[Peace-discuss] Another peace scare…

[Morton K. Brussel]

Bill Blum's monthly summary of recent events, plus…

ZNet Commentary
The Anti-Empire Report January 03, 2008
By Bill Blum

Another peace scare. Boy, that was close. The US intelligence  
community's new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) -- "Iran:  
Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities" -- makes a point of saying up  
front (in bold type): "This NIE does not (italics in original) assume  
that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons." The report goes on to  
state: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran  
halted its nuclear weapons program ."

Isn't that good news, that Iran isn't about to attack the United  
States or Israel with nuclear weapons? Surely everyone is thrilled  
that the horror and suffering that such an attack -- not to mention  
an American or Israeli retaliation or pre-emptive attack -- would  
bring to this sad old world. Here are some of the happy reactions  
from American leaders:

Senate Republicans are planning to call for a congressional  
commission to investigate the NIE's conclusion that Iran discontinued  
its nuclear weapons program in 2003.[1]

National Security Adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, said: The report "tells  
us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very  
serious problem."[2]

Defense Secretary Robert Gates "argued forcefully at a Persian Gulf  
security conference ... that U.S. intelligence indicates Iran could  
restart its secret nuclear weapons program 'at any time' and remains  
a major threat to the region."[3]

John R. Bolton, President Bush's former ambassador to the United  
Nations and pit bull of the neo-conservatives, dismissed the report  
with: "I've never based my view on this week's intelligence."[4]

And Bush himself added: "Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous,  
and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to  
make a nuclear weapon. The NIE says that Iran had a hidden -- a  
covert nuclear weapons program. That's what it said. What's to say  
they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program? ...  
Nothing has changed in this NIE that says, 'Okay, why don't we just  
stop worrying about it?' Quite the contrary. I think the NIE makes it  
clear that Iran needs to be taken seriously. My opinion hasn't  
changed."[5]

Hmmm. Well, maybe the reaction was more positive in Israel. Here's a  
report from Uri Avnery, a leading Israeli columnist: "The earth  
shook. Our political and military leaders were all in shock. The  
headlines screamed with rage. ... Shouldn't we be overjoyed?  
Shouldn't the masses in Israel be dancing in the streets? After all,  
we have been saved! ... Lo and behold -- no bomb and no any-minute- 
now. The wicked Ahmadinejad can threaten us as much as he wants -- he  
just has not got the means to harm us. Isn't that a reason for  
celebration? So why does this feel like a national disaster?"[6]

We have to keep this in mind -- America, like Israel, cherishes its  
enemies. Without enemies, the United States appears to be a nation  
without moral purpose and direction. The various managers of the  
National Security State need enemies to protect their jobs, to  
justify their swollen budgets, to aggrandize their work, to give  
themselves a mission, to send truckloads of taxpayer money to the  
corporations for whom the managers will go to work after leaving  
government service. And they understand the need for enemies only too  
well, even painfully. Here is US Col. Dennis Long, speaking in 1992,  
just after the end of the Cold War, when he was director of "total  
armor force readiness" at Fort Knox:

For 50 years, we equipped our football team, practiced five days a  
week and never played a game. We had a clear enemy with demonstrable  
qualities, and we had scouted them out. [Now] we will have to  
practice day in and day out without knowing anything about the other  
team. We won't have his playbook, we won't know where the stadium is,  
or how many guys he will have on the field. That is very distressing  
to the military establishment, especially when you are trying to  
justify the existence of your organization and your systems.[7]

In any event, all of the above is completely irrelevant if Iran has  
no intention of attacking the United States or Israel, even if they  
currently possessed a large stockpile of nuclear weapons. As I've  
asked before: What possible reason would Iran have for attacking the  
United States or Israel other than an irresistible desire for mass  
national suicide?

