http://williamblum.org/aer/read/114
The Anti-Empire Report #114
By William Blum - Published March 11th, 2013
Hugo Chávez
I once wrote about Chilean president Salvador Allende:
Washington knows no heresy in the Third World but genuine
independence. In the case of Salvador Allende independence came
clothed in an especially provocative costume - a Marxist
constitutionally elected who continued to honor the constitution.
This would not do. It shook the very foundation stones upon which
the anti-communist tower is built: the doctrine, painstakingly
cultivated for decades, that "communists" can take power only
through force and deception, that they can retain that power only
through terrorizing and brainwashing the population. There could be
only one thing worse than a Marxist in power - an elected Marxist in
power.
There was no one in the entire universe that those who own and run
"United States, Inc." wanted to see dead more than Hugo Chávez. He
was worse than Allende. Worse than Fidel Castro. Worse than any world
leader not in the American camp because he spoke out in the most
forceful terms about US imperialism and its cruelty. Repeatedly.
Constantly. Saying things that heads of state are not supposed to
say. At the United Nations, on a shockingly personal level about
George W. Bush. All over Latin America, as he organized the region
into anti-US-Empire blocs.
Long-term readers of this report know that I'm not much of a
knee-reflex conspiracy theorist. But when someone like Chávez dies at
the young age of 58 I have to wonder about the circumstances.
Unremitting cancer, intractable respiratory infections, massive heart
attack, one after the other It is well known that during the Cold
War, the CIA worked diligently to develop substances that could kill
without leaving a trace. I would like to see the Venezuelan
government pursue every avenue of investigation in having an autopsy
performed.
Back in December 2011, Chávez, already under treatment for cancer,
wondered out loud: "Would it be so strange that they've invented the
technology to spread cancer and we won't know about it for 50 years?"
The Venezuelan president was speaking one day after Argentina's
leftist president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, announced she had
been diagnosed with thyroid cancer. This was after three other
prominent leftist Latin America leaders had been diagnosed with
cancer: Brazil's president, Dilma Rousseff; Paraguay's Fernando Lugo;
and the former Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
"Evo take care of yourself. Correa, be careful. We just don't know,"
Chávez said, referring to Bolivia's president, Evo Morales, and
Rafael Correa, the president of Ecuador, both leading leftists.
Chávez said he had received words of warning from Fidel Castro,
himself the target of hundreds of failed and often bizarre CIA
assassination plots. "Fidel always told me: 'Chávez take care. These
people have developed technology. You are very careless. Take care
what you eat, what they give you to eat a little needle and they
inject you with I don't know what." 1
When Vice President Nicolas Maduro suggested possible American
involvement in Chávez's death, the US State Department called the
allegation absurd. 2
Several progressive US organizations have filed a Freedom of
Information Act request with the CIA, asking for "any information
regarding or plans to poison or otherwise assassinate the President
of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, who has just died."
I personally believe that Hugo Chávez was murdered by the United
States. If his illness and death were NOT induced, the CIA - which
has attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, many
successfully 3 - was not doing its job.
When Fidel Castro became ill several years ago, the American
mainstream media was unrelenting in its conjecture about whether the
Cuban socialist system could survive his death. The same speculation
exists now in regard to Venezuela. The Yankee mind can't believe that
large masses of people can turn away from capitalism when shown a
good alternative. It could only be the result of a dictator
manipulating the public; all resting on one man whose death would
mark finis to the process.
It's the end of the world again
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) recent
convention in Washington produced the usual Doomsday talk concerning
Iran's imminent possession of nuclear weapons and with calls to bomb
that country before they nuked Israel and/or the United States. So
once again I have to remind everyone that these people - Israeli and
American officials - are not really worried about an Iranian attack.
Here are some of their many prior statements:
In 2007, in a closed discussion, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni
said that in her opinion "Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an
existential threat to Israel." She "also criticized the exaggerated
use that [Israeli] Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue
of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the
public around him by playing on its most basic fears." 4
2009: "A senior Israeli official in Washington", reported the
Washington Post (March 5), asserted that "Iran would be unlikely to
use its missiles in an attack [against Israel] because of the
certainty of retaliation."
