Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Sat

06

Oct

2007

What Would it be Like to be Amy Goodman? Food for Thought 12, Part I
Saturday, 06 October 2007 18:16
by Eric Larsen
FOOD FOR THOUGHT Number 12, Part  I (NEW SERIES—2007)
WHAT WOULD IT BE LIKE TO BE AMY GOODMAN?
Dear Eric,

Please unsubscribe me from your newsletter. I am surprised to find you chastising Amy Goodman . . . apparently because she has steered clear of the 9-11 story. (I am assuming this is the case since you don’t go into great detail about her prostituted mind.) Anyway, she is the least of our problems and, basically, is helpful in covering news stories that are completely omitted from mainstream journalism. Best of luck in your investigative and other works.
- X. Y.

1.

That letter (the one above) is typical of the kind of response I got after posting my “Food for Thought” back in April 2007 called "Amy Goodman: A Mind Prostituted."  Just about all the arguments I got went this way: 1) Amy Goodman does lots of good things, and therefore 2) it’s unfair and illogical to criticize her for doing one thing bad.

Actually, as you can see in the letter above, the person defending Goodman often didn’t even consider ignoring the subject of 9/11 to be a bad thing. The letter-writer above, for example, pretty clearly doesn’t really know much of anything about 9/11, certainly hasn’t read any of the essential books on it, and so for him or her 9/11 remains just a story, and that I happen to want it covered is no reason to blame Goodman for not covering it.

The Amy Goodman affair is all very old news, but there’s a recent development, thanks to Kevin Barrett, that’s worth looking at and knowing about.

I actually posted two pieces on Amy Goodman. In the first, “A Mind Prostituted,” I took up a piece of hers called “It’s Bigotry that Should Be Silenced.” In it, Goodman alludes to the “White Rose collective of World War II” and to “[a] brother and sister named Hans and Sophie Scholl, [who] with other students and professors, decided the best way to resist the Nazis was to disseminate information, so that the Germans would never be able to say, ‘We did not know.’”


Then Goodman wrote:
"The collective distributed a series of pamphlets. On the bottom of one was printed the phrase ‘We will not be silent.’ The Nazis arrested Hans and Sophie as well as other collective members, tried them, found them guilty and beheaded them. But that motto should be the Hippocratic oath of the media today: ‘We will not be silent.’”
My response was to suggest that “Anyone who’s done their 9/11 homework will—or will be able to—feel little other at this point than repugnance and disgust.” And why is that?

Look closely, after all, at what’s happening. Amy Goodman, who won’t speak or allow to be spoken in her presence, on air or off, the least hint of what the actual causes of 9/11 were or where the real culpability for the crimes of 9/11 lie—how can it be that this media person who hides those truths now blithely declares that this “motto should be the Hippocratic oath of the media today: ‘We will not be silent.’”

The well known view of Goodman as silent on 9/11 was powerfully substantiated by Carolyn Baker’s 2006 landmark essay “The Empress Has No Clothes: Amy Goodman’s Reality Blackout.” Here’s an excerpt from it that I quoted in my second piece on Goodman, “Does the CIA Own Amy Goodman” (a title borrowed directly from Carolyn Baker, who asked that question):
...Amy will not, absolutely will not, deal with 9/11. Surrounding herself with “conspiracy-theory” phobics, such as Noam Chomsky and Norman Solomon, she has occasionally danced around the issue, but never firmly planted her feet in the reality of the pre-meditated mass murder by the United States government that September 11 was. Any journalist as articulate, informed, and on the cutting edge as she purports to be would not be evading the issue five years after the event. What was the point of inviting Sibel Edmonds to Democracy Now and asking obligatory questions of a guest who has been silenced by a colossal gag order from the Justice Department? Why invite one of the most astute researchers of 9-11, David Ray Griffin, to her program, and instead of actually interviewing him, pit him against Supreme Conspiracy Phobe Chip Berlet, whose only rebuttal to Griffin’s impeccable evidence was, “It’s not good for people to believe in conspiracy theories.” Why only pathetically brief, patchy, so-called interviews with Cynthia McKinney who is the only Congressperson who has delved deeply into 9-11 and called for and carried out public hearings?

2.

