The "Is Amy Goodman CIA?" resolution at Pacifica

[Paul Rigby]

Paul, I think you and many here have been in this 'business' of looking in the dark closets to know that it could just as easily be a way to discredit her in the eyes of those who watch her show and cause dissension in the ranks of alternative news viewers and believers.

You're quite right to raise the possibility, one which, I can assure, I considered, but was obliged to reject.

Goodman's behaviour over 9/11 is classic left-gatekeeping, in as much as it prioritises the most recent world-historic covert action for, primarily, avoidance, but also restrained discreditation. It's precisely how a previous generation of left-gatekeeper's handled the events of November 22, 1963. That generation - Chomsky and Zinn, most notably - now boasts the distinction of lining up against two of the most blatant inside-jobs in the bloody history of American Imperialism.

I don't know Amy personally, but have friends I trust who do and none think it credible...but bring on the evidence. Again, I think she has chosen [differently than you or I would have] on issues such as the major assassinations and 911, as well as the biggest covert operations - but if you look at topics she has covered [search the archive subject and summary list!], most give no aid nor comfort to the Empire - quite the opposite!

But that's the whole point, Pete, this is precisely the MO of the left-gatekeeper. Without credibility on almost everything else but the world-historic covert-op, they are without utility to the CIA etc.

Can I also suggest to you that your otherwise admirable regard for your friends and their opionions is blinding you to an unpleasant truth and leading you to a terrible inconsistency?

From your post number 79 in this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....5&start=75

"Anyone with reasonable access to the 911 evidence who does not conclude that a criminal conspiracy took place is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime" - a variant of Charles R. Drago's famous statement on the JFK Assassination.

So what’s Amy’s excuse for her reticence, Pete, which you proceed to concede?

People have different takes on how the hit in Dallas went down and different perspectives on how much the public can generally 'take' without turning-off [in this case physically]. I'm not privy to her own views on the subject, but have herd her call for a real investigation of 911 during pledge breaks - never on her show.

There is nothing more than to destroy the few successful alternative news shows around the Borg would want. Consider that as one possible engine behind the story. The Nation has been used for that before and this is the kettle calling the pot black, perhaps. I don't find myself inclined to believe it. She may have been tricked into taking some funds that were dangled to ensnare her....she'd not be the first. CIA I'm satisfied [at this time] she is NOT.

You may well have a point about the origin of the debate, I don't know. It may even be the purpose of the debate to destroy Pacifica in toto. But that is a different issue from Goodman, and should be considered on its merits. It is more likely, in that case, that, say, the Agency is seeking to burn Pacifica using one of its own gatekeepers as kindling. Now that would make a great deal of sense, and boast solid precedent. After all, the CIA destroyed its own bridges to the post-WWII NCL in the 1960s.

The snake must periodically shed its skin.