PDA

View Full Version : Jeremy Scahill on 9/11



Ed Jewett
05-10-2010, 06:56 AM
The video, and two responses...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBS7kdgVb6A&feature=player_embedded

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/jeremy-scahill-is-a-douche-bag/

http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/2010/05/jeremy-scahill-is-911-truth-denier.html

Paul Rigby
05-10-2010, 05:34 PM
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/jeremy-scahill-is-a-douche-bag/#more-10136


Jeremy Scahill is a Douche Bag
Posted on May 9, 2010 by willyloman

by Scott Creighton

It’s not so much that Scahill denies there is any reason to believe elements of the previous Bush administration facilitated the attacks of 9/11… I wouldn’t expect anyone who makes a living doing interviews on Democracy NOW! and being published in magazines like The Nation to say anything else. Its how he said it that makes Jeremy Scahill such a douche bag. How he said it and why.

There are so many question one could put to the arrogant prick, such as… how does he account for NIST’s Building 7 report that at one time said it was physically impossible for the building to have fallen at free-fall acceleration, then 3 weeks later, they admitted Building 7 fell at free-fall acceleration?

How does he account for the hundreds of eye-witness reports from the first responders who reported hearing explosions, seeing flashes all around the buildings as they came down?

How does he account for three steel and concrete skyscrapers collapsing at near free-fall acceleration, essentially due to office fires (according to NIST), for the first time in history and never again since?

How does he account for the most secure building in the world, the Pentagon, being hit nearly an hour after the first attack on the North Tower, without so much as an alarm sounding in the building?

How does he account for Rumsfeld announcing the missing 2.3 trillion dollars the day before 9/11, THEN the ONLY office that is hit on 9/11, just HAPPENS to be the office where they were doing the audit?

How does he account for the fact that the invasion plans for Afghanistan were finished and placed on George Bush’s desk on Sept. 9th, 2001?

How does he account for the fact that the UNICAL pipeline deal had effectively stalled prior to 9/11, but then were remarkably back on just after?

How does he account for the fact that it took 400+ days for the Bush administration to ok an investigation into 9/11 and then they tried to put Henry Kissinger in charge of it?

How does he account for the fact that the commission came to the conclusion that KSM planned 9/11 based almost entirely on the interrogation of the man, that they couldn’t watch, they couldn’t talk to him, they couldn’t talk to the interrogators, and they couldn’t even watch the videos of the interrogation? In fact they burned those videos.

How does he account for massive amounts of iron-rich spheres in the Ground Zero that RJ Lee said HAD to have been created by immense heat (over 6,000 degs f.) when jet fuel burns at only 1,700 deg. f and open air office fires burn at around 650?

How does he account for the fact that no agency, not FEMA, not NIST, not the 9/11 Commission Report EVER tested for traces of high explosives in that dust… but each and every one of them suggested SOMEONE ELSE SHOULD?

How does he account for the fact that the single event that set this entire Global Free Market Wars campaign in motion just HAPPENED to be what Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld wrote about in 2000 when they called for a “New Pearl Harbor type event”?

How does he account for the fact that 1200 architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation into what happened on 9/11?

He can’t. He can’t account for any of those issues or any number of the hundred other serious problems with the “official conspiracy theory” of 9/11. But he does know this; the moment he comes out and even questions what happened in any way, no matter how timid, ALL of his TV APPEARENCES, go away… his BOOK SALES, go away… his Nation magazine CONTRACT, goes away.

Jeremy Scahill shouldn’t be condemned for making a statement that distances himself from this issue. After all, Jeremy has books to sell. And who am I to tell someone how much wealth they have to sacrifice to help get our country back.

Yes, he takes on Blackwater. But nothing changes when you take on Blackwater, except their name. They are still getting contracts, still cashing the checks. In fact, they are bigger and more powerful since Jeremy wrote his now famous book.

And so is Jeremy Scahill. In a way, you can say… the longer the “War on terror” goes on, the longer Blackwater will be gaming the system, and THEREFORE… the longer Jeremy Scahill remains an employed literary hero.

But he should be condemned for his attitude and making the ridiculous claim that people like myself and Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin are “insulting” the families of the victims of 9/11. This is the kind of straw-man attack that “debunkers” have been using for years now. The fact is, the victims on 9/11 died horribly. Some first responders are STILL dying horribly because the Bush administration LIED about the air quality and now the Obama administration STILL won’t help them get the medical attention they need.

But in the end, I don’t know how it is supposed to hurt someone less if they think an “angry Muslim” terrorist killed their loved one, as opposed to a “greedy fascist” terrorist. It’s still a terrorist act and whether or not it was brought about by Muslims in a cave or neocons who wrote in 2000, “The process of transformation.” The plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new Pearl Harbor.”

Perhaps the families of the victims of 9/11 are somehow different from those of the victims of the anthrax attacks. We all know that the story of Dr. Ivins as the “mad doctor” is bullshit. I think even Jeremy Scahill has to admit that.

So what is the difference? The difference is, the Nation magazine won’t tear up your contract if you write about Dr. Ivins being framed. That’s the difference.

So yeah, Jeremy Scahill gets a little mad at the people who ask him about 9/11. He gets mad because he feels like we should be polite enough to recognize that he can’t admit the story is bullshit because if he does it will cost him money. I guess he feels like the questions he gets asked are an imposition… but I guess that is somehow different from when he is trying to get the truth out about Eric Prince and Blackwater. Some how that is all different I suppose but forgive me if I can’t really see it.

Here’s the real difference… going after Blackwater or some congressman and his greed is one thing. It doesn’t end anything.

But you go after 9/11… well that’s different.

The Global war on Terror is over.. the militarization of the nation is over… the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq are both over… the Drone industry dries up… the investigations start… the plea bargains start… the snitching starts… the BIPARTISAN NEOLIBERALIZATION OF AMERICA ENDS… and one more curious thing…

Once the truth comes out, people are going to eventually start asking why all our “serious” investigative journalists like… Jeremy Scahill… missed something so goddamned obvious.

Not only did they miss it, they made up shit to attack people who were actually trying to investigate it; trying to tell people.

So one day, when this does all come out, after all the confessions and the accusations and the trials, one day the attention of the angry population will eventually turn to our “serious” investigative journalists like Goodman, like Taibbi, like … Scahill…

… and they will be asked to account for how they chose their careers and their “respectability” over the Truth. A truth I know they feel in their hearts.

Knowing a day of atonement like that is coming, is bound to piss anyone off. Even Jeremy Scahill.

So I am not angry, fellow advocates, I feel sorry for him. Like all the other douche bags.

Jan Klimkowski
05-10-2010, 05:37 PM
What a surprize.

The usual suspects implying that Scahill is a left gatekeeper. Which is an entirely sterile and destructive argument.

Researchers disagree. Sometimes because they don't know all the evidence. Sometimes because they disagree on interpretation of the evidence.

Jeremy Scahill has undertaken and published excellent investigative work into Blackwater.

He is not a "douche bag" That is a puerile and pathetic viewpoint.

Austin Kelley
05-10-2010, 09:12 PM
Yes, the ongoing efforts to use accusations of being a "left gatekeeper" to drive an ever-expanding wedge between left structuralist and conspiracy-oriented tendencies grows very tiresome indeed.

If the work of Peter Dale Scott means anything at all, it points us directly to the reality that the differences between the two aren't really so inherently difficult to overcome, at all...



*

Paul Rigby
05-10-2010, 09:13 PM
What a surprize.

The usual suspects implying that Scahill is a left gatekeeper. Which is an entirely sterile and destructive argument.

As opposed to the positively enormous surprise of finding you, Jan, yet again defending a left-gatekeeper. So is it really "sterile and destructive" to expose Scahill as Zelikow's emissary to the Left?


Researchers disagree. Sometimes because they don't know all the evidence. Sometimes because they disagree on interpretation of the evidence.

Fascinating, but not exactly Scahill's position, is it? Which is?

“I believe that the United States was attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11, by men who flew planes into those buildings…I think it [9/11 dissidence -PR] is insulting to the people who died on 9/11”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBS7kdgVb6A

Good to see that old establishment stand-by, emotional blackmail, given an airing again. Kind of reminds me of Priscilla Johnson McMillan, and that time we all huddled together...


Jeremy Scahill has undertaken and published excellent investigative work into Blackwater.

Or may be he was just spoonfed a lot of inside-dope the better to build a legend.

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/jeremy-scahill-is-a-douche-bag/#comment-16534


Mithras, on May 10, 2010 at 1:20 pm Said:

Here is a bit of first-hand back story from one who was in Iraq with Jeremy Scahill for (?) Democracy Now during the run up to the Iraq War invasion in 2003. (Scahill’s arrogance even then was insufferable and his ignorance of the middle east appalling.)

He entered Iraq with an anti-war group who got him a visa upon his promise to cover the effects of the US bombing on Iraqi people. This NGO group was one of the only orgs remaining in Iraq planning to monitor human rights abuses and record and document deaths and crimes against innocent Iraqis by the US military. Amnesty Intl was not there, nor Red Cross - even the UN agencies had pulled out. We were pretty much the only ones left to do it. But we were all under heavy watch by Iraqi gov (as Americans whose gov was soon to demolish Iraq). We were told unequivocably NOT to take pix, as they could be used by the US to bomb targets, and not to go off sightseeing unescorted as there were real fears by Iraq gov that we could have spies among us gathering intel while posing as peaceniks. We were warned repeatedly by the highest authorities that to do so would mean automatic expulsion.

So what does Scahill do? A few days before the invasion- Scahill and an army photographer Joel Preston Smith go out – in the middle of the night- set up tripods around various sites in Baghdad (on all but deserted Baghdad streets as the nightlife was nil), and they begin photographing buildings, “scenic landmarks” (Ministry of Info is “scenery”??) and other locations around Baghdad.

