Agence Global
"The best disinformation is mostly correct"
Sat Oct 2, 2004 15:27
64.140.158.19

from Mark Robinowitz:


"The best disinformation is mostly correct"
-- paraphrase of comments by Peter Dale Scott,
author of numerous books on "deep politics"
http://www.incunabula.org/valis/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=235&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0&POSTNUKESID=1634a8226a87afa86ce20046f0e7bfbe

It is fascinating that The Nation got a genuine,
admitted CIA agent to write this hatchet job
(Baer's review of "New Pearl Harbor" in the
September 27 issue that supports Cheney's
innocence by ignoring the evidentiary record).

In early 2002, The Nation ran several articles by
David Corn, their Washington Editor, attacking
journalist and whistleblower Michael Ruppert, for
daring to piece together a mountain of evidence
that 9/11 was not a surprise attack. Corn is a
long time defender of the Warren Commission
(which covered up the coup against JFK), wrote a
biography of CIA dirty trickster Ted Shackley
that ignored evidence of drug complicity,
attacked journalist Gary Webb for writing his
series in the San Jose Mercury News about the CIA
and the cocaine trade, and attacked the peace
movement before the Iraq war for being too
leftist (but didn't do anything to organize less
leftist peace rallies). After Corn attacked
Ruppert, the Colin Powell / Richard Armitage
State Department sent Corn on a government paid
trip to influence media in Trinidad (a major oil
/ gas exporter to the United States). Corn's
article on Alternet even stated that he had been
"dispatched" to go there, and that it was your
"tax dollars at work." Real journalists who
investigate government scandals usually don't get
that sort of treatment -- most get harassed, not
feted on taxpayer funded junkets to infiltrate
media elites in tropical destinations that export
fossil fuels to the US market.

The Nation has clearly allied itself with the CIA
by publishing this article, and has announced in
no uncertain terms that it is not interested in
journalism on this subject that attempts to
examine factual evidence. This is far different
that merely ignoring the issue (which much of the
Left has chosen to do).

The Nation has been perhaps the strongest
supporter of the Warren Commission on what's left
of "The Left" for four decades -- it is not a
surprise that they are providing such critical
support (whether witting or unwitting is
ultimately irrelevant) to the Cheney re-election
effort by urging nervous liberals to shut up
about Cheney's complicity in 9/11, just as they
defended Bush against accusations of
foreknowledge after 9/11, when the allegations
had the potential to thwart the political
momentum for the US invasion of Iraq. And then
they wonder why "The Left" has so little
political influence ...

None of the pundits, CIA agents, media "experts,"
political consultants, candidates, elected
officials and other fixtures of the media dare
talk about the multiple war games that were being
coordinated on 9/11 that paralyzed the Air Force
defense of New York and Washington, the multiple
warnings from allied intelligence services that
specifically identified what, when and where the
"attacks" would be, the warnings to selected
elites not to fly or otherwise get out of the way
(the most famous is the caution given to San
Francisco Mayor Willie Brown not to fly to NYC on
9/11), or the stock trades placed a few days
before on Wall Street and other financial markets
betting the values of United, American and other
impacted companies would drop. These are topics
that cannot be reconciled with the official
story, and therefore must be put into George
Orwell's "memory hole."

A Zogby poll of New York City residents released
during the Republican National Convention found
that 49% of those surveyed think that the Bush
administration had foreknowledge of 9/11. It is
likely that if the media -- whether corporate
establishment or liberal "alternative" -- had
covered the anomalies in the official story, the
49% statistic would probably be more like 79% or
89%.

In any military coup d'etat, one of the first
places that is seized is the television and/or
radio station (depending on the technological
sophistication of the country being changed).
The US coup d'etat has been more subtle, but more
widespread -- encompassing the so-called
"alternative" publications like The Nation in
addition to the more obvious suspects like the
major television networks. The best
disinformation is mostly correct -- and The
Nation has done a tremendous favor for the
Bush-Cheney re-election effort by publishing a
CIA agent's critique of "The New Pearl Harbor."
Of course, this critique ignored the CIA exercise
underway the morning of 9/11 at the nearby
headquarters of the National Reconnaissance
Office, which controls US spy satellites, which
simulated a plane-into-buildingn scenario at the
exact same time that 9/11 was underway. It's
hard to know what defenders of the official story
think about this amazing coincidence, since they
don't dare discuss it. (Mike Ruppert's book
"Crossing the Rubicon" explores the wargames of
9/11 in considerable detail, and concludes that
they were in fact the means used to paralyze the
Air Force defense of New York and Washington --
and that they were being coordinated by Cheney in
the White House. What does "The Nation" have to
say about this? Do they really want four more
years of Bush and Cheney, and decades more of the
"military industrial complex," which President
Eisenhower warned us about as his final statement
to the nation?)