In my own second piece, I quoted from Goodman’s inaugural column in her new capacity as print-journalist. Here’s what I quoted:
My goal as a journalist is to break the sound barrier. To cut through the static and bring forth voices that are not usually heard. I am not talking about a fringe minority, or the Silent Majority, but a silenced majority, increasingly restless, of people who are looking for alternative sources of information in a complex world.
And what hooey and hogwash that paragraph is—if, that is, you understand the fact that among those “voices that are not usually heard” are, most saliently of all, the voices of 9/11 truth, which Amy Goodman, hypocrite to the end on that one particular, will do all she can to keep unheard.

Goodman’s hypocrisy, that is, becomes apparent only to those who do know the truth about 9/11, having read, say, the essential books about it; her hypocrisy becomes apparent only to those who do agree with Paul Craig Roberts that “Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now [July 16, 2007] the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran”; it becomes apparent to those who agree with Webster Tarpley that the “only. . . way to erode Bush's hard core base. . . is by attacking the 9/11 myth”; to those who do agree with Paul Craig Roberts that “Today the US media serves as propaganda ministry for the government’s wars and police state”; to those who do believe, therefore, that telling the truth about 9/11 and holding the Bushists accountable for the crimes they clearly and demonstrably committed—that only this can save restore stolen Constitutional rights and freedoms, restore the republic itself, and very possibly safeguard the stability of the entire world by preventing the fulfillment of the most insane and blood-curdling of the military and globally hegemonic plans and desires of the Bush-Cheney administration and of the “overworld power” that controls it.

In her inaugural column, Goodman wrote this:
With this column, I join you in the important ritual of reading the paper, of examining the news, to discern for yourself the state of the world and your place in it. I invite you to join me in going to where the silence is, as we seek out the news and newsmakers who are ignored. This column will include voices so often excluded, people whose views the media mostly ignore, issues they distort and even ridicule.
If we, indeed, are going to join her “in going to where the silence is,” then that’s precisely and exactly where she ought to take us. But no. She doesn’t mean there. For reasons that can only be imagined—threats of death, of dismissal, of demotion—must be keeping her from “going” into the one silence that right now, this minute, and today, can diminish the ever-increasing likelihood that the current regime and the “overworld power” that controls it will make their move by staging another variant of their ever so successful 9/11, then on the basis of that “national emergency” will declare martial law, suspend elections, and—well, I leave it to you—and do whatever they want to do.

What must it feel like to be Amy Goodman and to know that you’re aiding that enemy, that you’re empowering that monstrosity, that you’re posing as a truth-teller while simultaneously covering up what may be the greatest lie ever told—what would make you do such a thing, and what would it feel like?

3

Thanks to Kevin Barrett, we can now have some hint of what it might be like. Or at least Kevin—in his usual shrewd, amusing, and eagle-eyed way—has recorded Amy Goodman in action (recorded her in his own words, that is) in such a way as to give us a glimpse—possibly—into the person.

I’m on the e-list (as everybody should be) MUJCA, the website founded by Kevin (MUJCA stands for Muslin-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth), so I get news and updates from the site more or less regularly.

So, on Friday, September 28, I got an email full of worthy and interesting announcements, numbered 1 through 5:

1) Please help publicize the William Rodriguez Heartland Tour that begins next week Wednesday, 10/3/2007

2) 9/11 Political Prisoner Mike Cook is Finally Out of Jail!

3) What's It Like to Spend Ramadan In Guantanamo? Ask Moazzam Begg

4) William Rivers Pitt Goes Insane!

Open Letter to William Rivers Pitt:

5) Seven CIA Veterans Challenge the 9/11 Commission Report:

It went on (and why shouldn’t it—nobody has energy like Kevin Barrett, and he’s on the radio three times a week):

Barrett’s near-future radio guests include Guantanamo vet Moazzam Begg, world’s leading academic expert on the neocons Shadia Drury, bestselling 9/11 truth author Ian Henshall, 9/11 truth newbie and celebrated artist Rob Shetterly, Muslim pro-tolerance activist Ahmed Rashid of and other fascinating folks. Schedule:

But then came the more unusual part, with its own big headline, which I’ll leave a little bit big here. I’ll leave everything else exactly the way I got it from Kevin as he described in his own words his personal—well, sort of—meeting with Amy Goodman.

