My interview with Sidney Blumenthal - full text

[WilliamPitt]

Interview: Sidney Blumenthal with William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Interview

Monday 8 December 2004

http://truthout.org/docs_03/120803A.shtml

Sidney Blumenthal was a former assistant and senior advisor to President Clinton. He is the author of several books, including ‘The Permanent Campaign,’ ‘The Rise of the Counter-Establishment,’ ‘Our Long National Daydream,’ ‘Pledging Allegiance – The Last Campaign of the Cold War,’ and most recently ‘The Clinton Wars.’ This interview took place two days before Thanksgiving. – wrp

(snip)

WRP: Do you think September 11 would have happened under President Gore, who almost certainly would have picked up where Clinton left off on these matters?

SB: I have no idea. Clearly, the terrorists intended it to happen regardless of who was President. Gore would have paid intense interest to whatever he learned from Richard Clarke, and would have done everything in his power to coordinate the effort against this. He took this issue very, very seriously. It is hard to talk about what-ifs regarding 9/11 because the one thing that we know for certain, among other things, is the dysfunctionality of the FBI, and how it wound up suppressing the crucial information that might have prevented 9/11. Whether or not that would have happened under Gore is entirely conjectural. But the FBI operated according to its own dynamic and its own rules. If any governmental entity bears responsibility for failure, the FBI has a lot to answer for.

...more...

[grytpype]

1. Love it.

quote

The press bears a great deal of responsibility in the common depiction of George W. Bush, in building up his image, which, as it has been projected, bears very little resemblance to how he performs as President. He was depicted as decisive, in command, somebody who completely grasped and was in synch with the needs of the difficult moment the country faced on September 11. In fact, he is manipulated by his staff, buffeted by the neoconservatives inside his administration, kept from important information, unknowledgeable about so much information, makes decisions on the most simplistic basis, never carries through on his own policies such as the Roadmap to Peace in the Middle East, operates in a closed, small circle, doesn’t seek out information independently, has fostered internecine warfare within the National Security apparatus between the intelligence agencies – including the CIA – and the Defense Department and the National Security Council.

[buycitgo]

5. amen, hosanna to that

it's the media, stupid, should be the democratic campaign slogan, above all else.

from Nixon's used car salesmen, to PR hacks like Haldeman, then Deaver, then Rollins/Atwater, then Rove (and all their flunkies), we've endured a PR presidency (not ignoring JFK, and all dems who followed.....after JFK, they just weren't as good as the pugs, PLUS, they didn't have the right wing media behind them, as ALL the pugs did).

Government by publicity stunt has completely overtaken our society, especially since the advent of Reagan. It's been increasingly mentioned, cited here, finally, but "On Bended Knee" is as good a survey (largely in the words of the culprits, too) of how things have deteriorated so badly since image-making/product-packaging has become the focus of not only presidential campaigns, but the entire ruling process.

here, in a fine essay dealing basically with the fallibility/insanity of the trickle down theory:

.....there's really no finite supply of publicity stunts. In fact, the art of governing has become the art of producing publicity stunts. And a really good policy maker is a guy who can come up with an engine for producing a long chain of publicity stunts that seem to follow logically from one to the next, based on some kind of principle or other. Like "family values" or "the strong, independent American." Or "Jesus is Lord." Or "poor people just don't have what it takes." Or "War on Terrorism."

Now go back to FDR. I don't know why, I just see his policy-making as more authentic. I'm no historian, obviously. But I just I don't see the New Deal as a series of publicity stunts. Certainly FDR's attempt to manipulate the makeup of the Supreme Court was fascistic. But was it a publicity stunt? Maybe I'm wrong, but the jobs programs seem like a genuine attempt to get money, food and housing to people who didn't have any by creating jobs the corporate sector was unable or unwilling to provide.

http://www.oblivio.com/mejeffdorchen/moments/moment_beans.html

Will, you should check this person's archives.....well worth reading, and usually very funny, as well.

http://www.thisishell.com/esays_mot.html

from the excellent radio program

http://www.thisishell.com/

oh yeah.....

