Paul Craig Roberts<\/p>\n
William Blum shares with us his correspondence with Washington Post presstitute Michael Birnbaum. As you can tell from Birnbaum\u2019s replies, he comes across as either very stupid or as a CIA asset.<\/p>\n
When I received my briefing as staff associate, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which required top secret clearance, I was told by senior members of the staff that the Washington Post was a CIA asset. Watching the Washington Post\u2019s takedown of President Richard Nixon with the orchestrated Watergate story, that became obvious. President Nixon had made too many overtures to the Soviets and too many arms limitations agreements, and he opened to China. Watching President Nixon\u2019s peace initiatives water down the threat level from the Soviet Union and Maoist China, the military\/security complex saw a threat to its budget and power and decided that Nixon had to go. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy had resulted in far too much skepticism about the Warren Commission Report, so the CIA decided to use the Washington Post to get rid of Nixon. To keep the clueless American left hating Nixon, the CIA used its assets in the leftwing to keep Nixon blamed for the Vietnam war, a war that Nixon inherited and did not want.<\/p>\n
The CIA knew that Nixon\u2019s problem was that he could not exit the war without losing his conservative base, which was convinced of the nonsensical \u201cDomino Theory.\u201d I have always wondered if the CIA concocted the \u201cDomino Theory,\u201d as it so well served them. Unable to get rid of the war \u201cwith honor,\u201d Nixon was driven to brutal methods to force the North Vietnamese to accept a situation that he could depart without defeat and soiling America\u2019s \u201chonor\u201d and losing his conservative support base. The North Vietnamese wouldn\u2019t bend, but the US Congress did, and so the CIA succeeded in discrediting among both the leftwing and righwing Nixon\u2019s war management. With no one to defend him, Nixon was an easy target for the CIA.<\/p>\n
Here is Blum\u2019s exchange with Birnbaum. It is possible that Birnbaum is neither stupid nor a CIA asset, but just a person wanting to hold on to a job. The last thing he can afford to do is to disabuse readers of the \u201cRussian Threat\u201d when Bezos\u2019 Amazon and Washington Post properties are dependent on the CIA\u2019s annual subsidy of $600 million disquised as a \u201ccontract.\u201dhttp:\/\/www.zerohedge.com\/news\/2016-12-20\/cia-washington-post-and-russia-what-youre-not-being-told<\/a><\/p>\n The Anti-Empire Report # 159<\/strong> The mind of the mass media: Email exchange between myself and a leading Washington Post foreign policy reporter:<\/em> Dear Mr. Birnbaum, Dear Mr. Blum, To MB, To WB, ======================= end of exchange =======================<\/p>\n Right, the United States doesn\u2019t play indispensable roles in changes of foreign governments; never has, never will; even when they offer billions of dollars; even when they pick the new president, which, apparently, is not the same as picking sides. It should be noticed that Mr Birnbaum offers not a single example to back up his extremist claim that RT \u201creports fabrications and terrible falsehoods all the time.\u201d \u201cAll the time\u201d, no less! That should make it easy to give some examples.<\/p>\n For the record, I think RT is much less biased than the Post on international affairs. And, yes, it\u2019s bias, not \u201cfake news\u201d that\u2019s the main problem \u2013 Cold-War\/anti-Communist\/anti-Russian bias that Americans have been raised with for a full century. RT defends Russia against the countless mindless attacks from the West. Who else is there to do that? Should not the Western media be held accountable for what they broadcast? Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing the Russian side defended, or hearing it at all, that when they do it can seem rather weird.<\/p>\n To the casual observer, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA indictments of July 14 of Russian intelligence agents (GRU) reinforced the argument that the Soviet government interfered in the US 2016 presidential election. Regard these indictments in proper perspective and we find that election interference is only listed as a supposed objective, with charges actually being for unlawful cyber operations, identity theft, and conspiracy to launder money by American individuals unconnected to the Russian government. So \u2026 we\u2019re still waiting for some evidence of actual Russian interference in the election aimed at determining the winner.<\/p>\n The Russians did it (cont.) Each day brings headlines like these:<\/p>\n \u201cU.S. to add economic sanctions on Russia: Attack with nerve agent on former spy in England forces White House to act\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIs Russia exploiting new Facebook goal?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cExperts: Trump team lacks urgency on Russian threat\u201d<\/p>\n These are all from the same day, August 9, which led me to thinking of doing this article, but similar stories can be found any day in the Post and in major newspapers anywhere in America. None of the articles begins to explain how Russia did these things, or even WHY. Motivation appears to have become a lost pursuit in the American mass media. The one thing sometimes mentioned, which I think may have some credibility, is Russia\u2019s preference of Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016. But this doesn\u2019t begin to explain how Russia could pull off any of the electoral magic it\u2019s accused of, which would be feasible only if the United States were a backward, Third World, Banana Republic.