I owe Robert Fisk an apology. He began a thread on Truthdig.com called, "Questioning 9/11 with Caution" where he essentially (and cautiously) mentioned some of the "ravers" involved in the 9/11 for Truth movement. While in there, I came in direct contact with some of these ravers(to be polite) and began to question and research some of the data they were presenting. What I came up with were some pretty interesting morsels. Perhaps even boulders!
For example, some(not all) of the so called 9/11 conspiracy theorists have ties to Lyndon LaRouche, the same guy who said MI-6 was trying to assassinate him and that the Beatles were a creation of Britain’s Defense Ministry. He also said the Queen of England was the biggest dope peddler on the planet and that Britain, (not Hitler) was responsible for the second world war.
What really got me interested in the sources of some of these more radical "truth seekers," was another dig with Amy Goodman, where a raver was chastising her, literally calling her a cog in the Bush cover-up of 9/11 because she interviewed Ward Churchill, rather then the leader of the 9/11 for Truth movement, Dr. Steven E. Jones. This was when I discovered Webster Griffin Tarpley, an author and historian best known for his book, "George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography" and a member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth (among other affiliations). He was also a key component to the Lyndon LaRouche political movement and in fact ran for the state senate in New York and lost.
"From 1991 to 1995, Tarpley worked with the political movement run by Lyndon LaRouche, and was a frequent host of “The LaRouche Connection” described as “a news and information cable television program produced by” LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review News Service."
The tactics of LaRouche (as seen back in the 1970's), using his so called "new left" to attack other leftist elements, (I mean even physically beating them up), is what really caught my attention on these current so called truth seekers, who were in essence using what I thought to be the Lyndon LaRouche playbook, pretending to be left while attacking the left. It's like taking the entire political philosophy of neo-liberal David Horowitz, molding his beginnings with Maoist Marxism to his current neo-conservatism into one big ugly ball of play dough and presto! We'll come back to Mr. Horowitz later.
Next we come to the prolific Christopher Bollyn, an author who in fact exposed a Reader's Digest article about illegal government surveillance which actually praised the notion, as coming from none other than the cousin of Michael Chertof, head of Homeland Security. Now this expose' was great and I thank Mr. Bollyn for it. However, the reason I refer to him as prolific (beyond his outward appearance as a hard working reporter/journalist) is in the revelation as to whom he has worked for. Among others the American Free Press which seems to have shared the same offices as, "The Barnes Review."
Just to give you some examples:
The American Free Press "The fact that Bollyn is extensively sourced in 9/11 skeptics’ literature, combined with the fact that his employer, the American Free Press, has extreme right associations, gives defenders of the official 9/11 myth effective ammunition with which to attack their critics. Although publications of the American Free Press are generally free of racist, white-supremicist, or anti-Semitic content, its sister publication, The Barnes Review overtly promotes such ideologies. Consider the following facts:
The Barnes Review praises Hitler as deserving of the Nobel Prize The American Free Press and The Barnes Review share the same address The American Free Press and The Barnes Review promote each other Christopher Bollyn has been a guest on David Duke’s show a number of times The American Free Press was founded by Right Wing ideologue Willis Carto." "Carto (born July 17, 1926 in Indiana) is a longtime figure on the far right wing of American politics. He describes himself as Jeffersonian and populist, although the Anti-Defamation League and other critics say he promotes thinly-disguised antisemitism. Carto was also the founder of a publishing company called Noontide Press, which published a number of books on white racialism, including Yockey’s Imperium and David Hoggan’s The Myth of the Six Million, one of the first books to deny the Holocaust."
Also, The Barnes Review in their last convention had guest speakers like Theo Junker, former member of the Wiking SS, a guy who built a memorial on his Wisconsin farm honoring Adolf Hitler (see: Time Magazine).
Other guest speakers at the event included political writer Michael Collins Piper, a Holocaust denier and a guy who blames MOSSAD for the JFK assassination, also claims the Israeli’s are working on an ethnic bomb that will kill only Arabs. He’s a devout friend of Willis Carto and Christopher Bollyn filled in for him from time to time on his radio talk show, The Piper Report on The Republic Broadcasting Network, which is owned and operated by John Stadmiller.
John Stadmiller also has his own radio show. It’s called The National Intel Report. The RBN(Republic Broadcasting Network) covers everything from UFO’s to demonic mind control. Their sponsors include The Knob Creek Gun Range and The Nationalist Times, which comes from The American Nationalists Union, a white supremacist organization.
Next we have Dr. Harrell Rhome of Eagle Publications, a devout right wing Christian Fundamentalist and a regular contributer to the Barnes Review. He also shares the spotlight with pro-Aparteid professor, Dr.Claus Nordbruch of South Africa.
Then there's Dave Von Kleist, producer of In Plane site which has already been proved a hoax.
Now most of these folks and several others I haven't got the time to mention, all blame Israel for the attacks of 9/11 (and everything else). They also attack several independent journalists like Goodman and John Foster(Chip) Berlet, Fisk and others, actually calling them co conspirators in the so called Bush/AIPAC coverup.
I owe an apology, not only to Robert Fisk, but to everyone out there who is genuinely seeking the truth concerning 9/11. These include the many real and dedicated individuals and groups who surround it, like the 9/11 widows who pushed so hard to get Bush to present an investigation and people like the great historian Howard Zinn and Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (ret.) who showed us how Cheney doctored intelligence to war on Iraq. My hat goes off to them and those like them. What I'm presenting here has absolutely nothing to do with the fine work they do. But it is definitely something we all need to be aware of, that right wing extremists are playing a role within the role of the 9/11 for truth movement and it is very doubtful their intent is in seeking the truth about anything.
I'm a concerned, middle aged blogger and member of the ACLU. I hail from the Bay Area. I Lobbied congress with the ACLU over the more unconstitutional elements of the USA Patriot Act. Marched in peace protests, lost a former school chum in the world (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Saturday, September 22, 2007 OK: Secret Rogue Faction that Runs the Bush Administration Note: Please read this previous post first: "Webster G. Tarpley’s Toxic Waste is Polluting the Antiwar Movement" and then this post will make more sense. I am an opponent of conspiracy theories in general and this one about the Bush Administraion in particular. This was meant as a clarification of wording in my previous post, not an endorement of a conspiracy theory. -cb
= = =
In my recent post on Webster Tarpley I wrote that:
“In 2005 Tarpley published a book that alleged the Bush Administration staged the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA.”
Critics have suggested this meant I had not actually read Tarpley’s book. I have read the book. In it Tarpley contends that the Bush Administration is controlled by a secret invisible government, and that 9/11 was part of a plan to put pressure on George W. Bush as President to ensure that he continued to follow the foreign policy and economic game plan provided to him by the oligarchic faction known as the neoconservatives. Tarpley goes out is his way to make it clear that he thinks Bush himself is incapable of being part of the staged “Synthetic Terror” event the rest of us call the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
So I specifically did not suggest Bush was behind staging the attacks, I said the Bush Administration. As Tarpley himself points out, if 9/11 was a staged event, it would have been impossible to have been carried out without the complicity of high-ranking government agency and Administration officials, or as he calls it: the “rogue networks of the US invisible government” (p. 432). Specifically, Tarpley writes that the sponsors of 9/11 “were not located in a cave in Afghanistan, but were rather a network located high within the US government and military”(p. 280).
According to Tarpley, in 2004, “with the desperados of the neocon faction calling the shots” the “rogues were once again inclined to” stage another terrorist attack on US soil (p. 397). Tarpley also indicates that he thinks the necons are part of the invisible government apparatus, and that this includes “Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, Luti, Schulsky, Scooter Libby, Cambone, Hadley and others who run the Bush administration.” If the neocons run the Bush Administration, and the neocons are part of the secret plot, then the Bush Administration staged the attacks, even if every person in the Administration was not part of the plot. I find all these claims ludicrous, but I can see there is room for misinterpretation due to my shorthand description.
In the future I will make sure I state that Tarpley has written that a secret invisible government which runs the Bush Administration through the neocon-Straussian oligarchic network staged the 9/11 attacks; or at least use the phrase ‘a secret rogue faction that runs the Bush Administration,’ which is what I will insert in the text. My apologies to Mr. Tarpley if he was offended by my summary of his claims about the alleged conspiracy.
Monday, September 17, 2007 Webster G. Tarpley’s Toxic Waste is Polluting the Antiwar Movement There is no question that author Webster Griffin Tarpley has become a divisive and destructive force within the U.S. antiwar movement. The real question is why antiwar activists would pay him any attention in the first place. Activists are in an uproar over an incident at a peace encampment in Keenebunkport, Maine where Tarpley is implicated in a stunt where well-known peace activists such as Jamilla El-Shafei, Cindy Sheehan, Dahlia Wasfi, and Ann Wright were tricked into signing a document they thought was merely a call for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. The fine print in the document echoes Tarpley’s claim that Cheney is plotting a pre-election coup using a domestic terrorist attack as an excuse.
Tarpley is a former acolyte of crackpot and convicted felon Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. You remember LaRouche. He is generally described as a perennial Presidential candidate who once said the Queen of England ran the global drug trade. Tarpley may have left the LaRouche group, but it has not left him. Tarpley acts as a sockpuppet for LaRouche, spreading delirious venom throughout the antiwar movement. The LaRouche group has a long history of conning people into signing statements based on misleading descriptions of the actual text. Déjà vu.
With so much factual evidence of wrongdoing, incompetence, malfeasance, and just plain lying on the part of the Bush Administration, there is no reason to spread Tarpley’s gossip. The dramatic erosion of civil liberties in the United States is bad enough without embracing the delusional warnings by Tarpley that “neocons always prefer a coup d'etat to an election.”{1}
The current tempest traces back to July 4 th, 2007 when Philadelphia peace activists held an Emergency Antiwar Convention. It was an attempt to merge the movement against the war in Iraq with the “9/11 Truth” movement. The event featured 9/11 conspiracy films, as well as presentations from Tarpley and another former LaRouchite activist, Lewis DuPont Smith. Attendees issued a Call “In the spirit of our Declaration of Independence” urging others to join activist organizations throughout the country to collaborate and forge common strategies and actions.”{2} The statement included the phrase: “ Government by the People, not by cliques of bankers and financiers,” which could have been copied from a number of Nazi publications from the 1930s which identified the culprits as Jews.
Tarpley has introduced similar statements at other meetings, including one in Chicago.{3} A few weeks later, with his star rising in the antiwar movement, Tarpley posted a long article on the Jeff Rense website warning: "Cheney Determined To Strike In US With WMD This Summer, Only Impeachment, Removal or General Strike Can Stop Him."{4}
According to Tarpley, antiwar activists needed to quickly confront “the Cheney doctrine, which calls for a new super 9/11 with weapons of mass destruction in the US, to be used as the pretext for a nuclear attack on Iran and for martial law at home.”{5}
This is not the first time Tarpley has predicted an apocalyptic political event. In 2004, he posted a warning: "Bush Regime working out Procedures for postponing November Election."{6} The election, needless to say, actually took place as scheduled, although there were legitimate complaints about vote suppression to benefit Republican candidates.
