RE: C-SPAN: William Blum in the Media Whirlwind

Saturday, January 28, 2006
William Blum in the Media Whirlwind
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/blumcspan01282006/

William Blum, author of Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, appeared on C-Span’s “Washington Journal” program this morning to discuss his views on U.S. foreign policy. Blum’s appearance on C-Span comes a little more than a week after Osama bin Laden, in an audiotape message, purportedly recommended that Americans read Rogue State.

During the 45-minute program, Blum answered questions from the host and took calls from viewers. Below is the transcript of Blum’s Jan. 28, 2006 appearance on C-Span.

C-Span host: Mr. Blum, what’s it been like for you over the last few weeks?

Blum: Very, very hectic. I haven’t slept a good night yet in the past 10 days. But I’m enjoying it.

Host: Tell us a little about the reaction you have received because of Osama bin Laden’s mention of you and your work.

Blum: Well, I’ve gotten about a thousand emails, many of which are hostile, a few even threatening. But I’ve also gotten plenty of support, even some old friends who I haven’t seen in many years have contacted me. I’ve been on a media whirlwind, which is very new to me. I was on TV for the first time in my life, I think it was. I’m looking forward to going back to my normal daily routine actually.

Host: Why hostile, why threatening emails and words?

Blum: Because they think I’m giving aid and comfort to the enemy. That’s one of the main arguments. They’re very upset by that. I’ll give you my answer, which I give to them. My answer is on the one hand, I have nothing but intense dislike for religious fundamentalism and the kinds of societies spawned by such fundamentalism, like the Taliban in Afghanistan. That should be clear. I have total distaste for them. On the other hand, I’m a member of a movement, which has the high ambition of slowing down, if not stopping, the American empire and hoping to cease its continuation of very hostile actions all over the world, like the bombings and the interventions and the overthrowing governments and the torture and so on that’s been going on for a long, long time. And we’re committed to slowing that down. And to do that, we have to reach the American public. And to reach the American public, we have to have access to the mass media, which we normally don’t. I mean I certainly don’t. And so because of what happened, I’ve had much more access to the mass media than I ever imagined I would. And for that reason, I’m glad it happened.

Host: Did you attempt to distance yourself once bin Laden’s statements came out about your book and your work?

Blum: From the first moment, I’ve kept a distance from him and his philosophy and his politics. But I have not said that I am sorry that it happened. For the reason I just gave, I’m not sorry.

Host: So, because it assists you in your cause?

Blum: Yes, exactly.

Host: For those who are not familiar with the work, could you give a synopsis of “Rogue State”?

Blum: The first version of that book came out in the year 2000 following the American bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, which we were told by the government was an act of humanitarianism. And I was inspired thusly to sit down and write this book, which is in effect a mini-encyclopedia of the many kinds of unhumanitarian policies of U.S. foreign policy. It’s a catalog of all those things. There’s chapters on torture, on interventions, and overthrowing governments, and the use of chemical and biological weapons and interference in elections. All the less-than-nice things our government has done over the past 60 years in its foreign policy.

Host: The quote that Osama bin Laden used specifically when he referenced your work, that doesn’t come from this book?

Blum: I had forgotten at first about this. It comes from the edition published in the UK. The first version came out in 2000 in the States. But in 2002 an English version came out in the UK. That version is what became the Arabic edition of the book. And I assume it was the Arabic version of that edition, which was read by bin Laden. And so he was right. It’s in that version.

Host: Your publisher is reacting to this how?

Blum: With great sorrow that he doesn’t have enough copies on hand. We’re sold out completely. We had only a small amount anyhow. We’re sold out and it’ll be a few weeks before any copies are available. So I ask anyone who wants to buy a copy to please have patience. It will be the end of February before copies are available again.

Host: What do you want to do politically with the experiences that you’re getting now? What happens next?

Blum: Well, I’m just glad that it’s happening now. I’ll be dealing with the media and with the emails for some time yet, I guess.

[Viewer call-in segment]

Detroit, Michigan: Hi, first I want to make it clear. I am not condoning Osama bin Laden … he’s a murderer. He’s a killer. He should have been caught already. He’s the one that did 9/11. This administration used that to go to Iraq. And everything they do, everything, is related to terrorism. They keep scaring the American people. It’s about time Americans stood up. Do they know that in Iraq, with all those bombs, that there might be somebody in this house when they start bombing these houses? Between 150,000 and 200,000 Iraqis are dead. Not the insurgents, but the men, women, babies, children. Collateral damage they keep calling it. This government is scary. They want power. They want to go do whatever they want. Secrets. The energy thing. Everything is a secret to them. We pay them. It comes out of our tax money. They’re supposed to serve us.