<\/p>\n There\u2019s the Facebook ads, as well as all the other ads \u2026 The people who are influenced by this story \u2013 have they read many of the actual ads? Many are pro-Clinton or anti-Trump; many are both; many are neither. It\u2019s one big mess, the only rational explanation of this which I\u2019ve read is that they come from money-making websites, \u201cclick-bait\u201d sites as they\u2019re known, which earn money simply by attracting visitors.<\/p>\n As to the nerve agents, it makes more sense if the UK or the CIA did it to make the Russians look bad, because the anti-Russian scandal which followed was totally predictable. Why would Russia choose the time of the World Cup in Moscow \u2013 of which all of Russia was immensely proud \u2013 to bring such notoriety down upon their head? But that would have been an ideal time for their enemies to want to embarrass them.<\/p>\n However, I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans who follow the news each day believe the official stories about the Russians. They\u2019re particularly impressed with the fact that every US intelligence agency supports the official stories. They would not be impressed at all if told that a dozen Russian intelligence agencies all disputed the charges. Group-think is alive and well all over the world. As is Cold War II.<\/p>\n But we\u2019re the Good Guys, ain\u2019t we?<\/p>\n For a defender of US foreign policy there\u2019s very little that causes extreme heartburn more than someone implying a \u201cmoral equivalence\u201d between American behavior and that of Russia. That was the case during Cold War I and it\u2019s the same now in Cold War II. It just drives them up the wall.<\/p>\n After the United States passed a law last year requiring TV station RT (Russia Today) to register as a \u201cforeign agent\u201d, the Russians passed their own law allowing authorities to require foreign media to register as a \u201cforeign agent\u201d. Senator John McCain denounced the new Russian law, saying there is \u201cno equivalence\u201d between RT and networks such as Voice of America, CNN and the BBC, whose journalists \u201cseek the truth, debunk lies, and hold governments accountable.\u201d By contrast, he said, \u201cRT\u2019s propagandists debunk the truth, spread lies, and seek to undermine democratic governments in order to further Vladimir Putin\u2019s agenda.\u201d<\/p>\n And here is Tom Malinowski, former Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor (2014-2017) \u2013 last year he reported that Putin had \u201ccharged that the U.S. government had interfered \u2018aggressively\u2019 in Russia\u2019s 2012 presidential vote,\u201d claiming that Washington had \u201cgathered opposition forces and financed them.\u201d Putin, wrote Malinowski, \u201capparently got President Trump to agree to a mutual commitment that neither country would interfere in the other\u2019s elections.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIs this moral equivalence fair?\u201d Malinowski asked and answered: \u201cIn short, no. Russia\u2019s interference in the United States\u2019 2016 election could not have been more different from what the United States does to promote democracy in other countries.\u201d<\/p>\n How do you satirize such officials and such high-school beliefs?<\/p>\n We also have the case of the US government agency, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has interfered in more elections than the CIA or God. Indeed, the man who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, Allen Weinstein, declared in 1991: \u201cA lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.\u201d On April 12, 2018 the presidents of two of NED\u2019s wings wrote: \u201cA specious narrative has come back into circulation: that Moscow\u2019s campaign of political warfare is no different from U.S.-supported democracy assistance.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cDemocracy assistance\u201d, you see, is what they call NED\u2019s election-interferences and government-overthrows. The authors continue: \u201cThis narrative is churned out by propaganda outlets such as RT and Sputnik [radio station]. \u2026 it is deployed by isolationists who propound a U.S. retreat from global leadership.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIsolationists\u201d is what conservatives call critics of US foreign policy whose arguments they can\u2019t easily dismiss, so they imply that such people just don\u2019t want the US to be involved in anything abroad.<\/p>\n And \u201cglobal leadership\u201d is what they call being first in election-interferences and government-overthrows.<\/p>\n
\nWillian Blum<\/p>\n
\nJuly 18, 2018<\/p>\n
\nYou write Trump \u201cmade no mention of Russia\u2019s adventures in Ukraine\u201d. Well, neither he nor Putin nor you made any mention of America\u2019s adventures in the Ukraine, which resulted in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014, which led to the justified Russian adventure. Therefore \u2026?