Tarpley is co-author (with LaRouche researcher Anton Chaitkin){7}, of the book George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, originally published by the LaRouche publishing house.{8} Progressive author and blogger David Neiwert reviewed the book, noting that “Like most LaRouche texts:”
...the Bush "biography" is a mélange of fact and distortion, written in a highly suppositional style that makes numerous leaps of logic and asserts connections where there is no real evidence to support it, at other times omitting exculpatory or contrary information that reveals a more complete picture. Sifting through it requires a great deal of work, but there are nuggets of fact woven into their text that are substantiated and which deserve proper consideration.{9}
In 2005 Tarpley published a book that alleged the Bush Administration staged the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA.{10} [Note: specifically a secret rogue faction that runs the Bush Administration - see blog post that follows] LaRouche takes a similar position. According to LaRouche the attacks on 9/11 should be:
”recognized, sooner or later, as the product of a witting "inside job." Finally, my detailed knowledge of the onrushing strategic crisis within which those attacks were situated, allowed no other conclusion, than that this was an attempted military coup d'état with a global strategic purpose of the most ominous implications imaginable.”{11}
While continuing to follow the polluted path blazed by notorious crackpot and homophobic antisemite Lyndon LaRouche, Tarpley is a regular contributor and featured poster on the Jeff Rense website. If we can set aside the UFO mania found on Rense.com, there is still the promotion of Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories.
At some point leaders of the antiwar movement need to have a discussion about the larger issue of conspiracism. Right now, however, it is clear that some progressives have been snared by Tarpley’s mesmerizing presentations. This could undermine the credibility of the antiwar movement, alienate its existing base, and jeopardize its relationship with existing allies. This should be obvious no matter what your individual position is on the unanswered questions surrounding 9/11. The antiwar movement needs to welcome individuals from a broad range of political beliefs who share the goal of ending the war in Iraq. However this open door policy should not include allowing charlatans and hucksters to disrupt the movement. It is time to slam the door in the face of Webster G. Tarpley and his ilk.
{1} Webster G. Tarpley, “Cheney Determined To Strike In US With WMD This Summer: Only Impeachment, Removal or General Strike Can Stop Him,” 7-21-7, http://www.rense.com/general77/chens.htm.
{3} “9/11 Truth -- The Key To Stopping World War III, Resolution Submitted To The 911 Chicago Truth Conference, June 2-4, 2006. This resolution was presented to the final plenary meeting of the conference by Webster G. Tarpley and acclaimed by voice vote. Tarpley is the author of the book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA.”
{6} As of September 11, 2007, the Tarpley article is still on Michel Chossudovsky's Global Research website: Webster Griffin Tarpley, “Bush Regime working out Procedures for postponing November Election, posted July 10, 2004, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/TAR407B.html.
{10} Tarpley’s book is published by Progressive Press, http://www.waronfreedom.org, which also publishes a book by Eric Hufschmid, Painful Questions . Hufschmid is described as one of the researchers "who openly mix 9/11 skepticism with Holocaust denial or revisionism," see "Holocaust Denial Versus 9/11 Truth," http://911review.com/denial/holocaust.html.
Jay I wanted to thank you again for your intuitive commentary. I enjoyed your article immensely. My article now posts in it's entirety. I'm not sure how much of it you'd read the lst time(technical difficulties) . My comments went far beyond Tarpley and LaRouche who are basically just a tip of the iceberg.
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 10:53:19 AM
I appreciate the info too. Hans has already corrected the situation. The stuff you have provided will no doubt be of great help on future posts. Thanks again!
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 11:19:46 AM
Let's hope Michael Shaw is sincere but ignorant about 911. Critics with intellectual and moral integrity usually proceed by examining the best evidence for a position, not the worst, and by addressing the most responsible advocates for a position, not the worst. Shaw has done just the opposite, much to his discredit. Readers who want the best 911 sites may start with
The solid 911 researchers who immediately come to mind are Michael Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon; Jim Hoffman, Kevin Ryan, David Ray Griffin (except for his tragic embrace of no-plane hit the Pentagon); Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed; Steven Jones, and to a lesser extent (because his scope is limited), Paul Thompson. If you google them with respect to 911, you will learn a lot and will avoid the 911 nutcases sent to smear the movement, and in some cases naturally attracted to the movement but unable to think clearly about it.
Regard,
Michael Green
by
Michael Green (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 10 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 12:38:13 PM
Well Mr. Green I take note that you didn't even bother to acknowledge there was a negative side, of which there certainly is. But rather than trying to refute the content of my article, you decided instead to advertise me as uninformed and discredited. Well I suppose that's better than calling me an agent of the MOSSAD!? Regardless, I do appreciate your commentary.
My article is aimed only at this negative side, not the many credible people behind the movement. I feel it is important in that we question certain elements and sources to ascertain if their intentions are to promote truth or suppress it? This is precisely how David Corn feels about people like Michael Ruppert and conspiracy theories in general.
"In fact, out-there conspiracy theorizing serves the interests of the powers-that-be by making their real transgressions seem tame in comparison."
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 1:49:31 PM
**Steven Jones promotes molten metal, but the lack of steam explosions at Ground Zero prove the molten metal to be nothing but a hoax. In addition, Jones' molten metal "evidence" has been shown to be fabricated. See here for a step-by-step analysis.
**Kevin Ryan promotes Steven Jones, who promotes the molten metal hoax.
**David Ray Griffin is for a Global Government (aka One World Government aka New World Order). Griffin says this himself in this video from a presentation he gave in Ohio.
The above people have been planted to control the "truth movement".
Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
Those interested in a new 9/11 investigation should support those who are actually pursuing one.Dr Judy Wood and Dr Morgan Reynolds, with their attorney Jerry Leaphart, have filed actual Court Cases in the US District Court, Southern New York. These Court Cases have been unsealed and Jerry Leaphart is now notifying the Defendants.
See Dr Judy Wood's site for the Court Document and admissible evidence that Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
In an interview with Kevin Barrett, trial attorney Jerry Leaphart has said:
"What I can tell you and the listeners, Kevin, is this. There is more admissible evidence associated with the theory that the World Trade Center was destroyed by directed energy weapons than there is admissible evidence for any single other theory out there that has been promulgated."
See here and learn that NIST contracted with manufacturers of directed energy weapons for the NIST Report.
See Dr Morgan Reynolds site for the Court Document and admissible evidence that the corporate media broadcasted a cartoon of an airplane hitting the South Tower.
Even Peter Jennings at ABC News knew the video was fake. Note his nervousness and word fumbling when they play it back in slow motion in this news video clip.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 2:26:45 AM
There is overwhelming evidence that molten metal was found beneath all three WTC buildings, weeks after 9/11. To claim that because someone with ties to the govt. made this observation it is therefore false is a fallacious argument. Even liars must sometimes state the truth when they know that denying it will expose their bigger lies. Just so, the NIST and the FEMA reports contain truthful statements, even though the government's agenda has always been to cover up the real truth of what happened on 9/11. But even FEMA acknowledged having found melted steel at the site, and suggested this should be followed up in further investigations. NIST chose to just ignore the fact. Judy Wood is a very questionable character promoting unproven and discredited theories about what caused the WTC collapses. She is in stark contrast to Steven Jones, who adduces much evidence to support the thesis that the towers were destroyed in controlled demolitions. Judy Wood is an agent provocateur sent to destroy the 9/11 Truth movement. Those who support her are the same, or dupes of such agents.
by
Jeff Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 10:43:06 AM
You said:To claim that because someone with ties to the govt. made this observation it is therefore false is a fallacious argument.
Why do you say that?
It has been shown that Steven Jones' molten metal evidence is fabricated. Why would he need to make up evidence?
Jones said the molten metal was "running and in pools". Where was it running? Uphill in the day and down at night? Where did this molten metal accumulate?
And on top of all that, where were all the steam explosions? Where are the reports of FDNY personnel being burnt from splattering molten metal after spraying water? Where's the reports of steam explosions the week after 9/11 when it rained?
The molten metal story is a fairytale (just like the OGCT) put out to fool and distract people.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 2:15:06 PM
Why attack the truth movement instead of the people who perpetrated 911. It is a problem that you think creating distrust in the movement is paramount. Stop it please.
Another method of the Council is to get people from within to destroy the other. You are guilty. Stop it now. Let's not let them get away with this again. THAT is our mission, not discrediting seekers.
by
BreezyinVA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 11:23:04 PM
Sorry, but linking to an article does not prove your point. You need to explain it yourself, which you obviously cannot, since you are wrong.
September Clues does not address the physical impossibility of an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding through steel girders and concrete slabs.
Airplanes did not crash into the Twin Towers.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 2, 2007 at 5:51:10 PM
Breezy with all due respect, my intentions are not to attack the entire truth movement, only elements who have infiltrated it and who have agendas beyond any search for truth. How is exposing extreme right wing elements who promote hatred hurting the movement, that is unless of course the movement sees nothing wrong with these elements?
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 1, 2007 at 12:16:56 PM
Good points, Michael Green. Shaw's piece reads like an extended ad hominem against the 9/11 truth movement. We can definitely find grounds to criticize people like Tarpley, from within the movement. But when it comes from people who support the government's Big Lie, it's intolerable, just another hit piece really.
by
Jeff Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 10:29:42 AM
This is all ad hominem - a characteristic of those who do not want to debate the real issues. the old guilt by association and deflection trick and, gee, maybe Larouche/tarpley, et.al. actually had one or two good ideas. stick with 9-11 issues and debate them.
by
Kent Welton (71 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 1:32:10 PM
Kent, I appreciate your comments. Like you I believe we must learn and debate all we can about the events of 9/11 in all of its aspects, whether this means discussing those who are allegedly covering up these events, or those who claim to be exposing them. There are untested grounds in either scenario and until we investigate every angle, how will we ever make it possible to ascertain the undeniable truth?
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 2:32:34 PM
Although I have watched LaRouche for years with amusement and couldn't agree more with the author, I too worry that all of his arguments are made against the man and his associates rather than his arguments. This is the standard ploy of Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly, but should be beneath those of us that can actually reason. Even agents provocateur can occasionally, accidentally, be right.
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 2:47:10 PM
I appreciate your analogy and in fact understand it. Also, I am by no means a fan of the folks you mentioned. However it is pretty evident if you're working for and associating yourself with anti-Semitic groups , then writing and promoting the same notions they do, there's a pretty good chance you are who you seem to be. All I've done was to bring forth associations that perhaps many others were never aware of. These connections are not a figment of my imagination.
I also believe my analogy is far different from this administration's(and its media henchmen) who based ties between Saddam and Al Queada on faulty intelligence and faulty sources, literally doctoring information. A million people died from that. The only thing that stands a chance of dying here is right wing involvement in the 9/11 truth movement.
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 3:27:06 PM
If such articles diminish interest in the 911 truth movement
Then that is just terrible, because there is a huge amount of material justifying a new 9/11 investigation; some really good and important sites for those honestly seeking to learn more are:
911proff.com
patriotsquestion911.com
It is well know within the legitimate 9/11 truth movement that there are some despicable people trying to discredit it by intentionally raising false issues and presenting loony ideas and claiming to be part of the real movement.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 3:08:14 PM
I trust you are the same researcher who writes for Freedom Advocates on Sustainable Development and Agenda 21, if that is the case, then I find your first article about 911 is perhaps pre-maturely written. If you are that same Michael Shaw, then I applaud your research into Agenda 21, and know you are aware of the contempt the NWO elite has for the common citizen, and have no doubt they are capable of something so demonic as the arrangement of 911.
