Henry Kissinger, in the Hitchens-BBC production, is called "the most conspicuous American statesman of the 20th century." That's true, as is also the adage that the bigger they come, the harder they fall. Kissinger's extraordinary ascendancy and his spectacular achievements rouse the iconoclastic spirits. In order to achieve the desired effects, the prosecution had to decry not only his policies, but his character. Thus it is said that he was ambitious -- which is certainly true, as also of Abraham Lincoln. That he was duplicitous, dishonest, deceptive and, strange to add, disloyal. If he was disloyal, why did he stick by Nixon until the end? And how to explain that as soon as Nixon was out of office, President Ford immediately renewed Kissinger's franchise? There are people around who know something about Kissinger's loyalty who were not invited to testify in the BBC production.
If the book and the movie had settled for charging that Kissinger was from time to time detected speaking out of both sides of his mouth, the reader and viewer might have nodded and said: Yes: That is what diplomats are often called upon to do. Other words for it are: They negotiate. People who refuse to do that meet the fate of Coriolanus.
Amazon.com lists 935 entries under "Nixon," and the wars will rage 100 years from now on the great events in which his secretary of state figured. Was the bombing of Cambodia a legitimate exercise of military power, in a contest in which no declaration of war had been voted? Was the shipment of arms to the generals in Indonesia an endorsement of the genocidal policies to which they were put? Was the shipment of arms to Chilean dissidents a warrant for the execution of a Chilean general?
These questions can be explored usefully but not in phony theatrical arraignments done mostly for the satisfaction of people engaged in private wars against Henry Kissinger. A Canadian reviewer of the Kissinger film wrote wryly, "If one considers Dr. Kissinger's policies of accommodation with various communist powers, it would be easier to suggest he is a peace criminal." The historical view that will prevail is that he was the most consistent and resourceful anti-communist on the scene during a decade in which two presidents sought out his counsel, and the republic profited from it.