So here:



Kevin Barrett Questions Amy Goodman On Building 7

by Kevin Barrett

Thanks to Matt Naus of for his stellar camerawork.

Please, write Amy and ask her to invite me on her show to continue the conversation! mail@democracynow.org

I attended Amy Goodman’s speech at the University of Wisconsin-Madison last night, Thursday, 9/27/2007. She talked about doing “ground zero reporting” and said “our job as journalists is to go to where the silence is.” I wanted to confront Amy over her reprehensible silence about the 9/11 truth debates in general, and her refusal to cover the demolition of Building 7 in particular. After all, she was present at the pre-announced demolition of Building 7.


If I were confronting a hopelessly evil 9/11-complicit creep like Guiliani or McCain I’d be a lot more confrontational. But, as Col. Bob Bowman pointed out on my radio show, which will be rebroadcast next Friday, 10/5/07 4-6 pm CT on network 2, Amy is a potential ally, albeit a maddeningly silent one so far. And her audience, who are also potential allies, loves her. So I wanted to get in her face, but with a ‘tough love’ approach spiced with humor, rather than venting the anger we all feel about Amy’s betrayal of the truth.

Amy began the question period by announcing that nobody would be tasered for asking questions.

Kevin: “Well, if anyone were going to be tasered here, it probably would be me. Hi Amy. Kevin Barrett here. I appreciate your great work on so many issues, and I agree with your quote that ‘our job as journalists is to go to where the silence is.’ Now there’s a very popular youtube video that’s especially popular among the 100 million Americans who know that 9/11 was an inside job, according to a New York Times poll. It shows you present at the controlled demolition of Building 7.”

Amy: “I did not demolish Building 7.”

Kevin: “Well, okay, I’m glad we got that straight. My question would be, if your job is to go to where the silence is, Building 7 is a great place of silence, as I’m sure you know. Its a 47 story building that came down into its own footprint for no apparent reason at about 5:30 p.m. on September 11th. A countdown to the demolition of Building 7 went out on New York police radio. I was in New York for the sixth anniversary, and every cop I talked to knows that that went out on police radio.

The BBC reported that Building 7 had collapsed twenty minutes before it happened, with Building 7 standing in the background behind the reporter. And we have eyewitnesses—I can give you their contact information—who were inside Building 7 at [around] 9 o’clock in the morning who witnessed massive explosions that killed large numbers of people and devastated the lobby. There were pre-demolition explosions. You’re right there in New York, you’re right next to Ground Zero, and you talked about doing ‘ground zero reporting’—so when are you going to get around to doing some ‘ground zero reporting’ on Building 7?”

Heckler: “Why don’t you shut up, this is not your night.”

Amy: “Overall, I would say that everything that happened on September 11th should be fully investigated. Of course I don’t think that the 9/11 Commission was an adequate investigation. And I agree that there are a lot of questions that have to be answered.”

[well jeez Amy, you’re a journalist, you’re based right next to Ground Zero. . . why don’t YOU try to get some answers??!!!]

While I stood in line to get my Amy Goodman book autographed, I autographed Amy a copy of my own book

I also carried a copy of the best photo book on 9/11, Eric Huffschmid’s Painful Questions, open to the page showing the demolition of Building 7. When I arrived in Amy’s exalted presence, the following dialogue transpired:

Amy: “I guess you’re famous here.”

Kevin: “Not as famous as you, Amy. Here’s my book, with my phone number, in case you want to invite me on your show, or appear on one of my three radio shows. Also, I was wondering if you could autograph this book (Painful Questions) here on the Building 7 page (page 65, featuring still shots from the demolition of WTC-7) so when you break this story. . . “

Amy: “I don’t want to mess up your page.”

Kevin: “I think when you break this story it’ll be valuable. . .”

Matt Naus (off camera): “You were there, Amy! I saw the video of you. You were there!”

Amy: (smiling) “I work right there.”

Kevin: “I mean, if you break this story. . . if anybody does, it might be you. . .and if you sign this, this will be a very valuable book.”

Still smiling, she declines to sign.

Please write to Amy and ask her to invite Kevin Barrett on her show either (A) for a friendly chat about the 9/11 truth movement, or (B) to debate any bunker who dares to try to take me on. Her address:

mail@democracynow.org

4

I wrote to Kevin Barrett telling him how much I liked his Amy Goodman material. “What a job you did,” I wrote, and all with humor and with composure. I couldn’t have done it.”