It is fascinating that the "book review" in The
Nation did not actually deal with any of the
evidence presented by Dr. David Ray Griffin in
his book, which is a summary of much of the best
information unearthed by a variety of
investigations into the 9/11 attacks. Dr.
Griffin did state very clearly in the
introduction that not all of the material needs
to be proven true in order for there to be
overwhelming evidence for some level of
complicity -- yet Mr. Baer's review did not
attempt to debunk a single claim with any level
of specificity. While it is likely that a
couple claims for complicity will not hold up
under scrutiny (for example, the claim that a
plane didn't hit the Pentagon is likely incorrect
- see http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html ),
the cumulative nature of the evidence that the
official story is riddled with lies is
overwhelming.

Reading "Crossing the Rubicon" and "The Terror
Timeline" should be mandatory reading for every
citizen before voting in the National Election.
It is unlikely that The Nation will dare to
review these books, since the amount of evidence
they provide is far too much to be dismissed with
a simple "nyaah" by a CIA agent who spent many
years manipulating politics in the Middle East.

Discrediting the fiction surrounding 9/11 should
be of prime importance for a publication like The
Nation, which claims to want lower military
budgets, a less belligerent foreign policy, human
rights abroad and domestically, energy efficiency
and renewable energy, etc. Numerous commentators
have charged since 9/11 that The Nation and
similar publications funded by the Ford
Foundation and other conservative, establishment
interests are compromised -- and cannot cover the
"deep politics" of 9/11, Peak Oil, and the
empire's invasion of the Middle East oil fields
due to their dependence upon philanthropic
gestures from institutions heavily invested in
petroleum interests (ie. Ford).

Please support independent journalists by buying
copies of Crossing the Rubicon and The Terror
Timeline. If you subscribe to The Nation, you
could ask for a pro-rated refund on the rest of
your subscription.


http://www.oilempire.us/books.html
has lists of prominent persons endorsing these
books and other investigations into 9/11 --
politicians, famous authors, former government
officials and 9/11 family victims


Michael Ruppert's long awaited book
"Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the
American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil"
http://www.fromthewilderness.com
Read the full announcement of the book
http://www.newsociety.com/News/rub_ann.html
Read an excerpt: Wargames - Chapter 19
http://www.newsociety.com/News/rub_war.pdf
August 31, 2004 speech to the San Francisco
Commonwealth Club
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/Commonwealth.pdf

Interview with Sue Supriano, KPFA-FM
http://www.suesupriano.com (half hour long, very
concise and eloquent)


Paul Thompson's book "The Terror Timeline: Year
by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute"
http://cooperativeresearch.org/911_terror_timeline_by_paul_thompson.jsp
based on the incredible, impeccable database of
mass media articles by the Center for Cooperative
Research


A good article about CIA agent Robert Baer is
"Stacking The Patsies of 9/11"
by Chaim Kupferberg
www.globalresearch.ca 20 December 2003
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP312B.html


For more on the "blame the Saudis" (and take their oil) campaign:
http://www.oilempire.us/saudi.html (blaming the Saudis)
http://www.oilempire.us/saudioil.html (geography and demography)



http://www.oilempire.us/gatekeepers.html
The "Stand Down" of the foundation funded liberal / left alternative media
Left Censorship about the "War on Terror

It is not a surprise that the corporate,
mainstream media have sought to restrict
investigative journalism and dissident opinions
about the so-called "War on Terror." However, it
is more difficult to understand the fact that the
"left alternative" media -- including The Nation,
Z magazine, The Progressive, Mother Jones,
Alternative Radio and Democracy Now -- have shied
away from examining the pretext for endless war.
They have ignored the national "Deception Dollar"
campaign, which has distributed over four million
DD's listing websites of the independent
investigations of 9/11, despite a massive
distribution effort across the country,
especially at peace rallies.

Worse, several of these institutions have gone
on the attack against independent media and
journalists who have done excellent work exposing
the lies behind the official stories of 9/11. In
the spring of 2002, when some of the material
documenting official foreknowledge of 9/11 began
to surface in the corporate media, The Nation, Z
and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting attacked
independent investigators who are piecing
together the evidence, instead of helping those
who have done the best work.

Why do most foundation funded "liberal
alternative" media support the official story
that 9/11 was a surprise attack despite the
overwhelming evidence that the Bush regime knew
it was coming? Why do most "alternative" media
avoid the issues of "Peak Oil" (the primary
motivation for the US invasion of Iraq) and
systematic election fraud?

The biggest danger in the US now are the "Not
See's" -- to paraphrase journalist Michael
Ruppert (fromthewilderness.com), conspiracies
against democracy don't need lots of people to
participate in them, they need millions, however,
to stay silent to ensure their success.



It is fascinating that Fairness and Accuracy in
Reporting, the Institute for Public Accuracy, The
Nation, Z Magazine, et al, chose to defend the
official position of the Bush regime in early
2002 (at a point when the "Bush Knew" material
was starting to percolate into the corporate
press) instead of deciding to pool their
collective talents to sift through the 9-11
material and support those who have done the most
credible work. There are certainly careless
people putting out 9/11 conspiracy material (and
careless people supporting the government under
the guise of liberal/left alternative media) --
but Ruppert is extremely cautious and careful in
his documentation. The fact that the foundation
funded left has attacked, and now ignores, the
growing movement for independent investigation of
what happened with 9/11 makes THEM the
controversy.

If Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter was urging
"leftists" to shun people investigating 9/11, it
is likely that their opposition would inspire us
to look closer at this work. But for alleged
"leftists" to make this suggestion makes it much
easier for it to be taken seriously by liberals.


Phony opposition?

In George Orwell's "1984," Winston Smith (the
protagonist who spends his days rewriting the
news at the Ministry of Truth) becomes
disillusioned and wants to join the underground
resistance to the Party. He eventually learns
that the opposition is really an illusion
maintained by the Party itself to snare
discontented people such as himself.

It is not really a surprise that many of the
"alternative dissident" publications that have
chosen to ignore 9/11 and the war on terror,
except for bland pronouncements in favor of world
peace instead of world war, are funded by
right-wing, oil money connected foundations.

Why do oil company money funded foundations give
money liberal alternative "left" media groups
that are the core of the "get Ruppert" campaign?
Do these foundations want a strong left media
that can expose wealth and power? Is it because
many of these groups have become so bland that
they aren't a threat to power and priviledge? Or
is there another agenda going on?

Perhaps it is not a coincidence that some fairly
conservative, establishment foundations
contribute to these gatekeepers. Why would
establishment wealth give to publications that
want to make social change that challenges the
power and priviledge of the establishment? Is the
establishment really interested in funding
efforts that reduce their powers (a fraction of
the establishment is, perhaps)? Or do they give
to groups like The Nation, knowing that they will
absorb lots of dissenting energy and swallow it
up in endless debates, tertiary issues and
disinformation ("9/11 really was a surprise
attack by evil terrorists. Honest.")


David Corn, Norman Solomon, Chip Berlet and other
participants in the "Get Ruppert" liberal cabal
do not dare talk about the specifics of the
evidence for complicity, so they have resorted to
tangential issues, insinuations, character
assassination, etc, and then have the nerve to
grand stand against "the War on Iraq" when it is
probable that Bush would not have had the
political ability to invade Iraq if the "left
gatekeepers" had bothered to help the independent
journalists investigating what happened.

The money flow from the foundations to the "left
gatekeepers" isn't necessarily the sole reason
for their avoidance of these core issues -- but
it does raise questions. It is likely also fear,
cowardice, denial and other psychological issues
going on that are more critical than the
financial ties of these organizations to right
wing funding sources.




The Nation issue is September 27, 2004

http://www.thenation.com/issue.mhtml?i=20040927
Dangerous Liaisons
David Ray Griffin: The New Pearl Harbor:
Disturbing Questions About the Bush
Administration and 9/11
[book review] by Robert Baer


BUT, the Baer piece is not available to non subscribers.


http://www.agenceglobal.com/article.asp?id=231

has it archived for everyone


Executive Secrecy: Conspiracy or Failure?

by Robert Baer
Released: 13 Sep 2004
Book mentioned in this article: The New Pearl
Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush
Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin

Conspiracy theories are hard to kill. They've
dogged virtually every national tragedy in our
history, from the assassinations of Abraham
Lincoln and John Kennedy to the sneak attack on
Pearl Harbor and what David Ray Griffin now
claims is our new Pearl Harbor: 9/11. What's
different about this conspiracy theory is the
degree to which it has been helped along by its
main suspect: the Administration of George W.
Bush.

Bush's initial refusal to investigate September
11 started the ball rolling. When he caved in to
political pressure and agreed to a commission, he
picked the worst possible chairman, Henry
Kissin