We could run through Vietnam and Cambodia and Chile and Argentine and Bangladesh, all the horrific things that he did, and perhaps we'll mention some of that. But it is just amazing that he never had to pay any price. He never showed any remorse. [00:00:15] I wanna read a quote, this was very recent. So Ted Koppel was doing this retrospective for his hundredth birthday or whatever, and asked about the bombing of Cambodia. Not super aggressive questions, just questions. And this is what Kissinger said. [00:00:31] This is a program you're doing because I'm going to be 100 years old, and you're picking a topic of something that happened 60 years ago. You have to know that it was a necessary step. Now, the younger generation feels that if they can raise their emotions, they don't have to think. If they think, they won't ask that question. [00:00:48] Yeah, why are you bringing up old stuff? Why are you bringing up old genocides? What genocides have I done in the last year or two, really? That's how he, I guess, I don't know, insulates himself from what should be lifelong horror. [00:01:03] He should not have slept for the last half century. And you young people who think that we should think critically about the actions that were taken by our officials, no, you're just being emotional. You're being emotional about the millions of dead. [00:01:19] You should be intellectual like a sociopath about them. You shouldn't have any emotional reaction whatsoever. So and that was like yesterday. At the end, he still, at least publicly, would not admit to any remorse or responsibility for any of it. [00:01:34] Jordan. >> Speaker 1: Yeah, my God, my cat is getting in front of the camera. >> [LAUGH] That has never happened on the show before, today truly is a historic day. >> Speaker 2: It was great timing, thank you. Yeah, there's definitely a two tiered justice system in this country like [00:01:53] you're talking about, and people in power, whether it's Kissinger or even people like Trump or the Clintons or Hunter Biden, wherever you fall on the political spectrum, you recognize it. People don't face any punishment really. Even with the insider trading in Congress that seems so blatant, [00:02:12] nobody faces any repercussions. But for this, sure, definitely didn't face any international punishment, in part because the US is effectively withdrawn from the ICC. But it's also just that we didn't know about the depths and the scale for [00:02:28] years because access journalists, certainly not a new phenomenon. They covered for him because they wanted to retain that access so they can continue getting stories, getting interviews. We didn't know about it because they lied about it. They denied involvement. And only later did investigative journalists find out just how bad it goes. [00:02:47] Even recently, we learned about the innocent death tolls being even greater than what was previously estimated. >> Speaker 1: Yeah. >> Speaker 2: So, the lack of transparency, the reliance on access by journalists, making this problem worse, covering for horrible people in our government. [00:03:03] The reason younger generations are so outraged by it in some part is because they're just learning about it getting worse. So, that he even was pressed on it is shocking but good. >> Yeah. >> That's a rarity when you look at his entire career, nobody really did that. [00:03:23] >> Speaker 1: Yeah, it certainly took a very long time. And look, obviously it was a lot easier for the government to hide things in an earlier phase of American history. There was far less real journalism, far less independent journalism going on that made it easier. [00:03:40] People enthusiastically bought into jingoistic arguments for why we need to do stuff. Obviously, it has been a centuries long project to try to get Americans to give a damn about anyone who isn't exactly like them. [00:03:55] That's a project that continues and isn't going very well even at present. So, you can imagine how hard it was to get people fired up about the wanton slaughter of non Americans around the globe decades ago. But yeah, at least today there will be some. There will be some criticism, there will be some raw conversation, and [00:04:13] no doubt there will be attacks on the people who engage in that. So, let's briefly pause as we're discussing Kissinger's death to just talk about a bit of our philosophy, because it seems like, Jordan, you're on the same page as me on this. You're often told not to criticize people when they pass, [00:04:32] no matter how bad they were. You're the bad person if you point out the horrific things that they did. If you show any schadenfreuder or whatever, and the death of a horrific person, a criminal, a war criminal, then you're the bad person. [00:04:47] You should be showing more decorum and showing respect. And clearly we don't agree with that necessarily. But what are your thoughts about whenever that argument is deployed? >> Speaker 2: That doesn't faze me at all. You can't tell me who I can and can't celebrate or grieve or whatever, [00:05:04] it's just very weird. And it's only applied to politically powerful people that they were friends with, that they needed access from. It's ridiculous. They would never do that for really, anybody else, certainly nobody powerless. Evil people eventually die, that's a reality. [00:05:23] You don't suddenly become good because you die. And it's so weird to me that everyone has this knee, especially people in the media or in politics have this knee jerk reaction when someone dies, even if they are objectively horrible. [00:05:38] And if they're doing that, I think that reflects certainly how they see this person, how they see in this context US foreign policy and the military industrial complex. They don't care about people around the world to go back to the jingoism that you talked about. It is interesting though, I think people were primed and ready for it. [00:05:56] And you have seen a couple Democratic members of Congress, not even members of the