I told him the truth. I was thinking of using his words in a piece of my own: “Your humanity and personableness are huge assets and have stood you in good stead and continue to. I don’t have those. But your report on your evening. . . might help as a foil for my more snide and nasty ways that would follow.”

And I asked him the questions that won’t go away and that just keep on burning at me:

I don’t know what to do. What is it that has people like her in its grip? Fear? Money? Threats? Just the “corporate” machinery-mentality of Pacifica? Here the very future of the republic—of more—is at stake and she won’t budge, won’t acknowledge even the merest shred of truth even when videotape makes her prior knowledge of WT7’s collapse all but indisputable. I didn’t know the detail about the NYC police radio counting down to the [making of the Silverstein fortune. Isn’t that proof of pre-knowledge of the collapse? What kind of evidence does it take to break down the big huge high thick wall of Amy Goodman-esque silence and denial? Where is the power of that resistance coming from?

I mean, are all the patsy-coward democrats in Congress actually afraid for their lives? That’s what Sheila Samples thinks. I mentioned her on your show. In “Ah Democracy, We Hardly Knew Ye,” she conjectures that even the senators and reps are afraid of being named “enemy combatants” if they cross Boss Dubya. That’s fear of detention and death, isn’t it. Even in the United States Congress.

So there you are. What would it be like to be Amy Goodman? Well, what would it be like to be anyone who’s doing nothing more than telling the truth? Why more frightening for those—Amy Goodman, Nancy Pelosi, Frank Rich, John Conyers—who, given their positions and stature, could really make the truth sing?

Aren’t they just caving in with servility to the threats of a treasonous and vile mob? Is that what you gain prominence and professional visibility and high position in your life for—to cower and tremble and lick at the boots of the Capo?

I think we could all use a little bit of leadership here. And it’s not in Amy Goodman or those I named a minute ago. At least not yet.

Six years have already gone by. They’d better get courageous fast, don’t you think?

—Eric Larsen
 
More from this author:
Full Disclosure or A Memoir by Reed Whittemore (8269 Hits)
by Eric Larsen Someone in authority should probably pass a law immediately prohibiting a person like me — or not like me, but me — from...
How The English Language, The President Of Princeton University, And “Victimology Studies” Are Related To The New American Police State (7885 Hits)
by Dr. Eric Larsen The lively press disappeared along with its independence in the media concentration engineered during the Clinton ...
Food For Thought - The Pernicious Hypocrisy Of Frank Rich Of The New York Times (6726 Hits)
by Eric Larsen Food For Thought - The Pernicious Hypocrisy Of Frank Rich Of The New York Times (Number 13, Part 1) Today the US media...
FOOD FOR THOUGHT Number 13, Part 2 - The Pernicious Hypocrisy Of Frank Rich Of The New York Times (7846 Hits)
by Eric Larsen The corporate media today have become, collectively, less a vehicle of information than of mind control. —Peter Dale Scott,...
Some Literary Observations On A Dying Nation As Blood-Money Flows From Murder, Treason, Death, War; And Truth Itself Becomes A Painted Face Of Death What Punishment Do The 9/11 Criminals Truly Deserve (6484 Hits)
by Eric Larsen “Now get you to my lady’s chamber, and tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must come; make her...
Related Articles:
You and What Army? Bush Legions Starting to "Unravel" (12158 Hits)
Is it possible the largest and most advanced military in the history of the universe is ready to bust? According to General Barry McCaffrey (ret.)...
Would Tom Paine end up in an orange jumpsuit today? (6799 Hits)
by Mickey Z The coast-to-coast mall known as America just loves to sing the praises of its revolutionary heroes-the land-owning white...
Election 2006: Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up To Me (8765 Hits)
by Chris Floyd Ordinarily, the elevation of a gaggle of corporate bagmen, spine-free time-servers and craven accomplices of tyranny and...
What Vote-Theft Conspiracy? (7614 Hits)
by Dave Lindorff, The big losers on Election Day were of course President Bush and the Republican Party, but there was another loser too: the...
What do we do now? (5961 Hits)
by Frank Pitz In the 1972 movie The Candidate, newly (and surprisingly) elected candidate Bill McKay – played by Robert Redford –...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (8)add comment

a guest said:

0
amy who?
after all of this i am still not clear,who?is amy goodman ?and why should we all be so worried about her ??
 
