Pajamas Media

35 Comments

1. kabud:

HENRY KISSINGER is an enemy agent recruited in the 40s, he was used by Rockefeller, when he was a professor at Harvard

Rockefeller pushed traitor Kissinger into Nixson administration - so Kissinger avoided scrutiny by clearance

later Kissinger orchestrated MULTIPLE failures of American policies

Kissinger legacy symbolizes US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEEN HIJACKED BY SOVIET INFILTRATION

Jul 22, 2008 - 10:48 am 2. kabud:

i am really tired of barak osama material so i think the readers are as well

instead i offer you details on KISSINGER-traitor career path

learn and brake the slavery of TELEVISION INDUCED IDIOCY

http://www.jrnyquist.com/kissinger.htm
The Curious Case of Henry Kissinger
By J. R. Nyquist

There is an unsolved riddle in the career of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, whose successes were equivocal and whose rhetoric was unique for its twists and turns. Kissinger’s record is strangely mixed; for it was Professor Kissinger, the “hawk of hawks,” that talked Nixon into unilaterally destroying America’s biological arsenal in 1969. He prepared the way for Soviet nuclear superiority with the ABM and SALT treaties. He lobbied for a disadvantageous cease-fire agreement in Vietnam. He manipulated the collapse of Rhodesia, which afterward declared itself a Marxist-Leninist state. Then he misadvised President Ford when the communists once more broke the peace in Vietnam so that the whole of Indochina fell, with millions perishing in the aftermath. And finally, as if to sow even greater confusion into U.S. policy, it was Kissinger who lent intellectual legitimacy and prestige to Nixon’s China policy.

To demonstrate Kissinger’s bureaucratic method it is only necessary to look back to the war in Vietnam. Consider the following incident, reported by General Bruce Palmer, one of our top generals in Vietnam. “An otherwise uneventful day was interrupted by a phone call from the White House in the person of an irate Henry Kissinger,” wrote Palmer. “He has just received word from Chinese authorities … claiming that U.S. aircraft on a daylight combat mission over Vietnam had violated Chinese air space and territory.”

Kissinger’s call came during the famous LINEBACKER air offensive against North Vietnam, which culminated in the Christmas bombings of December 1972. According to Palmer, “Kissinger seemed to be very angry and upset, demanding that commanders concerned be roundly upbraided and threatened that ‘heads vould roll’ among senior military leaders if it should happen again.”

Kissinger had accepted the Chinese allegations about U.S. air attacks without waiting to hear the American side of the story. Gen. Palmer later investigated the incident, discovering that “Chinese radar was probably out of calibration….” In other words, our pilots did not violate Chinese air space. “In retrospect,” wrote Palmer, “it has occurred to me that Kissinger’s anger may have been more for show than for effect.”

But why did Henry Kissinger put on this “show”?

If we examine other famous outbursts we will find that Kissinger’s anger suggests a curious pattern — like the time he pushed Nixon into going after Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times. At first Nixon did not care about Ellsberg. Nixon’s chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, later wrote: “After all, the Papers covered events which had occurred during the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, and they weren’t really all that important anyway.”

But Kissinger nonetheless goaded Nixon to action by saying: “It shows you’re a weakling, Mr. President.”

Haldeman tells us: “Henry really knew how to get to Nixon.”

Some observers think that Kissinger planned his tantrums carefully, and knew how to push the right buttons, like when he waved the word “weakling” in front of Nixon. One has to wonder what Kissinger was after. Bob Haldeman probably guessed the answer when he wrote: “Henry had a problem because Ellsberg had been one of his ‘boys.’”

Ellsberg had lectured at Kissinger’s Harvard seminars. Ellsberg, therefore, was a stain that had to be wiped away. It was a calculated thing, an image problem. Kissinger had to divert attention from his past relations with a subversive element. Given this, General Palmer was right to compare Kissinger’s Vietnam outbursts to “a show.” And Bob Haldeman saw things the same way. In fact, it was not simply a matter of fake temper tantrums. Kissinger seemed to possess multiple fake personalities and multiple fake points of view. For example, James Reston wrote in the New York Times that “Mr. Kissinger … has said nothing in public about the bombing in North Vietnam, which he undoubtedly opposes.” In reaction to this, Haldeman wrote: “Nixon was furious…. I talked to Henry…. He hotly denied that he had said anything about the bombing to anyone. In particular, he vehemently claimed he had never talked to the Times columnist.”