squad, although I'm sure they're relieved or happy or have the same views as us. But Jim McGovern, for example, [LAUGH] not like a super progressive fire brand. [00:06:11] He's out there tweeting that Kissinger's legacy is a bloody one and that people shouldn't be really trying to whitewash anything that he has done. There have been a few others and that's unique. But then you have just kind of the even apolitical brands like [00:06:26] the New York Yankees tweeting out messages of condolences [LAUGH] about how they're going to miss him. This is the case where it's like, yeah, stick to sports, please, what are you doing? >> Speaker 1: Rightly, I'm actually I'm blanking on his name now, [00:06:44] which actually makes, the kid who shot the protesters, my God, I'm blanking his name. It's either dad [INAUDIBLE] >> Kyle Rittenhouse. >> Kyle Rittenhouse is going to thankfully, thank you, for the rest of his life be dogged by the fact that he did that. And he should be, because he did that and it's horrific. [00:07:02] Why is it controversial to point out when someone has been responsible for literally millions of more times, more deaths? I don't understand that. Except that, again, as you pointed out, they're being protected largely by their friends, by people who needed them for [00:07:21] something, who owe them something, and who, like Kissinger, on a fundamental level, don't care about the suffering and the death. Maybe on some level, hypothetical, but it doesn't really mean anything to them that this did, that these countries [00:07:37] are still trying to recover from the horrors of 40, 50, 60 years ago. They just fundamentally don't care. And so they use this façade of respectability politics to get you to shut up about stuff that should be core to your values. [00:07:53] That if you can't identify that what he did is evil and if you don't feel like you should speak out about it, then what the hell are you doing in any of this? There should be no controversy whatsoever. [00:08:09] And by the way, as I said, it became easier to be critical of him as time went on. And so I wanna give credit to a quote that admittedly many people in the audience are going to be familiar with, but something that was written 22 years ago by Anthony Bourdain back in his autobiography way back in 2001. [00:08:26] He said, once you've been to Cambodia, you'll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands. You will never again be able to open a newspaper and read about that treacherous, prevaricating, murderous scumbag sitting down for a nice chat with Charlie Rose or attending some black-tie affair for a new glossy magazine without choking. [00:08:44] Witness what Henry did in Cambodia, the fruits of his genius for statesmanship, and you will never understand why he's not sitting in the dock at The Hague next to Milosevic. And that was obviously more controversial back in 2001, I don't think he'd get much criticism now, but he stuck with it. [00:08:59] In 2018, he said, frequently, I've come to regret things I've said, this from 2001 is not one of those times. And he was right, look, there can be like a needlessly edgy thing where anyone who dies, you could mine their past and [00:09:14] find something that isn't necessarily reflective of the sum total of their life. But this is his life, this is what Kissinger did and it would be super bizarre not to point that out. And you don't have to be quite as bad as Kissinger. [00:09:30] When Dick Cheney kicks the bucket or whatever, you need to point out the things that he did. Donald Trump, we're not gonna have a day of respectability. We're not gonna pretend that the things that we experienced didn't happen, okay? To do that is to give to other horrific people what they want and [00:09:50] to allow people like this to continue to exist. The lines have to be drawn somewhere, but making it more difficult, even marginally more difficult for horrific people to live the placid, happy life that they want to live, that is not on you to make that happen. [00:10:07] And I would argue the exact opposite is our ethical responsibility if we actually hold the values that we pretend to. Sorry, any other thoughts? >> Speaker 2: Yeah, I think the media's role in cementing the legacy of these people is something they should take seriously. [00:10:25] And I'm relieved people like Spencer Ackerman at Rolling Stone, who has a great obituary out now titled Henry Kissinger, War Criminal Beloved by America’s Ruling Class, Finally Dies. And in it he argues that his obituary and [00:10:42] his legacy should be cemented as one defined by all of these atrocities, not his service just being in the government for many years and not any even façade of diplomacy because ultimately many of these [00:10:57] efforts were undermined by Kissinger and through back channels. So, that should be his legacy. And if the media wants to do that, that I think, would be the responsible path. But unfortunately, many of them just try to create this illusion [00:11:13] that we're all just bickering on policy ideas, that's it. And bipartisanship is healthy and robust and ultimately at the end of the day, it's service and love to this country that matters. And I don't buy that. I don't think many people watching and I would hope more people didn't buy into [00:11:32] that because that nationalistic myth is what protects people like this. When you are more worried about maintaining any sort of respectability when someone like this dies and not centering the people, the millions of people whose lives have been affected or ended because of him, you're only [00:11:47] going to pave the way for more people like him and that's a really dangerous game. >> Speaker 1: Yeah, you're 100% right. And for the people who think that, really think you should be nice when the person dies, live a life that doesn't lead to people wanting to pillory you after you've died. [00:12:05] I don't think it's actually as hard as they're implying it is with their defense of people like Henry Kissinger. [MUSIC]