October 06, 2007 | url
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Ridiculous condemnation
Your attack on Amy Goodman seems to fall under the heading of "The Left eats its own."

Her response to Kevin Barrett, who comes off in the video as a self-aggrandizing poop, seemed quite reasonable--

Overall, I would say that everything that happened on September 11th should be fully investigated. Of course I don’t think that the 9/11 Commission was an adequate investigation. And I agree that there are a lot of questions that have to be answered.


That, of course, did not satisfy Barrett because he wants his cause to be her cause and to use her show as his vehicle. If Amy Goodman decides to give play to voices other than Barrett's, I cannot regard that as "hypocrisy."

It appears that you think the events of 9/11 are the "key to everything"--that if you could just get everybody to believe what you believe, the world would be saved. You write,

it becomes apparent to those who agree with Webster Tarpley that the “only. . . way to erode Bush's hard core base. . . is by attacking the 9/11 myth”; to those who do agree with Paul Craig Roberts that “Today the US media serves as propaganda ministry for the government’s wars and police state”; to those who do believe, therefore, that telling the truth about 9/11 and holding the Bushists accountable for the crimes they clearly and demonstrably committed—that only this can save restore stolen Constitutional rights and freedoms, restore the republic itself, and very possibly safeguard the stability of the entire world by preventing the fulfillment of the most insane and blood-curdling of the military and globally hegemonic plans and desires of the Bush-Cheney administration and of the “overworld power” that controls it.


My oh my. "Only this" can do it, huh?

I can think of any number of revelations that might upend this administration if they were broadly reported, broadly accepted by the public and seen as vital to the public. The 9/11 shenanigans are just one among many.

So it may be that you have a tactical disagreement with Amy Goodman as to what is necessary for bringing change. So be it. But I hardly see any justification in that for the name-calling in which you're indulging.

And if I may, let me give my own perspective own tactics for change: There are any number of questionable deeds in the history of this country about which we do not know all the details--and probably never will. If countering the Bush administration depends upon making such-and-such a revelation, having it reported and making it believable, I'm afraid the Republic is lost.

Even as reported by the mainstream media the news is rife with tales of the misfeasance and malfeasance of the Bush administration. A visitor from Mars might well assume that there is plenty of information available to bring down this administration. But then the visitor from Mars would not understand the dynamics of our politics--the sense of powerlessness on the one hand and indifference on the other that pervades the public mind.

Clearly Amy Goodman tries to bring on guests who will stir that public mind. Her selection may not comport with your judgments or preferences. But that does not make her a "hypocrit." It makes you a one-note ideologue.
 
October 07, 2007 | url
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Associate Editor
We are or should be in search of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help us god (whoever whatever that is). So why shouldn't Amy shed her formidable light on 9/11? Could it be she's protecting the folks who provide her grants to stay on the radio? Unlikely it's sheer ignorance or even mailice. Seems like a nice person. Perhaps it's narcolepsy, a common journalistic malaise. In fact Thomas Friedman of the New York Times told us recently, "9/11 is over." Yes, that was his story. And here was my riposete "9/11 is not 'over, Mr. Friedman." is here: onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2496.shtml.
I also emailed the online Times Op-Ed page the piece. Haven't heard back yet. More storks with their heads in the Ground Zero. But keep pulling, folks, and you Eric.
Sooner or later they'll pop.
Good luck,
Jerry Mazza, NYC
Associate Editor, Online Journal.
 
October 07, 2007 | url
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Unanswered Questions
Unanswered Questions about 9-11? Sure. There are also "unanswered questions" about the Spanish Armada and about the death of Juluis Ceasar. In fact there are plenty of "Unanswered Questions" about what is happening RIGHT NOW in Iraq. Poll after poll states that Americans were dissatisfied with the 9-11 Commission. Additional polls state that Americans do not further EXPECT to know everything about 9-11. The "Conspiracists" go on and on, yet aside from endless maybes and speculation they present us with no physical evidence for their claims of conspiracy. Who knows, perhaps they have a case. But if so, when will they kindly present us with irrefutable evidence, which of course, would be court-sustainable PHYSICAL EVIDENCE? Unless and until they do that-- they are merely blowing in the wind by consumning energy on the false supposition that even could they obtain some bloody dagger--- that it would somehow magically change everything that has since occured. I'm afraid that it's a tragic waste of time.

