[R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Anti-Empire Report

[Bill Totten]

Read this or George W Bush will be president the rest of your life

by William Blum

www.killinghope.org (January 13 2008)


An Unreasonable Man

I recommend the new documentary about Ralph Nader, which was recently
shown on PBS television, "An Unreasonable Man". Its primary focus is on
Nader's argument for having run in the 2000 and 2004 presidential
elections despite the alleged harm done to the Democratic Party
candidates. As I've written earlier: The choice facing people like
myself was not Ralph Nader or Albert Gore or John Kerry. The choice
facing us was Ralph Nader or not voting at all. If Nader had not been on
the ballot, we would have stayed home. It's that simple. The film shows
a clip of a TV network newscast just after the 2000 election in which
star news anchors Katie Couric and Tom Brokaw are discussing this very
question, and much to my surprise they both come to this same conclusion
- Nader did not cost the Democrats many votes at all. If he had not been
on the ballot, the great bulk of his supporters would NOT have voted
Democratic instead.

This escapes Nader's critics, such as the two featured in the film,
Nation magazine columnist Eric Alterman and author and 1960s icon Todd
Gitlin. NASA should check them out - just mention "Ralph Nader" and they
go ballistic. They engage in an orgy of angry name calling, labeling
Nader an egomaniac, irrational ... "prefabricated purity" ... "borders
on the wicked" ... responsible for the Iraq war and the destruction of
the environment ... They don't directly challenge anything of substance
amongst the views of Nader or his supporters. They're not at all
impressed with what I find most exhilarating - the unique phenomenon of
a noted public political figure consistently standing on principle.
Nader's critics can't admit that there's principle involved in all this,
for fear of revealing their own lack of that quality, as they cling to
defending the indefensible - the idea that the Democratic Party is a
force for even liberal change, never mind progressive.

The film also gives time to other Nader critics, amongst them Michael
Moore, whom I admire more than the likes of Alterman or Gitlin. However,
it shows Moore speaking during the 2000 campaign in behalf of Nader,
telling the audience not to be afraid to vote their conscience; it then
shows him in 2004, making fun of those who call for voting for one's
conscience - Yes, the hypocrisy is that blatant. Moore is indeed a
strange political animal. The maker of "Fahrenheit 911" and "Sicko" was
until not long ago a super-avid supporter of Hillary Clinton (admitting
to even a sexual crush on her), and he has supported General Wesley
Clark for president, a genuine war criminal for his merciless 78-day
bombing assault upon Yugoslavia.

Defenders of the Democrats now ask: "Would Al Gore have invaded Iraq?"
Maybe not. He might have invaded Iran instead; that apparently was the
first choice of Israel and their American lobby. Remember that the
Clinton-Gore administration imposed eight years of heartless and
needless sanctions upon the people of Iraq, simultaneously bombing them
hundreds of times, costing the lives of more than a million people,
ruining the lives of millions more. Al Gore has already invaded Iraq.

It's an old and painful story. Democrats can not be trusted
ideologically, not even to be consistently liberal, and certainly not
progressive or radical, no matter how much we wish we could trust them,
no matter how awful the Republicans may be. In 1968 Democratic Senator
Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota was the darling of the left. He ran in the
Democratic presidential primaries on an anti-Vietnam war platform that
excited a whole generation of young people. Peaceniks and hippies, the
story goes, were getting haircuts, dressing like decent Americans, and
forsaking dope, all to be "clean for Gene" and work in his campaign.
Yet, in 1980, Gene McCarthy came out in support of Ronald Reagan against
Jimmy Carter. {1}

It's most often foreign policy which separates liberals from those
further to the left. In the post World War Two period, one of the most
revered American liberals was Senator Hubert Humphrey. But he was at the
same time a fanatical anti-communist. In 1954 he introduced a bill to
outlaw the Communist Party on the grounds that it was "an illegal
conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States by force and
violence and not a legitimate political party". When he became Lyndon
Johnson's vice-president in 1965 he supported the Vietnam War. Two years
later he was actually moved to declare to American troops in Vietnam: "I
believe that Vietnam will be marked as the place where the family of man
has gained the time it needed to finally break through to a new era of
hope and human development and justice. This is the chance we have. This
is our great adventure - and a wonderful one it is." {2}

It was the administration of the liberal Jimmy Carter that instigated
the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan in 1979, leading to
Washington's decisive role in the overthrow of a government which,
compared to what replaced it, was extremely progressive. {3}  It was
also Carter who gave Iraq the OK to invade Iran in 1980, with terrible
consequences for the two countries. {4}

No, I don't know what we should do about our leaders. The US electoral
process which we're all suffering through right now, which feels like
it's been going on non-stop forever, is replete with continual cries
from the leading candidates about some kind of "change". Whatever can
they mean? They mean nothing. And the media treats it all like some kind
of horse race, a spectator sport. Is there any election system in this
world as lacking in intellectual discussion, as hopelessly corrupted by
money, and as undemocratic as the one Americans are blessed with? Where
else in the world is the candidate with the most votes not necessarily
the winner? If we could interview each and every American voter to
determine exactly why they voted for a particular candidate, compared to
what the actual facts are about that candidate, and the results were
widely publicized, it would be such a national embarrassment the next
election might be called off. What does winning an election mean other
than that the sales campaign was successful? An outright auction for the
presidency would be more efficient, and more honest.


