Post by RPankn on Mar 4, 2006 18:12:35 GMT -5
The Nation: Phony Left Opposition Uses CIA Agents to Attack 9/11 Researchers
author: repost
THE NATION: Phony Left Opposition Uses CIA Agents to Attack 9/11 Researchers
www.oilempire.us/gatekeepers.html
September, 2004
In early 2002, The Nation ran several articles by David Corn, their Washington Editor, attacking journalist and whistleblower Michael Ruppert, for daring to piece together a mountain of evidence that 9/11 was not a surprise attack. Corn is a long time defender of the Warren Commission (which covered up the coup against JFK), wrote a biography of CIA dirty trickster Ted Shackley that ignored evidence of drug complicity, attacked journalist Gary Webb for writing his series in the San Jose Mercury News about the CIA and the cocaine trade, and attacked the peace movement before the Iraq war for being too leftist (but didn't do anything to organize less leftist peace rallies). After Corn attacked Ruppert, the Colin Powell / Richard Armitage State Department sent Corn on a government paid trip to influence media in Trinidad (a major oil / gas exporter to the United States) [I have a friend from Trinidad, and they have said drug trafficking and related violence has gotten out of control in the past few years.]. Corn's article on Alternet even stated that he had been "dispatched" to go there, and that it was your "tax dollars at work." Real journalists who investigate government scandals usually don't get that sort of treatment -- most get harassed, not feted on taxpayer funded junkets to infiltrate media elites in tropical destinations that export fossil fuels to the US market.
The Nation has clearly allied itself with the CIA by publishing this article, and has announced in no uncertain terms that it is not interested in journalism on this subject that attempts to examine factual evidence. This is far different that merely ignoring the issue (which much of the Left has chosen to do).
The Nation has been perhaps the strongest supporter of the Warren Commission on what's left of "The Left" for four decades -- it is not a surprise that they are providing such critical support (whether witting or unwitting is ultimately irrelevant) to the Cheney re-election effort by urging nervous liberals to shut up about Cheney's complicity in 9/11, just as they defended Bush against accusations of foreknowledge after 9/11, when the allegations had the potential to thwart the political momentum for the US invasion of Iraq. And then they wonder why "The Left" has so little political influence ...
None of the pundits, CIA agents, media "experts," political consultants, candidates, elected officials and other fixtures of the media dare talk about the multiple war games that were being coordinated on 9/11 that paralyzed the Air Force defense of New York and Washington, the multiple warnings from allied intelligence services that specifically identified what, when and where the "attacks" would be, the warnings to selected elites not to fly or otherwise get out of the way (the most famous is the caution given to San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown not to fly to NYC on 9/11), or the stock trades placed a few days before on Wall Street and other financial markets betting the values of United, American and other impacted companies would drop. These are topics that cannot be reconciled with the official story, and therefore must be put into George Orwell's "memory hole."
A Zogby poll of New York City residents released during the Republican National Convention found that 49% of those surveyed think that the Bush administration had foreknowledge of 9/11. It is likely that if the media -- whether corporate establishment or liberal "alternative" -- had covered the anomalies in the official story, the 49% statistic would probably be more like 79% or 89%.
In any military coup d'etat, one of the first places that is seized is the television and/or radio station (depending on the technological sophistication of the country being changed). The US coup d'etat has been more subtle, but more widespread -- encompassing the so-called "alternative" publications like The Nation in addition to the more obvious suspects like the major television networks. The best disinformation is mostly correct -- and The Nation has done a tremendous favor for the Bush-Cheney re-election effort by publishing a CIA agent's critique of "The New Pearl Harbor." Of course, this critique ignored the CIA exercise underway the morning of 9/11 at the nearby headquarters of the National Reconnaissance Office, which controls US spy satellites, which simulated a plane-into-building scenario at the exact same time that 9/11 was underway. It's hard to know what defenders of the official story think about this amazing coincidence, since they don't dare discuss it (Mike Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon" explores the wargames of 9/11 in considerable detail, and concludes that they were in fact the means used to paralyze the Air Force defense of New York and Washington -- and that they were being coordinated by Cheney in the White House. What does "The Nation" have to say about this? Do they really want four more years of Bush and Cheney, and decades more of the "military industrial complex," which President Eisenhower warned us about as his final statement to the nation?).
It is fascinating that the "book review" in The Nation did not actually deal with any of the evidence presented by Dr. David Ray Griffin in his book, which is a summary of much of the best information unearthed by a variety of investigations into the 9/11 attacks. Dr. Griffin did state very clearly in the introduction that not all of the material needs to be proven true in order for there to be overwhelming evidence for some level of complicity -- yet Mr. Baer's review did not attempt to debunk a single claim with any level of specificity. While it is likely that a couple claims for complicity will not hold up under scrutiny (for example, the claim that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon is likely incorrect - see www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html ), the cumulative nature of the evidence that the official story is riddled with lies is overwhelming.
Reading "Crossing the Rubicon" and "The Terror Timeline" should be mandatory reading for every citizen before voting in the National Election. It is unlikely that The Nation will dare to review these books, since the amount of evidence they provide is far too much to be dismissed with a simple "nyaah" by a CIA agent who spent many years manipulating politics in the Middle East.
Discrediting the fiction surrounding 9/11 should be of prime importance for a publication like The Nation, which claims to want lower military budgets, a less belligerent foreign policy, human rights abroad and domestically, energy efficiency and renewable energy, etc. Numerous commentators have charged since 9/11 that The Nation and similar publications funded by the Ford Foundation and other conservative, establishment interests are compromised -- and cannot cover the "deep politics" of 9/11, Peak Oil, and the empire's invasion of the Middle East oil fields due to their dependence upon philanthropic gestures from institutions heavily invested in petroleum interests (ie. Ford).
Please support independent journalists by buying copies of Crossing the Rubicon and The Terror Timeline. If you subscribe to The Nation, you could ask for a pro-rated refund on the rest of your subscription.
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
The Nation issue is September 27, 2004
www.thenation.com/issue.mhtml?i=20040927
Dangerous Liaisons
David Ray Griffin: The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11
[book review] by Robert Baer
The Baer piece is not available to non subscribers.
www.agenceglobal.com/article.asp?id=231
has it archived for everyone
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
A good article about CIA agent Robert Baer is
"Stacking The Patsies of 9/11"
by Chaim Kupferberg
www.globalresearch.ca 20 December 2003
globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP312B.html
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
David Corn complains about Mike Ruppert:
One thing I do want to respond to is Michael Ruppert telling the good listeners of [missed on tape] Independent Media Center up in Portland Oregon, he said, even more explicitly, and this is a quote from the transcript available on the web. "If I'm asked honestly, and I will say that I have an opinion, that David Corn is one of the Establishment CIA/FBI operatives who has long been planted within so-called progressive circles. And the primary argument that I use for that is that he was chosen by one of the most venal characters in American history, Ted Shackley, to be his chosen biographer."
Michael Ruppert on David Corn:
My dear friend, colleague and mentor, Peter Dale Scott at U.C. Berkeley, has a great quote, that: disinformation in order to be effective has to be 95% accurate. And that is always the case. I debated David Corn. I met him first at Sara McLendon's(?) group at the National Press Club when "The Blond Ghost" first came out. I've read it twice, and the book completely omits the entire, extremely well-documented history of Shackley's involvement in the drug trade, and that is a glaring omission.
link to www.leftgatekeepers.com
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
'The New Pearl Harbor' is available everywhere . . .
author: repost
THE NATION: Phony Left Opposition Uses CIA Agents to Attack 9/11 Researchers
www.oilempire.us/gatekeepers.html
September, 2004
In early 2002, The Nation ran several articles by David Corn, their Washington Editor, attacking journalist and whistleblower Michael Ruppert, for daring to piece together a mountain of evidence that 9/11 was not a surprise attack. Corn is a long time defender of the Warren Commission (which covered up the coup against JFK), wrote a biography of CIA dirty trickster Ted Shackley that ignored evidence of drug complicity, attacked journalist Gary Webb for writing his series in the San Jose Mercury News about the CIA and the cocaine trade, and attacked the peace movement before the Iraq war for being too leftist (but didn't do anything to organize less leftist peace rallies). After Corn attacked Ruppert, the Colin Powell / Richard Armitage State Department sent Corn on a government paid trip to influence media in Trinidad (a major oil / gas exporter to the United States) [I have a friend from Trinidad, and they have said drug trafficking and related violence has gotten out of control in the past few years.]. Corn's article on Alternet even stated that he had been "dispatched" to go there, and that it was your "tax dollars at work." Real journalists who investigate government scandals usually don't get that sort of treatment -- most get harassed, not feted on taxpayer funded junkets to infiltrate media elites in tropical destinations that export fossil fuels to the US market.
The Nation has clearly allied itself with the CIA by publishing this article, and has announced in no uncertain terms that it is not interested in journalism on this subject that attempts to examine factual evidence. This is far different that merely ignoring the issue (which much of the Left has chosen to do).
The Nation has been perhaps the strongest supporter of the Warren Commission on what's left of "The Left" for four decades -- it is not a surprise that they are providing such critical support (whether witting or unwitting is ultimately irrelevant) to the Cheney re-election effort by urging nervous liberals to shut up about Cheney's complicity in 9/11, just as they defended Bush against accusations of foreknowledge after 9/11, when the allegations had the potential to thwart the political momentum for the US invasion of Iraq. And then they wonder why "The Left" has so little political influence ...
None of the pundits, CIA agents, media "experts," political consultants, candidates, elected officials and other fixtures of the media dare talk about the multiple war games that were being coordinated on 9/11 that paralyzed the Air Force defense of New York and Washington, the multiple warnings from allied intelligence services that specifically identified what, when and where the "attacks" would be, the warnings to selected elites not to fly or otherwise get out of the way (the most famous is the caution given to San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown not to fly to NYC on 9/11), or the stock trades placed a few days before on Wall Street and other financial markets betting the values of United, American and other impacted companies would drop. These are topics that cannot be reconciled with the official story, and therefore must be put into George Orwell's "memory hole."