Blum: Yes, I’m confused. At first I thought the caller was opposed to me. But with the way he finished up, it sounds like he’s on my side. One thought, though. He says we went to Iraq because of 9/11. That is fallacious, I think. We’re there for other reasons, like oil for one. Saddam Hussein had no connection whatsoever with 9/11 or with al-Qaeda.

Sherman Oaks, California: Yes, Mr. Blum, how proud you must be that you get such a great review from the man that the Democrats admire so much, Osama bin Laden. You’re making money off the man, the perpetrator of 9/11. Again, you must be so proud, you and the other Democrats on the hate America Left. You know that you’re putting the final nail in the coffin of the Democratic Party, and for that, I am grateful. And have you ever worked on your lisp?

Blum: First of all, I am not a Democrat at all, of the party. So I don’t know why you assume that. Secondly, that party has not endorsed bin Laden, even though you say that. And thirdly, I have never used the word proud. I’m not proud of the endorsement. I’m glad of it. It’s not the same thing at all.

Newport, Rhode Island: Good morning gentleman. Mr. Blum, I sincerely appreciate you being on. I want to apologize for all the ignoramuses and the neocons that want to reframe the question. … I come from an open mind. I can completely understand your philosophy, your factorial information on your book. You are trying to pose the question to people who are of an open mind to look at our terrible foreign policy, all of the things that President Bush said he was going to do and he’s done the complete opposite for this country. We have increased terrorism. We have increased our enemies. All you’re trying to do, I believe, is speak out in regards to this, to stand up for our nation for what we stand up for, not to stand against this country or this administration or anything. And people need to have an open mind and stop their ignorance and always immediately assume that you’re some kind of a liberal or a progressive or whatever. You are more patriotic than a lot of people. To come on TV and people to see you and all of the threats that you’ve had against you, I am so proud of you and I hope that God and that the American people will stand up for you along with the American citizens to stop this kind of terrible diplomacy—I can’t even really use the word—and God bless you and keep the good work and I really admire your strength and courage.

Blum: Thank you very much. One point you mention, which is very important, is that our foreign policy is in fact creating terrorists, anti-American terrorists. And this was confirmed last year by a CIA report, which said exactly that. And that by itself is reason enough for us to leave Iraq.

Rochester, New York: Hi Mr. Blum. I’m just waking up and catching this program. It’s nice to wake up to a good discussion. I don’t feel for or against you in any way but I was curious about your comments that you may have on one historical fact. I subscribe somewhat to some of the neocon philosophy and also Tom Barnett’s “Pentagon’s New Map.” And that is, in the absence of the cold war keeping a lid on pressure cookers, after 1990, things have been popping up left and right where we have to keep things in check. We have to be the world’s police in some way, shape or form. Otherwise, we’re dealing with mass chaos. If you went into a time machine and went back to 1900 and asked people, would there be more than a 100 democratic countries, nations in the world in the year 2000? People would have been shocked and said, “no way.” If you would have gone to 1945 and said, how would Germany and Japan end up? And now they’re two of the top five economic powers in the world. If you would have gone to 1947, when the Marshall Plan was investing in countries like Greece and gone to 2002 where the Olympics were held with Russia taking part. I would agree with you that short-term wise, we are creating more terrorism. But long-term strategic plans to reshape the world go back to Wilson and Truman. Those policies and long-term strategies.

Blum: Well, the world has never asked us to be the policeman for the whole world. And I think if we took a poll right now amongst the people of the world, you would find great opposition to what you were just saying. In fact, the polls do show that. Major polls of the past few years in the Middle East and elsewhere have shown that people in the Middle East, for example, are not opposed to our freedom and democracy, as we are told by the White House. They are not opposed to our culture, our music, our television. They are opposed to our foreign policy. That is what separates them from other people. We are going to continue to create terrorists as long as our foreign policy doesn’t change. And being the world’s policeman is not a way to change. That’s the way it’s been.

