Tony Blair on Henry Kissinger

 

Once in a while CounterPunch repays the effort of reading.  Often, sneering, juvenille preening Jeffrey St Clair's weekly column is worth a read because of the sheer mountain of remarkable factoids it contains.  The pictures above apparently led to a lawsuit from the pre-deceased Kissinger:

CounterPunch has been threatened with lawsuits from oil executives and oil kingdom sheiks, a timber baron, a homicidal governor of South Dakota, former CIA officers, a corrupt CEO of a major environmental group, killer cops, a prison warden, and numerous politicians of greater or lesser notoriety. But no legal notice was more gratifying than the one CounterPunch received when Ken Silverstein published these photos of Henry Kissinger picking his nose during a press conference on Brazil. As Ken noted at the time, “Kissinger was OK having his picture taken with murderers like Pinochet but upset when outed as a snot eater. A fucking monster.” When the photos were reprinted in Silverstein and Cockburn’s book, Washington Babylon, the caption read: “Henry the K.: a nose in every pie, a finger in every nose.”

As wonderful as those pictures are, I for some reason think that this avalanche of nonsense from mercenary psychopath Tony Blair is equally noteworthy:

There is no one like Henry Kissinger. From the first time I met him as a new Labour Party Opposition Leader in 1994, struggling to form views on foreign policy, to the last occasion when I visited him in New York and, later, when he spoke at my Institute’s annual gathering, I was in awe of him. The range of his knowledge, the insights which would tumble out of him effortlessly, the lucidity, the mastery of the English language which made him a joy to listen to on any subject, and above all the ability to take all the different elements of the most complex diplomatic challenge and weave from them something astonishing in its coherence and completeness, and, most unusual of all, leading to an answer and not just an analysis: no one could do that like Henry. If it is possible for diplomacy, at its highest level, to be a form of art, Henry was an artist.

That was certainly pretty.  Given the man though, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Blair stole it, if not from one eulogy by someone else for someone else, then bits and pieces of it from various writers.  It's also possible that a team of elite-institution(s) educated youngsters wrote it for him.  Or it's something that the Oxford educated Blair composed all by himself with several hours of quite time and the peace of mind of great wealth and the knowledge that important people were going to hear it.

Whatever its origins, it is truly astonishing at how it manipulates language to glorify a career that was only saved from mundanity by its monstrosity.  Kissinger wrote some books about diplomacy, he helped prolong the Vietnam War, he contributed to the destruction of Cambodia and the rise of Pol Pot, he backed the murderous racist dictatorship side in the war for the independence of Bangladesh, he cynically exploited the Iraqi Kurds, he supervised the murder of Chilean democracy and condemned that nation to decades of poverty and torture, he supported Indonesia's rape of East Timor, and he lied about a Soviet intervention in the 1973 Arab-Israeli Conflict, risking a world war.

But oh how Tony Blair uses words to try to turn shit into gold!

From the first time I met him as a new Labour Party Opposition Leader in 1994, struggling to form views on foreign policy

"Struggling."  Struggling and failing.  At least on your stated terms.  If your real goal had always been to provide a cover for thieves and murderers in return for a cut of the swag, then you succeeded.  But if you still genuinely think you're serving higher purposes, like "democracy" or "human rights" then you've failed utterly.

The range of his knowledge, the insights which would tumble out of him effortlessly,

I highly doubt that.  Kissinger studied history and diplomacy.  We've seen what he did with that education.  Nobody ever said he had anything to contribute in fields outside of his major interests.  The whole statement was unsubstantiated nonsense.

the lucidity, the mastery of the English language which made him a joy to listen to on any subject

I've heard he was a good writer.  He was probably an entertaining conversationalist. (If you forgot who you were talking to.) But would he cause you to ejaculate in your pants the way Blair describes it?  Probably not.

and above all the ability to take all the different elements of the most complex diplomatic challenge and weave from them something astonishing in its coherence and completeness

But look at his actual record as stated above.  Everything he touched became an even bigger disaster than before.  Even if that was the goal (given the selfishness, delusion and inhumanity of the system he served) and there was, therefore, a "coherence" to it, ... it was all in the name of garbage.

and, most unusual of all, leading to an answer and not just an analysis

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

If it is possible for diplomacy, at its highest level, to be a form of art, Henry was an artist.

Jesus Christ!  Let's pretend that Kissinger really believed in the stated ideals of US foreign policy of democracy promotion, human rights, economic prosperity and international peace.

Seven more needless years of war in Vietnam after which the US-backed side still lost.  The devastation of Cambodia.  Almost a further half-century of violence and misery in the Middle East which contributed to the terrorism of 9-11, 2001.  "2001" is to differentiate that 9-11 from the Chilean 9-11 that saw the rise of a military dictatorship and lost decades for that country.  The continued oppression of the Kurdish people.  Iranian and Iraqi democracy and freedom as remote as ever.

THIS was "artistry"????

No.  This was crap.  This was the handiwork of a pompous, mercenary psychopath.  A role-model for the piece of shit who presented that tribute.