Richard Holbrooke Dead, Apparently From Torn Aorta

[K. A. Pital]

As for his AIG job, what exactly is "unproven"? He was on the board of directors from 2001 to 2008, when AIG engaged in the speculation that later caused it to collapse and require billions of state funds to "save" it. You cannot be on the board of directors of a large corporation and not know about the speculation it runs.

"Knowing" is not the same thing as having influence over it, assuming he even knew much about it (from what I've been reading, AIG was a very fragmented business, with little in the way of communication and coordination amongst its various departments even before Hank Greenberg was ousted from the CEO). As I mentioned earlier, US companies would do this all the time, offering board positions to former politicians in the hopes that it will bring better connections in Washington. It doesn't mean that they play any serious role in the top-level decision-making.

I have to echo IP - if CEOs really don't know what the fuck is going on in their company, why the hell are they getting enormous sums of money at all? And "very fractured company" is a common defence which always rises when the company collapses and it is time to shift the blame. "Distributed blame" is actually very efficient. More efficient than distributed risk, that's for sure.

If U.S. companies offer politicians positions for lobbying, they offer a paper title or a real title with powers, responsibility and information access that a board of directors member is entitled to? If they do not give any information or decision-making power to such people, this is a malpractice, because it means people who know fuck nothing about management are being in positions of management. And in any case it does not relieve one of formal responsibility, much less so of the moral one.

I'm not sure how this defence helps someone's reputation. Either he was a know-nothing in a position of power and was a willing tool of the AIG execs, in which case his rep goes down in my eyes, or he was a willing and knowledgeable accomplice and perpetrator, which is also not good.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What the fuck are you rambling about, and what does it have to do with the likelihood that Holbrooke had little influence and knowledge over AIG's policies regarding the Subprime Crisis?

Don't take the money and be a public figure and not want people to ask? Why didn't you do anything for the shareholder, much less public interest? Oh I forgot, U.S. privilege insiders have a sovereign right to take money and give Reagan-type replies when you ask what the fuck for.

What's amazing is why you can't imagine why me or the average American might feel like a sinecure piece of shit like Holbrooke sitting on the paper board for years and collecting on it owes none of the moral obligations that office-holding does for, well, normal people.

I personally don't care much for Holbrooke, for reasons mainly of competence (he comes across as an asshole in Woodward's account of the Obama administration and the Afghan War). However, that does not make him a "Nuremburg" criminal, and if you are going to be throwing around accusations like that, expect some of them to be answered.

Please. Did he or did he not help facilitate the U.S.'s assistance and political cover for the genocide in East Timor?

Of course my claim he is a war criminal is based on simple facts, primarily pertaining to Indonesia. The United Nations’ Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor found that “U.S. political and military support were fundamental to the Indonesian invasion and occupation” of East Timor from 1975-1999 (Holbrooke was Asst. Secretary of State under Carter and visited Suharto in August 1977 to commend his human rights record, at the height of the atrocities). “The U.S. supplies weaponry was crucial to Indonesia’s capacity to intensify military operations from 1977 [Holbrooke in town] in its massive campaigns to destroy the Resistance in which aircraft supplied by the United States played a crucial role” (p. 92). (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB176/index.htm) Furthermore, those aircraft, OV-10 Broncos, according to Benedict Anderson from Cornell University, "specially designed for counter-insurgency actions against adversaries without effective anti-aircraft weapons and wholly useless for defending Indonesia against a foreign enemy". In other words, for strafing people in the hills who can’t defend themselves. Over 1 billion in U.S. arms passed through to Indonesia (http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arm ... oarms.html) though Holbrooke to this day saw no problem with it (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/28/t ... on_richard).

Holbrooke was the point man in this genocide, which in its scale, at 150,000-200,000 people out of a pre-war population of 680,000 people, approaches as far I know in the post-war occupation record, the intensity only matched by Nazi Generalplan Ost policy in the occupied territories of the USSR and Eastern Europe from 1940-1943.