Astoria, Oregon: Good morning. … I agree with everything that the author says about our foreign policy and its impact on the world. But I do have a defense for him that he might be able to use. And that is on Sept. 12, Noam Chomsky has mentioned in many talks that he predicted that every repressive regime in this world would begin to call the rebellions of the people terrorism. No one ever says anything about that. Nobody ever says George Bush is promoting terrorism around world or promoting these repressive regimes or getting in bed with them and that kind of thing. So, I think that’s sort of the opposite situation, where you have Osama bin Laden happening to read his book and say something about it. And then on the other hand, you’ve got these repressive regimes saying, “we’ve got to fight this terrorism,” which is just usually a people’s rebellion.

Blum: The word terrorism today is used in the same way and just as loosely as the word communism was used during the Cold War. I deal with that question in my books. It’s my thesis that there was never in fact an international communist conspiracy, as we were all told. That’s a major lie. It compares with the major lie of this period that in fact Saddam Hussein had had those awful weapons then we would have been justified to invade Iraq. But that’s fallacious. What reason would he have had to attack the U.S.? Unless he has an irresistible urge for mass national suicide. That’s a big lie that’s seldom mentioned anymore.

Tallahassee, Florida: Hi Mr. Blum. Do you know how many Iraqi civilians have been killed by American actions? And by the Iraqi civilians, I mean innocent, noncombatants. Do you have a number for that? And if so, do you know where it’s published so that we can verify some of the numbers we hear?

Blum: Well, one source which comes to mind is from a year and a half ago or so. The Lancet medical journal in the U.K., they did a fairly scientific survey of the households in Iraq and determined that there were over a hundred thousand civilians killed. This was some time ago. Now it’s much more, of course. The figure that Bush gives out, 35,000 is, I’m sure, far understated.

Priest River, Idaho: Good morning, I’d like to say thank you for taking my call and thank you for C-Span. I wanted to ask the author, since Osama bin Laden did recommend his book, are there any books that you would recommend? For example, do you read any Des Griffin or anything like that?

Blum: Des Griffin? I’m not sure that I know that name.

Priest River, Idaho: He wrote the book, “Descent into Slavery”.

Blum: Speaking about U.S. foreign policy, which is my specialty, the authors I would most recommend would be Michael Parenti and Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman and Howard Zinn and Alexander Cockburn.

Minneapolis: Good morning. Thank you for taking my call. I wanted to ask the gentleman, does he consider his politics of a Democrat or a Republican? And since he wrote the book in 2000 condemning the bombing of the former Yugoslavia, what is opinion about the fact that if Saddam was left alone and the sanctions were removed, he would have eventually possessed nuclear weapons, which would have been a danger to the world? So it was better to take him out now. And also, does he feel the NSA is tapping his home? Thank you.

Blum: It’s pure speculation about whether Saddam Hussein would have had nuclear weapons if we had left him alone. But even more important, there is no reason to be frightened about that any more than being frightened by Pakistan having such weapons, or India or England or France or Israel or the U.S. or China. Why do we single out Saddam Hussein and Iraq for being this nuclear threat? The world is full of such possible threats. But I wouldn’t single him out. And I think your first question had to do with my party affiliation. I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I’m independent of both parties. When it comes to foreign policy, I must emphasize this, in my mind, there is absolutely no distinction whatsoever between the two major parties when it comes to foreign policy.

Host: Our guest does have a website. It’s KillingHope.org. Why the website address of Killing Hope?

Blum: That’s the name of my main book. The full title is Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Intervention Since World War II.

Host: And what will people find on your website?

Blum: They’ll find a description and chapters from each of my books, with links to each of them.

Orchard Park, New York: Mr. Blum, you’re a breath of fresh air. Let me ask a little different type of question. We all know that the Bush administration was in a full-court press to invade Iraq. But let me ask you, sir, why the American media seemed to be a cheerleader. For example, as you know, over 60% of the American people in an accurate poll fully believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Now, they all didn’t wake up and feel that. It was the American media, including your own host here in this morning, that allowed call after call after call saying because of 9/11, we must invade Iraq. You see the slippery connection that’s been made. And I don’t recall anybody on C-Span or the media saying forcefully there is no connection. Your comments, sir.

Blum: I think that the figure you give of 60% may have been the case shortly after we invaded Iraq. But I think now it’s down to 20% or something. It’s so outlandish a belief to hold in the absence of any evidence that I’m surprised it’s even 20%.

Houston, Texas: Yes, good morning. I’d like to ask Mr. Blum where he was born and a brief background on his upbringing and education and how he became such an expert