[NYTr] Blum's Anti-Empire Report #52 - Dec 11, 2007

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Blum's Killing Hope - 
http://killinghope.org/aer52.htm

The Anti-Empire Report #52 - Dec 11, 2007

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

by William 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 ... 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 was 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 criticize 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)" 18 December 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 http://www.killinghope.org  Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read
at this website at "essays". 

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. ]


Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission.  I'd
appreciate it if the website were mentioned.