Blow me. You've never seen a liberal internationalist who performed the solemn tasks of state like arranging for the mass murder of purported "Communists," or a corporate executive who profited off corruption and not an iota of hard work, that you couldn't find something ambiguous, or shit, laudable about.

If they have no command responsibility for what goes on in their corporation, on what even theoretical pretext should they have such enormous personal remunerations we all need to "understand" is for their "talent", and there should be limited liability for the shareholders?

Simply because the company's leadership (as approved by the share-holders) was willing to pay him that amount, and he was willing to accept it. No other justification is necessary.

Yeah, and people like you still probably wonder how come history repeats itself over and over and over again with crises and corporate habits of exactly the type in 2007. Because not only is what you describe the positive reality, but ideologues are hard at work convincing people its not only the only way to do things, but the best way! What could possibly go wrong from so distantly connecting responsibility and remuneration?

Who is in a practical sense responsible for the consequences of these institutions' actions? Obviously this is a rhetorical question, because its obvious to all with eyes to see and ears to hear that there are zero practical responsibilities corporate and state elites ever live up to, in our ostensibly "democratic" society.

It was likely not Holbrooke, for the reason I mentioned.

Right. Yeah this exactly the kind of line the party line has on official enemies like the Soviet Union. You're right. No one ever uses this kind of reasoning, or even bothers to go to such lengths to apologize for anyone UNLESS they're powerful, well-connected, and privileged in the West. Then you just have show some rictus grin and liberals everywhere will emerge from the woodwork to pen apologia for you.

Can a liberal give me at least the theoretical standard by which a U.S. diplomat has to apologize for, lie about, facilitate, or do in general before you are allowed to uncontroversially state say he's a sack of shit who doesn't deserve to be mourned? One could be forgiven for concluding that no standard exists, because U.S. diplomats by definition are never war criminals or sacks of shit because the U.S. is, by axiom, a normative progressive historical force. What else would Holbrooke have needed to do? Is it because they're South Asians? I realize these aren't quite as sexy or human victims as Jews, but I'm tryin' to work with you.

I'm just trying to understand. I keep hearing this Democrat line on it where ever I argue about it. I manage to get "his record is complicated" (as an aside, does anyone notice how rapidly establishment-brand Democrats adopt the lowest Republican rhetorical tactics when it comes to deflecting any criticism of the Boy Wonder, his policies, or the Democratic Party's Henry Kissinger?). What exactly is "ambiguous" about it?

If I'm strident, maybe its because every time I criticize an American, I have to post a fucking dissertation to even be controversially heard out. If I were to criticize some official enemy like Iran, Hezbollah, or (here) the Republicans, I wouldn't have to wiggle all ten fingers, and everyone knows it.

[Guardsman Bass]

As for his AIG job, what exactly is "unproven"? He was on the board of directors from 2001 to 2008, when AIG engaged in the speculation that later caused it to collapse and require billions of state funds to "save" it. You cannot be on the board of directors of a large corporation and not know about the speculation it runs.

"Knowing" is not the same thing as having influence over it, assuming he even knew much about it (from what I've been reading, AIG was a very fragmented business, with little in the way of communication and coordination amongst its various departments even before Hank Greenberg was ousted from the CEO). As I mentioned earlier, US companies would do this all the time, offering board positions to former politicians in the hopes that it will bring better connections in Washington. It doesn't mean that they play any serious role in the top-level decision-making.

I have to echo IP - if CEOs really don't know what the fuck is going on in their company, why the hell are they getting enormous sums of money at all? And "very fractured company" is a common defence which always rises when the company collapses and it is time to shift the blame. "Distributed blame" is actually very efficient. More efficient than distributed risk, that's for sure.

It was true in the case of AIG. The company's separate departments and investment vehicles were a poorly coordinated, loosely tied mess. What coordination there was primarily happened through the CEO Hank Greenberg, and when he was ousted in 2005, his successor had a lot of trouble because he only had a limited picture of what was going on in the whole company.