  The crime of GWS: Governing while socialist In Chile, during the  
1964 presidential election campaign, in which Salvador Allende, a  
Marxist, was running against two other major candidates much to his  
right, one radio spot featured the sound of a machine gun, followed  
by a woman's cry: "They have killed my child -- the communists." The  
announcer then added in impassioned tones: "Communism offers only  
blood and pain. For this not to happen in Chile, we must elect  
Eduardo Frei president."[8] Frei was the candidate of the Christian  
Democratic Party, the majority of whose campaign costs were  
underwritten by the CIA according to the US Senate.[9] One anti- 
Allende campaign poster which appeared in the thousands showed  
children with a hammer and sickle stamped on their foreheads.[10]

The scare campaign played up to the fact that women in Chile, as  
elsewhere in Latin America, are traditionally more religious than  
men, more susceptible to being alarmed by the specter of "godless,  
atheist communism".

Allende lost. He won the men's vote by 67,000 over Frei (in Chile men  
and women vote separately), but amongst the women Frei came out ahead  
by 469,000 ... testimony, once again, to the remarkable ease with  
which the minds of the masses of people can be manipulated, in any  
and all societies.

In Venezuela, during the recent campaign concerning the  
constitutional reforms put forth by Hugo Chávez, the opposition  
played to the same emotional themes of motherhood and "communist"  
oppression. (Quite possibly because of the same CIA advice.) "I voted  
for Chávez for President, but not now. Because they told me that if  
the reform passes, they're going to take my son, because he will  
belong to the state," said a woman, Gladys Castro, interviewed in  
Venezuela before the December 2 vote which rejected the reforms; this  
according to a report of Venezuelanalysis.com, an English-language  
news service published by Americans in Caracas. "Gladys is not the  
only one to believe the false rumors she's heard," the report added.  
"Thousands of Venezuelans, many of them Chávez supporters, have  
bought the exaggerations and lies about Venezuela's Constitutional  
Reform that have been circulating across the country for months. Just  
a few weeks ago, however, the disinformation campaign ratcheted up  
various notches as opposition groups and anti-reform coalitions  
placed large ads in major Venezuelan papers. The most scandalous  
was ... (a) two-page spread in the country's largest circulation  
newspaper, Últimas Noticias, which claimed about the Constitutional  
Reform: 'If you are a Mother, YOU LOSE! Because you will lose your  
house, your family and your children. Children will belong to the  
state'." This particular ad was placed by a Venezuelan business  
organization, Cámara Industrial de Carabobo, which has among its  
members dozens of subsidiaries of the largest US corporations  
operating in Venezuela.[11]

Chávez lost the December 2 vote (in part, I believe, because of his  
unrelenting bravado, which turned off any number of his supporters)  
but he's still a marked man in Washington, which can not stomach the  
prospect of five more years of the man and his policies. It's not  
because the United States is looking to grab Venezuela's oil. It's  
because Chávez is completely independent of Washington and has used  
his oil wealth to become a powerful force in Latin America, inspiring  
and aiding other independent-minded governments in the region, like  
Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador, as well as carrying on close  
relations with the likes of China, Russia, and Iran. The man does not  
show proper understanding that he's living in the Yankee's back yard;  
indeed, in the Yankee's world. The Yankee empire grew to its present  
size and power precisely because it did not tolerate men like  
Salvador Allende and Hugo Chávez and their quaint socialist customs.  
Despite their best efforts, the CIA was unable to prevent Allende  
from becoming Chile's president in 1970. When subsequent  
parliamentary elections made it apparent to the Agency and their  
Chilean conservative allies that they would not be able to oust the  
left from power legally, they instigated a successful military coup,  
in 1973.

Here for the record is a brief summary of Washington's charming  
history in relation to such men, their foreign ideas, and their  
dubious governments since the end of World War Two:

   Attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of  
which were democratically-elected; successful a majority of the time.

   Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.

   Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.

   Dropped bombs on the people of some 30 countries.