As Professor Steven Jones says, there is so much material researched about 911 that it's like trying to sip a drink from a fire hydrant.
Noting the possible COINTELPRO members of the Truth Movement in your first article is suspicious at first blush, however, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to the beginners first steps.
Try viewing some of these site for a well balanced view:
911 was such a complicated orchestration, and many factions had an interest in producing the event. Much like a custom home being built by a general contractor who is in charge of many subcontractors, all working in harmony while not even knowing one and other ... all by the way of a project manager, comptroller, and the owners of the property.
Not by a man living in a cave on dialysis with a cell phone and computer.
by
Joann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 45 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 9:12:39 PM
I'm not the same Michael Shaw you are referring to although I think I do know who you're talking about. I believe the one you're thinking of is a regular on the Huffington Post. I have never posted an article on her site.
Michael Shaw is a rather common name. In fact there are three others in my county alone. One is a Libertarian, Director of Freedom 21 Santa Cruz. Two others I have inadvertently come in contact with concerning billing issues. One involved an unpaid parking ticket and the other a bill to a cardiologist. Perhaps this would open good grounds for a pseudonym.
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 10:29:06 PM
Both Journal of 9/11 Studies and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth promote the molten metal hoax. In addition, they continue to claim that the towers "collapsed", when this and this and this clearly show the towers were turned to dust.
Those sites are bad in that they distract people from the actual COURT CASES already filed about directed energy weapons and TV-Fakery. See my other comments for the evidence and links.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 2:37:12 AM
You are mistaken, these people: Prof Jones, Kevin Ryan, Dr. Frank Legge from Journal of 911 Studies, and Richard Gage from Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, are the professionals.
I have seen many of your post around the internet slamming these good people in favor or your space beam/no plane disinfo crowd. You and they are the problem as provocateurs. The really important issue is who pays you?
by
Joann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 45 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 9:42:25 AM
I have provided evidence that S Jones et al use faulty evidence, and that they distract the "truth movement" from other issues.
Steven Jones is the one who coined the 9/11 term "space beam". He uses this term to ridicule the directed energy weapon theory and discourage people from looking at the evidence. Documented proof of this is here. Are you aware, by the way, that Jones worked at Los Alamos where directed energy weapons are researched? Check his bio on BYU's site for proof of that. Unfortunately, you have fallen for his PSYOPS hook, line, and sinker.
Drs Wood/Reynolds have never said the beam must have come from space. They spell this out very clearly at the conclusion of their paper. So, why do you use the term "space beam"?
Why do you call the no-plane-theory "disinfo"? Answer: because you've been conditioned to do so by the perps. If real planes crashed into the Towers, more of the First Responders would have reported hearing the planes. But this study of the WTC Task Force Interviews published in the New York Times refutes that.
Try getting a grip on what the 9/11 perps are doing to you.
Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 2:29:23 PM
People promoting silly ideas of "tv fakery" and directed energy weapons are not representative of the 9/11 Truth movement, but in league with those trying to discredit it. There has never been a shred of evidence for either of these claims. There is a TON of evidence that molten steel was found at the WTC sites. Even FEMA acknowledged this in its report. Steven Jones cites video evidence, we have fire fighters and numerous others who were eyewitnesses to the molten steel. So go peddle your bogus "hoax" stories elsewhere.
by
Jeff Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 10:55:06 AM
As the evidence I linked to before shows, there was no molten metal at Ground Zero.
Why do you consider TV-Fakery and DEW "silly"? Answer: because you've been conditioned to do so by the perps. No other reason. The "truth movement" is controlled by the perps.
TV-Fakery is already proven fact. Anyone who understands Newton's Laws of Motion knows this.
DEW accounts for all the evidence.
Drs Wood and Reynolds are the only 9/11 researchers who filed actual court cases. And they're represented by Jerry Leaphart, a well known attorney with over 35 years of experience.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 2:44:03 PM
Dew accounts for all the evidence?????????? That's juvenile. People reading this, please don't think this guy is representative of the truth movement. He would prefer everyone talk in circles. I've seen no planers like this person insult survivors telling them what they saw and heard was not real.
The planes probably had missiles attached which helped open the buildings so the planes would enter. They didn't want pieces of plane falling to be ID'd. They needed the shock and awe of a massive explosion. The flashes seen right before impact were probably missiles. See the documentary 911 Ripple Effect. The military is speaking out. That second plane obviously had something attached to it.
by
BreezyinVA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 11:39:41 PM
...your calling of the idea that "DEW accounts for the evidence" juvenile without providing any supporting evidence whatsoever.
The fact is that DEW does account for all the evidence. You best to wise up and look at the evidence instead of believing whatever you're told to believe.
You said:"The planes probably had missiles attached which helped open the buildings so the planes would enter."
Sorry, but "probably" does not cut it in a Court of Law. What will is the Laws of Physics. Those "airplane" strike videos were cartoons. This is based on high school level Laws of Physics and has not been refuted. It is the basis of Dr Reynolds Court Case.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 1, 2007 at 1:20:17 AM
Reply: I do not represent the "mainstream" truth movement
The "mainstream" truth movement is filled with 9/11 perp-controlled people who do not understand what's going on. I certainly do not represent those people, and would never in a million years.
Who I represent, are those who look at the evidence.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 2, 2007 at 6:02:05 PM
199. Reportedly, in mid-August 2001, the government of Israel warned that between 50 and 200 al-Qaeda terrorists had slipped into the U.S., and were planning an imminent, “major assault on the United States.” They said it was likely to be on a “large scale target.” The CIA has denied it received this warning. 200. On August 23, 2001, the government of Israel even gave the CIA a list of 19 terrorists within the U.S. who were about to stage an attack. This list is known to contain the names of at least four of the alleged hijackers of 9-11: Nawaf Alhamzi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi and Mohamed Atta. 201. Apparently, Israeli intelligence had for months prior to September 2001 monitored at least some of the alleged 9-11 hijackers. For example, beginning in December 2002, agents took up residence a few blocks from Marwan Alshehhi and Mohamed Atta, and observed them “around the clock.”
It seems to me when you take note that Bush and company were warned repeatedly about a coming attack from several countries and did nothing, then take into account that Israel claimed in fact she did warn us of 50-200 Al Qeada operatives and an imminent attack in the US (in the RICO complaint), something the CIA denies, then take a look at George Tenent and his slam dunk, then falling on his sword to save Bush, only to get a presidential freedom award for his efforts. This presents some very interesting questions and it makes one wonder how the CIA's rebuke can be taken at face value.
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 2, 2007 at 9:33:45 AM
Reply: Michael, I understand where you're coming from
It took me a while to put everything in context myself. Allow me to provide some insight:
All the 9/11 "airplane" videos show a physical impossibility: an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding through steel girders and concrete.Dr Morgan Reynolds, in Appeal to NIST's denial of his Request for Correction, gives a full explanation of this Laws of Physics violation. Some may argue that because Reynolds' degree is in economics, that disqualifies him from making such definitive statements about physics. But fact is the Laws of Physics violated are high-school level, therefore advanced degree type is moot and yet another red herring.
There is no verified airplane wreckage at any of the four "crash" sites.
There are too many inconsistencies with the "cell phone calls". i.e. The government / media say that on Flight 93, one of the passengers said: "Hello Mom, this is Mark Bingham". Who addresses their mother like that?
Also, a "Flight 93" cockpit voice recorder supposedly recorded passengers discussing breaking down the cockpit door with a drink cart. But cockpit voice recorders don't record conversations in passenger compartments.
An airplane did not make that missile-shaped hole in the Pentagon. A missile did!Even Rumsfeld said a missile damaged the Pentagon. He also said "similar" damaged the Twin Towers. Here's Rumsfeld's quote:
"Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."
When one takes a careful look at the evidence, they see that 9/11 was an inside job from beginning to end:
***Military Industrial Complex - Directed Energy Weapons
***Corporate Media - Cartoon Airplanes
The two items listed above are centerpiece to Drs Wood and Reynolds' Qui Tam cases.
Most importantly, there were no hijackings. All the news reports about hijack warnings, NORAD standing down, etc., are fabrications designed to distract people from what really happened. Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."Yes, the media is in on it.
Not only did the media broadcast cartoons, but the following 10 minute 9/11 analysis video shows local NYC stations to be corrupt down to the newscaster level:
The "truth movement" is filled with government plants who distract people from the real evidence.
Steven Jones, who worked at Los Alamos where directed energy weapons are researched and who has ties to the Dept of Energy, expels much energy trying to discredit the DEW / TV-Fakery.
So does Greg Jenkins, whose former research was funded by the NSA.
Even Willie Rodriguez admits to openly denouncing DEW / TV-Fakery, and he's the most popular 9/11 guy on mainstream media!
How many times has Dr Wood been on TV to discuss DEWs? Zero.
How many times has Dr Reynolds been on TV to discuss TV-Fakery? Zero. He mentioned it on FOX News once, and was never invited to any msm news interview again.
How many times has My Leaphart been on TV to discuss the DEW / TV-Fakery Court Cases? Zero.
Those interested in the actual truth of 9/11 need to look through the evidence, as opposed to news reports. One of the best collections of actual evidence is here: http://drjudywood.com
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 2, 2007 at 7:11:41 PM
The 9/11 perpetrators want people to believe their 9/11 hijackings' story, since it's the only excuse for their phony "war on terror". This explains the many news reports about hijack warning, NORAD standing down, etc.
Here's a video of a retired commercial airline pilot who flew the actual Flights 93 and 175 before 9/11. He is 100% certain those alleged hijackers did not hijack those planes.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 2, 2007 at 7:38:37 PM
Thanks for the info, Mike. I am reading Tarpley's "Synthetic Terror" right now and didn't know about the strong LaRouche connection. That connection explains a few odd (at least they seemed to me) I read.
The 2007 story gets at the heart of the case presented by 9/11 truthers. What's your reaction to it and the evidence in it.
Among the report’s other findings:
No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns.
WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. “Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?” Jones asks. “That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors—and intact steel support columns—the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass.
How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?” The paradox, he says, “is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses.” These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST, or the 9/11 Commission.
With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattered concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling. “How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing—and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."
Steel supports were “partly evaporated,” but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel—and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about twenty minutes in any given location.
Molten metal found in the debris of the WTC may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite. Buildings not felled by explosives “have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal,” Jones says.
Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck.
by
David Taylor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 9:27:32 PM
Thanks Dave for your kind words. Also thank you for the valuable information you've provided.
I see no reason in ruling out tower 7 being pulled with controlled demolition. It also seems very odd that the twin towers could fall as they did without a controlled demolition. What I also find fascinating is that Rudy Guliani based his emergency headquarters in the same offices of the CIA and Secret Service in tower 7 and that George Bush's little brother was in charge of the security of the WTC, his last day being just prior to 9/11. In fact I find plenty fascinating, including the lack in response by(NORAD) our early warning defenses, although I suspect we did in fact shoot down flight 93. Another aspect is the disappearance of all civilian air traffic control data.