If U.S. companies offer politicians positions for lobbying, they offer a paper title or a real title with powers, responsibility and information access that a board of directors member is entitled to? If they do not give any information or decision-making power to such people, this is a malpractice, because it means people who know fuck nothing about management are being in positions of management. And in any case it does not relieve one of formal responsibility, much less so of the moral one.

I bolded the correct answer. As I've said a couple of times, big companies do this all the time, giving what is more or less an honorary position on the Board of Directors to former politicians and important political officials, in the hopes that it will improve their connections in Washington. It doesn't mean that they actually have any influence over the company's business.

I'm not sure how this defence helps someone's reputation. Either he was a know-nothing in a position of power and was a willing tool of the AIG execs, in which case his rep goes down in my eyes, or he was a willing and knowledgeable accomplice and perpetrator, which is also not good.

"Know-nothing" with little power is probably the correct answer.

Don't take the money and be a public figure and not want people to ask? Why didn't you do anything for the shareholder, much less public interest? Oh I forgot, U.S. privilege insiders have a sovereign right to take money and give Reagan-type replies when you ask what the fuck for.

Who said anything about not asking? I'm not criticizing you for questioning Holbrooke's role in the AIG fiasco - I'm just pointing out that his role in the decision-making process for the company was probably minimal.

What's amazing is why you can't imagine why me or the average American might feel like a sinecure piece of shit like Holbrooke sitting on the paper board for years and collecting on it owes none of the moral obligations that office-holding does for, well, normal people.

AIG was a shareholder-owned company, and its primary responsibility was to those shareholders. If they and the Board of Directors they supported feel like Holbrooke was worth X amounts of money to have on their board, then that's their choice.

*snip* IP being a broken record

Thanas has done a much better job of questioning this. What matters is whether or not Holbrooke was actually involved in the decision-making process on East Timor and Indonesia, or whether he was just the ambassador. I've yet to see you actually post any evidence that he was - you just keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

Yeah, and people like you still probably wonder how come history repeats itself over and over and over again with crises and corporate habits of exactly the type in 2007. Because not only is what you describe the positive reality, but ideologues are hard at work convincing people its not only the only way to do things, but the best way! What could possibly go wrong from so distantly connecting responsibility and remuneration?

I fail to see how paying an ex-politician to sit in what was probably a more or less honorary position on their board somehow represents a fatal flaw in the decision-making process of these companies. Turns out big companies like to improve their influence in Washington - what a shock.

Right. Yeah this exactly the kind of line the party line has on official enemies like the Soviet Union. You're right. No one ever uses this kind of reasoning, or even bothers to go to such lengths to apologize for anyone UNLESS they're powerful, well-connected, and privileged in the West. Then you just have show some rictus grin and liberals everywhere will emerge from the woodwork to pen apologia for you.

Thanas pointed out why this reasoning spared many of Nazi Germany's ambassadors from the noose. Were they "well-connected" and "privileged" in the West?

Can a liberal give me at least the theoretical standard by which a U.S. diplomat has to apologize for, lie about, facilitate, or do in general before you are allowed to uncontroversially state say he's a sack of shit who doesn't deserve to be mourned?

There is no hard standard on such things, since most politicians are associated with both negative and positive events. Did you have the illusion that there was? Because if you did, I mourn for the sorry state of whatever political education you've been receiving.

What else would Holbrooke have needed to do? Is it because they're South Asians? I realize these aren't quite as sexy or human victims as Jews, but I'm tryin' to work with you.

So you've stooped so low as to accuse your critics of being racists who viewed the East Timorese as sub-human and not worth giving a shit about when they get slaughtered. Go fuck yourself, along with your strawman arguments, evasions, and ad hominem attacks.

What exactly is "ambiguous" about it?

Holbrooke's role in the decision-making on East Timor and Indonesia. Unless you have some actual evidence that he was involved in the decision-making process for the US's policy.

If I'm strident, maybe its because every time I criticize an American, I have to post a fucking dissertation to even be controversially heard out. If I were to criticize some official enemy like Iran, Hezbollah, or (here) the Republicans, I wouldn't have to wiggle all ten fingers, and everyone knows it.