In 2010 the Sunday Times of London (January 10) reported that
Brigadier-General Uzi Eilam, war hero, pillar of the Israeli defense
establishment, and former director-general of Israel's Atomic Energy
Commission, "believes it will probably take Iran seven years to make
nuclear weapons."
January 2012: US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told a television
audience: "Are they [Iran] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No,
but we know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability." 5
Later that month we could read in the New York Times (January 15)
that "three leading Israeli security experts - the Mossad chief,
Tamir Pardo, a former Mossad chief, Efraim Halevy, and a former
military chief of staff, Dan Halutz - all recently declared that a
nuclear Iran would not pose an existential threat to Israel."
Then, a few days afterward, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, in
an interview with Israeli Army Radio (January 18), had this exchange:
Question: "Is it Israel's judgment that Iran has not yet decided to
turn its nuclear potential into weapons of mass destruction?"
Barak: "People ask whether Iran is determined to break out from the
control [inspection] regime right now in an attempt to obtain
nuclear weapons or an operable installation as quickly as possible.
Apparently that is not the case."
In an April 20, 2012 CNN interview Barak repeated this sentiment:
"It's true that probably [Iranian leader] Khamenei has not given
orders to start building a [nuclear] weapon." 6
And on several other occasions, Barak has stated: "Iran does not
constitute an existential threat against Israel." 7
Lastly, we have the US Director of National Intelligence, James
Clapper, in a January 2012 report to Congress: "We do not know,
however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons."
There are "certain things [the Iranians] have not done" that would be
necessary to build a warhead. 8
So why, then, do Israeli and American leaders, at most other times,
maintain the Doomsday rhetoric? Partly for AIPAC to continue getting
large donations. For Israel to get massive amounts of US aid. For
Israeli leaders to win elections. To protect Israel's treasured
status as the Middle East's sole nuclear power.
Listen to Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense
policy studies at America's most prominent neo-con think tank,
American Enterprise Institute:
The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a
nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon
and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they
don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back
and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you
Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them
immediately." And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear
weapons as not a problem. 9
Osama bin Laden, Bradley Manning, & William Blum
Bradley Manning has the charge of "Aiding the enemy" hanging over his
head. This could lead to a sentence of life in prison. As far as can
be deduced, the government believes that the documents and videos
that Manning gave to Wikileaks, which Wikileaks then widely
distributed to international media, aided the enemy because it put US
foreign policy in a very bad light.
Manning's attorneys have asked the prosecution more than once for
specific examples of how "the enemy" (whoever that may refer to in a
world full of people bitterly angry at the United States because of
any of many terrible acts carried out by the US government) has been
"aided" by the Wikileaks disclosures. Just how has the enemy made use
of the released material to harm the United States? The government
has not provided any such examples, probably because what really
bothers Washington officials is the embarrassment they have
experienced before the world resulting from the documents and videos;
which indeed are highly embarrassing even to genuine war criminals;
filled with violations of international law, atrocities, multiple
lies to everyone, revelations of gross hypocrisy, and much more.
So our splendid officials are considering putting Bradley Manning in
prison forever simply because they're embarrassed. Hard to find much
fault with that.
But now the prosecutors have announced that a Navy Seal involved in
the killing of Osama bin Laden is going to testify at the court
martial that bin Laden possessed articles about the Wikileaks
documents that Manning leaked. Well, there must be a hundred million
other people in the world who have similar material on their
computers. The question remains: What use did the enemy make of that?
The Iraqi government made use of the material, inducing them to
refuse immunity to US troops for crimes committed in Iraq, such as
the cold-blooded murders revealed by the Wilileaks videos; this in
turn led the US to announce that it was ending its military
engagement in Iraq. However, Manning was indicted in May 2010, well
before the Iraqi decision to end the immunity.
