The New York Times (12/11/18) takes posthumous potshots at a historian who documented the history of US intervention that the Times often leaves out.
You know you’ve lived well—well enough to rattle the establishment—when the New York Times smears you in the obituary it runs about you (FAIR.org, 6/20/13).
That distinction was achieved by William Blum, historian and critic of US foreign policy. Once a State Department computer programmer who aspired to “take part in the great anti-Communist crusade,” he quit government in 1967 out of disgust with the Vietnam War and became a founding editor of the Washington Free Press, one of the first alternative papers of the New Left. In books like The CIA: A Forgotten History (re-released as Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II) and Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, Blum documented the violent and anti-democratic record of the US empire; he was a reference that FAIR frequently turned to when noting what was missing from the corporate media’s version of history.
How did the New York Times (12/11/18) frame this remarkable life? With this remarkable headline:
William Blum, US Policy Critic Cited by bin Laden, Dies at 85
Yes, to the Times, the most important thing about Bill Blum’s life is that Osama bin Laden once remarked to Americans, in a tape released from hiding, that Rogue State would be “useful for you to read.”
“Blum denounced the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington,” obituary writer Sam Roberts acknowledged, “and said he would not want to live under an Islamic fundamentalist regime.” But, Roberts scolded,
he did not disavow the recommendation or express regret that bin Laden, the orchestrator of those attacks, shared his disdain for the policies carried out by the department where he had once worked.
It’s unclear what formulation Roberts was looking for from Blum; should he have denied that his book would be “useful…to read,” or wished aloud that bin Laden had been a supporter of the State Department policies? There are certainly some policies where you’d find the State Department, Al Qaeda and the New York Times on one side, and Blum on the other—such as the invasion of Afghanistan that bin Laden hoped to provoke with the 9/11 attacks, and the protection of Idlib, Al Qaeda’s last stronghold in Syria, from Syrian government attack. Should the Times “express regret” that it finds itself on the same side as the 9/11 orchestrators? The editors would no doubt protest that they backed the invasion of Afghanistan and the defense of Idlib for very different reasons than Al Qaeda would, but that’s a distinction that they don’t grant their ideological enemies.
Zbigniew Brzezinski
If it wanted to give a better sense of the relationship between William Blum, the US foreign policy establishment and Islamic extremism, it might have noted that it was William Blum who spotted and translated (with David Gibbs) the interview Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, gave to the French publication Le Nouvel Observateur (1/15/98). In the interview, Brzezinski boasted of launching a secret program in 1979 to undermine the government of Afghanistan, a covert operation that he correctly predicted “was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.” Asked by the interviewer, “Do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?” Brzezinski responded:
What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?
When Brzezinksi died in 2017, his New York Times obituary did not bear the headline, “Brzezinski, Official Who Boasted of Promoting Al Qaeda, Dies at 89″—though surely that is more relevant to Brzezinski’s legacy than bin Laden’s book review is to Blum’s.
The Blum obit achieved what former FAIR staffer Peter Hart described as “peak NY Times” with this petty putdown:
He also reiterated his unpopular, but not unique, position that American intervention abroad had been breeding enemies and inviting terrorism.
It’s not clear how “unpopular” Blum’s views were—in a 2013 YouGov poll, 61 percent agreed with the statement, “In the long run, the United States will be safer from terrorism if it stays out of other countries’ affairs”—but what is certainly “not unique” was the Times‘ attempt to use an obituary to settle ideological scores.
You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com (Twitter:@NYTimes). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
Featured image: William Blum (cc photo: Debra Sweet)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FAIR’s work is sustained by our generous contributors, who allow us to remain independent. Donate today to be a part of this important mission.
Speaking ill of the dead
Who were never allowed to answer in life
Oh NY Times, one William Blum is worth a googol of bad reporters. Sadly, NY Times, I have to leave you, along with CNN, as both of you are creators of snarky opinions , which are not news. Funny though isn’t it, that GWH Bush is seen as unblemished perfection—-truth withers so easily, doesn’t it.
And The Washington Post just did theirs — with practically the exact same title: “William Blum, policy critic of U.S. praised by Osama bin Laden, dies at 85”
Our Free and Diverse media in action…
Oh damn! Another excellent critic of the US government gone, along with Ed Herman. I read his books and enjoyed his newsletter. Sad times for political truth.
And the NYT and WaPo are just laughable trying to score points after the whistle, with 3rd grade level ‘guilt by association’ type of headlines ( I can’t help but think of killers you read about who cite Old Testament biblical text as justification for their horrible crimes —- would these publications implicate biblical authors in these murders?)
He was an excellent analyst and helped balance critical thought. He will be missed. However, and I am sure I will be barked at emotionally for this, the one thing most people will recognize in association with him is that link to Osama bin Laden. Honestly, if they left out a big draw for the uneducated masses you can be sure that few new readers would be exposed to his work. The real crime is that his exposure is limited in scope. We need to remain level headed and keep our emotions out of analysis if we are to survive this global firestorm of “feels”.
Sam Roberts- eye roll, that punk.
Sad news about William Blum!
After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, President Carter abandoned efforts to ratify the SALT 2 nuclear weapons treaty, threatened nuclear war, demanded athletes boycott the Moscow Olympics and signed the infamous PD 59 nuclear war-fighting memo. Grain sales were also banned.
Somewhere along the line, he forgot to mention that his administration had deliberately plotted to de-stabilize the Afghan government in order to cause the Soviet invasion in the first place.
Blum’s revelation truly shocked me so I tried to verify it by looking at the original article. What he claimed was totally accurate.
I cannot imagine Reagan or even Nixon doing something as totally evil as what Carter did.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was regularly trotted out to justify the cold war and yet we were never told about how the US plotted to help make it happen in the first place.
The people of America and Britain do not know about this totally disgusting episode.
The New York Times: all the bullshit that’s fit to print. rest in peace William Blum a bold truthteller and mythbuster and during my lifetime may we interview more men like him when they are alive like Yves Engler, Mark Curtis, John Pilger, Michael Parenti, Michel Chossudvsky and more.
Well said. Much respect to William Blum.