I'll even go out on a limb with my own theory(not unshared) and say that I suspect Bush and company knew of the attacks beforehand and ignored them to get their new pearl harbor and perhaps used controlled demolition to create an even bigger impact. I put very little past this bunch who have in fact been lying to us and supressing information since day one.
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 11:51:36 PM
Webster Tarpley does not speak for the entire 9/11 truth movement. Dr. David Ray Griffin has sold far more books about 9/11 truth than Webster Tarpley. Another prominent 9/11 truth activist is William Rodriguez, the World Trade Center South Tower janitoral supervisor who was decorated by President Bush for his bravery that day. He is now travelling the world, telling about the explosions he saw and heard in the tower that day.
You avoid commenting about Richard Gage, President of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. That's right, professionals who know controlled demolition when they see it. http://www.ae911truth.org
For anyone who wants a basic introduction to 9/11 truth, I reccomend http://www.911truth.org. The name says it all.
by
Russ Hallberg (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 6 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 10:36:56 PM
Mr. Hallberg, I never said that Mr. Tarpley speaks for the entire organization, though he does have a voice in it. All I'm doing is questioning a very valid aspect of 9/11, like anyone interested in finding the truth. Trust me when I say I take no stock in the government explanation.
As for Richard Gage, I had no reason in mentioning him since he was not a subject in my investigation. Mr. Gage is a California architect and I understand a rather good one. Although I do not know everything there is to know about him or his group, "Patriots Question 9/11," up till the posting of this article, I found no ties to right wing extremists concerning them.
Furthermore, my objectives are not aimed to cheapen the entire movement, only expose the certain unsavory elements, which in the end should only lend to strengthening, rather than weakening its resolve.
Thank you for your commentary.
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 11:13:02 PM
Since so much of the previous comments have been about Webster Tarpley, it's hard not to say something about him. I had never heard of him until I became interested in finding out the truth about 9/11. I agree that he has some negatives -- ironically, given the comments here, I think he tends too much to ad hominem attacks, referring to Cheney as a pitiful drunk, etc. I think he tends to cry wolf a bit in regard to when the US will attack Iran, but, then, few doubt that Iran is in the gov'ts sights, and it does seem to just be a matter of time. Unlike some suggestions here, he does not seem to be at all anti-semitic, and his book about the early Bush is largely about the latter's Nazi connections. He usually goes out of his way to say he does not think of Israel as a principle actor in 9/11, rather focusing on the US, and England, the ruling class of which seems to inspire his particular dislike and suspicion. In general, and especially because of his present untiring work about 9/11, I think he is presentlya positive force.
If Tarpley was not already tied to LaRouche, which I take commenters' words for, not really knowing much about it myself, I can see why one might equate "9/11 truth movement" with "LaRouchers", because I can understand how one might think they both tend to "muddy the waters" of the left, creating diversion and divisiveness. But I think the important thing, rather, is to focus on the message and not the messanger. When I read a LaRouche handout that a sincere looking tabler gives me, I try to make sense out of it. If if seems too complicated or sidetracking, I put it aside. But why worry about LaRouche per se? Just deal with what he's saying.
The truth about 9/11, that agents of the US government probably caused it, is anything but complicating or sidetracking. One of my personal, but unproveable beliefs, is that the main reason the anti-war movement continues to lack major force is that many people carry the almost sub-concious feeling that, even though Iraq didn't cause 9/11, the US is doing the right thing in battering the Arabs into submission so that no one there will be able to "attack us again." If I am correct, it is of the greatest importance to realize that 9/11 was an "inside job." Indisputably, "9/11" is key to the whole "war on terror", and it is not "disturbing" or "demoralizing" to realize that it is a phony war, without real basis, but rather liberating. It points backward to the Kennedy Assassination and earlier to the founding of the "national security state" and the imperial presidency. It points forward to the new war with Iran and probable martial law, with all that that implies.
While it's valuable, I suppose, to point out that there may be charlatans and opportunists involved with the movement, one could also argue that such preoccupations play the same part in muddying the discussion of 9/11 as the author claims LaRouche, Tarpley and others play on the democratic left stage.
by
Fred W (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 12:06:47 AM
Good points Phredo. I really don't find anything in Shaw's article that furthers the cause of the 9/11 truth movement. Personally, I don't care is someone is a right winger, I take it as axiomatic that there are many conservatives in our movement. But simply pointing out that Tarpley was once a LaRouche follower is not serving anyone. That is already well known, and has recently been debated at length over at 9/11 Blogger. Tarpley recently repudiated LaRouche anyway. I have my criticisms of Tarpley, but his book on 9/11 was pretty damn good anyway. The 9/11 Truth movement is not a progressive movement, in fact, prominent "progressives" have been mostly missing in action on 9/11, if not the most ardent supporters of the official conspiracy theory. Given the idiotic fulminations of someone like Alexander Cockburn against 9/11 Truthers, the fact of Tarpley's background seems rather trivial by comparison. I could see the utility of his article if the 911 truth movement were a progressive movement, but it is a movement composed of people across the entire political spectrum.
by
Jeff Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 11:11:10 AM
Fred I appreciate your comments and your rational arguments. In all fairness to the reader, Tarpley did eventually leave the LaRouche movement in the mid 1990's, but the association cannot be refuted.
Tarpley's message over Iran was indeed a cry of wolf. Thanks for pointing that out. It seemed to have originated from here: http://www.rense.com/general75/bite.htm
Tarpley was trying to take credit for something that had been circulated in French newspapers months before his Operation Bite article came out. Also I would argue that Iran has been a target of US interest since the Shah was deposed and before. If it had no oil, I doubt it we would even be talking about them.
Jeff Rense and Tarpley are good buddies. Why is it that most of Tarpley's buddy's are anti Semitic and have been so long before 9/11? In this context how can we believe their theorizations now?
A recurring subject on the Rense show is a general mistrust of the establishment, and the theory that the attacks on the WTC were orchestrated by Israeli neoconservative elements within the US government, the CIA and the Israeli Mossad. Most of Tarpley's associates share this same theme.
Consider this interesting tidbit, Tarpley was honored as a guest speaker for Morgan Stack, an Irish politician(and Ireland's leading 9/11 conspiracy theorist) and yet one more guy who enjoys blaming the Jews for 9/11.
As for attacking the messenger, I would point out that guys like Tarpley and his associates attack media, not just major media(which I feel in many instances deserves it) but independent media as well, who have done a very good job in showing us the nefarious actions of this current administration. Is that not in itself attacking the messenger? I would dare argue that it is.
I've read Mr. Tarpley's book, Bush: The Unauthorized Biography. He presents some interesting points about the Bush/ Hitler connection, the Trading with the Enemy Act, the financing of Hitler etc. I liked his book. I see some relevance to it. I also know of the long ongoing relationship between Bush and Dulles, two families I believe the United States would have been better off without. My problems with Tarpley do not stem from his book about Bush, my problems stem with his associations. Perhaps we should ask ourselves this question: Why does a guy who condemns far right wingers on the one hand, run around with them on the other?
Tarpley is a long time cohort of Lyndon J LaRouche, a man considered by many to be an extreme right winger and virulently anti-Semite. This cannot be ignored!
On these terms, how can anyone support, protect, shield and defend such an individual? How can he be trusted? He may be one of the first leading voices behind the 9/11 movement, but considering all the bogus conspiracies he and LaRouche have come up with over the years and his current associations, how can such a man be taken seriously? More importantly, how do his dubious connections help the 9/11 for Truth movement?
When I wrote this article I knew I wouldn't be winning any popularity contests, particularly from those who consider Tarpley's word as gold. To them what I have to say will only be pluralized into one basic theme, if I don't agree with Tarpley, then I must be against the entire 9/11 truth movement. I see that in the same light as the hyper-speak that came from Bush after 9/11, "Either you're with us or your with the terrorists!" If this article makes me an agent of evil to some, then so be it. I didn't present this article to beat around the bush, but to get to the root of the matter. I believe I made some relevant contributions to that end. Will it please everyone? Of course not. In fact it shouldn't. But hopefully it will allow people to give it more thought rather then simply gobble up what they're being spoonfed.
As for the peace movement being weaker than it's much larger predecessor, I see much of that as a result of no draft. I would also contend that private security forces(like Blackwater) do much to shadow actual casualty numbers since there as as many of them in Iraq as there are US military.
Thanks again for your comments!
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 2:02:47 PM
Tarpley doesn't blame Mossad, although he does not shy away from the suggestion that it may have played a role. And there is indeed evidence for this. There are good reasons to attack people like Goodman and Berlet, as they have vehemently defended the official conspiracy theory, which has been shown to be a pile of rubbish by people who take the time to actually sift through the evidence. Goodman even "explained" the collapse of WTC 7 in her book, "Exception to the Rulers" -- even before NIST has explained it!
by
Jeff Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 11:18:03 AM
Mr. Smith I happen to own an autographed copy of Exception to the Rulers and nowhere in there does Amy Goodman explain the collapse of Tower 7. I would also point out that Democracy Now was one of the first(if not the first) news outlet's that actually gave anyone in the 9/11 truth movement the time of day. She was certainly not rewarded for her generosity.
She did ask one question on her show during a debate between Griffin and Berkel that got a lot of theorists in a huff:
AMY GOODMAN: Can you name an expert you have relied on, for example on the issue of the world trade center towers going down, expert in structural engineering who has said it is impossible for the explanation to be the planes hit, and the fires caused the towers to go down?
DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: Well, again, I say I have got 40 pages of notes. I've got a lot of notes on that chapter, and so readers can go and see the --
AMY GOODMAN: Name just one. Name just one structural engineering expert who said it is not feasible that the planes caused the towers to go down.
DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: I'm sorry, I don't have that information at my fingertips right at this moment.
Because of this, suddenly Goodman became an agent of the Bush Administration. How dare she ask a ligitimate question! Later of course and long after the fact, they did come up with one. Charles N.Pegelow. Since then others have comeforth from acadamia like Jerry Russel, Judy Wood and Heikki Kurttila, but they are hardly what you'd call the bulk of the structural engineering community.
I have seen reference occasionally to "news" reports that apparently come from a White House insider. These reports are titled "The Voice of the White House" and are being put out there by TBRNews. The latest installement is all about Gannon (as are many previous postings).
According to TBR News, this "source" is "a reporter with access to the White House and Presidential press briefings." I began reading some of these reports from when they began back in March of 2004 and, while they are entertaining and sometimes convincing, something smelled bad. So I started to dig....
I think I should first start with TBR News itself. From their website, in the About Us section, the editor calls himself Walter Storch and says that TBR News originally came from the Barnes Review magazine. I have since come to discover, through two sources (one from the CIA and the other from a historical revisionist named Germar Rudolf, that Walter Storch is one of many pseudonyms used by Peter Stahl, a.k.a. Gregory Douglas. So, who is Gregory Douglas?
Well, let's just say I've waded through so many filthy revisionist websites today that I feel almost sick. In essence, it's all about anti-semitism and the holocost was a hoax sh*t. Regardless, I plugged my nose, took some gravol, and plowed my way through to find some very interesting information.
It appears Gregory Douglas (or Peter Stahl, or Walter Storch, or ....) is a very elusive character. The following are a few of the things written on him:
During our first conversation in 1994, Dr. Sudholt informed me that Gregory Douglas was the pseudonym of an American writer with connections to American secret services; early in 2001, Mr. Douglas contacted me by telephone in the US. He said he had gotten my number from the Washington revisionist Andrew Gray, since deceased, and that Gray had described me as a rising star and new leader in the Revisionist movement. Mr. Douglas obviously felt a great need to talk to someone. Since I was entirely alone and a good listener, he called me more and more frequently, until he was calling every day and expounding on God, the world, and his action packed life. Some of his tales were truly wild and far-fetched, concerning his dealings with high ranking dignitaries and the underground, in which he always emerged as the hero. Since his lengthy tales helped familiarize me with American colloquial language, I let him talk as much as he wanted. Thanks to my sheeplike patience and his need to talk endlessly, Douglas developed so much confidence in me that he invited me to his home, where he revealed some of his most intimate secrets.[10]
Let me summarize what I learned about him.
After we had become well acquainted, Douglas confessed to me that his real name was Peter Stahl, and he showed me his identification papers. He said he often used the name of his illegitimate son, however. In 1993, this son had begun writing newspaper articles about Gestapo-Müller. This had inspired him (Stahl) to publish the articles in book form. His son had signed the contract with the US publisher and had also received the royalties.
He said that he himself had been born in Germany in 1933. Because of hard times in Germany his parents emigrated to the US in 1934; but finding conditions in the US even worse than in Germany, they gave him up for adoption. Eventually, he was adopted by a German American family. As a young man he researched his parentage and learned that his mother maiden name was Müller and that here family roots went back to the German-French region of Alsace.
Stahl was strongly influenced by his adoptive grandfather, a staunch German nationalist; and since early childhood, Stahl had a strong interest in everything that had to do with Germany and the Third Reich. The defeat of Germany in WWII did not dampen his enthusiasm. In his youth, he began collecting and dealing in National Socialist memorabilia, with which he soon developed an intimate familiarity. This trade became lucrative, as there was a huge market for NS memorabilia from the fifties to the seventies. He progressed from Hitler paintings to other art and sculpture, becoming an artist and art dealer along the way.
In 1963, his predilection for all things German and his admiration for the Third Reich brought him in contact with a German war veteran who introduced himself as a fighter pilot and later confided that he had been a member of the Führer's honor squadron (Führer-Begleitstaffel). After some time, this pilot introduced Stahl to a friend who later revealed his real identity: Gestapo-Chef Heinrich Müller. A great surprise developed from the discussion of Stahl's family background, as it turns out that Heinrich Müller's family originates from the region of Alsace, had a sister with exactly the same name as Stahl's mother, who happened to have emigrated to the U.S. in the year given by Stahl. A comparison of Stahl's family documents with those in the possession of Heinrich Müller reveals that Stahl is indeed Müller's nephew.
Whoa!! OK, this writer is a revisionist himself, so take THAT with a grain of salt. Anyway, Douglas apparently wrote some books on Muller and on the JFK assassination, most of which gets debunked but still sits in the libraries of the most die-hard conspiracy theorists out there.
In other places, I have read that he is in the FBI witness protection program, that he was in the secret service, etc.. In his own words, as shown in this e-mail and this e-mail, he says he lives in France and used to live in Vancouver. He also says he knows the owners of the Barnes Review but they have nothing to to with TBR News (I'll get to those connections in a minute).
Two gentlemen have been extremely critical of Douglas' books, one man named Mark Weber of IHR and the other a gentleman called David Irving. They've had plenty to say about Douglas and his writings. And Douglas apparently despises both of them. Which brings to mind another quote from the Rudolf paper:
Stahl has a terrible reputation for dealing ruthlessly with those who make his life difficult. He has ways of ruining their economic and social lives by means which are legal and yet very effective. As a trained secret agent with many influential connections he has both the abilities and opportunities to do this. He seems to derive real pleasure from carrying on private feuds.
It was this quote that made me realize that the Voice from the White House that TBR claims to get the information from is actually Stahl/Douglas/Storch himself. Here is a quote from the February 28, 2005 installment, where the "source" says:
Here is the Guckert/Gannon website that sets forth both his fury at being tossed out of the White House like a dog that pissed on the floor and his monumental ego. These following rants sound like something concocted by failed British revisionist, David Irving, who used to put out a pathetic website as well, that informed dozens of people about his daily meals, pets, bowel habits and favorite television programs.
This, along with other things, leads me to believe that Stahl/Douglas/Storch is actually writing these things himself. There is no "source" in the White House sending e-mails to TBR News. This whacko is making it up as he goes along. Why? God only knows....
Finally, his connection to Willis Carto, owner of the Barnes Review, an extreme right wing hate-type site, is not in dispute either. Although his association to Carto seems to be exclusively through the pseudonym Gregory Douglas. This article fron the Southern Poverty Law Center really says it all: ever wonder where the theory came from that Bush knew about 911 ahead of time? Well, here you go. A real group of crackers here.
In the end, it worries me that this twerp is getting in there on the Gannon story. I would caution anyone who is seriously interested in the Gannon investigation to COMPLETELY AVOID citing anything from TBR or the so-called "Voice From the White House". There is nothing that will discredit the Gannon story quicker than having these people invlolved.
I just wanted to thank you for bringing forth so much interesting and important information. The last time I tried to quote the Southern Poverty Law Center, of whom I subscribe to, I was told by a raver that they were a front for the Mossad and the CIA. Of course I was also told (by the same raver) the Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by Black militants rather then white rascists. I believe the foundation in his arguments came from the Barnes review.
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 1, 2007 at 1:11:59 AM
For those of you actually following the stories I've been posting concerning TBRNews.org, I have recieved further information on the real identity of Brian Harring (the so-called author of the de-bunked 9000 dead servicemen story). I have been in e-mail communication with him and he has authorized me to post this diary in the hopes that he can somehow clear his name.
Assuming everything he has told me is true and he isn't part of this whole scam, then this gentlemen needs some help, if only to get the truth out there.
I'll try to sum it all up below the fold (apologies if it gets too long!)
First, the background for those of you not familiar with this. I strongly suggest reading my first two diaries to get a real appreciation of what's going on.
So, to sum up to this point. TBRNews.org is a scam website. It promotes conspiracy theories and made-up stories as truth. Why? Well, I have my own theories on this. The theory I like best is a comment posted to this story from 2002 and can be found here:
Right Wing Propagandists by Fight the Right Tuesday December 10, 2002 at 01:05 PM
Rivero, What Really Happened, Go off, Dandelion, Gordon Thomas are essentially all part of an inbred and incestuous network of Right Wing propagandists and disinformation artists.
They included not only the standard Hard Right outlets like Newsmax but also Christian Fascist moupieces like Dandelion.
Their political function and agenda in general is to act as a phony opposition or Trojan Horse media specifically targetted towards those people who question the official story. If you study the disinformation put out by these propagandists, you will see a similar pattern in that they question the official story or version of events--only to carefully spin the issue in a way which just so happens to reinforce their own Right Wing agendas and political campaigns.
In particular with respect to 9-11, most of the sites have tried to seize upon obvious holes and lies in the official story about 9-11 in order to direct and deflect blame AWAY from the Bush Regime and American State in general towards some foreign bogeyman or patsy.
The bottom line is that these pseudo-alternative media outlets set up by the Right Wing have the effect of being classic CIA style psyops operations. They question the official story, only to steer and focus attention away from the more fascistic political factions which support the American military-corporate complex onto a suitable "enemy" foreign or domestic.
I have spent countless hours researching this aspect of the story and found a disturbing link between my research on TBRNews (specifically how it relates to Harring's current threats) and the story referenced above. Also, the person who wrote the story above calls himself S. Boyle and I can find nothing from him past April of 2003 when he stopped writing on his blog. If you care to read a further entry of S. Boyle on the harassment he got in early 2003 concerning his research, you can see that here.
Anyway, on to Brian Harring. Brian is a computer geek who works on Linux stuff (I won't even begin to describe it, I'm not that computer literate!). Brian knew Peter Stahl (one of the many pseudonyms used by Walter Storch, editor of TBRNews) a few years ago and lost touch. He became aware that his name was being used on the military deaths story because he began getting e-mails from readers who googled his name trying to track him down. He then googled TBRNews and Walter Storch and came across my original diary where he recognized the name Peter Stahl as someone he once knew. He then e-mailed me wanting to know if I knew how to contact Mr. Stahl. This was when I wrote the second diary on the subject. I did some independent checking, made a few calls and have determined that the computer-geek Brian Harring is who he says he is. And he is NOT the one who wrote the TBRNews story.
Brian then contacted (via e-mail) Peter Stahl to get him to cease and desist using his name on the story. What ensued was a series of e-mails back and forth between the two. Brian then catalogued the whole story on his blog, complete with copies of all the e-mails and background on his past relationship with Pete Stahl.
His latest entry along with another e-mail to me today details the fact that he is now being threatened by Mr. Stahl and the "publisher" who is supposedly going to write a book based on "Brian Harring's" DOD findings.
Now, the tie-in to the story from 2002 that I reference above is important to why the theory quoted above makes some sense. The so-called publisher for this current book is a woman named Carol Adler from Dandelion Books. It's clear when you google her or Dandelion that this is a sham on-line publishing operation, as evidenced here. This is also the organization tied to S. Boyle's story from 2002 where he found evidence of umbrella ownership with a number of these conspiracy-pushing websites. I think TBRNews is also one of these websites and part of this umbrella organization which S. Boyle identifies as Great Dominion. What I don't know is who is behind it all. Or is it simply coincidence that Stahl is trying to get this fake book published by Dandelion Books?
Perhaps this is something e-Pluribus Media would like to dig into. I think there is a story here, but I have limited resources, any help would be appreciated.
I was never a Trot, and never remotely a Maoist. As editor of Ramparts I wrote articles attacking Maoism. You can read one in my book Left Illusions. Why don't you guys read what you're attacking first?
by
Jay Lovestone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 103 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 12:15:10 PM
David Joel Horowitz (born 10 January1939) is an American conservative writer and activist. Once a prominent supporter of Marxism and a member of the New Left in the 1960s, Horowitz later rejected Leftism and is now on the right of the political spectrum. He is a founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center (formerly the Center for the Study of Popular Culture), and has served as president of that organization for many years. He is the editor of the conservative website FrontPage Magazine, and his writings can also be read on prominent news sites and publications, including the conservative magazine NewsMax.[1] He founded the activist group Students for Academic Freedom and is affiliated with Campus Watch. He occasionally appears on the Fox News Channel as an analyst.
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 2, 2007 at 9:48:48 AM
American Free Press are generally free of racist...
Ah, those ads in every issue of The American Free Press hawking favorable documentaries on the Nazi Waffen SS? Willis Carto, publisher calling Blacks, "Mattoids, " just like the the Neo-Nazis w/their term, "Mud People."
by
Jay Lovestone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 103 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 12:17:56 PM
Well Jay I was referring to the articles themselves, but you are very right about the ads. Since The American Free Press and The Barnes Review are the same entity, it make little difference since the latter exhibits their philosophies without apology.
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 1, 2007 at 6:17:17 PM
Piper | The Official Website of Representative David Duke, PhD... Rabbi Dov Weiss, Paul Fromm, Wendy Campbell, Dr. Frederick Toben, Eileen Fleming, ..... *American Free Press founder and publisher Willis Carto... davidduke.com/index.php?s=piper&submit=go
by
Jay Lovestone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 103 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 12:21:10 PM
Jay I never once called Mr. Horowitz a holocaust denier though I do place him in the same general category of some who are. Whether Mr. Horowitz wishes to admit it or not, what he promotes is racially biased. I see that as being no different then LaRouche, a guy who created the new left, a group Mr. Horowitz himself is very familiar with.
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 2, 2007 at 9:59:40 AM
Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of..
Heh. BOGUS QUOTE! Check out a book entitled, "They Never Said It!, " published in the 70's. Full of hoaxes, which folks like Reagan later repeated about Lenin and Stalin. Another book, "The Hoaxers, " by Morris Kaminsky, details hundreds of fake quotes from Leftists, manufactured by hard core Right-Wing Ideologues. Like the poster above with their fixation on the New World Order.
by
Jay Lovestone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 103 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 12:37:49 PM
You have to check the evidence to which he is referring if you want to find the truth. We know that Steve Jones has presented massaged data - he was also invovled in the Cold Fusion Cover up.
I am not paid to pass these facts on to you. You can read an article I wrote about the background to the split between the Wood/Reynolds camp and the Jones camp. It includes details about me, where I am from, my family background and what I have done professionally.
Steve Jones and his crowd are on a different side to us - one that ignores or suppresses discussion of evidence. We don't suppress discussion of thermite (or nukes) but we do use evidence and logic to refute claims which contradict the laws of Physics.
If you poke round my website (when it's back up), you'll find my phone number. Ring me up and ask me anything you like (UK)
No one pays me - apart from the Open University, whom I work for part time.
Keep it real...
by
Andrew Johnson (2 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 97 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 2:09:41 PM
“For example, some (not all) of the so called 9/11 conspiracy theorists have ties to Lyndon LaRouche, the same guy who said MI-6 was trying to assassinate him and that the Beatles were a creation of Britain’s Defense Ministry. He also said the Queen of England was the biggest dope peddler on the planet and that Britain, (not Hitler) was responsible for the second world war.”
Let me ask you a simple question. If Brown Brothers and other Wall Street-based entities hadn’t supplied Hitler with half his funds and steel, would there have been a World War II? Your apparent ignorance of the substantial body of scholarship supporting the “Versailles Thesis” is no excuse for parroting a cheap lampoon that deprives of their critical context claims which by themselves appear outlandish. If you are unfamiliar with such entities as the Tavistock Institute, for example, or of the well-documented funding of the Nazis by Anglo-American financier factions, or of current links between British intelligence and Islamic radicalism/terrorism, you have no business entering this discussion with what at best is a smear of Webster Tarpley based in guilt-by-association.
There are those of us who, before we waste others’ time with uninformed opinions, attempt as best we can to avail ourselves of the relevant public record, especially before we go lumping the likes of Webster Tarpley with right wing extremists. Tarpley has clearly and emphatically condemned and repudiated Holocaust denial as odious, wrong and, most importantly, “untrue.” “We spit it out,” he insisted at the 9/11 Accountability Conference in Arizona in February of this year; I recommend you listen to those comments, which are readily available on Google Video. Tarpley has been at the forefront of protecting our movement from the extremists on our fringes, whom you do little more than highlight, once again, as though 9/11 truthers should continually have our faces rubbed in the fact that certain fanatics and bigots are taking advantage of 9/11’s having been an act of state-sponsored terrorism in order to blame, who else, the Jews. It would be far more helpful of you to study the body of critical literature comprising the 9/11 truth movement’s mainstream—including Tarpley’s book—so as to offer a constructive refutation of these extremists, but that of course would have required real effort.
I am deeply sorry for your loss on 9/11, but if I may, your chum deserves a better-faith effort at getting to the truth about 9/11 than merely stirring up old muck. Yes we know there’s an ugly fringe ready to put the ugly truth of 9/11 to ugly uses; it’s obvious that some among them may be the very people involved in 9/11 in the first place. Pointing this out is easy; even Fox News does it, and it’s of course a staple of 9/11 “debunking,” whose egregious-faith efforts you’ve done little more than replicate. May I commend to you, especially considering that you appear to take lightly any suggestion that the oldest extant monarchy in the western world is anything other than hapless or benevolent, Nafeez Ahmed’s three excellent books covering Britain’s role in state sponsored terrorism, specifically 9/11 and the London bombings of 7/7.
A bit of proper boning-up, Mr. Shaw. You at least seem to suspect we might be on to something with 9/11 truth. Given the stakes (and your friend’s memory!), having the decency to investigate 9/11 beyond the obvious inadequacies of our fringe seems more than in order. Otherwise one is liable to think you consider the issue a mere curiosity, that you’re yet another “leftist” who’s too good for us “conspiracy theorists,” but who’s decided to do a little slumming anyway. “To hell with caution” indeed.
Dear Chip Berlet:
“At some point leaders of the antiwar movement need to have a discussion about the larger issue of conspiracism. Right now, however, it is clear that some progressives have been snared by Tarpley’s mesmerizing presentations. This could undermine the credibility of the antiwar movement, alienate its existing base, and jeopardize its relationship with existing allies. This should be obvious no matter what your individual position is on the unanswered questions surrounding 9/11. The antiwar movement needs to welcome individuals from a broad range of political beliefs who share the goal of ending the war in Iraq. However this open door policy should not include allowing charlatans and hucksters to disrupt the movement. It is time to slam the door in the face of Webster G. Tarpley and his ilk.”
So, Chip, let me get this straight. Webster Tarpley is a “charlatan” and “huckster” who “snares” progressives with “mesmerizing presentations.” And HE’s the threat to the “credibility of the antiwar movement”?
Apart, of course, from the efforts of the dedicated few, just what credibility are you referring to, Mr. Berlet? And just what part of the “existing base,” and precisely which “existing allies,” does a critical appraisal of 9/11 “alienate”?
“At some point leaders of the antiwar movement need to have a discussion about the larger issue of conspiracism.” Yes, sooner or later a feckless, moribund and supercilious left is going to have to come face to face with the fact, amply detailed (among other places) in the critical writings of Peter Dale Scott, David Ray Griffin and Nafeez Ahmed, that 9/11—the backbone of every major Bush foreign policy initiative and the only reason there is any support whatsoever left for this war—WAS an inside job.
“At some point” mewling, politically correct, identity obsessed and theory stuffed crybabies are going to have to swallow their own arrogant prejudices about “conspiracism” and accept that the real antiwar movement—what there is of it—is just fine with 9/11 truth, and that the truth about 9/11, so far as the public record reveals it, is the greatest tool at the disposal of those who sincerely want to end this war, rather than prate about how much smarter we are than an administration whose almost-every aim we’ve so miserably failed to thwart.
Only if and when the antiwar movement owns up to the nature of the threat we face will we have any hope of ending a war that promises to carry on into the next, likely Democratic, presidency, the leading candidates for which still refuse to commit to ending the Bush wars within their first term. If perchance these (or their supporters) are among the “allies” you’re too timid to offend, then at some point, and soon, the antiwar movement needs to have “a discussion” about you.
And please, enough with the guilt-by-association already. Who doesn’t feel indebted to Christopher Bollyn for his exposure of nepotism at the Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics? Does that make us Nazis? And if Tarpley wants to reach a broad audience he could do far worse than Jeff Rense. I do not know whether Rense.com promotes any more revisionist view of the Holocaust than is to be found in Norman Finkelstein’s books, which strike me as valid, scholarly and fair-minded (recall that Finkelstein’s mother was in the Nazi death camps). To say we’ve not heard the last word on the Holocaust or the unscrupulous political uses to which its memory has been put (specifically by the neocon/Likud factions in US and Israeli politics) is a far cry from denying it ever occurred. To suggest otherwise plays into the hands of those who equate any and all criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism. From my limited awareness of Rense, he seems a staunch critic of AIPAC/Zionist-extremist influence in American politics, not a hater of the Jewish people. I could be wrong of course, but you’d have to show me with more than innuendo.
Your lip-service to welcoming “individuals from a broad range of political beliefs” is belied by what smacks of a creeping Stalinism, your consistently delimiting the antiwar movement to the “right type,” a tendency that’s done far more to castrate the left and empower our enemies than it ever has to end the Bush wars. It may come as a shock to your frail sense of politesse, but plenty of perfectly intelligent and accomplished people are interested in the UFO phenomenon, for a variety of reasons…some suspect it may have something to do with advanced weapons systems. And plenty of decent people, many Jews among them I can assure you, despise the misappropriation of the Nazi genocide against some dozen million Jews and other peoples in the service of reenacting such a slaughter, this time against the Arabs. (Need I remind you that apparently reliable estimates put the civilian death toll in Iraq since the US invasion at well over a million?) But perhaps these are among the issues the “leaders” of “the antiwar movement” will need to “discuss” as you deal with those of us who might offend your “allies.”
And while we’re at it, I don’t know whether you or I have greater right to take offense at, say, what you (perhaps rightly) allege is Mr. LaRouche’s homophobia, and I absolutely could not care less. If I have to work with some homophobes to end this war I’ll do it. Some of us might even—gosh forbid!—learn to respect one another along the way. Or would you ban from the antiwar movement people uncomfortable with homosexuality, along with those interested in UFOs or who abhor the use of the Nazi genocide as an excuse to oppress and murder Arabs? Meanwhile, as the “leaders” of “the antiwar movement” “discuss” on behalf of the rest of us the matter of “conspiracism,” please don’t issue any bulls against social conservatives on MY account.
You write, as an alleged example of Tarpley’s hysteria, that “According to Tarpley, antiwar activists needed to quickly confront ‘the Cheney doctrine, which calls for a new super 9/11 with weapons of mass destruction in the US, to be used as the pretext for a nuclear attack on Iran and for martial law at home.’”
Is it nothing to you that Zbigniew Brzezinsky issued, in testimony before the Senate on February 1st of this year, a warning suggesting very much the same thing? Or that the Head of Homeland Security not long after stated that his “gut” told him we were to be attacked again? These are outrageous, ominous and deadly serious comments from high public officials, are they not? Would you have us ignore them? Or is acting upon them in your view somehow wrong? Is holding officials accountable for such ominous warnings counterproductive? Is the President’s suspension of habeas corpus nothing to you? Is it not perhaps in the least bit portentous? If not then say so; if so, then of what, perchance, pray tell? Are we to simply ignore reports of internment camps being built across the country? If so, why? Because they are too depressing? Are you saying, Mr. Berlet, that there is NO appreciable threat of marshal law, or of another attack? And do you deny the possibility—in spite of the critical labors of Griffin, Scott, Ahmed and a host of others—that such an attack might be state-sponsored in nature? Speak up please! As arbiter of all things appropriate and inoffensive, you have no idea how many of us are hanging on you and our “leaders’” decrees on these matters!
Finally, let us view the Kennebunkport Memo controversy in its proper perspective. While you squeal about Mr. Tarpley’s less than excellent tactics in that respect, he is focused on what seems to many of us the far graver and certainly more germane issue of just how six clearly-armed nuclear missiles—found to have been flown over the United States after having been “mistakenly” attached under the wings of an aircraft (an eight hour process)—ended up at a staging area for US military efforts in the Middle East after having been “missing” for a day and a half. For anyone inclined to dismiss the gravity of this story, please consider the excellent articles on the matter at Michel Chossudovsky’s Globalresearch.ca before replying.