A Zogby poll of New York City residents released during the Republican National Convention found that 49% of those surveyed think that the Bush administration had foreknowledge of 9/11. It is likely that if the media -- whether corporate establishment or liberal "alternative" -- had covered the anomalies in the official story, the 49% statistic would probably be more like 79% or 89%.
In any military coup d'etat, one of the first places that is seized is the television and/or radio station (depending on the technological sophistication of the country being changed). The US coup d'etat has been more subtle, but more widespread -- encompassing the so-called "alternative" publications like The Nation in addition to the more obvious suspects like the major television networks. The best disinformation is mostly correct -- and The Nation has done a tremendous favor for the Bush-Cheney re-election effort by publishing a CIA agent's critique of "The New Pearl Harbor." Of course, this critique ignored the CIA exercise underway the morning of 9/11 at the nearby headquarters of the National Reconnaissance Office, which controls US spy satellites, which simulated a plane-into-building scenario at the exact same time that 9/11 was underway. It's hard to know what defenders of the official story think about this amazing coincidence, since they don't dare discuss it (Mike Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon" explores the wargames of 9/11 in considerable detail, and concludes that they were in fact the means used to paralyze the Air Force defense of New York and Washington -- and that they were being coordinated by Cheney in the White House. What does "The Nation" have to say about this? Do they really want four more years of Bush and Cheney, and decades more of the "military industrial complex," which President Eisenhower warned us about as his final statement to the nation?).
It is fascinating that the "book review" in The Nation did not actually deal with any of the evidence presented by Dr. David Ray Griffin in his book, which is a summary of much of the best information unearthed by a variety of investigations into the 9/11 attacks. Dr. Griffin did state very clearly in the introduction that not all of the material needs to be proven true in order for there to be overwhelming evidence for some level of complicity -- yet Mr. Baer's review did not attempt to debunk a single claim with any level of specificity. While it is likely that a couple claims for complicity will not hold up under scrutiny (for example, the claim that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon is likely incorrect - see www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html ), the cumulative nature of the evidence that the official story is riddled with lies is overwhelming.
Reading "Crossing the Rubicon" and "The Terror Timeline" should be mandatory reading for every citizen before voting in the National Election. It is unlikely that The Nation will dare to review these books, since the amount of evidence they provide is far too much to be dismissed with a simple "nyaah" by a CIA agent who spent many years manipulating politics in the Middle East.
Discrediting the fiction surrounding 9/11 should be of prime importance for a publication like The Nation, which claims to want lower military budgets, a less belligerent foreign policy, human rights abroad and domestically, energy efficiency and renewable energy, etc. Numerous commentators have charged since 9/11 that The Nation and similar publications funded by the Ford Foundation and other conservative, establishment interests are compromised -- and cannot cover the "deep politics" of 9/11, Peak Oil, and the empire's invasion of the Middle East oil fields due to their dependence upon philanthropic gestures from institutions heavily invested in petroleum interests (ie. Ford).
Please support independent journalists by buying copies of Crossing the Rubicon and The Terror Timeline. If you subscribe to The Nation, you could ask for a pro-rated refund on the rest of your subscription.
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
The Nation issue is September 27, 2004
www.thenation.com/issue.mhtml?i=20040927
Dangerous Liaisons
David Ray Griffin: The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11
[book review] by Robert Baer
The Baer piece is not available to non subscribers.
www.agenceglobal.com/article.asp?id=231
has it archived for everyone
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
A good article about CIA agent Robert Baer is
"Stacking The Patsies of 9/11"
by Chaim Kupferberg
www.globalresearch.ca 20 December 2003
globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP312B.html
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
David Corn complains about Mike Ruppert:
One thing I do want to respond to is Michael Ruppert telling the good listeners of [missed on tape] Independent Media Center up in Portland Oregon, he said, even more explicitly, and this is a quote from the transcript available on the web. "If I'm asked honestly, and I will say that I have an opinion, that David Corn is one of the Establishment CIA/FBI operatives who has long been planted within so-called progressive circles. And the primary argument that I use for that is that he was chosen by one of the most venal characters in American history, Ted Shackley, to be his chosen biographer."
Michael Ruppert on David Corn:
My dear friend, colleague and mentor, Peter Dale Scott at U.C. Berkeley, has a great quote, that: disinformation in order to be effective has to be 95% accurate. And that is always the case. I debated David Corn. I met him first at Sara McLendon's(?) group at the National Press Club when "The Blond Ghost" first came out. I've read it twice, and the book completely omits the entire, extremely well-documented history of Shackley's involvement in the drug trade, and that is a glaring omission.
link to www.leftgatekeepers.com
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
'The New Pearl Harbor' is available everywhere . . .