Are you talking about here at SDnet, or elsewhere? Because most of the time when you post your typical thread-derailing rants here, either nobody gives a shit, or they me-too.

[Thanas]

How does this relieve the executioner of a policy from the collective responsibility, however? If his higher-ups force him to lie, condone crimes or financial machinations, he is totally exempt from any responsibility for these acts now, is he?

No, he is not exempt from any responsibility. He is however not responsible for the genocide among Timor or anything. If he is guilty of something, he is guilty for serving his country by releasing a report whitewashing atrocities, a report commissioned by someone else and in the context of overall foreign policy with Indonesia, the latter being something he had no control over.

Now, the situation would be different if he had argued for that policy or had written it. But he was more or less a mouthpiece at that time. In any case, this is now a far cry of the original position of you and IP.

As for his AIG job, what exactly is "unproven"? He was on the board of directors from 2001 to 2008, when AIG engaged in the speculation that later caused it to collapse and require billions of state funds to "save" it. You cannot be on the board of directors of a large corporation and not know about the speculation it runs.

You can, absolutely you can.

[MKSheppard]

I am shocked... shocked that a country fighting a COIN operation would ask for aircraft suited to COIN.

There's also the fact that Indonesia had cut off relations with the Soviet Bloc; so all of it's Soviet-supplied aircraft like MiG-21s and Il-28s were breaking down from spares and effectively useless; leaving Indonesian national security effectively in the hands of B-25s, A-26s and P-51s from World War II; since only 20% of their jet force was active at any one time.

We took off all their useless aircraft (MiG-21s) and carted them off to Tonopah to form a MiG Aggressor Squadron. Indonesia ended up getting the F-5E Tiger II to replace it's MiG-19/21s; and the OV-10 to replace it's B-25/A-26/P-51 force.

It's also certainly amusing -- the F-5E spent most of it's time as a fast jet COIN aircraft anyway; while the Soviets used the MiG-21 heavily in COIN in Afghanistan.

[HarrionGreyjoy]

I'm a bit surprised (well, not really) that the Unites States is so dead-set against opium. It can be used for painkillers, and both Turkey and India supply it for the United States. If the United States simply bought it, I wonder how large of a problem it would be.

Of course, my knowledge of Afghanistan is somewhat spotty, and I'm probably wrong about this in some manner.

I'm a couple hours behind on commenting on this, but Turkish and Indian involvement in the trade has a pretty significant part in WHY we're not legitimizing the Afghan opium trade (the rest being that it's hard to restrict it to the people we like, so let's just burn it all). Turkey in particular derives considerable revenue from opiate production and would like to reduce competition where possible, and at present they're one of the United States' very bestest alleged friends.

[K. A. Pital]

But he was more or less a mouthpiece at that time.

That doesn't matter to me. The mouthpiece of scumbags is a scumbag, end of sentence. I would not argue any further. Mind you, have I said he is personally responsible for the East Timor genocide on the same level Sukharto is? Nay.

[Thanas]

But he was more or less a mouthpiece at that time.

That doesn't matter to me. The mouthpiece of scumbags is a scumbag, end of sentence. I would not argue any further. Mind you, have I said he is personally responsible for the East Timor genocide on the same level Sukharto is? Nay.

Fair enough, if all you want to argue that he is a scumbag, fine, that is a personal assesment hard to counter. I would probably describe him more as someone who served the interests of his country well, but that is a matter of opinion not of facts.

I must have got you confused with IP, who was claiming he was a war criminal etc.

[K. A. Pital]

Fair enough, if all you want to argue that he is a scumbag, fine, that is a personal assesment hard to counter. I would probably describe him more as someone who served the interests of his country well, but that is a matter of opinion not of facts.

I must have got you confused with IP, who was claiming he was a war criminal etc.