Was Kissinger being devious?

Haldeman knew that “Reston’s story implied that he had spoken to Kissinger.” So Haldeman did some checking. And guess what? Kissinger had conversed with Reston. Haldeman later wrote: ” I confronted Henry: ‘You told us you didn’t give Reston an interview but in fact you did talk to him,’ and he said, ‘Yes, but that was only on the telephone.’”

The many-sided Kissinger was not an easy man to penetrate. CBS executive Frank Shakespeare said: “Henry Kissinger can meet with six different people, smart as hell, learned, knowledgeable, experienced, of very different views, and meet with them back to back, and persuade all six of them that the real Henry Kissinger is just where they are.”

It is no wonder that President Nixon harbored doubts about Kissinger. But these doubts never led anywhere. Despite all the evidence of Kissinger’s many-sidedness, Nixon never saw Kissinger as dangerous. About this, Machiavelli once wrote:

Men in general judge by their eyes rather than by their hands; because everyone is in a position to watch, few are in a position to come in close touch with you. Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are. And those few dare not gainsay the many….

Consider the way Kissinger talked to Nixon, as opposed to Reston: I’m a hawk, Mr. President. I’m for smashing Ellsberg. I’m for bombing the North. I’m for playing one communist country against another communist country. Notice how Le Duc Tho grates on my nerves. Listen to my anti-communist outbursts. Listen to me, Mr. President. It’s time to sign a treaty with the Soviets. It’s time to sign a cease-fire agreement with the North Vietnamese. It’s time to bolster Red China. Don’t miss this opportunity Mr. President. Don’t be a weakling.

And Haldeman, after serving time in jail, wrote:

We knew Henry as the ‘hawk of hawks’ in the Oval office. But in the evenings, a magical transformation took place. Touching glasses at a party with his liberal friends, the belligerent Kissinger would suddenly become a dove — according to the reports that reached Nixon.

Henry was fooling people. But what was Henry’s game? Was it ambition, power, patriotism? Haldeman relates the following curious story about Kissinger:

I’d get out of the President’s office almost every day around one o’clock and have lunch with Higby in my office. About that time, Henry would drop in to find out what was happening…. But he also tried to read everything of interest on my desk. He would take a ten-minute ‘Great Circle’ route around the office as he was talking, meanwhile reading everything he could on the desk and conference table. We used to have fun with him because we knew what he was doing. We’d deliberately place letters or documents that looked very interesting in an exposed area. Then, when Henry got there, Hibgy would take his lunch tray and set it on top of the paper, as if by accident, just as Henry started to read it. So Henry would move around, and we’d always stay one step ahead of him in covering things up. And everyone kept a straight face.

From this we can see that Kissinger had a greedy appetite for interesting documents. But there is nothing unusual about this. After all, Kissinger used to work for U.S. Army intelligence — which was brought out during a Kissinger press conference held on August 14, 1975.

Reporter: Mr. Secretary, we received a report that a Colonel General Michael Goleniewski, who was a Polish Army intelligence officer … had identified a list of KGB and GRU agents and officers who have since been arrested, tried and convicted. The General … also identified you, Mr. Kissinger, as having worked for a Soviet intelligence network — code named ODRA — headquartered in West Germany during World War II, at the same time you were a U.S. Army counter-interrogator and instructor in a military intelligence school…. Is this true? And, if not, how do you explain your name being on General Goleniewski’s list?

Kissinger: I don’t know who Colonel Goleniewski is, but I think he should be given the Pulitzer Prize for fiction.

Is it possible that Henry Kissinger had never heard of Goleniewski? — a man responsible for exposing so many Communist spies; a man who has been talked about and gossiped about in the highest circles? But Kissinger said he had not heard of him. And even though Kissinger arranges the President’s daily intelligence briefing, there is nothing further to add.

Goleniewski? Who is that?

It just so happens that Goleniewski furnished Western intelligence services with thousands of secret documents and the names of hundreds of East Bloc agents, exposing spy rings in England, Sweden, West Germany, France and Denmark. Haldeman wrote: “And it always amused me that Henry … was constantly worried that his … telephone was tapped.”

Why would Henry Kissinger worry about a phone-tap?

Maybe he was afraid somebody would notice that when the Defense Department ordered the generals to do X, Dr. Kissinger would call up and order the opposite of X. Gen. Palmer wrote about this phenomenon, stating:

Over time, [Gen.] Abrams developed a unique way of coping with this problem. In his living quarters at Tan Son Nhut airbase, not far from HQ MACV, Abrams’s routine practice in the evening was to stay up very late sipping scotch and water and listening to Wagnerian operas played in stereo at maximum volume. He would sit back in his chair for hours without speaking a word while soaked in the music. He explained that in this way he was better prepared to respond to the inevitable urgent and sometimes contradictory messages that daily arrived from Washington, and that it helped him maintain his sanity. When I visited Vietnam I stayed with him, but found it difficult to remain awake so late and would go to bed with the wild strains of the ‘Ride of the Valkyries’ thundering against my eardrums.

And if mere phone calls failed to penetrate the thundering Wagnerian strains, Kissinger could always send his favorite pest, Al Haig, to buzz in Abrams’s ear; to plague his staff, even conquering the Valkyries. In this respect Haig was Kissinger’s ideal co-conspirator. And due to his exceeding usefulness, Col. Haig quickly became Gen. Haig. According to Palmer:

When Nixon became president, Haig was a U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who had been selected for promotion to colonel but not yet promoted. Initially the Army nominated several other colonels to Kissinger for the job — men with much wider experience and broader background than Haig, but Kissinger rejected them all. Finally Kissinger made it clear that Haig, and no one else was his specific choice for the job.

Thereafter, Haig’s rise in the army was meteoric. He was promoted quickly to brigadier general and then major general, skipped the rank of the lieutenant general, and four years later, in January 1973, was promoted by the president to full general — four stars.” But why? What was so special about Al Haig?

We ought to wonder that Kissinger would pick a man he had never met over others that were offered to him. General Palmer happened upon the reason, and explained it as follows:

I was also getting the benefit at this time of F. G. (”Fritz”) Kraemer, a special assistant to the Army’s DCSOPS, whose specialty was interpreting important international developments and the foreign defense policy implications for the United States. Kraemer and Kissinger, both German born, had served together in the U.S. Army (Intelligence Section, 84th Infantry Division) in Germany during World War II and were old, close friends. Kraemer had been instrumental in having Haig assigned to the NSC staff under Kissinger. Kraemer was much older and in many ways had been Kissinger’s mentor.

These nuances of fact, and the way the pieces fit together, place Kissinger’s massive program of unilateral disarmament and retreat in an altogether new light. There is rich ore here in the old Army Intelligence connections — like Hal Sonnenfeldt, a key Kissinger appointee who has since been accused of turning over secret information to “agents of a foreign power.”

Another Kissinger help-mate (though he was not from the old Army Intelligence days) was Jesse MacKnight, a man in charge of White House security checks who was accused of spying for the communists. MacKnight was instrumental in helping Kissinger get William O. Hall approved as Director General of the U.S. Foreign Service, even though Hall had been identified as a security risk with long-time communist affiliations. After Hall there was James S. Sutterlin, another security risk.

From these misadventures it would seem that Kissinger’s “circle of associates” included some rather curious people. Did Kissinger favor individuals with shady left-wing backgrounds? Did he promote communists within the State Department and the National Security Council staff?

And why did Kissinger withhold from Congress five intelligence reports on Soviet treaty violations? But not to worry, Kissinger was a hawk. He was, in Haldeman’s words, “the hawk of hawks.”

In 1971 people at the CIA wanted to investigate Kissinger. James Angleton, the chief of CIA counterintelligence, was already bothered by Kissinger’s behavior. “He [Kissinger] refused CIA debriefings,” said Angleton in a later interview. “We were worried that he would inadvertently say something. At first I thought it was arrogance. Later I began to suspect the worst.”

Soon, however, the investigation of Kissinger was dropped. It became a political hot potato. By that time Kissinger had gained Nixon’s total confidence. Later, a leading CIA counterintelligence official, Leonard V. McCoy, would suspect Kissinger in an incident involving the arrest and execution of an American spy — code named TRIGON — in Russia. The incriminating piece of evidence against Kissinger involved an NSA intercept from the Soviet Embassy in Washington. It was a cable sent by Ambassadaor Anatoly Dobrynin to Moscow, referring to “advice” given by Professor Kissinger.

Because of this incident, McCoy wondered if Kissinger was a Soviet agent. He went to his colleague, David Sullivan and asked: “Am I crazy to think this about Kissinger?” Sullivan did not think McCoy was crazy at all. Later Sullivan would say that McCoy “shared with me … his damage assessment on TRIGON. What he shared with me was his punch line. His punch line said that the only way to describe Kissinger’s actions … was treason.”

In this light, we ought to return to the question of Col. Haig, who so suddenly rose out of the Vietnam mists. Haig was, like Kissinger, a “hawk of hawks,” winking at the hardliners while steering a serpentine course toward an “indecent interval.” Haig liked to a good laugh, too, and had a great store of jokes. For example, he liked to tease Haldeman for being a “Nazi,” and kept explaining how the Jews were out to “get” Nazis. But Haldeman never got the joke.

Leon Jaworski, the famous Watergate Special Prosecutor, once called Kissinger’s creature, Al Haig, “our thirty-seventh-and-a-half President.” Jaworski, however, was not joking. Adm. Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr. said that Haig was “extremely ambitious.” After Nixon’s resignation, while Gerald Ford addressed a cheering joint session of Congress, Jules Witcover noticed Haig in the VIP gallery of the House and noted that Haig was “in a sense applauding his own deft achievement of presidential transition never contemplated in quite that way by the Founding Fathers.” Witcover said it was “a bloodless presidential coup engineered by an army general, a man who had gravitated to the very right hand of one president and who, when that president fell, saw to a swift removal of the body….”

As it happens, there is a book that attempts to show Haig’s role in Watergate. The book is entitled Silent Coup. In it, Haig is depicted as the man who overthrew Richard Nixon. Why? Because Haig was the secret creature of the Joint Chiefs, working to thwart detente. But this is wrong. General Haig was the creature of Kissinger�s agenda. The ever-observant General Palmer pointed out:

Had Watergate not occurred, there was at least a slim chance for South Vietnam to obtain adequate U.S. aide and to hold its own despite the grave disadvantage of the cease-fire agreement.

Wherefore this grave disadvantage in the cease-fire agreement? What about this slim chance for South Vietnam? In the spring of 1975 Soviet-built tanks rumbled through Saigon while the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge took control of Phenom Penh. The allies of Red China and Soviet Russia had won, submerging Indochina in tyranny and terror. True, we had extricated ourselves from our commitment. We had retreated in disgrace — thanks, in part, to Kissinger’s “brilliant” policy of exploiting the Sino-Soviet rivalry. And how do we account for this “brilliant” policy that led to millions of deaths? Here we find a mystery.

But from Dzerzhinsky Square, at the other end of the Cold War chessboard, America’s brilliant failure might be counted as communism’s most brilliant victory.

Jul 22, 2008 - 11:07 am 3. rotwang:

Wow. Obama’s “road show” is just an epic wedgie for conservative commentators.

Meanwhile, John McCain “tours” the “Late Night with Conan” show. Ouch.

Jul 22, 2008 - 11:10 am 4. kabud:

rotwang:

mccain is such a rotten option that i think they both: osama and mccain play the public and ARE in agreement

i have no doubt that mccain was compromised in vietnam and is manipulated by kremlin

it could be that his career path was advanced by them too

The People should really think how we going to turn the threatening sequence of events FROM the road to disaster and direct our Republic back towards Liberty and Prosperity

Jul 22, 2008 - 11:19 am 5. walt:

Thank goodness Obama is not Kissinger. Kissinger was a commie in American clothing.

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:01 pm 6. Bullfrog:

Is Obama naive, arrogant, or both? The more he talks the more he comes off as vague and the more he tries to “polish his credentials” the more we are reminded he does not have the worldview and experience to pull off 4 years as the leader of the free world.

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:20 pm 7. Joanna:

Um, kabud? You might want to start taking your meds again.