Jeff Dorchen website


http://www.oblivio.com/mejeffdorchen/index.shtml

[bpilgrim]

2. good interview thanks

btw: do you have a link to your report on the al franken meeting?
would love to read that as well.

thanks :toast:

peace

[WilliamPitt]

3. Still compiling

Should be ready Tuesday night.

[bpilgrim]

4. cool thanks

btw: we need to talk about networking, please DU me with a time when we can chat about this in more detail.

thanks :hi:

peace

[oasis]

6. Hillary mentioned Bush's rollback of FDR's "New Deal" and touched a bit

on her famous VRWC comment today on Meet The Press. I wouldn't be surprised if she and Blumenthal often meet for lunch.

Good interview of a brilliant person (by a brilliant person):-)

[kentuck]

7. Excellent interview, Will Pitt.

This guy definitely has a perspective about the Bush Administration that every American should be aware of and should be alarmed at their refusal to turn over the documents regarding 9/11.

[ljm2002]

8. Fantastic!

Loved the interview. You go, Will!

On the point about the public's perception of GWB on the day of 9/11, I'd like to see the Booker School video spread far and wide. Preferably in a TV ad. Seems to me it would dispel a lot of the myth of GWB as a decisive leader.

Thing is, while I wondered where the Prez was that day, they seemed to be able to answer that question enough to make most of us think well, okay, the president has to be protected. But when I first saw that video, it was shocking. There was our CIC, reading with the kids, when Andrew Card comes strolling in and whispers something in his ear ("Mr. President, the country is under attack" if we are to believe their stories since then). And he sat there and did nothing, nothing at all, for another 20 minutes. I gotta tell you, I never liked GWB, always said I couldn't see how anyone could elect him dogcatcher much less President, but I was willing to give him some slack on 9/11 -- it was a horrific attack, and whoever did it is evil, no two ways about it.

But there he sat, completely abrogating his duties as the commander in chief. There he sat, not getting briefed on the other 2 planes that were still up there, not available for consultations as to what should be done about it, not available for instant decisions on things like sending up jets to intercept them or to possibly shoot them down.

Dereliction of duty, pure and simple. There is just no way to spin it. And where was the chain of command that day?

One could go on and on. But I think that video is key to changing the perception. Now, one would have to handle it carefully, not direct it to people like me who are already convinced he should be impeached on that evidence alone. I recognize that my position on that is not exactly mainstream. But I'd love to see the video brought up and questions asked. Very specific questions like

-- why did he not respond immediately when informed that the country was under attack?
-- given that he did not respond, who was actually in charge during that crucial 20 minutes?
-- did that hesitation contribute to the lateness of response of fighter jets?
-- etc.

Sorry. I really, really, really think that if more Americans saw that tape, lots more of us would be asking questions. And I have thought so since the first time I viewed it.

[0rganism]

11. Take a look at this flash animation from DUer Symbolman

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/true911.html

This is what American people need to see before they vote next November.

[WilliamPitt]

9. Kick

[kskiska]

10. Very interesting

especially his description of Tony Blair's role. He had good intentions, but in the end was used and abused by * for a few photo ops.

[0rganism]

12. Democratic candidate fanatics should read the last paragraph, especially

WRP: What is your take on the current crop of Democratic candidates?

SB: I am not aligned with any candidate. I’m not with any candidate, or working for any candidate at all. I think that what is important for the Democratic candidates is to level their fire, their critiques, at Bush, and not to bite each other on the ankles. It is natural in a primary season, given the competition, to attack each other. But I have not seen, so far, any candidate advance themselves by attacking another candidate. I have seen candidates advance by focusing on Bush’s accountability for what has been going on. There is a lesson in there for all the Democratic candidates.


------

Another Great Interview, Mr. Pitt. Blumenthal is sharp.

[oasis]

27. " I have seen candidates advance by focusing on Bush's accountability..."

