Kissinger and Chile, or, the Mechanics of a Propaganda Cover-Up. Commentary has recently published a column by a “scholar” from the American Enterprise Institute rehearsing some well-worn arguments concerning US involvement (or lack, thereof) in the coup which replaced elected President Salvador Allende, a self-professed “Marxist” with dictator General Pinochet. In the main, it involves a spurious defense of Henry Kissinger, based partially on a reading of telephone transcripts not currently in the public domain but which the impish Kissinger has kindly allowed him to peruse in advance. Drawing selectively on declassified documentary evidence, he claims to construct a case against Kissinger’s indictment and against any blame being apportioned to the Whitehouse either for the death of General Rene Schneider or the coup attempt in 1973. He compares his suggestions to Christopher Hitchens’ book The Trial of Henry Kissinger and also a BBC documentary with a similar name. Unlike Falcoff, I’ve read the book and watched the film. So the gaps that emerge in his account prove relatively simple to fill.


 http://leninology.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_leninology_archive.html#107375396715161606

ps: This goes out for all those who wrote in defense of Kilroy-Silk - this banausic, irrelevant, insufferable poetaster of racist filth. You should be absolutely ashamed of defending such manifest pap, not simply on account of its racism but because of its transparent lack of literary flair, or even grammar. Because "a number" of Arabs once crashed a plane into the twin towers, that grants noone carte blance to describe Arabs tout court as "suicide bombers" "limb amputators" etc. If anyone doubts that the vast majority of Arabs have nothing to do with such practises, my suggestion is that you seek help. Those of you who attempted to dress this up in an argument about "free speech" seriously need to reconsider your priorities - is it more important for a racist to have 'free speech', or for Arabs, Muslims and black people to have the right to walk around this country without fear of being abused and insulted. There is such a thing, in case you have missed it, as incitement to racial hatred. I'm afraid in this case, Kilroy has more than crossed that line. As for the line about "abuse" as opposed to analysis - honestly, does it require any research or subtlety of thought to discover that Robert Kilroy-Silk behaves in precisely the manner ascribed to him? Have you ever watched his programme? The berk loves the sound of his own voice, is intolerant to views he disagrees with, encourages bigotry and simplistic platitutes, each and every morning. Everything I said about him is true, and if he doesn't agree, let's see him sue.