"Serving the interests of your country well" and being a scumbag or even a war criminal (or at least giving a helping hand to war criminals) are not mutually exclusive. If the interests of his country were to help Indonesia in East Timor, he served them perfectly well and at the same time it was nothing but repugnant. Indeed, the fact that he served U.S. interests excellently is not a matter of opinion, but a fact. The US only benefitted from the massacre that Indonesia was committing, because Indonesia required arms for their goals, and the US got money and virtually zero bad rep - ask a person on the street if he or she even knows what East Timor is. The alliance with Sukharto was a mutually beneficial arrangement where the US got only roses, while the East Timorese and many other people in Indonesia got thorns. Sukharto was but one of many fascist lapdogs who were allowed to exist and fulfill their goals in wars of agression thanks to U.S. assistance. IP compared Holbrooke to Ribbentrop; you seem to be arguing he was just a mouthpiece, kinda like Goebbels. That doesn't change my view of the person.

[Thanas]

Fair enough, if all you want to argue that he is a scumbag, fine, that is a personal assesment hard to counter. I would probably describe him more as someone who served the interests of his country well, but that is a matter of opinion not of facts.

I must have got you confused with IP, who was claiming he was a war criminal etc.

"Serving the interests of your country well" and being a scumbag or even a war criminal (or at least giving a helping hand to war criminals) are not mutually exclusive.

No, they are not - but being a war criminal is a direct statement of fact.

IP compared Holbrooke to Ribbentrop; you seem to be arguing he was just a mouthpiece, kinda like Goebbels.

Goebbels wasn't just a mouthpiece. He had extreme influence and originated quite a few of the politics.

That doesn't change my view of the person.

It doesn't have to, I wasn't trying to change your view. Like I said, it is a matter of opinion.

[K. A. Pital]

No, they are not - but being a war criminal is a direct statement of fact.

Wasn't "helping facilitate a war of agression" one of the charges levied against some of the Nuremberg trial folks, no? And in this case, Holbrooke and all the U.S. politicians involved in facilitating and approving arms sales to Indonesia, which made its agression against East Timor possible, can be held responsible both collectively and individually. They helped to facilitate a war of agression by a foreign nation, but does it change the picture much? And by all I don't mean crate-packers, Thanas, I mean people who put their signatures on documents and reports, any documents that gave the green light to the arms sales and military assistance.

Let me note that Walther Funk was indicted for crimes against peace. I do not see a great difference here, except the responsibility is more distributed across all the U.S. diplomats and officials playing a part in this process.

Goebbels wasn't just a mouthpiece. He had extreme influence and originated quite a few of the politics.

You have any proof whatsoever that Holbrooke had no influence on the events that led to arms sales to Indonesia, or the U.S. silence on the issue and the desire to basically sweep the Indonesian agression under the rug?

[Thanas]

Wasn't "helping facilitate a war of agression" one of the charges levied against some of the Nuremberg trial folks, no? And in this case, Holbrooke and all the U.S. politicians involved in facilitating and approving arms sales to Indonesia, which made its agression against East Timor possible, can be held responsible both collectively and individually. They helped to facilitate a war of agression by a foreign nation, but does it change the picture much? And by all I don't mean crate-packers, Thanas, I mean people who put their signatures on documents and reports, any documents that gave the green light to the arms sales and military assistance.

Again, you have to do more than just repeating your claims. Where is the evidence that Holbrooke was writing policy at that time?

Goebbels wasn't just a mouthpiece. He had extreme influence and originated quite a few of the politics.

You have any proof whatsoever that Holbrooke had no influence on the events that led to arms sales to Indonesia, or the U.S. silence on the issue and the desire to basically sweep the Indonesian agression under the rug?

You want me to prove a negative? Where do you get that he was writing policy?

[K. A. Pital]

Seriously, Thanas - he was in high enough a position that the Nur Soldat defence does not work. And even if he was not writing policy, he was and remains guilty, just as those commanders who carried out Hoepner's or Reichenau's criminal orders, despite not writing them, are guilty of war crimes.

