[Peace-discuss] The anti-empire report: William Blum

[Morton K. Brussel]

There is a feeling that Obama and the Democrats have totally lost  
their electoral footing, self destructing.

As in Obama on the O'Reilly show saying the "surge" was a great success.

                                            by William Blum
                                       www.killinghope.org


Obama-Biden -- Osama bin Laden: A coincidence? I think not.

Im sorry to say that I think that John McCain is going to be the next  
president of the United States. After the long night of Bush horror  
any Democrat should easily win, but the Dems are screwing it up and  
McCain has been running more-or-less even with Barack Obama in the  
polls. The Democrats should run on the slogan "If you liked Bush,  
you'll love McCain", but that would be too outspoken, too direct for  
the spineless Nancy Pelosi and her spineless party. Or, "If you liked  
Iraq, you'll love Iran." But the Democrat leadership is not on record  
as categorically opposing either conflict.

Nor, it seems, do the Democrats have the courage to raise the issue  
of McCain not having been born in the United States as the  
Constitution requires. Nor questioning him about accusations by his  
fellow American prisoners about his considerable collaboration with  
his Vietnamese captors. Nor a word about McCain's highly possible  
role in the brutal Georgian invasion of South Ossetia on August 7.  
(More on this last below.)

Obama has lost much of the sizable liberal/progressive vote because  
of his move to the center-right (or his exposure as a center- 
rightist), and he now may have lost even his selling point of being  
more strongly against the war than McCain -- if in fact he actually  
is -- by appointing Joe Biden as his running mate. Biden has long  
been a hawk on Iraq (as well as the rest of US foreign policy),  
calling for an invasion as far back as 1998.[1]   In April, 2007,  
when pressed in an interview about his vote for the war in 2003,  
Biden said: "It was a mistake. I regret my vote. ... because I  
learned more, like everybody else learned, about what, in fact, we  
were told."[2]   This has been a common excuse of war supporters in  
recent years when the tide of public opinion turned against them. But  
why did millions and millions of Americans march against the war in  
the fall of 2002 and early 2003, before it began? What did they know  
that Joe Biden didn't know? It was clear to the protesters that  
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were habitual liars, that they  
couldn't care less about the people of Iraq, that the defenseless  
people of that ancient civilization were going to be bombed to hell;  
the protesters knew something about the bombings of Vietnam,  
Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan; they knew about  
napalm, cluster bombs, depleted uranium. ... Didn't Biden know about  
any of these things? Those who marched knew that the impending war  
was something a moral person could not support; and that it was  
totally illegal, a textbook case of a "war of aggression"; one didn't  
have to be an expert in international law to know this. Did Joe Biden  
think about any of this?

If McCain had a role in the Georgian invasion of breakaway-region  
Ossetia it would have been arranged with the help of Randy  
Scheunemann, McCain's top foreign policy adviser and until recently  
Georgia's principal lobbyist in Washington. As head of the neo- 
conservative Committee for the Liberation of Iraq in 2002,  
Scheunemann was one of America's leading advocates for invading Iraq.  
One of McCain's primary campaign sales pitches has been to emphasize  
his supposed superior experience in foreign policy matters, which --  
again supposedly -- means something in this world. McCain  
consistently leads Obama in the opinion polls on "readiness to be  
commander-in-chief", or similar nonsense. The Georgia-Russia  
hostilities raise -- in the mass media and the mass mind -- the issue  
of the United States needing an experienced foreign policy person to  
handle such a "crisis", and, standard in every crisis -- an enemy bad  
guy.

Typical of the media was the Chicago Tribune praising McCain for his  
statesmanlike views on Iraq and stating: "What Russia's invasion of  
Georgia showed was that the world is still a very dangerous place,"  
and Russia is a "looming threat". In addition to using the expression  
"Russia's invasion of Georgia", the Tribune article also referred to  
"Russia's invasion of South Ossetia". No mention of Georgia's  
invasion of South Ossetia which began the warfare.[3]   In a feature  
story in the Washington Post on the Georgia events the second  
sentence was: "The war had started, Russian jets had just bombed the  
outskirts of Tbilisi [Georgian capital]." The article then speaks of  
"the horror" of "the Russian invasion". Not the slightest hint of any  
Georgian military action can be found in the story.[4]    One of  
course can find a media report here or there that mentions or at  
least implies in passing that an invasion from Georgia is what  
instigated the mayhem. But I've yet to come upon one report in the  
American mass media that actually emphasizes this point, and  
certainly none that put it in the headline. The result is that if a  
poll were taken amongst Americans today, I'm sure the majority of  
those who have any opinion would be convinced that the nasty Russians  
began it all.[5]

What we have here in the American media is simply standard operating  
procedure for an ODE (Officially Designated Enemy). Almost as soon as  
the fighting began, Dick Cheney announced: "Russian aggression must  
not go unanswered."[6] The media needed no further instructions. Yes,  
that's actually the way it works. (See Cuba, Zimbabwe, Venezuela,  
Iran, Bolivia, etc., etc.)