Will Morgan
 
October 07, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Diogenes
To: a guest: Ridiculous condemnation

Well, I suppose that you would make a good O.J. juror. Your uncritical infatuation with so-called Leftist journalists is what is ridiculous. I suppose it’s OK that Noam Chomsky says that Oswald shot Kennedy, in spite of all the evidence pointing to the CIA doing it. I suppose Amy Goodman's non-reporting of the North American Union is fine too. Have you heard of the Trans-Texas Corridor? That's just one part of the NAFTA Superhighway that will run from the southern tip of Mexico where North American-bound ships will one day unload--killing all those millions of stevedore workers' jobs in the U.S. and Canada--and travel all the way north to Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. We will all be one big nation with a new southern border—Guatemala. All the millions of Mexicans will be able to travel without the hassles of borders all the way to Canada to work and live, with no restrictions. The murder of the dollar is well under way and is also part of this Grand Plan. Ever heard of the Amero? That’s going to be our new currency for the NAU. Some reports say that they are already printed and in storage in large American banks. Where is Amy Goodman on this outrage? I challenge you to go to the archives and enter North American Union or Security and Prosperity Partnership. You will not find one word.

We are all victims of the greatest mind control experiment in world history. Some of us have, with great effort, pulled out the invisible electrodes that have been controlling us. You must find it impossible to face reality. Try pulling out your own mind controlling electrodes and wake up. Since when is anyone beyond critical assessment? Especially someone that is in the spotlight as Goodman? Is 9/11 not a big deal to you? Is the biggest mass murder in the history of this country not important to you? Is not the genocide of our fellow citizens in the military in Afghanistan and Iraq not important to you, besides the millions of Iraqi’s murdered since 1991? 9/11 was the key that opened the door to this insanity. This was a coup d’etat. Don’t you get it?

Where is Goodman on Chemtrails? No one knows what they are spraying up there, but since the military is doing it, it can’t be good. Not a word on this from Goodman. What if they are spraying the primary part of a binary weapon? Ever think of that?

Goodman says that she reported from Ground Zero. When? I went to the Democracy Now! archives and listened to all four hours of her program on September 11. She NEVER went to Ground Zero, even though by her own admission the Firehouse studio is only a couple of blocks away. The biggest catastrophic event in the last 100 years and she stayed at the station watching CNN! She admits that that is where she was getting her news. What kind of reporter does that? I challenge you to go to the archives and listen to all four hours as I did. Then I challenge you to listen to the next day’s program, the day after she witnessed WTC7 collapse. Not one word about WTC7, but she did have on Robert Fisk to help cement the idea of Osama being the one that organized it. Even the FBI says that Osama had no ties to 9/11. Did Amy Goodman report that? No, it came from the Muckraker Report—one of the online journals that tell us the real news.

A year ago, I tried to tell one of you NPR/Democracy Now! true believers that Cheney was planning on dropping B61-11 nuclear bombs on Iran. His response was: “What? Those are hydrogen bombs. There is no way the government is going to do that. I’d know. I never heard it on NPR!” Well, the cat is out of the bag, but it didn’t get out by Democracy Now! or NPR. NPR finally reported it after it was already all over the net and the foreign papers.

We’re going to be toast because of blind people like you that refuse to take off your own blindfold. The refusal to face the truth is an act of cowardice, plain and simple, and that fear is going to be the solvent that dissolves the bond that was once the United States of America—before there was a USAPATRIOT Act, The Military Commissions Act, The Warner Defense Authorization Act, the totally illegal signing statements and illegal Presidential Directives. We are living in a Fascist police state that is slowly metastasizing across every inch of this country. When martial law is eventually declared, programs like Goodman’s will still be on the air, but even then you won’t get it. What a shame.