In March 1977, Holbrooke told Australian diplomat James Dunn that Indonesia’s geographical location and oil wealth were “of considerable strategic importance to the U.S. As we see it,” Holbrooke explained, “the Suharto regime is the best of possible alternatives, and we will do nothing to destabilize it.”

Holbrooke never took any effort to distance himself from the group of Sukharto supporters.

Where do you get that he was writing policy?

So he was a nobody then, I presume? Let me make it perfectly clear - he was a senior diplomat in position of power at the U.S. state deparmtnet. Assistant Secretary of State is NOT a paper title, and even if it were, this means he was perfectly aware of what was going on and he helped to facilitate it. It does not matter whether he "wrote policy" or merely executed it.

[Thanas]

I guess this is were we differ then - I see no reason to continue on with this, as it has gone over two pages already and we are back at square one.

[K. A. Pital]

I guess this is were we differ then - I see no reason to continue on with this, as it has gone over two pages already and we are back at square one.

I am not sure why you choose to cling to "whether he was writing policy" defence, because if your position is that of an Assistant Secretary of State and you see a policy of your nation which is clearly criminal (and Indonesian agression in Timor was a war crime from beginning to the end, starting from the fact that it was a clear war of agression and ending with the fact that it was a genocide), and you not only do nothing against it but also actively participate in executing it, you are a criminal.

You might know that Habib, for example, raised concerns about the Indonesian East Timor agression and was told by Kissinger to shut the fuck up. And even that was more than Holbrooke ever did.

So spare me this "oh no, he was just serving his country well" tripe. I'm sick of that. If it was Latvia selling weapons to Liberia and helping it facilitate genocide, I don't think a single Latvian diplomat involved in that would get as much defence as Holbrooke got here in this thread.

Besides, if he took a stand and said "Indonesia is committing agression against Timor and I will not have a hand in it", he'd just be fired. That's ALL the consequences. So he has no excuse, none absolutely.

[Thanas]

Due to several articles a member sent to me about Holbrookes involvement, I have to concede that he actually was a war criminal, as it turned out that he authorized and planned the sales of weapons.

[Guardsman Bass]

Due to several articles a member sent to me about Holbrookes involvement, I have to concede that he actually was a war criminal, as it turned out that he authorized and planned the sales of weapons.

He did? Then yeah, he was an accessory to it.

I don't suppose you could link those, or PM them to me? I've never though Holbrooke was a particularly good person, but I'd be interested to know more about his involvement.

[K. A. Pital]

I think Holbrooke was acting under the same policy as Moynihan, a policy which can only be described as a crime from beginning to end. Moynihan said this about the U.S. approach to East Timor:

The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success.

The United States was aid to, party to and largely helped Indonesia's fascist regime to first invade and occupy East Timor in a blatant war of agression and later to genocide its population. Each and every diplomat in whatsoever position of power was quite aware of the stance taken by the United States administrations (this shit lasted for several administrations, yeah). Especially people like Holbrooke, who were in charge of overseeing and authorizing additional covert arms shipments to Indonesia. I'm not even speaking of Moynihan who publicly admitted being party to one of the largest post-World War II genocides, and that this was the policy of the U.S. government.

I am unimpressed, duly unimpressed. I knew about the role of the United States in Indonesian agression and genocide before this, but now I know just how much it meant - the US armed the Indonesians 90% and also continously blocked all U.N. efforts to save Sukharto's fascist regime from "disturbances".

Oh, and gee - some more greatest hits from the stooge:

I think Saddam has to be dealt with, and I would support an international coalition of the willing to deal with it. The fact is that we all can agree that Saddam is a truly terrible chief of state and is in the process of trying to create—and we don’t know how well he’s done, because the inspectors have been gone for over three years—trying to create weapons of mass destruction.