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:32 pm 8. J.J. Sefton:

And everyone says Bush is dumb???!!! Obama makes Bush look like Einstein in comparison. He just said in Jordan (paraphrasing) “Israel has no greater friend than Israel.” (I think it’s posted on Hotair). Amazingly the dumber and more frequent these comments, the more they seem to be ignored!

We are screwed.

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:45 pm 9. kabud:

J.J. Sefton:
just don’t put all your trust in `federal slave masters` and television

Think in terms of Independence

This country was build on this concept.

Liberate yourself

Jul 22, 2008 - 1:06 pm 10. DFWShook:

OBAMA: I’m going to have to get a pen for all these triple questions you guys are — you know, it’s always a bad practice to say “always” or “never,” but — so let me — let me amend it by saying that I don’t have doubts about my ability to apply sound judgment to the major national security problems that we face.

Jul 22, 2008 - 1:10 pm 11. dan:

I wonder - and I can’t be bothered to look it up - when exactly did Obama and his mother live in Indonesia? The oilman stepfather of Obama’s - who was governing Indonesia at the time? Isn’t it curious that Obama wrote his own autobiography as a junior politician - after all, who cares about a junior politician, no matter his appeal to certain constituencies? On the other hand, once an autobiography is published by a politician who garners media adulation, who can be bothered to check out the story, and how would one go about doing that exactly anyway…?

kabud - I know the accusations against Kissinger that Nyquist lays out, but I also have read a few of Kissinger’s books and listened to several interviews. Honestly, despite military intelligence work in Germany during a period of intense Soviet recruitment and penetration within OSS and US military intelligence, the results of Kissinger’s policies in Vietnam and elsewhere were heavily influenced by anti-anti-Communist politics. Fro example, it was a Democratic anti-war Congress - the same that got rid of Angleton - that ended funding for South Vietnam. Moreover, the Sino-Soviet split - even now have reason to believe it was a charade - was sincerely believed by nearly everyone as far as I can tell. And McCain a Manchurian Candidate? You really believe that? I understand how seductive a lot of this Golitsyn stuff is, and I actually believe in a lot of it, but in these two cases I doubt the allegations are true. C’mon.

Jul 22, 2008 - 1:11 pm 12. kabud:

dan:

kissinger was a traitor: nyquist gives enough to research the rest on our own

and check out what kissinger is advising NOW: to succumb to kremlin

when i asked someone who is well informed in a way: lets assume that mccain is was not compromised: i got an answer

IT IS A VERY BIG ASSUMPTION

about federal government:
chech this out.
http://xyu.livejournal.com/660203.html
if AFTER this u’ll have ANY doubt WHO are those people - we are losing our last hope

Jul 22, 2008 - 1:21 pm 13. kabud:

i am not sure to what extend McCain could be a manjurian candidate or not

i tend to judge by the acts:

he helped to cover trails on POWs investigation, he never pushed for MORE investigation and retaliation even after hearings took place
http://xyu.livejournal.com/653571.html
http://xyu.livejournal.com/653500.html

WHY?

there is no doubt that soviet did their best on him when they had him

everyone in politics who has BRAINS is very sceptical on J McCain

Congressman Tancredo made it very clear on FOX NEWS about a month ago:

when asked is he endorsing McCain he said:

CAVUTO: All right, real quickly, you`re willing now to endorse John McCain, too, for the presidency, right? You`re going to vote for him?

TANCREDO: It`s been nice to talking to you.

CAVUTO: Really? But you are, right?

TANCREDO: I`m probably going to vote for John McCain. That`s as far as I`m going to go.

CAVUTO: That doesn`t sound enthusiastic.

TANCREDO: I mean, there`s a difference between just voting for someone and endorsing someone. And I`m going to vote for him.

CAVUTO: OK. I think there are some angry issues there, aren`t there? But that`s for another show.

(LAUGHTER)

TANCREDO: Well, it`s not a personal issue, honestly.

CAVUTO: OK.

TANCREDO: It is a matter of philosophy.

CAVUTO: I got you.

TANCREDO: It`s just you can`t get — I can`t get too excited about it, other than to say, the alternative is — is certainly worse.

CAVUTO: All right, Congressman, always good having you. Thank you.

