Kissinger discusses Woodward book on Late Edition…
This morning on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Henry Kissinger was interviewed about Bob Woodward’s new book and his mention in it. Highlights follow…
On his role in the Bush White House
KISSINGER: I haven’t read the book, but I have — first of all, my conversations with the president and the vice president — I think if they counted the number of times Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice have asked my opinion, they would be at least as frequent as the other two.
BLITZER: Excuse me for interrupting, Dr. Kissinger, but the book suggests that, at least once a month, if not more frequently, you’re consulted, you’re brought in by the president or the vice president.
KISSINGER: I have told you what the balance is. And I think you will find that I have seen the secretary of state as frequently as I’ve seen the president and the vice president and that it’s almost always at the request of the people that I’m talking to.
But there’s a more fundamental point to be made. It is absurd to believe that an outsider who comes in, at most, once every six weeks for an hour or so, has any significant influence on tactical decisions.
Where outsiders like myself and Zbig can be helpful is to give a middle-term perspective and to deal with and to advise on issues that may not be right front, center.
And that has been the role that I believe where I can be useful. I have tried to play that with every president since I left office and, to some extent, have.
And it is simply wrong to imply that I am a shaper of day-to-day decisions. This is not my role. I’m an outsider; I’m a friend. And I respond to questions that are put to me, but they’re mostly conceptual and have to do with problems that are not ready for decision.
On the Bush administration
KISSINGER: Look, it is amazing that I’m asked to comment on a book that I haven’t read, that Brzezinski’s asked to comment on views that I don’t hold. I have written nine articles on Iraq in the last two years. Anybody can get them on the Internet and can see that I have tried to analyze the various aspects of the war. In some of them I have made recommendations for changes.
I agree that we need a comprehensive strategy. I do not believe that there is wobbliness within the administration. Of course there are sharp differences, which have been widely reported, but in almost every administration that I have seen, there have been differences, sometimes more, sometimes less intense.
And I think we should focus our national agenda — discussion on where we should go now. I believe at some point, at some early point, other countries have to be brought into the discussion of the future of Iraq. Something that I’ve been writing about also for some time. I don’t think the choice is between victory in the abstract and pulling out in the abstract.
The choice is between trying to leave the situation in such a way that the security of the free people is not being threatened by the emergence of al Qaida-type regimes on Iraqi territory and that America does not leave the conditions under conditions of total chaos. But that does not preclude that one — and in fact, it requires that one also has a strategy that expresses this in concrete terms, and that has been my major theme. And not platitudes like victory or wobbliness.
On fighting between Afghanistan and Pakistan leaders
KISSINGER: These two allies in these two countries haven’t necessarily been on the same page for a few hundred years. We should make it clear to Pakistan that tolerating al Qaida on their territory and supporting the insurrection in Afghanistan is not compatible inthe long term with good relations with the United States.
I read all the comments of Henry Kissinger, but I’m not quite sure what Blitzer is up to here. Is he faulting Kissinger for something or what? Kissinger made it clear he was advising, which does not necessarily mean that whatever he tells those in the administration should be the basis of any decision made.
Kissinger is one of the wise, experienced statesmen we have in foreign affairs, and it’s not unusual that presidents still want to consult with him. I hope Blitzer was not blaming him for whatever mistakes Woodward was alleging Bush and his administration made in the conudct of the Iraq war. I have lost respect for Woodward since the Valerie Plame case, and there are suggestions his new book is a tissue of lies, with no attribution, as usual, where he got his materials from. It’s also strange his book is coming out barely over a month before the election, and he could have waited till it was over. Opportunism, as usual, along
with greed.
Comment by RGL — October 1, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
According to Dan Bartlet, Woodward had the title of this book before his second (and last) book on the GWB Presidency came out. He advised the President and Vice-President not to give Woodward the unprecedented access he had with the other two books. Woodward had no contact with either of them for this book. And it’s a good thing, if for no other reason than Woodward’s involvement with the Valerie Plame farce.
I don’t get the strategy of the Democrats regarding Kissinger. Kissenger is and has always been very popular. The fact that the President chose him as one of the many voices he listens to can only benefit the President and the Republican party.
I disagree with RGL on Wolf Blitzer. I don’t get much of a chance to see him on his weekday “Situation Room,” but on his Sunday “Late Edition” he has covered Afganistan and Pakistan consistently when everyone else was ignoring them. I think Blitzer really cares about the issue. I think he was just doing an interview; like Chris Wallace was doing with President Clinton last week. Both newsmen seem very NON-partisan to me.
Comment by erljr — October 1, 2006 @ 9:58 pm
If Henry cannot control his horrible slobbering habit while being interviewed nobody will even be able to watch his appearance. Wait….that might be a GOOD thing.
Comment by Roger — October 2, 2006 @ 12:01 pm