<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Most articles I cannot totally agree with, or they are too repetitive to be interesting. But Wm. Blum has a knack for telling the truth pithfully, and getting to the roots of a topic. Here's what he recently has been saying (from Z-Magazine):<div><br></div><div><h1 class="title" id="view_title">Misplaced Hopes</h1>
<div style="float: left;">
<h2 class="subtitle" id="view_subtitle">An interview with William Blum</h2>
<div class="content_authors" style="float: left;">By <a href="http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/JonHochschartner">Jon Hochschartner</a></div>
</div>
<div style="float: right;">
<div class="printer_friendly_link" style="float: none;"><a href="http://www.zcommunications.org/misplaced-hopes-by-jon-hochschartner.pdf">PDF Version</a></div>
<div class="printer_friendly_link" style="float: none;"><a href="http://www.zcommunications.org/misplaced-hopes-by-jon-hochschartner#">Printer Friendly Version</a></div>
<a href="http://www.zcommunications.org/zmag/julaug10"><div class="content_date" style="float: none;">July 2010</div></a>
Change Text Size <a href="" class="decrease" target="_self">a-</a> | <a href="" class="increase" target="_self">A+</a>
</div>
<div class="znet_article_body" id="view_body" style="float: left; width: 100%;">
<br>
<hr><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">W</span></strong></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">illiam Blum, the author of <i>Killing Hope</i> and <i>Rogue State</i>,
is one of the foremost chroniclers of U.S. imperialism. Currently, Blum
writes a monthly e-newsletter "The Anti-Empire Report" (<a href="http://killinghope.org/"><strong>KillingHope.org</strong></a>).</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><b><i><span style="text-transform: uppercase; font-variant: small-caps;">HOCHSCHARTNER:</span></i></b></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><i> Shortly after taking office, Obama declared, "America does not torture." Is that true?</i></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><b><span style="text-transform: uppercase; font-variant: small-caps; color: black;">BLUM:</span></b></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="color: black;">
No, it's not. There is no evidence to support that statement. I have
read several articles from good sources showing that the abuse at
Guantanamo, for example, has continued unabated. In fact, in some ways,
it's even worse. In Afghanistan, we've uncovered a secret prison where
prisoner abuse is rampant. And we don't know what's happened to all the
other secret prisons, like the one on the island of Diego Garcia. There
were so many of these secret prisons. Where is the evidence showing
things have changed in those places? I don't think anyone has a right to
say Obama has ended torture. The burden of proof is on him.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><i>Earlier
this year, Obama green lit the assassination of Anwar Al-Awaki, a U.S.
citizen. What effect do you think this will have on due process?</i></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Due
process was already a casualty of the "war on terror." There are all
kinds of cases of people who have been arrested and imprisoned for years
and years without a trial or even a charge. We already have done great
harm to the concept and the practice of due process even before this
case you mentioned. It's hanging by a thread, the idea that people have
to be charged with something, indicted, tried, and convicted before
they're put in prison. Or the idea a person is innocent until proven
guilty. That certainly died years ago. How much worse can we make it
now?</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><i>The White House recently unveiled a "new" National Security Strategy. What's your interpretation of it?</i></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">It's
my opinion that one can never understand U.S. foreign policy unless one
comes to terms with a basic premise of that policy, which is that the
United States wants to dominate the world. If you don't accept that
premise, then much of what we call U.S. foreign policy can be confusing.
But if you understand that premise, much of those policies fall into
line and make sense.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><a href="http://www.zcommunications.org/FCKFiles/Image/Wuerker-AbeLyndon-Big.jpg"><img alt="" src="http://www.zcommunications.org/FCKFiles/image/JulAug10ZMOImages/Wuerker-AbeLyndon-small.jpg" align="right" height="260" hspace="6" vspace="3" width="310"></a>So
this National Security paper you're speaking about, which is an annual
thing, has the unspoken premise that the U.S. wants to dominate the
world. It says again and again that we have to exert world "leadership."
Either it says it explicitly or it implies as much in some cases—and
it's because of our exceptionalism. That's what it comes down to. It
overuses the terms "values" and "human rights," and, of course, the old
standbys "democracy" and "freedom."</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">It
begins by mentioning that the U.S. is threatened. It mentions 9/11. The
U.S. uses 9/11 as the Israelis use the Holocaust. It doesn't say why
we're threatened. It doesn't indicate that it's because of anything U.S.
foreign policy has done that makes us so hated. It just implies that
these people who hate us are irrational and we have no choice but to
defend ourselves. That fits in very well with the need to dominate.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><i>So you don't see it as a significant departure from the Bush policy?</i></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">If
anything, it's worse. Obama has actually attacked, militarily, five
countries since he's been in power. That's more than Bush did. I'm
speaking of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Somalia. In my
"Anti-Empire Report," I ask the question: how many countries does Obama
have to be at war with before he becomes unqualified for the Nobel Peace
Prize? It's amazing.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><i>Many
liberals who were outspoken critics of Bush's foreign policy seem to
ignore the fact Obama continues the Bush legacy. Why do you think this
is?</i></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">It's
painful for them to have to admit to themselves and to the world that
their hopes were totally misplaced. It's very understandable, but they
shouldn't have been fooled in the first place. In his campaign speeches
he threatened, on several occasions, to invade Iran if they didn't
behave the way he wanted. He said he was going to increase our armed
forces in Afghanistan. He said it all. He wasn't hiding it.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><b><u></u></b></span></span></p></div></div></body></html>