The president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, is an American poodle  
to an extent that would embarrass Tony Blair. Until their 2,000  
troops were called home for this emergency, the Georgian contingent  
in Iraq was the largest after the US and UK. The Georgian president  
prattles on about freedom and democracy and the Cold War like George  
W., declaring that the current conflict "is not about Georgia  
anymore. It is about America, its values,".[7]  (I must confess that  
until Saakashvili pointed it out I hadn't realized that "American  
values" were involved in the fighting.) His government recently ran a  
full-page ad in the Washington Post. The entire text, written  
vertically, was: "Lenin ... Stalin ... Putin ... Give in? Enough is  
enough. Support Georgia. ... sosgeorgia.org"[8]

UK prime minister Gordon Brown asserted that Russia's recognition of  
the independence of Georgia's two breakaway regions of South Ossetia  
and Abkhazia was "dangerous and unacceptable."[9]   Earlier this year  
when Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence from Serbia, the  
UK, along with the US and other allied countries quickly recognized  
it despite widespread warnings that legitimating the Kosovo action  
might lead to a number of other regions in the world declaring their  
independence.

Brown's hypocrisy appears as merely the routine stuff of politicians  
compared to that of John McCain and George W. re the Georgia  
fighting: "I'm interested in good relations between the United States  
and Russia, but in the 21st century, nations don't invade other  
nations," said McCain [10], the staunch supporter of US invasions of  
Iraq and Afghanistan and leading champion of an invasion of Iran.

And here is Mahatma Gandhi Bush meditating on the subject: "Bullying  
and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in  
the 21st century."[11]

Hypocrisy of this magnitude has to be respected. It compares  
favorably with the motto on automobile license plates of the state of  
New Hampshire made by prisoners: "Live Free or Die".

Our beloved president was also moved to affirm that the Russian  
recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia: was an  
"irresponsible decision". "Russia's action only exacerbates tensions  
and complicates diplomatic negotiations," he said.{12]   Belgrade,  
are you listening?

It should be noted that linguistically and historically- distinct  
South Ossetia and Abkhazia had been autonomous Russian/Soviet  
protectorates or regions from early in the 19th century to 1991, when  
the Georgian government abolished their autonomy.

So what then was the purpose of the Georgian invasion of Ossetia if  
not to serve the electoral campaign of John McCain, a man who might  
be the next US president and be thus very obligated to the Georgian  
president? Saakashvili could have wanted to overthrow the Ossetian  
government to incorporate it back into Georgia, at the same time  
hopefully advancing the cause of Georgia's petition to become a  
member of NATO, which looks askance upon new members with territories  
in dispute or with military facilities belonging to a nonmember state  
such as Russia. But the nature of the Georgian invasion does not fit  
this thesis. The Georgians did none of the things that those staging  
a coup have traditionally found indispensable. They did not take over  
a TV or radio station, or the airport, or important government  
buildings, or military or police installations. They didn't take into  
custody key members of the government. All the US/Israeli-armed and  
trained Georgia military did was bomb and kill, civilians and Russian  
peacekeeper soldiers, the latter legally there for 16 years under an  
international agreement. For what purpose all this if not to incite a  
Russian intervention?

The only reason the United States did not itself strongly attack the  
Russian forces is that it's a pre-eminent principle of American  
military interventions to not pick on anyone capable of really  
defending themselves.

Unreconstructed cold warriors now fret about Russian expansionism,  
warning that Ukraine might be next. But of the numerous myths  
surrounding the Cold War, "communist expansionism" was certainly one  
of the biggest. We have to remember that within the space of 25  
years, Western powers invaded Russia three times -- World War I, the  
"intervention" of 1918-20, and World War II, inflicting some 40  
million casualties in the two world wars alone. (The Soviet Union  
lost considerably more people to international warfare on its own  
land than it did abroad. There are not too many great powers who can  
say that.) To carry out these invasions, the West used Eastern Europe  
as a highway. Should it be any cause for wonder that after World War  
II the Soviets were determined to close down this highway? Minus the  
Cold War atmosphere and indoctrination, most people would have no  
problem in seeing the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe as an act of  
self defense. Neither does the case of Afghanistan support the idea  
of "expansionism". Afghanistan lived alongside the Soviet Union for  
more than 60 years with no Soviet military intrusion. It's only when  
the United States intervened in Afghanistan to replace a government  
friendly to Moscow with one militantly anti-communist that the  
Russians invaded to do battle with the US-supported Islamic jihadists.

