Nixon was engaging in shenanigans to get re-elected - watergate was the final act, not the first. Kissinger probably played a role - he’s not the first political operator to do that, and I’m sure he saw it as ends justifying means to keep soft-on-commie dems away from the WH. Imo Kissinger deserves no harsher judgement than any of the Vietnam era admins, from Eisenhower to the one he served in. 2 dems, 2 repubs.

Chile is a clear case of judging in retrospect. Almost all the strongmen we supported throughout the 3rd world during the Cold War weren’t much different from those they opposed. Few if any were truly capitalists or communists. They were autocrats throwing their lot in with one side or the other. Again, Carter failed in no small part because he tried to make the country take human rights records into account in doling out support. He was laughed at, by members of both parties, and most of the country, because they all thought preventing communism in our own hemisphere in particular trumped all other concerns.

You’re judging him from the vantage point of retrospect. I think people appalled by his record should feel free to think of him as they wish. And I don’t think remembrances of Kissinger are without nuance. But he was never Timothy McVeigh. He deserves the benefit of the doubt of being a guy with a personal perspective on communism, which may not stand the test of time, but was widely shared and sincere at the time.
[Post edited by hoolstoptheheels at 11/30/2023 09:55AM]