TANCREDO: Thank you, Neil.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365853,00.html

Jul 22, 2008 - 2:21 pm 14. Good Ole Charlie:

My…the insane asylum let out early today.

Must be in the water…something about “vital bodily fluids” sez General Jack D. Ripper, USAF (ret).

Jul 22, 2008 - 2:40 pm 15. kabud:

Good Ole Charlie:
>My…the insane asylum let out early today.

you addressed that to congressman Tancredo i believe?

he said it on June 12, 2008 , not today

or if you addressed it to American POWs-
well, their souls can hear from Heaven don’t you think? You may regard it as a metaphor or not depending on you believes but they would not like you words at all

See, life is not you evening TV bull. And not the shopping mall regime you live in, it so much more complicated

And to understand life you have to make an effort, intellectual effort mainly, my friend

AND IT IS NOT GOING TO BE PRETTY EVER

Jul 22, 2008 - 3:03 pm 16. colby:

kabud- so you’re saying tancredo isn’t endorsing mccain because he’s a manchurian candidate?

in reality, the correct answer is that tancredo is anti-illegal immigration and wants a border fence built whilst and at the same time mccain is very pro-amnesty.

Jul 22, 2008 - 3:23 pm 17. kabud:

colby:

i am not sure what manjurian candidate is

the rest - READ THE LINKS and u may also try to google the POW story and story on hearings on POW i linked to

u may find interesting details involving mcCain an Kerry

As far as me,
i myself will probably vote for McCain because the alternative is much worse

the rest is your words not mine

Jul 22, 2008 - 3:33 pm 18. kabud:

by the way with illegals:

proponent of amnesty may be considered as a foreign agent who helps to get the 5th column ready

which they are:

15 or more millions of slaves who were dragged here to get them exploited, create multiple social problems and if put thru amnesty may become a pull for ANY kind of manipulation

Jul 22, 2008 - 3:46 pm 19. dan:

“Manchurian Candidate” refers to a movie made in 1962 about a group of POWs in the Korean War, and were brainwashed by Communists. One of the US troops is awarded the Medal of Honor; all the others captured with him agree he performed a heroic feat. The one who wins the Medal of Honor has a mother married to a US senator modelled on Joe McCarthy. The KGB guides this Medal of Honor winner into in influential journalist position, and then with the help of his mother - who masquerades as a very conservative personality but is in fact a high-ranking Soviet agent - he becomes vice President.

A lot like what you and your sources claim for McCain, but which I can’t believe amigo.

Jul 22, 2008 - 4:20 pm 20. kabud:

dan:
>I can’t believe amigo.

We will never find out the truth and it does not matter. We elect the president for certain functions, so THAT matters

it is not a matter of BELIEVE at all
it is a matter of 1% doctrine:

ONE PERCENT DOCTRINE
Cheney, by Suskind’s account, had been grappling with how to think about “a low-probability, high-impact event.” By the time the briefing was over, he had his answer:

“If there’s a one percent chance that scientists are helping the enemy to build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” from THE ONE PERCENT DOCTRINE Deep Inside America’s Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11

Jul 22, 2008 - 4:28 pm 21. dan:

Right but I think McCain’s a decent and honorable guy - you said before you thought the KGB “worked on him” in Hanoi. Probably - he was the son of an admiral, after all. Do I think they succeeded in programming him? No, I don’t.

Barack Obama, however, dragged around by her Leninist mother… well even he I think is just a typical left-elite know-nothing narcissist. And just look at his resume - it’s obvious someone took auntie’s “Oh you got into Harvard Law! You could be President!” a little too seriously. And so do way, Way too many other people…

Jul 22, 2008 - 4:52 pm 22. Mike:

I have called old Henry, KISS-ASS-INGER, since 19 f-ckin’ 70. I see no reason to change now, the traitorous bastard.

Jul 22, 2008 - 5:48 pm 23. Roger Dean:

The author of this article must learn that one cannot make any sort of analogy or comparison when attacking liberal icons. Every word you said about Obama is 100% true! The liberals can’t prove a single word false, so they simply ignore the entire point of the article and attack the analogy. Just look at the vitriolic responses to the article. In summary, they declare that since Kissinger is an agent of Satan, THANK GOD Obama is no Kissinger. This is how liberals “think.”