   Helped to suppress dozens of populist/nationalist movements.[12]

Although Chávez has spoken publicly about his being assassinated, and  
his government has several times uncovered what they perceived to be  
planned assassination attempts, from both domestic and foreign  
sources, the Venezuelan president has continued to take repeated  
flights and attend numerous conferences and meetings all over the  
world, exposing himself and his airplane again and again. The cases  
of Jaime Roldós, president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos, military  
leader of Panama, should perhaps be considered. Both were reformers  
who refused to allow their countries to become client states of  
Washington or American corporations. Both were firm supporters of the  
radical Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua; both banned an American  
missionary group, the Summer Institute of Linguistics -- long  
suspected of CIA ties -- because of suspicious political behavior;  
both died in mysterious plane disasters during the Reagan  
administration in 1981, Torrijos' plane exploding in mid-air.[13]  
Torrijos had earlier been marked for assassination by Richard Nixon.[14]

  Who would have thought? Bush has been vindicated. We're making  
progress in Iraq! The "surge" is working, we're told. Never mind that  
the war is totally and perfectly illegal. Not to mention totally and  
perfectly, even exquisitely, immoral. It's making progress. That's a  
good thing, is it not? Meanwhile, the al Qaeda types have greatly  
increased their number all over the Middle East and South Asia, so  
their surge is making progress too. Good for them. And speaking of  
progress in the War on Terror, is anyone progressing faster and  
better than the Taliban?

The American progress is measured by a decrease in violence, the  
White House has decided -- a daily holocaust has been cut back to a  
daily multiple catastrophe. And who's keeping the count? Why, the  
same good people who have been regularly feeding us a lie for the  
past five years about the number of Iraqi deaths, completely ignoring  
the epidemiological studies. (Real Americans don't do Arab body  
counts.) A recent analysis by the Washington Post left the  
administration's claim pretty much in tatters. The article opened  
with: "The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply  
in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts  
within and outside the government, who contend that some of the  
underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore  
negative trends." The article then continued in the same critical  
vein.[15]

To the extent that there may have been a reduction in violence, we  
must also keep in mind that, thanks to this lovely little war, there  
are several million Iraqis either dead or in exile abroad or in  
bursting American and Iraqi prisons; there must be as well a few  
million more wounded who are homebound or otherwise physically  
limited; so the number of potential victims and killers has been  
greatly reduced. Moreover, extensive ethnic cleansing has taken place  
in Iraq (another good indication of progress, n'est-ce pas? nicht  
wahr?) -- Sunnis and Shiites are now living more in their own special  
enclaves than before, none of those stinking mixed communities with  
their unholy mixed marriages, so violence of the sectarian type has  
also gone down.[16] On top of all this, US soldiers have been  
venturing out a lot less (for fear of things like ... well, dying),  
so the violence against our noble lads is also down. Remember that  
insurgent attacks on American forces is how the Iraqi violence all  
began in the first place.

Oh, did I mention that 2007 has been the deadliest year for US troops  
since the war began?[17] It's been the same worst year for American  
forces in Afghanistan.

One of the signs of the reduction in violence in Iraq, the  
administration would like us to believe, is that many Iraqi families  
are returning from Syria, where they had fled because of the  
violence. The New York Times, however, reported that "Under intense  
pressure to show results after months of political stalemate, the  
[Iraqi] government has continued to publicize figures that exaggerate  
the movement back to Iraq"; as well as exaggerating "Iraqis'  
confidence that the current lull in violence can be sustained." The  
count, it turns out, included all Iraqis crossing the border, for  
whatever reason. A United Nations survey found that 46 percent were  
leaving Syria because they could not afford to stay; 25 percent said  
they fell victim to a stricter Syrian visa policy; and only 14  
percent said they were returning because they had heard about  
improved security.[18]

How long can it be before vacation trips to "Exotic Iraq" are flashed  
across our TVs? "Baghdad's Beautiful Beaches Beckon". Just step over  
the bodies. Indeed, the State Department has recently advertised for  
a "business development/tourism" expert to work in Baghdad, "with a  
particular focus on tourism and related services."[19]

We've been told often by American leaders and media that the US  
forces can't leave because of the violence, because there would be a  
bloodbath. Now there's an alleged significant decrease in the  
violence. Is that being used as an argument to get out -- a golden  
opportunity for the United States to leave, with head held high? Of  
course not.

I almost feel sorry for them. They're "can-do" Americans, accustomed  
to getting their way, accustomed to thinking of themselves as the  
best, and they're frustrated as hell, unable to figure out "why they  
hate us", why we can't win them over, why we can't at least wipe them  
out. Don't they want freedom and democracy? At one time or another  
the can-do boys have tried writing a comprehensive set of laws and  
regulations, even a constitution, for the country; setting up mini- 
bases in neighborhoods; building walls to block off areas; training  
and arming "former" Sunni insurgents to fight Shias and al Qaeda;  
enlisting Shias to help fight, against whomever; leaving weapons or  
bomb-making material in public view to see who picks it up, then  
pouncing on them; futuristic vehicles and machines and electronic  
devices to destroy roadside bombs; setting up their own Arabic- 
language media, censoring other media; classes for detainees on anger  
control, an oath of peace, and the sacredness of life and property;  
regularly revising the official reason the United States is in the  
country in the first place ... one new tactic after another, and when  
all else fails they call it a "success" and give it a nice inspiring  
action name, like "surge" ... and nothing helps. They're can-do  
Americans, using good ol' American know-how and Madison Avenue savvy,  
sales campaigns, public relations, advertising, selling the US brand,  
just like they do it back home; employing psychologists and  
anthropologists ... and nothing helps. And how can it if the product  
you're selling is toxic, inherently, from birth, if you're totally  
ruining your customers' lives, with no regard for any kind of law or  
morality. They're can-do Americans, accustomed to playing by the  
rules -- theirs; and they're frustrated as hell.

  Once is an accident; twice is a coincidence; three times is a  
conspiracy.                        All science would be superfluous  
if the outward                         appearance and the essence of  
things directly                        coincided. -- Karl Marx [20]

I believe in conspiracies. So do all of you. American and world  
history are full of conspiracies. Watergate was a conspiracy. The  
cover-up of Watergate was a conspiracy. So was Enron. And Iran- 
Contra. The October Surprise really took place. For a full year,  
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney conspired to invade Iraq while  
continually denying that they had made any such decision. The  
Japanese conspired to attack Pearl Harbor while negotiating with  
Washington to find peaceful solutions to the issues separating the  
two governments. There are many people sitting in prison at this very  
moment in the United States for having been convicted of "conspiracy"  
to commit this or that crime.

However, it doesn't follow that all conspiracy theories are created  
equal, all to be taken seriously. Many people send me emails which  
I'm unable to take seriously. Here are a few examples:

If they try to access my website a few times and keep getting an  
error message, they ask me if the FBI or Homeland Security or America  
Online has finally gotten around to shutting me down.

If they send me an email and it's returned to them, for whatever  
reason, they wonder if AOL is blocking their particular mail or  
perhaps blocking all my mail.

If they fail to receive a copy of this report, they wonder if AOL or  
some government agency is blocking it.

If they come upon a news item on the Internet which exposes really  
bad behavior of the powers-that-be, they point out how "the  
mainstream media is completely ignoring this", even though I may  
already have read it in the Washington Post or the New York Times. To  
make the claim that the mainstream media is completely ignoring a  
particular news item, one would need to have access to the full  
version of a service like Lexis-Nexis and know how to use it  
expertly. Google often won't suffice if the news item has not  
appeared on the website of any mainstream media even though it may be  
in print or have been broadcast, although the recent creation of  
Google News has improved chances of finding an item.

With every new audiotape or videotape from Osama bin Laden my  
correspondents are sure to inform me that the man is really dead and  
that the tape is a CIA fabrication. In January 2006, when bin Laden,  
on an audiotape, recommended that Americans read my book Rogue State,  
the mainstream media were eager to interview me. But a number of my  
correspondents were quick to inform me and the entire Internet that  
the tape was phony, implying that I was being naive to believe it;  
this continues to this day. When I ask them why the CIA would want to  
publicize and enrich a writer like myself, who has been exposing the  
intelligence agency's crimes his entire writing life, I get no answer  
that's worth remembering, often not even understandable.

"Why do you bother criticizing Bush? He's not the real power. He's  
just a puppet," they ask me. The real power behind the throne, I'm  
told, is [Dick Cheney, David Rockefeller, the Federal Reserve, the  
Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberger Group, the Trilateral  
Commission, Bohemian Grove, et al.] Why, I wonder, are the annual  
meetings of the Bilderberger Group, et al., thought to be so vital to  
their members and so indicative of their power? To the extent that  
the Bilderbergerites have access to those in power and are able to  
influence them, they have this access and power all year long,  
whether or not they gather together in a once-a-year closed meeting.  
I think their meetings are primarily a social thing. Money and power  
likes to enjoy cocktails with money and power. Of course many  
important political and historical events are indeed the result of  
certain people of money and power talking to each other and secretly  
deciding what course of action would be most advantageous to their  
collective interests, but it doesn't necessarily follow that those  
who hold public office are merely puppets of these interests. Bush  
displays his independence every day of the week -- independence from  
Congress, the Constitution, the Republican Party, classic  
conservative economic policies, the American people, election  
results, the facts, logic, humanity. George W. is his own  
[sociopathic] man.

Finally, there's September 11, 2001. Amongst those in the "9/11 Truth  
Movement" I am a sinner because I don't champion the idea that it was  
an "inside job". I think it more likely that some individuals in the  
Bush administration knew that something was about to happen involving  
airplanes -- perhaps an old fashioned hijacking with political  
demands -- and they let it happen, to make use of it politically, as  
they certainly have. But I do wish you guys in the 9/11 Truth  
Movement luck; if you succeed in proving that it was an inside job,  
that would do more to topple the empire than anything I have ever  
written.

  NOTES

[1] Washington Post, December 7, 2007, p.8

[2] New York Times, December 3, 2007

[3] Washington Post, December 9, 2007, p.27

[4] Washington Post, December 4, 2007, p.1

[5] Washington Post, December 5, 2007, p.23

[6] "How they stole the bomb from us", December 8, 2007, http:// 
zope.gush-shalom.org/index_en.html

[7] New York Times, February 3, 1992, p.8

[8] Paul Sigmund, "The Overthrow of Allende and the Politics of  
Chile, 1964-1976 (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1977) p.297

[9] "Covert Action in Chile, 1963-1973, a Staff Report of The Select  
Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to  
Intelligence Activities (US Senate)", December 18, 1975, p.4

[10] Sigmund, op. cit., p.34

[11] Venezuelanalysis.com, November 27, 2007, article by Michael Fox

[12] In sequence, details of the five items can be found in Blum's  
books:"Freeing the World", chapter 15; "Rogue State", chapters 18, 3,  
11, 17; see also "Killing Hope" for further details.

[13] For further information, see John Perkins, "Confessions of an  
Economic Hit Man" (2004), passim

[14] Newsweek magazine, June 18, 1973, p.22

[15] Washington Post, September 6, 2007, p.16

[16] For a good discussion of this see the Inter Press Service report  
of November 14, 2007 by Ali al-Fadhily

[17] Associated Press, November 6, 2007

[18] New York Times, November 26, 2007

[19] Washington Post, December 5, 2007, p.27

[20] Capital, Vol. III

  William Blum is the author of:  Killing Hope: US Military and CIA  
Interventions Since World War 2, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's  
Only Superpower, West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir, Freeing the  
World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at    
Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website at "essays".