\nIf Russia overthrew the Mexican government would you blame the US for taking some action in Mexico?
\nWilliam Blum<\/p>\n
\nThanks for your note. \u201cAmerica\u2019s adventures in the Ukraine\u201d: what are you talking about? Last time I checked, it was Ukrainians in the streets of Kiev who caused Yanukovych to turn tail and run. Whether or not that was a good thing, we can leave aside, but it wasn\u2019t the Americans who did it.
\nIt is, however, Russian special forces who fanned out across Crimea in February and March 2014, according to Putin, and Russians who came down from Moscow who stoked conflict in eastern Ukraine in the months after, according to their own accounts.
\nBest, Michael Birnbaum<\/p>\n
\nI can scarcely believe your reply. Do you read nothing but the Post? Do you not know of high State Dept official Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador in Ukraine in Maidan Square to encourage the protesters? She spoke of 5 billion (sic) dollars given to aid the protesters who were soon to overthrow the govt. She and the US Amb. spoke openly of who to choose as the next president. And he\u2019s the one who became president. This is all on tape. I guess you never watch Russia Today (RT). God forbid! I read the Post every day. You should watch RT once in a while.
\nWilliam Blum<\/p>\n
\nI was the Moscow bureau chief of the newspaper; I reported extensively in Ukraine in the months and years following the protests. My observations are not based on reading. RT is not a credible news outlet, but I certainly do read far beyond our own pages, and of course I talk to the actual actors on the ground myself \u2013 that\u2019s my job.
\nAnd: yes, of course Nuland was in the Maidan \u2013 but encouraging the protests, as she clearly did, is not the same as sparking them or directing them, nor is playing favorites with potential successors, as she clearly did, the same as being directly responsible for overthrowing the government. I\u2019m not saying the United States wasn\u2019t involved in trying to shape events. So were Russia and the European Union. But Ukrainians were in the driver\u2019s seat the whole way through. I know the guy who posted the first Facebook call to protest Yanukovych in November 2013; he\u2019s not an American agent. RT, meanwhile, reports fabrications and terrible falsehoods all the time. By all means consume a healthy and varied media diet \u2013 don\u2019t stop at the US mainstream media. But ask yourself how often RT reports critically on the Russian government, and consider how that lacuna shapes the rest of their reporting. You will find plenty of reporting in the Washington Post that is critical of the US government and US foreign policy in general, and decisions in Ukraine and the Ukrainian government in specific. Our aim is to be fair, without picking sides.
\nBest, Michael Birnbaum<\/p>\n
\nEach day I spend about three hours reading the Washington Post. Amongst other things I\u2019m looking for evidence \u2013 real, legal, courtroom-quality evidence, or at least something logical and rational \u2013 to pin down those awful Russkis for their many recent crimes, from influencing the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election to use of a nerve agent in the UK. But I do not find such evidence.<\/p>\n