Can any of the candidate's campaign managers challenge Blumenthal's political savvy?

[dani]

13. kick

terrific interview.

[Mr. Brown of MD]

14. The Blair segment is the most interesting

A lot of DUers like to revile Blair without getting into the substance behind why Blair does what he does. I've also seen people speculate that he's "sold out" to the neocons for some kind of payout, or that he's been coerced into doing their bidding because of some kind of threat to his wellbeing, his family's wellbeing, or his political future... whatever.

In the interview, Blumenthal presents this in the same way he describes Bush's popularity that can't be explained - because people seem to believe the best from him and his administration even when they should, in fact, be believing the exact opposite. But there's this myth that Bush knows what he's doing, that Bush is in charge, that Bush wants to make America (and the world) a safer place. The assessment of Blair seems to be that he believes these things of Bush because he wants to. People can believe anything if they want it to be true enough.

Of course, by this point, Blair has pretty much staked his entire reputation, future, and legacy in British history, on the status of that "special relationship." I can't help but wonder if he will realize what trap he has fallen into. Or even if he'll be able to do anything about it, once he finally does.

Yet another way that the world would be better served by the election of a Democratic president in 2004. Sadly, it's yet another way that is probably lost on the American people, especially with the media being as complicit as they are in pumping up Bush as some sort of spectacular wartime leader.

Even so, it's good to know that we still have people like Blumenthal on our side.

Nice job on the interview, Will! You asked some good questions that got him talking on important issues.

-CollegeDude
Could not have done so well

[AP]

15. Typo: You spell Richard Clarke's name two different ways.

[Mr. Brown of MD]

16. Kick!

I've got your back, Will. Plus, I can't believe more people don't have a comment on this.

-CollegeDude
Up above some other threads we go

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. August 6th.....hmmm.

I believe he told Richard Clarke that he didn’t want to be briefed on this again, even though Clarke was panicked about the alarms he was hearing regarding potential attacks. Bush was blithe, indifferent, ultimately irresponsible. The public has a right to know what happened on August 6, what Bush did, what Condi Rice did, what all the rest of them did, and what Richard Clarke’s memos and statements were. Then the public will be able to judge exactly what this presidency has done.



Interesting.

[proud patriot]

18. I was just coming here to post this interview William

This is a very important interview .

Thanks man :hi:

I found the pre 911 info coming from this source
to be very relevent and jaw dropping .

[LEW]

19. Great interview....

I wish that if I sent this to a few repub "friends" that they would read the whole interview, but I know they wouldn't.

I have been saying this for 3 years, when oh when will people wake up!!!! I can only hope that the frustration that burns in me also burns in millions of others, who will go vote in 2004, against this administration!!!

[WilliamPitt]

20. Kick

[VelmaD]

21. Stunning

I'm emailing the link to everyone I know.

Damn shame our current administration doesn't have anyone so thoughtful and articulate in it.

[oasis]

22. kick

[Romberry]

23. Kicking hard. nt*

mt*

[Lexingtonian]

24. very good

Still, I would have loved if you had asked (1) what the story is on Bush and letting China become our most serious strategic competitor, and (2) who exactly the true eminence grises of the radical Right are (in his opinion), and what their 'positive' agenda is.

[WilliamPitt]

25. Kick

[RobinA]

26. Interesting Interview

<<which includes reporting that is totally at odds with the image of Bush that Woodward swallows>>

I find this the most puzzling thing about the Bush phenomenon. I constantly read columnists reporting one set of facts about Bush and then arriving at a conclusion about him that is completely at odds with the facts they just reported.

They decry anti-war pundits as being anti-Bush liberals and then scratch their heads in surprise that there seems to be no plan for running Iraq post-invasion. There MUST have been a plan, they exclaim, why isn't the administration carrying it out? The administration SAID they had a plan, after all. But ignore all those war-doubters who before the war said there wasn't a plan, they hate Bush and are just looking for reasons to find fault with him. Huh???

[WilliamPitt]

28. Snuh