Jeremy Scahill on 9/11

[Paul Rigby]

My fundamental point in this thread remains:

Encounter was a CIA organ. It had neocon godfather Irving Kristol on its editorial board. It did not publish original investigative journalism exposing deep black operations.

A straw man: Neither Nat nor I argued Encounter undertook "original investigative journalism." You introduced the idea. My point was that both Encounter and Secker & Warburg were used by the CIA to direct left-liberals, the original target audience of the monthly, in certain directions, in this specific instance, concerning the JFK assassination. You're very welcome to address this issue.

Counterpunch, Scahill, Democracy Now, the Cockburns, Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Naomi Klein etc have all contributed original investigative journalism.

Yes, but not one of them - not one of them - has ventured a questioning piece about either Dallas '63 or 9/11. They all, without exception, back the official explanations of both. Remarkable.

Coincidences, don't you just love 'em?

It is entirely possible that one or more of that bunch have been blackmailed or turned by intelligence agencies. However, there is no proof of this.

We don't need to go rummaging through their bins, or speculating about reasons for blackmail - all we need to do is read their very obvious lies and evasions on the subjects of Dallas '63 and 9/11. Their texts incriminate them.

I will continue to make my own judgement, informed by the knowedgable comments of others, as to the quality of each and every piece published on these sites or by these researchers.

Quite right. But I'm puzzled by the implied sense of someone stopping you from using your own judgment. Who is this mysterious censor?

However, I am not prepared to tar them all with the label of "left gatekeeper" and "probable intel asset" and therefore ignore everything they publish. To do so would be fundamentalism worthy of Joseph McCarthy.

A glorious non-sequitur plus another straw man in that first sentence: I am obliged by the evidence to pronounce all those named as left-gatekeepers; and have never advocated ignoring everything they publish. Indeed, it would be daft of me to urge any such thing given my reliance on their work to make the case.

And it isn't Chomsky's critics who ring fence the big covert actions; deny the validity of studying them; or get subsidised by the very establishment forces which allowed Tailgunner Joe such a free run - until, that is, he turned on the CIA.