Another tale of a liberal

Gilbert Harrison, former editor and publisher of the influential
Washington magazine, New Republic, departed this world on January 3. I
never met the man, but in 1975, while living in London, I submitted a
review of former CIA officer Philip Agee's new book, "Inside the
Company: CIA Diary", to the magazine. The book was a shocker, providing
more detail about CIA covert operations in Latin America than any book
ever written, revealing the names of hundreds of CIA officers, agents,
and front organizations. The book had not yet appeared in the United
States and the New Republic was pleased to have what would be one of the
first reviews. At that time the magazine was still firmly in the liberal
camp. At last my writing resume would list something other than the
alternative press.

A couple of weeks later, another letter arrived from the magazine's
literary editor. She was sorry to inform me that the Editor-in-Chief,
Gilbert Harrison, had vetoed publication of my review at the last
moment. The article was returned to me, already edited for publication,
even with an issue date marked on it. Some years later, I came to
appreciate that Harrison was a typical Cold-War, anti-communist liberal
- no matter how progressive their views concerning the individual and
society, the basic tenets, assumptions, and objectives of American
foreign policy were held sacrosanct.  In 1961 the New Republic obtained
a comprehensive account of the preparations by the CIA for its upcoming
invasion of Cuba.   Harrison was a friend of President Kennedy and he
dutifully submitted the magazine's planned article to the White House
for advice. We thus have a case here of the United States about to
initiate what the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called "a
war of aggression ... not only an international crime, it is the supreme
international crime".   And an American journalist did not know whether
he should expose this.   When Kennedy asked that the story not be
printed, Harrison complied. {5} If the story had been published, it
might have led to the cancellation of the invasion, and thus the saving
of a few thousand lives on the two sides.

Ironically and sadly, just four days after Harrison's death, Philip Agee
died. We had been friends since I met him in England in 1975, shortly
after his book came out. Phil was truly a hero. He gave up his career,
his financial security, a normal family life, and his safety to work
against the CIA in one country after another that was threatened by the
Agency - Cuba, Jamaica, Grenada, Chile, Nicaragua, Venezuela. The CIA
revoked his US passport, spread all manner of false stories about him
(such as his being in the pay of the KGB), and hounded him in Europe,
getting him expelled from the UK, the Netherlands, Italy, and other
countries. The Agency had him under surveillance for much of the rest of
his life. The extreme strain this put on him may well have contributed
to the perforated ulcer which led to his death.

The CIA was, as it still is, a force for dreadful things. What could a
man of principle and idealism, with so much inside knowledge of the
workings of the Agency, do but devote his life to fighting such a force?


Oh, by the way, the Iraqis don't really want us

Did you miss this? It should have been the lead story in every newspaper
and radio and TV program in America. In the Washington Post it was on
page 14. In virtually all of the rest of the media it was on page zero,
channel zero, 0000 AM or 00.0 FM.

The US military in Iraq hired firms to conduct focus groups amongst a
cross section of the population. A summary report of the findings was
obtained by the Post. Here are some of the highlights of the report as
disclosed by the newspaper:

* Until the March 2003 US occupation Sunnis and Shiites coexisted
peacefully.

* Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the US military
invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them.

* After the United States leaves Iraq, national reconciliation will
happen "naturally".

* A sense of "optimistic possibility permeated all focus groups ... and
far more commonalities than differences are found among these seemingly
diverse groups of Iraqis".

* Dividing Iraq into three states would hinder national reconciliation.
(Only the Kurds did not reject this option.)

* Most would describe the negative elements of life in Iraq as beginning
with the US occupation.

* Few mentioned Saddam Hussein as a cause of their problems, which the
report described as an important finding, implying that "the current
strife in Iraq seems to have totally eclipsed any agonies or grievances
many Iraqis would have incurred from the past regime, which lasted for
nearly four decades - as opposed to the current conflict, which has
lasted for five years".

The Washington Post added this note: "Outside of the military, some of
the most widespread polling in Iraq has been done by D3 Systems, a
Virginia-based company that maintains offices in each of Iraq's eighteen
provinces. Its most recent publicly released surveys, conducted in
September for several news media organizations, showed the same
widespread Iraqi belief voiced by the military's focus groups: that a US
departure will make things better. A State Department poll in September
2006 reported a similar finding". {6}

This just in: The US has found the perfect way to counteract such
foolish attitudes of the Iraqi people. On January 10, the Associated
Press reported: "US bombers and jet fighters unleashed 40,000 pounds of
explosives on the southern outskirts of Baghdad within ten minutes
Thursday in one of the biggest air strikes of the war, flattening what
the military called safe havens for al-Qaida in Iraq". There was no
mention of whether the planes had also dropped pamphlets saying: "We
bomb you because we care about you".

