Denigration? This seems an odd charge. If Kissinger is guilty of the charges against him, he deserves to be shown justice. If he is innocent, then he does not. I don't think denigration enters into it.

And as for Ford, I'm sure Hitchens would have no objection to seeing him on trial as well. But without presuming the speak for him, I suspect he feels Kissinger is a more consistent and egregious offender, and therefore is a higher priority target.

Henry Kissinger, in the Hitchens-BBC production, is called "the most conspicuous American statesman of the 20th century." That's true, as also the adage that the bigger they come the harder they fall.

Not yet, unfortunately. But wait for it.

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 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.

Er, excuse me. Admittedly, I haven't seen the movie. But I don't think Hitchens cares one whit about Kissinger's personal attributes, nor do I. His assaults have most clearly been upon the man's actions. And as a Republican, you really should go wash your hands after typing a sentence which compares Kissinger favorably with Abraham Lincoln.

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. Another word for it is: They negotiate. People who refuse to do that, meet the fate of Coriolanus.

Diplomats are often called to speak "out of both sides of their month" to the diplomats from the opposing nation. Where Hitchens charges duplicity against Kissinger, it is based on lies told to the American people and arms of the American government, most notably Congress. Last I checked, that kind of duplicity was not in the State Department's employee handbook.

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?