During the Cold War, before undertaking a new military intervention,  
American officials usually had to consider how the Soviet Union would  
react. That restraint was removed with the dissolution of the Soviet  
Union in the early 1990s. We may now, however, be witnessing the  
beginning of a new kind of polarization in the world. An increasing  
number of countries in the Third World -- with Latin America as a  
prime example -- have more fraternal relations with Moscow and/or  
Beijing than with Washington. Singapore's former UN ambassador  
observed: "Most of the world is bemused by western moralising on  
Georgia" ... While the western view is that the world "should support  
the underdog, Georgia, against Russia ... most support Russia against  
the bullying west. The gap between the western narrative and the rest  
of the world could not be clearer."[13]  And the Washington Post  
reported: "Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi's  
influential son, echoed the delight expressed in much of the Arab  
news media. 'What happened in Georgia is a good sign, one that means  
America is no longer the sole world power setting the rules of the  
game ... there is a balance in the world now. Russia is resurging,  
which is good for us, for the entire Middle East'."[14]


Scheming at the convention?
Am I the only one to be a bit suspicious about what happened at the  
Democratic Convention on August 27? Why did Hillary Clinton call for  
a suspension of the roll call when it reached New York and ask that  
Barack Obama be selected by the convention by acclamation? Many  
delegates had worked very hard to get the vote out at their primaries  
and wanted the opportunity to publicly announce the delegate count.  
What harm would there have been to allow every state to vote?

And why, after Clinton's motion, did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi  
immediately cry: "All those in favor, say Aye", followed by a large  
roar, and she then cried: "All those opposed say Nay." It is  
impossible to say how strong the Nay vote was because the time elapse  
between Pelosi calling for it and her declaring that "The measure is  
approved" was no more than one or two nanoseconds. She literally did  
not allow a Nay vote to be heard.

I also can not find a record of the vote that took place before it  
reached New York.

Does anyone else find anything strange about all this?


All consciences are equal, except that some consciences are more  
equal than others
The Bush administration has proposed stronger job protections for  
doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in  
abortions because of religious or moral objections. Both supporters  
and critics say that the new regulations are broad enough to allow  
pharmacists, doctors, nurses and others to refuse to provide birth  
control pills, Plan B emergency contraception, and other forms of  
contraception, while explicitly allowing employees to withhold  
information about such services and refuse to refer patients  
elsewhere. "People should not be forced to say or do things they  
believe are morally wrong," Health and Human Services Secretary Mike  
Leavitt said. "Health-care workers should not be forced to provide  
services that violate their own conscience."[15]

It's difficult to argue against such a philosophy. It's also  
difficult to be consistent about it. Do Leavitt and others in the  
Bush administration extend this concept to those in the military? If  
a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan is deeply repulsed by his/her  
involvement in carrying out the daily horror of the American  
occupation and asks to be discharged from the military as a  
conscientious objector, will the Pentagon honor his request because  
"people should not be forced to do things they believe are morally  
wrong"? The fact that the soldier voluntarily enlisted has no bearing  
on the question. A person's conscience develops from life experiences  
and continual reflection. Who's to say at what precise point in time  
a person's conscience must rebel against committing war crimes for  
the objection to be considered legally or morally valid? Signing a  
contract is no reason to be forced to kill people.

Can a health-care worker strongly opposed to America's brutal wars  
refuse to care for a wounded soldier who has been directly involved  
in the brutality? Can a civilian doctor, pharmacist, or psychologist  
in the US refuse to treat a soldier on the grounds that if they help  
to restore his health he'll be sent back to the war front to continue  
his killing?

Can peace activists be allowed to withhold the portion of their  
income taxes that supports the military? They've been trying to do  
this for decades without any government support.