On December 20, the legislature of Panama declared the date to be a day
of "national mourning" in memory of the American invasion on that day in
1989. "This is a recognition of those who fell on December 20 as a
result of the cruel and unjust invasion by the most powerful army in the
world", said Representative Cesar Pardo, of the governing Democratic
Revolutionary Party, which holds a majority in the legislature. US
officials downplayed the issue. "We prefer to look to the future", said
a US Embassy spokesman. "We are very satisfied to have a friend and
partner like Panama, a nation that has managed to develop a mature
democracy". {7}  As with their attack on Iraq on March 19 2003, the
United States, with no provocation or international legality (yes,
another war of aggression), first bombed Panama, then staged a ground
invasion, killing as many as a few thousand, while offering no
believable reason for their psychopathic behavior. {8}

Will we some day see in a free and independent Iraq the setting of March
19 as a day of national mourning?


Some further thought re the 9/11 truth movement

When I say, as I did in last month's report, that I don't think that
9-11 was an "inside job", it's not because I believe that men like Dick
Cheney, George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, et al are not morally depraved
enough to carry out such a monstrous act; these men each has a piece
missing, a piece that's shaped like a social conscience; they
consciously and directly instigated the current Iraqi and Afghanistan
horrors which have already cost many more American lives than were lost
on 9/11, not to mention more than a million Iraqis and Afghans who
dearly wanted to remain amongst the living. In the Gulf War of 1991,
Cheney and other American leaders purposely destroyed
electricity-generating plants, water-pumping systems, and sewage systems
in Iraq, then imposed sanctions upon the country making the repair of
the infrastructure extremely difficult. Then, after twelve years, when
the Iraqi people had performed the heroic task of getting these systems
working fairly well again, the US bombers came back to inflict
devastating damage to them all once more. My books and many others
document one major crime against humanity after another by our America
once so dear and cherished.

So it's not the moral question that makes me doubt the inside-job
scenario. It's the logistics of it all - the incredible complexity of
arranging it all so that it would work and not be wholly and
transparently unbelievable. That and the gross overkill - they didn't
need to destroy or smash up ALL those buildings and planes and people.
One of the twin towers killing more than a thousand would certainly have
been enough to sell the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, and Homeland
Security. The American people are not such a hard sell. They really
yearn to be true believers. Look how they scream hysterically over
Hillary and Obama.

To win over people like me, the 9/11 truth people need to present a
scenario that makes the logistics reasonably plausible. They might start
by trying to answer questions like these: Did planes actually hit the
towers and the Pentagon and crash in Pennsylvania? Were these the same
four United Airline and American Airline planes that took off from
Boston and Newark? At the time of collision, were they being piloted by
people or by remote control? If people, who were these people?

Also, why did building 7 collapse? If it was purposely demolished - why?
All the reasons I've read so far I find not very credible. As to the
films of the towers and building 7 collapsing, which make it appear that
this had to be the result of controlled demolitions - I agree, it does
indeed look that way. But what do I know? I'm no expert. It's not like
I've seen, in person or on film, numerous examples of buildings
collapsing due to controlled demolition and numerous other examples of
buildings collapsing due to planes crashing into them, so I could make
an intelligent distinction. We are told by the 9/11 truth people that no
building constructed like the towers has ever collapsed due to fire. But
how about fire plus a full-size, loaded airplane smashing into it? How
many examples of that do we have?

But there's one argument those who support the official version use
against the skeptics that I would question. It's the argument that if
the government planned the operation there would have to have been many
people in on the plot, and surely by now one of them would have talked
and the mainstream media would have reported their stories. But in fact
a number of firemen, the buildings' janitor, and others have testified
to hearing many explosions in the towers some time after the planes
crashed, supporting the theory of planted explosives. But scarce little
of this has made it to the media. Likewise, following the JFK
assassination at least two men came forward afterward and identified
themselves as being one of the three "tramps" on the grassy knoll in
Dallas. So what happened? The mainstream media ignored them both. I know
of them only because the tabloid press ran their stories. One of the men
was the father of actor Woody Harrelson.

Notes

{1} San Francisco Chronicle (October 24 1980), page 7

{2} United Press International (UPI) dispatch from Saigon (October 31 1967)

{3} See interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's national security
adviser - http://members.aol.com/bblum6/brz.htm

{4} http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile5.html

{5} Victor Marchetti and John Marks, "The CIA and the Cult of
Intelligence" (1975), page 307; Peter Wyden, "Bay of Pigs: The Untold
Story" (1979), pages 142-3

{6} Washington Post (December 19 2007) article plus accompanying
sidebar; see also the Anti-Empire Report of August 18 2006, last item,
for another Post article demonstrating the belief of the Iraqi people,
as well as American military personnel, that things would be better if
the US left the country.

{7} Associated Press (December 20 2007)

{8} For the full details, see William Blum, "Killing Hope", chapter 50.


William Blum is the author of:-

Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War Two
(Common Courage Press, 1995)

Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower (Zed Books, 2002)

West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir (Soft Skull Press, 2002)

Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire (Common
Courage Press, 2004)


Portions of the books can be read, and copies purchased, at
http://www.killinghope.org and previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read
at this website.

To add yourself to this mailing list 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.

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer53.htm

TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this
essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/