Wrong question. The question is was it legitimate for the executive branch to undertake this action and lie about it to Congress.

Was the shipment of arms to the generals in Indonesia an endorsement of the genocidal policies to which they were put?

There was a wee bit more than just "whoops, these fellows we sent a few M-16's to decided to use them for bad ends" going on here. From the transcript cited above:

SUHARTO: Yes, after the UDT, Indonesia found itself facing a fate accompli. It is now important to determine what we can do to establish peace and order for the present and the future in the interest of the security of the area [a]nd Indonesia. These are some of the considerations we are now contemplating. We want your understanding if we deem it necessary to take rapid or drastic action.

KISSINGER: Whatever you do, however, we wil[l] try to handle in the best way possible.

Was the shipment of arms to Chilean dissidents a warrant for the execution of a Chilean general?

Again, wrong question. The accusation Hitchens makes is not simply that the U.S. supplied arms, but that it did so with the express purpose of those arms being used in an illegal coup.

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 historic 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.