In January, 2006 bin Laden, in an audio tape, declared: "If Bush
decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be
useful for you to read the book 'Rogue State' [by William Blum],
which states in its introduction " He then went on to quote the
opening of a paragraph I wrote (which appears actually in the
Foreword of the British edition only, that was later translated to
Arabic), which in full reads:
"If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the
United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize -
very publicly and very sincerely - to all the widows and the
orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many
millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then
announce that America's global interventions - including the awful
bombings - have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is
no longer the 51st state of the union but - oddly enough - a foreign
country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and
use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the
damage from the many American bombings and invasions. There would be
more than enough money. Do you know what one year of the US military
budget is equal to? One year. It's equal to more than $20,000 per
hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born.
"That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On
the fourth day, I'd be assassinated."
Thus, Osama bin Laden was clearly making use of what I wrote, and the
whole world heard it. And I was thus clearly "aiding the enemy". But
I was not prosecuted.
The United States would like to prove a direct use and benefit by
"the enemy" of the material released by Wikileaks; but so far it
appears that only possession might be proven. In my case the use, and
presumed propaganda benefit, were demonstrated. The fact that I wrote
the material, as opposed to "stealing" it, is irrelevant to the issue
of aiding the enemy. I knew, or should have known, that my criticisms
of US foreign policy could be used by the foes of those policies.
Indeed, that's why I write what I do. To provide ammunition to
anti-war and other activists.
The Department of Justice and socialism
For many years when I've been asked to explain just what I mean by
"socialism" I've usually replied simply: "Putting people before
profits". There are a thousand-and-one details that would have to be
considered in a transformation from a capitalist society to a
socialist society, but rather than going into all that it's much
simpler to leave it with just that motto, which expresses the essence
of my socialist society. In any event, in that glorious future world
things will evolve in ways that could not be wholly predicted. The
structure could take any one of many forms, but the essence must
remain the same if it's going to be called socialist.
Thus was I both surprised and amused in reading a news article about
the current trial in New Orleans which is attempting to determine,
amongst other things, the extent of blame of various companies,
particularly BP, involved in the 2010 historic accident which took
the lives of 11 workers and dumped an estimated 172 million gallons
of crude oil in the Gulf of Mexico. The US Justice Department
attorney declared in his opening statement: "The evidence will show
that BP put profits before people, profits before safety and profits
before the environment." 10
Well, imagine that. The Justice Department certainly captured the
essence of corporate behavior. The attorney chose such words because
he knew that the sentiments expressed would appeal to the average
American sitting on a jury. The members of the jury would understand
that BP had blatantly ignored and violated certain cherished ideals
like people, safety and the environment. Prosecuting the corporation
would sound fair and just to them.
Yet, when someone like me expresses such sentiments - and I have used
the exact same words on occasion - I run the risk of being written
off as an "extremist", a "radical", and other bad-for-you labels; not
long ago it was "commie".
The irony runs even deeper. If a corporation flagrantly ignores
putting profits before everything else, stockholders can sue the
executives.
This just in! The real reason the Pope resigned!
He's losing his mind.
In January, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta met with Pope Benedict
XVI to receive his blessing. Afterward, Panetta said the pontiff told
him, "Thank you for helping to keep the world safe." 11
The precious art of assassinating legally
Obama hopeium addicts can soon be expected to call for support of the
president's increasing use of drones for assassination on the ground
of their being good for the environment. My White House agent informs
me that Obama is going to announce that all American drones will soon
be composed 85% of recyclable material and will be solar-powered. And
each drone missile will have the following painted on its side: "He
was a bad guy. Just take our word for it!"
Notes
1 The Guardian (London), December 29, 2011
2 Huffington Post, March 7, 2013
3 http://killinghope.org/bblum6/assass.htm
4 Haaretz.com (Israel), October 25, 2007; print edition October 26
5 "Face the Nation", CBS, January 8, 2012
6 Washington Post, August 1, 2012
7 Iran Media Fact Check, "Does Israel Consider Iran an 'Existential Threat'?"
8 The Guardian (London), January 31, 2012
9 Political Correction, "American Enterprise Institute Admits The
Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes"
10 Associated Press, February 26, 2013
11 Washington Post, January 17, 2013
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel