were I a believing Christian.

If Hillary is involved in a

rmrd0000 — Thu, 12 May 2016 02:23:07 +0000

In reply to For most Hillary supporters,

If Hillary is involved in a close race with Trump, we will look back at the glee Bernie Sanders has in making the attacks against Hillary, handing talking points to Donald Trump.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/11/bernie-sanders-goes-off...

Ocean-kat, the discussion

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 11 May 2016 20:13:18 +0000

In reply to If you seriously would like

Ocean-kat, the discussion about Hal's behavior or that of any other bloggers stops now. If you want to engage with his argument, engage. If he annoys you too much to stick to the content, don't engage. Otherwise, you can take a week off from dagblog. It's your choice.

If you seriously would like

ocean-kat — Wed, 11 May 2016 19:53:14 +0000

In reply to In hopes of keeping tensions

If you seriously would like to keep tensions here at a reasonable level all you have to do is stop making comments like, " Look, she's horrible. We can still work together if Clinton supporters will simply acknowledge the absolutely ugly truth about her. "

You make a pretense of focusing on the issues and the evidence but this is not an issue and there is no evidence to support it. Sanders and his team would never make this point in negotiations with Hillary for his support. While you might find a few other Bernie Bros to latch onto it the vast majority of Sanders supporters would reject it. It's nonsense. No one but you will ever seriously propose it and no Hillary support will ever consider it.

There is one purpose and one purpose only for this statement. To attack Hillary supporters here, to provoke an angry response. So when you cry about the attacks you get from Hillary supporters here be aware that we know you deliberately provoke them.

For most Hillary supporters,

rmrd0000 — Wed, 11 May 2016 19:50:57 +0000

In reply to From One Nobel Peace Prize Winner to Another

For most Hillary supporters, the biggest threat facing the country is Donald Trump and the GOP. Hillary Clinton is on track to be the Democratic nominee. Bernie Sanders remains in the race as is his right. However, we see Sanders acting as an obstruction to Hillary being able to focus on Trump. We do not see Hillary or Obama as the threat.

We can agree that Kissinger is a waste of human flesh, but he did seem to provide some aid in dealing with China and Israel. Would most of us give Kissinger an award, the answer is no. Kissinger is 92 years old. My religious tradition tells me that he faces an eternity much worse than I could conceive for him.Do I think that Obama is evil for letting the award go through? No. Given the developments in the GOP, that party remains the biggest threat. When most of us compare the GOP threat to an award for the walking dead, we are not concerned about the award.

Bernie outspent Hillary and still could not win a majority of voters or delegates. Right now, all he is doing is helping Donald Trump.

In hopes of keeping tensions

HSG — Wed, 11 May 2016 16:53:20 +0000

In reply to From One Nobel Peace Prize Winner to Another

In hopes of keeping tensions here at a reasonable level and to allow me a few minutes daily for other tasks, I will refrain from my previous practice of responding seriatim to comments addressed at me. Instead, going forward I plan to post one or two general replies at most to a number of comments on my posts when I think it's appropriate.

So here goes:

One commenter argues the award conferred on Kissinger is from the Department of Defense so Obama isn't responsible for it. To his credit, Obama has been a remarkably involved President. It seems that little or nothing of consequence occurs without his knowledge and approval. He appointed Ash Carter to the office of Secretary of Defense last year. While I could not confirm or disprove the commenter's claim that the President doesn't formally approve or sign the awards, I would be astonished if Carter gave the highest civilian award the Pentagon can confer to a lightning rod like Henry Kissinger without his Commander in Chief's knowledge and approval.

Another commenter claims I posted the Nation's article because I dislike President Obama and Hillary Clinton. I was not thinking of Clinton when I posted the article and while President Obama has disappointed me, I do not bear personal animus towards him. That said, Henry Kissinger is responsible for many of our worst foreign policy actions, including overthrowing democratically elected Presidents in order to install military tyrants and the deaths of millions of civilians. It is shameful that this administration chose to honor him.

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 11 May 2016 16:42:43 +0000

In reply to Rodney Frelinghuysen got it

This is probably the first time that more than 7 people cared about who got it.

Though you do not call that list of recipients criminals you seem to be one of those who do not care or believe that it is significant that Kissinger is now on it. I am of course open to correction if that is the case. But, your response seems much like one of the positions taken by Kissinger’s authorized biographer, Nail Ferguson, as reported by Barret Brown. Ferguson says in effect that there are so many criminals so why make an issue of Kissinger being one.

I'll add here, though it is not strictly pertinent to your response, some snips from the wikipedia description of the award which NCD already pointed out above. Some parts made me chuckle at what I see as the black humor of this particular case. Emphasis is mine.

To be eligible for consideration the individual must have rendered exceptionally distinguished service of significance to the Department of Defense as a whole. Recognition may also be given for distinguished service of such exceptional significance to a Department of Defense Component or Function that recognition at the Component level would be insufficient. The service or assistance may have been rendered at considerable personal sacrifice and inconvenience and should be motivated by patriotism, good citizenship, and a sense of public responsibility.[2]

Normally, it is required that nominees have a direct working relationship with the most senior officials in the Federal government, e.g., Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State.[3]

All relationships mentioned are with appointees of our President.

Hal's 'From One Nobel Peace

NCD — Wed, 11 May 2016 16:40:48 +0000

In reply to Hal, NCD, rmrd000, and anyone

Hal's 'From One Nobel Peace Prize Winner to Another" is not accurate, it intentionally misstates the facts I stated above for the sole purpose of a 'guilt by association' smear of Obama's character and conduct as President.

Association on the level of, somebody in the government gives an apparently common, largely inconsequential 'award' and Obama is maligned because the awardee did very bad stuff decades ago.

Which likely has nothing to do with why he is receiving the award in 2016, which is often given 5 or more times to the same person, sort of like a 'best worker of the quarter award' in 1st grade.

I have posted blogs critical of Obama in the past, for instance, on a DOJ Supreme Court Amicus Brief on hourly worker pay at places like Amazon. A legal position of administration policy I disagreed with.

I try to take an unbiased look into the facts.

Some around here never seem to.