Like Obama, who announced his Iraq policy BEFORE going on a “fact-finding” tour of the country, liberals determine policy first, then simply ignore anything that contradicts it, and call anyone who opposes it a racist. You see, Obama is perfect in every way, so if you have even the slightest objection to anything about him, you MUST be a racist. If this man is elected, this country is in deep trouble. McCain is 400 year old coot, but he is still better than an inexperienced egomaniac.

Jul 22, 2008 - 6:05 pm 24. kabud:

dan:

>Do I think they succeeded in programming him? No, I don’t.

programing is not the only thing they do.

some thoughts on the subject

1.
if you ever start paying attention to people who took ACID in the past you may find interesting things, and if they took lots of ACID in the past: the signs are very vivid. They are considerably more stupid then the rest of us. And not just stupid, they are more likely to become bisexual, they are much more easier manipulated, they often are pussy-whipped and basically have much less character

2.there are other complicated drugs that change personality. Mind that his wife was or may be is a drug addict. Check wiki.

3.fear. in 5 years he could have been shown that they may kill anyone in his family, any or all of his children, not just kill but murder them in te most gruesome way. they could have say bring things to him from his home bedroom to show that they can get anywhere.

4.they could have been helping him to pursue his career, to marry into billions as he did and other things.

5. mind the combination of stick and carrot
———-

dan, if i was conducting the
OPERATION HIJACK THE NEXT PRESIDENT

i would work on both. In a very different ways.

Both are good material.

With McCAIN - a good old tested material, known to be senator or president material since Vietnam

With Obama - a fresh blood material, mind how DAVID AXELROD created an internet campaign for him

We offered much better plan to McCain camp- the showed no interest

McCain never adopted aggressive approach to switch from oil to alcohols

so McCain is not really there to win: it also show something

And again: the fact you trust him doesn’t prove he is trustworthy, but other facts show other things

I trusted him and wrote very good things about him even 6 month ago

now i learned different

1% doctrine

what will come out of it: i have no idea. Nothing good for sure.

Jul 22, 2008 - 6:29 pm 25. dirk:

Yeah your right Obama is not a Kissinger indeed who the hell would want to be a war mongering war criminal

Jul 22, 2008 - 7:34 pm 26. l boucher:

Obama the mush mouth with out a telepromter said today that Iraq is much more peaceful but the Surge cost too many dollars and he would rather use the money for condemns and HIV education!!!

Jul 22, 2008 - 8:41 pm 27. No Runny Eggs » Blog Archive » The Morning Scramble - 7/23/2008:

[...] Bridget Johnson declares Barack Obama “no Henry Kissinger”. Cyrus Roberts Vance is more like it. [...]

Jul 23, 2008 - 1:28 am 28. colby:

kabud- you are hilarious please tell me you do standup.

Jul 23, 2008 - 6:46 am 29. kabud:

colby:

as a matter of fact i am recording a serious of radio talks- they will air soon

tell me exactly what made u laugh and i will tell you what vitamin deficiency u may have)

Jul 23, 2008 - 8:48 am 30. Peanut Gallery:

@Bullfrog

Arrogant. Beyond arrogant.

Check out most images floating around. Words can paint beautiful pictures, but body language, in this case facial expression, does not lie.

Jul 23, 2008 - 10:25 am 31. Edward A.:

Thank goodness Obama is no Henry Kissinger. Kissinger and Nixon had a long history of lying to the American public and Congress.

Jul 23, 2008 - 11:01 am 32. colby:

kabud- I would love to hear your “serious” talk shows but I don’t think my radio can pick up your Barbie Microphone frequency.

Jul 23, 2008 - 12:16 pm 33. kabud:

colby:

you did not answer a simple questin man, why?

be specific:

tell me exactly what made u laugh ?

i think u r full of IT.

Jul 23, 2008 - 1:22 pm 34. J.G.:

Henry Kissinger is a war criminal.

Jul 23, 2008 - 4:09 pm 35. It’s All Coming Down to a Few Key States … | USA TERM LIMITS:

[...] who are preempting the coronation of our first (half) black president; it’s more likely politics, inexperience, naiveté, empty rhetoric, European vacations , out-of-touch elitism, PUMAs, socialist tendencies, [...]

Oct 4, 2008 - 9:08 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: