It’s probably better for American political leaders that we forget the U.S. bombing of Cambodia. “A massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves,” was how Secretary of State Henry Kissinger put it in 1970 (NY Times, 5/27/04), reflecting Richard Nixon’s concern that the large-scale aerial bombing wasn’t doing enough damage.
In 2000, President Bill Clinton released Air Force records on the U.S. bombing of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. As Taylor Owen and Ben Kiernan wrote (Walrus, 10/06):
The still-incomplete database (it has several “dark” periods) reveals that from October 4, 1965, to August 15, 1973, the United States dropped far more ordnance on Cambodia than was previously believed: 2,756,941 tons’ worth, dropped in 230,516 sorties on 113,716 sites. Just over 10 percent of this bombing was indiscriminate, with 3,580 of the sites listed as having “unknown” targets and another 8,238 sites having no target listed at all.
Estimates of Cambodian casualties as a result of the U.S. bombing vary; in 1975, the Washington Post (4/24/75) estimated 450,000 dead and wounded.
So now the current secretary of state visited the country that the United States so ruthlessly bombed in the not-so-distant past. According to the report of the visit in the New York Times (11/2/10), Hillary Clinton expressed support for justice for the victims–that is, the victims of the horrific violence perpetrated by Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, which rose to power in the wake of the U.S. assault on the country. As the Times put it:
Mrs. Clinton repeated an argument that has been used by proponents of the trials, saying that “a country that is able to confront its past is a country that can overcome it.”
Clinton’s attitude stands in contrast to Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, who readers are told believes the country should”dig a hole and bury the past.” Clinton also said: “Countries that are held prisoner to their past can never break those chains and build the kind of future that their children deserve…. Although I am well aware the work of the tribunal is painful, it is necessary to ensure a lasting peace.”
It is a remarkable testimony to the strength of our propaganda system that the Newspaper of Record can run a story like this with a straight face, with a top U.S. official urging accountability for atrocities in a country where the U.S. government committed so many. Those atrocities, apparently, have long ago been given the Hun Sen treatment.
And bonus irony: A few weeks ago Clinton introduced Kissinger before his address at a State Department conference on the U.S. war on Indochina (AlterNet, 9/28/10). Presumably she was equally concerned with the need to hold Kissinger accountable for his crimes, and is seeking a tribunal that will do the “painful” work necessary to build a future our children deserve.
You read this, and once again you’re reminded that there’s little difference between the major parties, especially regarding war crimes abroad.
And domestically, the choice could be summed up as whether you’ll be urinated or defecated upon, or more accurately, after the latter, whether you’re obligated to cleanse the offending orifice of your soiler with your tongue.
And so, with this knowledge, I trudged into my polling place this morning and voted to be crapped on, minus the cleanup work.
And they call it democracy.
(http://www.cockburnproject.net/songs&music/atcid.html)
I’m not making a case for voting Demoȼratic. I voted McKinney/Clemente in ’08 as the best choice available, and I voted today against Feingold’s et al’s opponents, not for him and them. How do you justify that to a Gazan given his unwavering support for Israeli apartheid?
That’s my point. It’s morally untenable to have done so, and yet I felt it would also be so not to.
Talk about a mindfutz – oy gevalt.
So it’s over … ’til the next time.
What are we going to do to change things so there won’t have to be a “next time”?
The “lesser evil” will still lead us into the abyss – only a shade more slowly.
Voting’s only one piece of the puzzle, but when I do it, I want to be able to vote my conscience, and feel I’m speaking truth to power, and not mumbling about the value of “pragmatism”.
And I sure as hell can do without “progressives” guilt-tripping me about the consequences of being “impractical”.
I’m quite capable of doing that on my own.
I don’t know. My Vulcan gene is on the fritz here.
I just see this as a situation where things have to change, but trying
to make that change may make things worse, without creating the change
necessary â┚¬“ yet the alternative is to work to make things slightly
less horrible, knowing that ultimately everything will go to hell
anyway.
That sucks, big time, for us all.
But given that scenario, I have to choose real change, and hope for the best.
And I hope that makes some sense.
“A country that is able to confront its past is a country that can overcome it.” â┚¬Ã…“Look backwardâ┚¬Ã‚ Ãƒ¢Ã¢”š¬“ boldly, bravely, and justifiably?