Far from the sideshow hypnotist you paint him as, Mr. Tarpley is a guerilla fighter in the effort against this war as well as what he, and many others of us, believe could well be an ensuing one with Iran. In short, World War III, that is if the rising bellicosity in US/Russian rhetoric actually means anything. Are you prepared to deny that it does, Mr. Berlet? If Tarpley’s methods have offended some, that’s to be expected, as he’s only human after all. And if one or another of his dire predictions doesn’t pan out, that’s to be labored and prayed for. While certain “progressives” may not like his style (though they still commend his facts, apparently) it’s clear that a number of people who’ve operated within intelligence and military communities in the US and abroad (including Russian General Leonid Ivashov, former German Minister for Research and Technology Andreas von Bulow and ex-CIA and Marine Intelligence officer Robert Steele among a host of others) seem to think that he isn’t far off the mark when it comes to both the Bush regime and 9/11. Now, Chip, what might that say about “the antiwar movement,” its “leaders,” and you?
Sincerely,
Tom Breidenbach
by
Tom Breidenbach (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 7:32:25 PM
Mr. Breidenbach, I am well aware of LaRouche and Tarpley, who together manifested a fantasy blaming Britain rather than Germany for all the major wars of the 20th century. I do in fact blame Victorian royalty for WW1(who couldn't?) which I see as a battle royale to discover which cousin would control the planet. I never needed LaRouche or Tarpley to point this out. I would add however and by an historical standpoint, that in both instances (WW1 and WW2), Germany fired the first shots.
Getting into the various business associations between certain US corporations and fascist Germany is an interesting subject deserving attention. But alas, this was not the topic/subject of the article, which was meant to expose extreme right wing elements in the current 9/11 for truth movement, rather than the associations of Prescot Bush, John Foster Dulles or Henry Ford in the 1930's-40's. I'll admit however, I would willingly advocate and even pursue such a storyline.
As you have no doubt realized, my article was never meant to be a promotional piece or pole dance for Tarpley's, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography.
Sorry to have disappointed you and thank you for your comments.
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 1, 2007 at 12:40:52 AM
A “pole dance,” Mr. Shaw? Really! Whoever expected such a thing, especially from a middle-aged blogger?
All any fair-minded reader of my comments would expect from you by way of reply is a clear answer to the question I posed, rather than the petulant dodge you accorded it. I’ll rephrase, with the assurance that no one to my knowledge, least of all me, wants to see you shimmy, slide and/or wriggle; so please STOP doing so and kindly address the issue already, rather than resorting to trendy nightclub allusions that conjure nauseating images…
Let’s say I’m a very wealthy and powerful individual with contacts to banking and industry like no other in the world. I know of a certain crackpot, a failed artist with a questionable past who’s been to jail for an attempted insurrection and who while there dictated a book outlining a plan to take over Europe and deal with the Jews. With his plans common knowledge to any well-informed gentleman like myself, I pour vast monies and materials into supporting this man, building and funding half of the superiorly mechanized death-cult with which he would make war on the world for over half a decade. Afterward close associates of mine are even found guilty in the Supreme Court of the United States for aiding this man! Now, who is more responsible for what this man did? Him, merely because he “fired the first shots” like he said he was going to do all along? Or me, for SHOVELING HIM HAND OVER FIST HALF OF EVERYTHING HE NEEDED TO DO IT through the likes of, oh let’s say, Fritz Thiessen?
If a madman goes on a shooting rampage with an AK-47 supplied to him from some source without which he couldn’t have acquired it, is that source not responsible for that man’s actions, especially if the madman had clearly outlined his intention to go on just such a rampage? What would the police think?
Mr. Shaw, upon your answering this question depends how seriously anyone will be able to take your painting of Tarpley as a fabulist, as well as how seriously anyone will be able to take you. Now come down off that pole, sir. Please.
by
Tom Breidenbach (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Friday, Nov 2, 2007 at 5:13:39 PM
With all due respect sir, that is exactly what you have been doing here for Mr. Tarpley. Apparently his ties to right wing radicalism doesn't phase you.
Concerning Mr. Tarpley's ideas on the second world war, you're asking me to disprove theories, entities in themselves which have never been, or in all likelihood, will ever be proved. On these terms, I fail to see how arguing these points could lead to anywhere unless of course you can proof them with hard, verifiable evidence. It's like arguing over the demolition theory. Is it possible? Yes! But there is no hard evidence. Without that, it will remain a theory indefinitely.
Now perhaps you'll take offense to this and if so I apologize. But I feel my last post to you was suffient, especially since we are not talking about George Bush the UnAuthorized biography or his father's connections to Theissen. Though I am no fan of the Bush dynasty(or this administration), have no faith in the government explanation of 9/11 and realize these nefarious connections of the past(thanks to the right to know act), this really has nothing to do with the article. Many people already know about the Bush connection to fascism and in this epiphany you will get little argument from me. Frankly, I see the extreme right wing elements in the truth movement as plants who benefit the Bush administration, even though they openly attack it. But then again, this is yet another theory.
My article contains data showing associations and backgrounds of questionable characters inside the 9/11 Truth Movement and this was my primary goal, to question these theorists who have questionable backgrounds and on that basis, then decide if we can take the theories they present at their word or not. If you wish to disprove these associations, then by all means please do so. To believe Mr. Tarpley, or not to believe him, that is the question and up to the individual.
Also if you had read any of the other commentary I've made in here to other posters, you would have noted that I liked his book and found some relevance to it.
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 2, 2007 at 7:10:28 PM
Trading With Enemies One could read through the bulk of mainstream Bush family biographies and find no mention of a significant 1942 event: That year the U.S. federal government, under the auspices of the office of the U.S Alien Property Custodian. seized the assets of the Union Banking Corporation, a subsidiary of Brown Brothers Harriman, under authority of the "Trading with the Enemy Act." Prescott Bush served on the board.
An eclectic body of revisionist work, most originally available in book form (and most now "out of print"), has been dedicated to investigating the background of this historically excised event. Though largely ignored by established book reviewing media, mainstream print, and broadcast punditry, three books in particular have attempted to explore and document the historical background of the "Bush-Nazi" connection. These attempts to fill in the gaps left by mainstream historians have found new life on the web. The most frequently cited and circulated source of Bush-Nazi investigations/conspiranoia, George Bush-The Unauthorized Biography (a biography of George Herbert Walker Bush) by Webster Griffin Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, published in 1992, while well-documented, is also the most suspect. The problem is that Tarpley and Chaitkin are colleagues of the political cult leader Lyndon LaRouche. Not surprisingly, they insist on overlaying otherwise solidly researched data with wildly speculative interpretations. The book, originally published by LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review, though "out of print," is ubiquitous on the web, and freely used and quoted by Bush conspiranoia buffs of all persuasions........
......Unfortunately, not content with solid muckracking, Tarpley and Chaitkin insist on super-imposing their pet (entertaining but unsubstantiated, not to mention off-the-wall) conspiracy theory of US history, inspired by Lyndon LaRouche, leader of a radical left/right, right/left cult with so many political incarnations and reincarnations, it's spawned its own mini-industry of critic/conspiranoiaists. As a highbrow conspiracy theorist’s theorist, LaRouche puts poor John Birch and Bo Gritz not to mention Tom Clancy -- to shame. Indeed there are those who think posterity may yet judge him the grandest historical fictioneer of this era, surpassing Pynchon, Vidal, and DeLillo. His theory, as advanced by Tarpley and Chaitkin, involves linking the Bushes, Harrimans, and much, if not all, of the American elite to a several century old plot for world subjugation by a secret British-American cabal steeped in arcane lore, drug smuggling and pagan ritual. They attempt to trace the roots of this conspiracy to the collusion of British financiers and pro-Brit American Tories during the Revolutionary War and follow its machinations through two centuries of intrigue.
What ties to right wing radicalism, precisely? You’re merely lumping him with some apparent extremists hardly constitutes “ties.”
But thank you for the overall tone of your response, though I hardly think a direct defense of Tarpley is analogous to a “pole dance,” which I doubt the man would enjoy, especially from this middle aged blogger. A tasteless and unnecessary metaphor, perhaps you’d agree.
Your previous post did actually address my initial question to you more than I recognized in my response to it. But again, now that you appear to largely credit Tarpely’s research and thesis, where in your article do you establish his “ties” to the far right? Aren’t you merely switching tactics in your efforts to smear a man the merit of whose work you now appear to acknowledge? And please resist here the temptation to resort to effeminizing analogies by way of defending yourself; need I point out that such tactics are better left to the right?
I disagree with you about the issue of demolitions as well about the demonstrability of Tarpley’s thesis concerning Anglo-American sponsorship of the Nazis, a position you’ve gone from calling a “fantasy” to whimpering a feeble insistence that, in spite of it's merit, it can’t be proven. When Fritz Thiessen writes a book in which he tells all about it, the Supreme Court rules on it, and a financial data supports the case, I think you are giving up on the historical record rather precipitously. Why do you bother even paying lip-service to the idea if it can never be “proven”?
Analogously, there is “hard evidence” pertaining to the destruction of the World Trade Center: an ample visual record of the events, a vast pool of eyewitnesses to the attacks and their aftermath, a trail of guilty behavior on the part of officials, and access to physical remnants of what happened. While none of these phenomena are unproblematic (what isn’t?), together with the vast amount of circumstantial evidence relevant to the attacks the case seems all but incontrovertible. I’ve responded to another blogger on this matter and refer you to that response, to be found if you google my name with “Jeff Wells.”
Since I think I detect the spirit of goodwill in your responses (as I hope you are able to in mine) I’d like to call your attention to the dangers of giving up on being able to demonstrate (a more accurate term than “prove” perhaps) truth, even the more difficult truths. I’m simplifying here for brevity’s sake (I’m not saying you don’t think all truth can’t be demonstrated), but I explore the perils of what I perceive you to be the tack you are taking with Tarpley's thesis and the demolitions in an essay about 9/11 and the left called “None So Blind,” which appears at abdielsroom.blogspot.com.
In short, just because we don’t know every detail about how a murder was carried out doesn’t mean that a jury (in this case the public) can’t get the big picture. That’s all that any system of justice, however flawed necessarily, has ever been based upon.
Peace.
by
Tom Breidenbach (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 4:49:24 PM
Oops, missed your post of Phil Leggiere’s “criticism” of Tarpley’s book (I guess you’re back to bashing it now). The problem with Leggiere, though, is the same problem I’m expressing with you. While he admits Tarpley’s book is “well documented” and contains “solidly researched data,” he complains that these are overlain with nutty interpretations; but (so far as I can see) he won’t simply say just which interpretations are so nutty. Maybe he doesn’t want to lay himself open to debate on the matter, in which case the weakness is his, not Tarpley’s or Chaitkin’s. It’s not enough to call names and prance around sneering na-na na-na nah-na. Like so many adamant anti-“conspiricist” bigots, Leggiere appears to think that a fusillade of invective counts for real criticism, at least when it comes to the subject of conspiracy. Such bad faith would be shocking if it weren’t ubiquitous in orthodox leftist circles when it comes to dealing with contemporary acts of savage state treachery.
