[Peace-discuss] What Kissinger Said: "I Do Not Believe That We Can Make Conditions"

[C. G. Estabrook]

I'm not sure what I am supposed to have misunderstood, deliberately or not.  Bob 
says that he was not interested in "who quoted Kissinger correctly," but I was 
responding to the post in which he said "For the record, this is what ... 
Kissinger said ..."

In the debate, McCain and Obama were certainly interested in "who quoted 
Kissinger correctly, as if we were scoring the high school debate team" -- of 
course, the debate rarely rose to that level.

Bob writes, "The point I am interested in is the fact that five former U.S. 
Secretaries of State ... say we should talk to Iran without preconditions."  Of 
course "we" (a locution Bob has objected to elsewhere) should talk to Iran 
without preconditions: I'm not sure what the urgings of five principal American 
war criminals should tell us (the real us), altho' it might be some guidance to 
President McCain.

The rest of my post was a response to comments of Bob's to which he provided 
links.  I wanted to suggest that there seems to be a debate in DC on how best to 
construct the enemy that justifies the continuing US military presence in the 
Middle East: the neocons want to make a bete noire out of a pacific and indeed 
helpful (to US regional interests) Iran, while the realists want to do the same 
with terrorists in Pakistan. "We" (sc. the anti-war movement) should oppose both.

The body count suggest that the latter are winning -- the argument, at least.

  --CGE


Robert Naiman wrote:
> I leave Carl's other points to others.
> 
> But the point that I am interested in - which I thought was straightforward -
> one often suspects with Carl that his misunderstandings are deliberate - was
> not who quoted Kissinger correctly, as if we were scoring the high school
> debate team. The point I am interested in is the fact that five former U.S.
> Secretaries of State - two Democrat, three Republican - say we should talk to
> Iran without preconditions.
> 
> Regardless of what one thinks of Obama on this or any other issue, this is an
> important point and it was a good thing that Obama made it. McCain tried to
> obfuscate it, that's why I wrote that piece; to underline the point and
> counterattack the obfuscation.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:12 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> It shows to what farcical depths the presidential election has sunk that it
>>  seems important to decide which of these nonentities has correctly quoted 
>> the small-minded war criminal Henry Kissinger.
>> 
>> Bob writes, "Do we want ... confrontation with Iran in a McCain-Palin 
>> Administration pursuing the neoconservative policies of the early Bush 
>> Administration, or do we want to seriously pursue negotiations that could 
>> lead to an agreement that would help stabilize the whole Middle East, 
>> significantly facilitating U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and promoting
>> stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan?"  But that's not the alternative
>> that's on offer.
>> 
>> A more accurate version is, "Do we want ... confrontation with Iran in a 
>> McCain-Palin Administration pursuing the neoconservative policies of the 
>> early Bush Administration, or do we want military action in Pakistan in a 
>> Obama-Biden administration pursuing the Realist polices of the current Bush
>>  Administration?"
>> 
>> In fact, the question may be moot, because (a) military action against
>> Pakistan -- which Obama calls for more urgently than McCain -- is already
>> underway, and Obama's intention  is to improve upon the "baby steps" (as
>> his adviser says) already taken by the Realists in the Bush administration
>> in this regard; and (b) a McCain presidency -- whatever he says on the
>> hustings -- will probably give way to the consensus of the military and the
>> foreign policy establishment (remember how both McCain and Obama say that
>> they will be guided by the "commanders on the ground") that the dangerous
>> source of opposition to US military hegemony in the Middle East is
>> Pakistan.  They recognize (as the leading English language journalist in
>> Iraq, Patrick Cockburn, points out) that the cooperation of Iran is
>> essential for the US pacification of Iraq -- and for the US attack on
>> Pakistan, for which they have shown  a remarkable enthusiasm already.
>> (Another exchange of fire between US helicopters and Pakistani troops seems
>> to have gone largely unreported earlier this week.)
>> 
>> The neocons -- holed up in the OVP and concentrating on avoiding
>> prosecution (that's what the MCA was about) -- have been largely brushed
>> aside, and Obama argues for continuity by suggesting that he will retain
>> Gates at DOD.  The neocons will undoubtedly try to improve their fortunes
>> in a McCain presidency, but the matter of whom to concentrate on killing,
>> Pakistanis or Iranians, may have already been decided within the government
>> when McCain (or Obama) is inaugurated.  --CGE
>> 
>> 
>> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>> Jim Lehrer missed an opportunity last night to help clarify for people 
>>> watching the debate what is in dispute between Democrats like Barack
>>> Obama and Republicans like John McCain about U.S. policy towards Iran.
>>> For the record, this is what McCain adviser former U.S. Secretary of
>>> State Henry Kissinger said about U.S. policy towards Iran, according to
>>> the transcript on CNN's website:
>>> 
>>> "I am in favor of negotiating with Iran.... But I do not believe that we 
>>> can make conditions for the opening of negotiations." ... What [the
>>> neocons] fear is not that talks would be useless, but that they might be
>>> productive...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/what-kissinger-said-i-do_b_129869.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/27/11318/6202
>> 
> 
> 
>