National Pentagon Radio
WAMU, the Washington, DC National Public Radio (NPR) station asked  
its listeners to write them and tell them what they used the station  
as a source for. Some of those who replied were invited in for a  
recorded interview, and a tape of part of the interview was played on  
the air. I sent them the following email:

June 13, 2008
To mysource at wamu.org
Dear People,
I use WAMU to listen to All Things Considered. I use All Things  
Considered to get the Pentagon point of view on US foreign policy.  
It's great hearing retired generals explain why the US has just  
bombed or invaded another country. I'm not bothered by any naive anti- 
war protesters. I get the official truth right from the horse's  
mouth. Is this a great country, or what? I hope you're lining up some  
more great retired generals to tell me why we had to bomb Iran and  
kill thousands more people. Just make sure you don't make me listen  
to anyone on the left.
Sincerely,
William Blum, who should be on Diane Rehm, but never will be asked
[followed by some information about my books]

I had no expectation of any kind of positive reply. I figured that if  
my letter didn't do it, then surely the titles of my books would  
reveal that I'm not actually a lover of the American military or  
their wars. But I don't really want to believe the worst about the  
mainstream media. That's too discouraging. So it was a pleasant  
surprise when someone at the station invited me to come in for an  
interview. It lasted more than half an hour and went very well. I  
expressed many of my misgivings about NPR's coverage of US foreign  
policy in no uncertain terms. The interviewer said he was very  
pleased. He expected this was going to be an interesting piece for  
the station to broadcast. But as it turned out, that was the end of  
the matter. I never heard from the station again, and my interview  
was never broadcast.

About two months later I sent an email to the interviewer asking if  
the interview would be aired. I could verify that he received it, but  
I got no reply. I think the interviewer had been sincere, which is  
why I'm not mentioning his name. Someone above him must have listened  
to the tape, remembered where "public" radio's real loyalty lay (to  
its primary funder, Congress), and vetoed the whole thing. My (lack  
of) faith in American mass media has not been challenged. And those  
who work in the mass media will continue to believe in what they  
practice, something they call "objectivity", while I will continue to  
believe that objectivity is no substitute for honesty.

The audience contributes its share to the syndrome. Consumers of  
news, if fed American-exceptionalism junk food long enough come to  
feel at home with it, equate it with objectivity, and equate  
objectivity with getting a full and balanced picture, or the "truth";  
it appears neutral and unbiased, like the living room sofa they're  
sitting on as they watch NBC or CNN. They view the "alternative  
media", with a style rather different from what they're accustomed  
to, as not being objective enough, therefore suspect.

The president of NPR, incidentally, is a gentleman named Kevin Klose.  
Previously he helped coordinate all US-funded international  
broadcasting: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (Central Europe and the  
Soviet Union), Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, Radio/TV Marti  
(Cuba), Worldnet Television (Africa and elsewhere); all created  
specifically to disseminate world news to a target audience through  
the prism of US foreign policy beliefs and goals. He also served as  
president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Would it be unfair to  
say that Americans then became his newest target audience? All  
unconscious of course; that's what makes the mass media so effective;  
they really believe in their own objectivity. Not to mention the  
conscious propaganda.


NOTES
[1] See Stephen Zunes, "Biden, Iraq, and Obama's Betrayal", Foreign  
Policy in Focus, August 24, 2008, www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5492

[2] "Meet the press", April 29, 2007, www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18381961/

[3] Chicago Tribune, August 28, 2008

[4] Washington Post, August 31, 2008, p.B1

[5] For further discussion of the Georgia issue, see Robert Scheer,  
"Georgia War a Neocon Election Ploy?", The Huffington Post, August  
14, 2008; Pat Buchanan, Creators Syndicate column of August 22, 2008;  
Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation blogs, August 21, 2008

[6] Reuters, August 10, 2008

[7] Washington Post, August 9, 2008. p.1

[8] Washington Post, August 28, 2008, repeated September 1.

[9] The Guardian (London), September 1, 2008

[10] See and hear these actual words actually coming out of the  
actual mouth of the man -- http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/08/13/ 
john-mccain-maybe-doesnt-know-what-the-word-invade-means/

[11] National Public Radio (NPR), August 15, 2008

[12] Associated Press, August 27, 2008

[13] The Guardian (London), August 28, 2008, column by Seumas Milne,  
quoting from ambassador Kishore Mahbubani's interview in the  
Financial Times (London) of August 21

[14] Washington Post, August 30, 2008, p.18

[15] Associated Press, August 21, 2008, Washington Post, August 22, 2008


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 <www.killinghope.org >
Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website at "essays".
       To add yourself to the mailing list for the Anti-Empire Report  
simply send an email to <bblum6 at aol.com> with "add" in the subject  
line. I'd like your name and city in the message, but that's  
optional. I ask for your city only in case I'll be speaking in your  
area.
       Or put "remove" in the subject line to do the opposite.
       Any part of this report may be disseminated without  
permission.  I'd appreciate it if the website were mentioned. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080905/704d7554/attachment.htm