In the end, you will be forced to face the music that will be something like this:

[So] when night in her rusty dungeon hath imprisoned our eyesight, and that we are shut separately in our chambers from resort, the devil keepeth his audit in our sin-guilty consciences; no sense but surrenders to our memory a true bill of parcels of his detestable impieties. The table of our heart is turned to an index of iniquities, and all our thoughts are nothing but texts to condemn us.
Thomas Nashe, 1594
 
October 07, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
COINTELPRO Shills in 9/11 Truth
Eric: Thanks for bringing attention to 9/11 Truth.

Not sure if you're aware of the extent of COINTELPRO infiltration of the Truth Movement, though. Last month, shortly before the 6th anniversary, and ever since, we've seen Webster Tarpley "flip" and become a provocateur/disruptor:
http://tinyurl.com/2yqm95

Tarpley's Mini-Me, Daniel Abrahamson, came out as a provocateur also, as a look at his recent commentary at his site falseflagnews.com will illuminate.

Kevin Barrett, while always smart and affable, is a dubious actor at best; as he acts as "disinformation enabler" by keeping blatant agents like Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, and Judy Wood in circulation; Barrett justifying this destructiveness with a "big tent" pitch.
http://tinyurl.com/2f4xxc
http://tinyurl.com/27r98c
http://tinyurl.com/yqoexx

Audio Series on COINTELPRO/Disinfo in 9/11 Truth:
http://tinyurl.com/2288nm

There are no doubt many other agents posturing as "leaders" within 9/11 Truth, and we won't know who they are until they've completed the "credibility-building" phase of their infiltration, and "flip" to become destroyers-from-within as Tarpley, Abrahamson, & FetzerCo have done, and which appears imminent with Barrett.

Please consider distancing yourself from these shills, rather than promoting them, IE recommending Tarpley & Barrett's books in your 9/11 reading list. Their *actions* indicate that they exist to divide/conquer/discredit/destroy this movement from within- as you'll discover via the links above. Thanks!
 
October 07, 2007 | url
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Re: Amy Goodman
"Here the very future of the republic—of more—is at stake and she won’t budge, won’t acknowledge even the merest shred of truth even when videotape makes her prior knowledge of WT7’s collapse all but indisputable."

So how about all the other people in the picture who appear to be running or trying to get away from the building? Are they too part of the 9/11 conspiracy with "prior knowledge" that Building Seven was going to collapse? Did it occur to you that maybe the people in that area were chased away from the building area due to the fact that two buildings had already collapsed? Your assertion gives the clear implication that Amy "knew" as in being told beforehand by some authoritative source, or being in on the conspiracy to demolish WT7. That is quite an assertion to make, guy, without proof. Maybe this is the kind of irrresponsible loose talk that keeps Amy from having you and other who share your views on her show.

to Diogenes: Do you think maybe Amy couldn't actually go and stand on the pile of rubbish with her microphone because the area was blocked off? Do you know that police were making people leave the immediate area in the aftermath of the collapse of buildings? Given the chaotic situation, police barriers, and rubble, Amy was about as close as one could get during those first 4 hours. The Firehouse studio being only 2-3 blocks away *is* practically at Ground Zero. Your attempt to make Amy into some kind of liar isn't going to work. Again, if you guys want to be taken seriously, then let's show some responsibilty in the assertions you make. Each time you attempt to exaggerate the facts you only make your assertions or beliefs look all the more wild and unrealistic.



 
October 08, 2007
Votes: +0

Two Cents said:

0
Fear
When i finally saw the famous video,{few seconds ago} it is clear to me that she is absolutely horrified. Now put that on top of the fact that she may have seen things that nobody else saw. Then how she looked when questioned.

I think someone got to her, and basically told her that since she knows for sure that it was a hoax and since she is a hippy and any youthful indescrescions wont discredit her, basically they will get rid of her and make it look like natural causes.

All of us in this fight to expose the truth have a limit, unless and until you have no fear, she still has fear and for that reason i think she chooses to stay behind when others of us keep marching forward.

When she doubted the nafta highway is when my questions popped up. If Amy has been a conduit for letting big news hit the public slowly before it gets dropped on us as a whole, fine, ill deal with that. she may not hold as high a place as she did before but im not ready to vote her off the island yet

Lately she has had a strange cough, and she had a thing with her mouth, the NWO will throw her under the bus if they dont think they can use her anymore. I think her best bet is to spill it and do it loud while she still can.
 
January 19, 2008
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top