I get upset about a lot of things, but there are only a few things that have the potential to actually drive me crazy. The capacity of a society--notably the one in which I was raised--and its purportedly responsible institutions to indulge its "own" alleged war criminals is one of them.

What am I talking about? Behold! The New York Times Book Review commissions Henry Kissinger to write a review of a book about a former Secretary of State:

The position of secretary of state is potentially the most fulfilling in the government short of the presidency. Its scope is global; ultimately it rests on almost philosophical assumptions as to the nature of world order and the relationship of order to progress and national interest. Lacking such a conceptual framework, incoherence looms in the face of the daily task of redefining America’s relationship to the world via the thousands of messages from nearly 200 diplomatic posts and the constant flow of communication from the Executive Department — all this against the backdrop of Congressional liaison and press inquiry.

Acheson served as under secretary of state and then as secretary during the period when a people that had known no direct continuing threat to its security since the early days of the Republic had to be brought to recognize that its permanent participation in the world was indispensable for peace and security. Inevitably this realization was painful and slow in coming, if indeed it has been fully achieved to this day. This is why Acheson was assailed from both political sides, by those insisting on an end to involvement through total victory over the threat and, on the other side, by those who thought there was no threat to begin with, or at least none that required Acheson’s militant response.

Wow, how objective and totally devoid of any self-interest or contemporary implications. It's not like Kissinger has any need or interest to defend himself and his record or has regularly advised the Bush Administration on the Iraq War (in case you were curious, "victory is the only meaningful exit strategy [in Iraq]," he says, according to an article quoting Bob Woodward).

Moreover, there have been whole books written about Kissinger's possible complicity in war crimes--notably pre-insanity Hitchens's The Trial of Henry Kissinger.

Here is an excerpt from wikipedia's many, many screenfuls on Kissinger's possible violations of international law, human rights norms, and basic decency in multiple countries and regions in the world:

Kissinger has been criticized for his role during the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971. Despite reports of atrocities in East Pakistan, and despite being told—most notably in the Blood telegram—of 'genocidal' activities being perpetrated by Pakistani forces, Kissinger and President Richard Nixon did nothing to discourage Pakistani President Yahya Khan and the Pakistan Army. Kissinger was particularly concerned about Soviet expansion into South Asia as a result of a treaty of friendship that had recently been signed between India and the Soviet Union, and sought to demonstrate to the People's Republic of China the value of a tacit alliance with the United States.^[2][3]

To sum up, various Western governments on Kissinger:

France: Issues warrant for testimony by Kissinger relating to Pinochet's coup.
Spain: Issues warrant for questioning of Kissinger relating to support for organized killings in South America.
U.S.: Attempts to make Kissinger head of the 9-11 commission, collects his advice on latest foreign-policy nightmare. And this is just what's happened in front of the public!

What is the civil society response in the U.S.? He is allowed to walk free and avoid questioning, to appear on David Letterman and, most recently, to continue to influence public opinion in a venue as powerful as the New York Times.

Lovely.