ALLAN NAIRN: You were the Assistant Secretary of State in the Carter administration at the height of the genocide in Timor, the years of '76, ’77, ’78, ’79, when the killing rose to a peak. And you were the Carter administration's point man on Timor policy. You handled the testimony before Congress and so on. And it was under your watch that the U.S. sent in the OV-10 Bronco planes, the low-flying planes, which were used to bomb and strafe the Timorese out of the hills. Testimony from Catholic Church sources, reports from Amnesty International and others indicated that hundreds of thousands of East Timorese were killed during this period. And during this period, not only was the U.S. sending in these weapons which were used to kill the Timorese, but it was also blocking the U.N. Security Council from taking enforcement action on the two resolutions which called on Indonesia to withdraw its troops without delay. We know this because Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., wrote about it in his memoirs. That was the policy that started under Ford and Kissinger, OK, and you continued that policy.

So, I have two questions. The first is, would you be willing to facilitate the full declassification of documents regarding what the Carter administration, your administration, did in East Timor by granting a waiver under the Privacy Act? And secondly, would you favor the convening, for the case of East Timor, an international war crimes tribunal along the lines of what has been done in Bosnia and Rwanda, along the lines of what President Bush called for in the case of Saddam Hussein in Iraq? And would you be willing to abide by its verdict in regard to your own conduct?

RICHARD HOLBROOKE: You know, first of all, we’re not going to have time to deconstruct your question and take it on point by point here. We’ve got other questions, and we need to get to them. But let me say very clearly, first of all, I don’t accept every statement you have just made as fact. Far from it. Moynihan, for example, was not the ambassador during the Carter administration; he was the ambassador during the previous administration.

ALLAN NAIRN: He started it under Ford, and you continued that policy.

RICHARD HOLBROOKE: Let’s not—I don’t think we’re going to have time to deconstruct this here. I do not accept most of your statements. However, in regard to the last questions, of course I favor declassification. I have no—I have nothing to hide about my own role. If I made a mistake or two along the way, I’ll confront it when that goes—when that comes up. No one is error-free here. But just for the purpose of everyone else in the room, this is not an accurate description of the administration’s policy or my own role in it. As I said in my opening remarks, Indonesia was an important country and remains an important country. And the solution to the problem, as I said to an earlier question, does not, in my view, involve a complete arms cut off. You’re welcome to disagree. But I am interested in consequences of policy. I’m interested in solving the problem. And not—

ALLAN NAIRN: The consequences in this case were genocide: a third of the Timorese population killed.

RICHARD HOLBROOKE: If you want to accuse me of genocide, you’re welcome to do so. And if—as far as extending the war crimes tribunal to Timor, or for that matter, Cambodia, where it’s incomprehensibly not of a mandate, I’m all for it. In fact, I have recently written a letter to the Holocaust Commission at the museum recommending that they take this issue on, precisely because it’s incomprehensible to me why various people who are equally as murderous as Radovan Karadžic and Ratko Mladic have never been investigated. But I tell you here, for the benefit of everyone else, that the Timor issue is not as simple as described just now. It just isn’t. This is not what happened, and I don’t think anyone who knows Jimmy Carter or what he stands for would agree that this was a deliberate policy of giving low-flying airplanes or helicopters to the Indonesians so that they could go out and kill people in the hills.

Well crap. Not only did he facilitate the genocide, but he defended the arms shipments after it happened, and denied the genocide in East Timor happening. Thank you, Holbrooke! What would we do if you weren't such a talkative buddy.

I must say this is getting more and more exciting. I'll have to make a list of 1970's greatest scumbags, and I think Moynihan and Holbrooke are getting into it - on the lowest rows, quite far from Sukharto himself, but still high enough to say hello to their fascist friend.

It is also mind-boggling that the search on Holbrooke or Moynihan on BBC gives nothing about either and East Timor. FREE PRESS? My ass. Holbrooke's "career" starts in Vietnam and then jumps to Yugoslavia straightaway, without even mentioning the word "Indonesia". Same with Moynihan, "liberal senator", who kicked the bucket in 2003 - not a word on his "career".

[Illuminatus Primus]

Yeah, I posted the link to that clip and transcript, but people only "me-too" my "hijacks" (i.e., saying something I ought to be so polite and refined to say aloud), so back to hagiography and "complexity" of the bagmen of the U.S. and U.S.-facilitated crimes.