â┚¬Ã…“Countries that are held prisoner to their past can never break those chains and build the kind of future that their children deserve. . . .â┚¬Ã‚ Ãƒ¢Ã¢”š¬Ã…“Look backward,â┚¬Ã‚ confront, then â┚¬Ã…“look forwardâ┚¬Ã‚Â?
When it relates to other countries? Yes. When it regards this country: â┚¬Ã…“look forward, not backward.â┚¬Ã‚Â
It’s a fact of human nature, that we continue obstinately to believe our nonsense, even in the face of incontrovertible proof to the contrary. Our beliefs, are, after all, really just habits, like being obese, or alcoholics, or theives, etc. To refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils is preposterous, it’s utter nonsense. No one believes such crap throughout a single day, and their actions prove it. I also voted for McKinney, but I first voted for Hillary, because I knew, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that she was the “better” candidate. Between now and the next election, or, more likely, the one after that, Hillary will be considered for the presidency once again. The Naderlie, the lie that we ought not to choose something better, than a worse thing, because the better thing is also flawed, is so stupid, that only delusional people could be expected to believe it. Hillary maintained a 25 point lead throughout her entire battle with Obama and the other dem candidates, until her opponents, near the end of the nomination contest, Wall St., corporate America, the filthy rich, attacked her from all sides. They made her out to be a racist, they mocked and humiliated her, they set her up using shows like Larry King LIve, to be shamed by well-meaning half-wits like Michael Moore, to degrade and demean her, as well as shows like HardBall, hosted by slime like Chris Matthews to finish the job. They worked on the delegates, they paid people off, left and right. All the while Obama was made out to be not simply “better” than Hillary, that would have violated the Naderlie, they had a much greater lie to tell us Obama was made out to be The Messiah, The Savior. Obama had another “hot” quality, he was (more or less) Black. With all these efforts, few people realize, Hilllary still won the “popular” vote against Obama, by a hair. Obama had to win with the delegate vote. It was easier to manipulate the delegate vote. Hillary will continue to be demonized in ever way, worst of all, by democrats fool enough to believe the propaganda against her. Hillary is pretty much like all politicians. But, she’s better than most, and, easily, better than anyone that has a chance of winning the presidency. I hope she tries again. I’m not expected the U.S. to “change,” the way people delusionally expected it to change under Obama, I just expect it to be a “little better,” than the insanity we’re faced with now.
Good points, Mr. Hart. On the other hand, War is hell, and we can be as ashamed of what we did as the North Vietnamese should be, though they aren’t because Cambodian lives were part of the price they paid for victory.
Personally, I’d like to see this standard applied to some more recent offenders than Kissinger. We have an ex President, Vice President and various cabinet officials who lied us into a war that has had similarly catostrophic results for innocents. And don’t forget that we tortured thos we THOUGHT might be guilty. Where’s the accountability for Bush and Cheney?
The Obama administration had the opportunity to hold them accountable two years ago… by now they’ve probably blown that chance. Too bad. Justice was not served by forgetting this more recent episode.
“Some of our fiends are for it. Some of our friends are against it. And we’re standing with our friends.” Mr Clinton’s press secretary.
Isn’t it great to have a representative who is so resourceful and experienced?
Since we now have a Secretary of State who believes in accountability, I am pumped up for the coming arrest, extradition, and interrogation of much of our political class before the International Criminal Court. I am fond of some of these people as individuals, but I am sure that we can find people who believe in the rule of law to run our government.
The only difference between the parties on foreign policy is this, as reflected in the memoirs by Macnamara and Kissinger that were published a few years ago: the democrats will kill you by massive bombings and 30 years later say they are sorry; the Republicans will bomb you too, even more, and after 30 years refuse to apologize.
That’s right, Lawrence N. Secretary Clinton’s outrageous words and suggestions are truly offensive, both to history and our own memories. Nihilism and blind hypocrisy combined with incipient totalitarianism. A little peek at our most likely future, unless we find a bit of courage to speak truthfully about our own vast crimes and shortcomings. John and tishado are right as well–how about some accountability for some more recent crimes against humanity? Right here in the good old USA?
Hundreds of thousands killed by us in a horrific war against a guerilla insurgency that was every bit as bad as we believed, and killed millions of their own after the war.”Guerilla warfare will meld the face of the populace with that of the fighters, till the enemy is hamstrung by any need to limit civilian deaths(Mao)This will give free rein to hit and run tactics.”Such a cynical use of human fodder.And we in turn devalued human life to save human life, and the geo political balance.There are no smart wars.