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

[C. G. Estabrook]

The first analysis in a while that Mort and I agree about... --CGE

Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> 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.
> 
> The Anti-Empire Report 
> Read this or George W. Bush will be president the rest of your life 
> September 5, 2008 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.