This is a real and enduring problem on the left, since it leaves volatile matters like 9/11 open to the very sinister forces you and I have every right and cause to be concerned about. It also strikes me as at once a form of arrogance and masochism, as though we can only complain about injustices done to others since our own state would never dare attack us so blatantly (or, at least, it can never be proven to have done so). Why the left accepts state culpability in matters far less clear than the public record is on 9/11, so long as the violence was committed against a minority or foreign entity, is an enduring mystery.
Now by way of better (hopefully) faith, I’ll acknowledge that 9/11 brings together a pretty strange, and occasionally toxic, brew politically. Which is all the more reason for the left to responsibly engage the critical efforts of writers like Nafeez Ahmed, Peter Dale Scott, and David Ray Griffin. Meanwhile, I’ve been around long enough to find crackpots on the fringe of every movement. Here in New York we have some pretty kooky lefties, including Maoists and Stalinists. The left’s kooks have been around for so long its almost considered impolite to waste one’s time casting them more than a cautious sidelong glance, yet how much more dangerous are 9/11 truth’s whackos than the left’s own? I don’t know.
I would add here that not all of the cooperation on 9/11 between left and right is so sinister. I’d argue that most of it isn’t, in fact. I’ve seen some transformations on the part of folks I’d never have expected it from. I know it might sound trite, but when I hear some pretty gruff sounding yokel-types (like some I grew up with) on internet radio rallying around Rosie O’Donnell, well, it’s enough to make you wonder just how hard and fast so many of these right/left divisions really are.
The issue of conspiracy has long aggravated and enraged the doctrinaire left. Now that 9/11’s nature as a state-sponsored terror event is becoming clearer by the day, many on the left seem to be thrown into a panic at having to swallow their own words and ideas about conspiracies. Rather than do so they vacillate about whether the attacks matter even if they were an inside job (Chomsky does this), or they cast stones at 9/11 Truth’s fringe while ignoring the blatant racism of, for example, their own Ward Churchill, for whom the uncomfortable public record on 9/11 interferes with a romantic vision of Arabs as righteous murderers.
Instead of ending this war, much of the left appears committed to endless elucidations of its own moral superiority on the one hand, and on the other to insisting upon the un-provability of bad things that happen to anyone other than those foreigners or minorities it’s fashionable to pity. But then again, in the near term such forms of denial are always easier than facing up to the nature of the real threat facing us all, which would require the down and dirty of actually doing something about it.
by
Tom Breidenbach (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Sunday, Nov 4, 2007 at 9:59:57 AM
"Tarpley and Chaitkin, involves linking the Bushes, Harrimans, and much, if not all, of the American elite to a several century old plot for world subjugation by a secret British-American cabal steeped in arcane lore, drug smuggling and pagan ritual. They attempt to trace the roots of this conspiracy to the collusion of British financiers and pro-Brit American Tories during the Revolutionary War and follow its machinations through two centuries of intrigue."
Sir he does present examples and I'd dare say your notions about the left reinforce, rather than weaken the point of my article. If they would stick to the facts without weaving fantasy into it, it would make them more credible. But alas all they are doing is promoting the same old fictional ideologies of an already discredited Lyndon LaRouche.
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 5, 2007 at 9:12:37 AM
The quote above is not a critical refutation of Tarpley in any formal or detailed sense. You yourself even seem to admit there may be something to the Anglo-American banking links to the Nazis. (I dare say most historians would agree.) You're just afraid to go into any real detail. Perhaps because you don't want to be in the position, as a leftist, of defending this or that faction of the western financial elite as lilly white when it comes to backing the Nazis. I certainly don't blame you, as I believe you'd be in the awkward position of denying some very compelling historical data. But you've nevertheless failed to make either of your cases against Tarpley--that he's a fabulist with ties to the extreme right--coherently. All challenges to you to do so have been met with whiney pieties, sexist insults and clumsy shifts in rhetorical tactics.
You have failed to establish any meaningful "ties" between Tarpley and the extreme right and you have failed to defend your points against his scholarship in any meaningful or serious manner. You've vacillated in your complaints against Tarpley, calling his work a "fantasy" on the one hand and crediting much of it on the other. What else is there to say.
My comments don't so much concern the overall left, but a docrinaire set of "leaders" exemplified by Chip Berlet. I also think the sort of game you seem to be playing here weakens, not strengthens, the left, which in my view is robust enough at least to take some passionate criticism aimed at waking it up and keeping it relevant in some pretty disturbing and downright sinister times. All I'm encouraging from the left is that it live up to the ideals of fairness, honesty and courage that, at its best, have informed the left's struggle historically.
Many figures on the left do ignore if not ridicule 9/11 truth. How does my pointing this obvious fact out, and arguing that doing so is wrong and hurtful to the left's position long term, hurt the left? Especially as I've also implored leftists here to consider Nafeez Ahmed's and Peter Dale Scott's more traditionally leftist critiques of 9/11, among the best treatments on the attacks, greatly to the left's credit?
What hurts the left are unfounded, psuedo-intellectual attacks based in guilt-by-association and an unwillingness to get specific about where the object of the attack warrants that attack. And this is all you've proven capable of, at least that I can see.
by
Tom Breidenbach (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Tuesday, Nov 6, 2007 at 5:33:09 PM
You've barely scratched the surface on the level of anti-semitism and Holocaust Denial in the "Truth" movement. Kevin Barrett, the instructor at Wisconsin whose services were no longer required after he started including 9-11 crackpottery in his lectures, said in an email that he felt "the Holocaust as taught in the United States, is a hideously destructive myth." Eric Hufschmid, who produced the first American 9-11 conspiracy theory book and movie (Painful Questions) is another fine Holocaust Denier. And if you dig into any of David Ray Griffin's books, you'll find he quotes liberally from sources like Hufschmid and Bollyn.
Your point with regard to Horowitz was unfair. The article linked to makes it clear that Horowitz had not "invited" the Holocaust Denier:
"The event took place on the last day of (but was not part of) Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, an event organized by David Horowitz to sponsor speakers on campuses nationwide to criticize radical Islam. Organizers of the speech at Michigan State said that while they supported Horowitz’s activities, it was “a coincidence” that they brought in their anti-Muslim speaker the same week as Horowitz was planning his activities. Horowitz disavowed the event, but some Muslim leaders said it was a perfect demonstration of their prediction that his activities would make it easier for others to attack Islam on campuses."
If you want to learn about some more right-wing extremism in the 9-11 fruitcake movement, check out Alex Jones sometime.
Dig into some of the claims made by the 9-11 crackpots and you'll soon discover that most of their "questions" have been answered time after time. Fisk's questions, in particular, are buffoonish, and show that he has not researched his topic sufficiently.
by
Patrick Curley (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Thursday, Nov 1, 2007 at 11:56:52 AM
Pat I am well aware of Alex Jones and I appreciate your mentioning him. I certainly did not intentionally exclude him. Like some of the others in the article, he too has the same nefarious ties. In fact I believe he may have attended that Barnes Review Event with Mr. Junker and Mr. Piper.
As far as presenting more details, it would take volumes to cover every aspect. It will take many good commentators like yourself to add further to the very many details that exist out there.
As for Mr. Horowitz, Pat, I thank you for pointing out my error and admit I made an unintentional mistake in the article when I suggested Mr. Horowitz invited Mr. Griffin to Michigan State. For that I retract and openly apologize to Mr. Horowitz.
Griffin was invited to Michigan State by the campus chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, not Mr Horowitz.
Still it seems very strange that two different groups on the same campus at the same time would be spewing the same anti Islamic extremism message doesn't it? Especially when both said groups promote their own versions of right wing radicalism?
Another valid question might be, "Why does Mr. Horowitz drag Ann Coulter with him to these events?" Especially when you consider some of her more outrageous statements:
"One of the speakers Horowitz did sponsor as part of the week was Ann Coulter, who wrote after 9/11: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.” More recently she has been in the news for saying that Jews need to be “perfected” by becoming Christian."
"Horowitz defended bringing Coulter to campuses.
“She’s a satirist, whom leftists like to pretend to take seriously. Saying Coulter wants to convert Muslims to Christianity at the point of a sword is like saying that Jonathan Swift wanted to eat children,” he said. “She also did not go after the Jews. All Christians in order to be Christians believe that Christians are perfected Jews. Jesus said this in so many words.... Coulter is a friend of the Jews and is not calling for Jews who do not become Christians to be burned at the stake. Why do liberals think Muslims who regard them as infidels are OK, but Christians who do are not?”
So should we really take Mr. Horowitz completely off the hook? I'll leave you with this quote from a commentator.
"In a sense, Griffin’s appearance at Michigan State was a fitting conclusion to the Horowitz-orchestrated Islamo-fascism awareness week. One sort of fascism is no better or worse than another sort of fascism."
Thanks for your comments
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 1, 2007 at 8:16:27 PM
Reply: Young Americans Foundation vs Young Americans for Freedom
"Although the two always have had separate leadership, the Young America's Foundation has an informal connection with the similarly named Young Americans for Freedom, or YAF, founded in 1960. Robinson headed Young Americans for Freedom between 1977 and 1979, and much of the foundation's board and staff worked with YAF in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Robinson says that post-Watergate campaign-finance reforms undermined YAF as a political activist organization, and that it became clear that a conservative but nonpolitical educational organization would have an easier time raising money. "It was natural for us to move on," he says.
Young Americans for Freedom still exists, although president Jon Pastore says that it essentially had collapsed in 1994 when, out of desperation, all the members of the board announced their resignations and called for a new election.
"We literally started from scratch," says Pastore. "It was so bad we didn't have a list of where our campus chapters were. There are YAF groups out there that have been going along for years without any contact with us." Indeed, YAF has not even had its own office space since 1991.
But YAF slowly has rebuilt, and its first major event since 1991 will be an October conference in California. Sources in both organizations confirm that the leaders of the Young America's Foundation and Young Americans for Freedom have met to discuss an "enhanced partnership" -- a small step short of an all-out merger -- once YAF can re-create a formal national organization."
So we have Ron Robinson the president of the Young Americans Foundation as also being a former leader and fund raiser for the Young Americans for Freedom! I find this revelation quite fascinating. In fact it could be said that perhaps this whole event at Michigan State University could have been staged. If that is the case then perhaps my retraction to Mr. Horowitz was premature.
When you look at its history(Young Americans for Freedom, the same group who sponsored Griffin at Michigan State), throw in Goldwater, the John Birch Society, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, then look at Horowitz and his Young Americans Foundation, it seems that what you basically have is yet another version of the same animal. Hell even their abbreviations are the same! There are obvious clear ties to this group and how one party couldn't have known what the other party was doing is questionable.
Well Patrick some agreement is better than none. I would think most of us, at least from a progressive standpoint feel the same of Coulter as you do. But again I ask, what is Mr. Horowitz doing with her and didn't you find the ties between the two right wing groups fascinating?
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 2, 2007 at 9:37:17 PM
I'd also like to add that just like these other various right wing elements, Coulter spins fantasy and promotes hate. That makes her just like LaRouche and all the others.
by
Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 5, 2007 at 9:22:33 AM
(0+)
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) 