They were soon arrested by the Iraqi authorities, interrogated extensively and summarily deported. End of alternative coverage of US war crimes. Not only that, but his surveilling (or whatever the hell it was) got most of the group kicked out as well, because it spread a suspicion of spying on all the rest of us. So half the already small group of human rights protesters had their visas revoked and were thrown out because of this egotistical asshole. And Democracy Now had no one on the ground reporting.

Was Scahill’s subsequent Blackwater “success” the reward by the Establishment for his Iraq stunt?

There were British journalists who were on the trail of military contractors’ crimes in Iraq but that all got pushed to the wayside by the Blackwater merc saga. Funny.


He is not a "douche bag" That is a puerile and pathetic viewpoint.

Au contraire, it's merely an uncomfortable truth about the way the CIA et al routinely create dissidents the better to defend their empire of lies.

Jan Klimkowski
05-10-2010, 09:24 PM
Paul - so you think Scahill is a spy too, as well as a member of your ever expanding band of "left-gatekeepers", which already includes Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Chris Hedges, several Cockburns etc.

Am I on your list yet?

Is Peter Dale Scott on your list?

It can only be a matter of time.

What a waste of a fine mind.

Ed Jewett
05-10-2010, 10:03 PM
Yes, the ongoing efforts to use accusations of being a "left gatekeeper" to drive an ever-expanding wedge between left structuralist and conspiracy-oriented tendencies grows very tiresome indeed.

If the work of Peter Dale Scott means anything at all, it points us directly to the reality that the differences between the two aren't really so inherently difficult to overcome, at all...



*


A simple inquiry here, as I am in learning mode.

What is (or do you mean by) a "left structuralist"?

Austin Kelley
05-10-2010, 10:09 PM
What is (or do you mean by) a "left structuralist"?

Noam Chomsky- who I respect but don't always agree with- certainly qualifies for that label. He sees an institutional analysis as far more helpful than a conspiratorial analysis.

In my own view both can exist simultaneously, and complement each other quite well...

Ed Jewett
05-10-2010, 11:21 PM
What is (or do you mean by) a "left structuralist"?Noam Chomsky- who I respect but don't always agree with- certainly qualifies for that label. He sees an institutional analysis as far more helpful than a conspiratorial analysis.

In my own view both can exist simultaneously, and complement each other quite well...


Many thanks for the explanation. So it's a matter of systems or organizational development?

Austin Kelley
05-11-2010, 01:46 AM
So it's a matter of systems or organizational development?

Sort of. It's a way of looking at human affairs as shaped by institutional forces. Unfortunately, this is sometimes construed as being against including conspiracy as a force shaping human affairs...

Paul Rigby
05-11-2010, 05:58 AM
Paul - so you think Scahill is a spy too, as well as a member of your ever expanding band of "left-gatekeepers", which already includes Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Chris Hedges, several Cockburns etc.

Am I on your list yet?

Is Peter Dale Scott on your list?

It can only be a matter of time.

What a waste of a fine mind.

"The most efficient weapon of offence is truth,"

Hazlitt, "On Disagreeable People," Monthly Magazine, August, 1827

Nathaniel Heidenheimer
05-14-2010, 11:51 AM
Jan I assume you are aware of the History of Encounter Magazine, the CIA funded left gatekeeping magazine. How do you propose that we USE this particular history? Do you deny the possibility that similar operations are going on right now? Go ahead and disagree, that's great. But just how do you propose we get the word out about left-gatekeeping. IMO it is strategy #1 in preventing potential majorities from recognizing their own strength. Knowledge of the historical fact of Encounter is sorely lacking in the wide CIA enclave known as the United States.

Peter Lemkin
05-14-2010, 12:30 PM
Jan I assume you are aware of the History of Encounter Magazine, the CIA funded left gatekeeping magazine. How do you propose that we USE this particular history? Do you deny the possibility that similar operations are going on right now? Go ahead and disagree, that's great. But just how do you propose we get the word out about left-gatekeeping. IMO it is strategy #1 in preventing potential majorities from recognizing their own strength. Knowledge of the historical fact of Encounter is sorely lacking in the wide CIA enclave known as the United States.

Nat, Paul, I do believe there are 'left-gatekeepers', however, I often disagree with who is branded with that label and who is not. Some are only progressives or semi-progressives who haven't (for a variety of reasons, misinformation, prejudice, or psychological mechanisms) not fully seen the light......

Austin Kelley
05-14-2010, 01:43 PM
Ordinary rules of evidence and logic should apply here, too...

Jan Klimkowski
05-14-2010, 05:16 PM
Jan I assume you are aware of the History of Encounter Magazine, the CIA funded left gatekeeping magazine. How do you propose that we USE this particular history? Do you deny the possibility that similar operations are going on right now? Go ahead and disagree, that's great. But just how do you propose we get the word out about left-gatekeeping. IMO it is strategy #1 in preventing potential majorities from recognizing their own strength. Knowledge of the historical fact of Encounter is sorely lacking in the wide CIA enclave known as the United States.

Nate - I'm very well aware of the history of Encounter thank you very much. Encounter had a CIA agent on its editorial board in neocon godfather Irving Kristol, and - to my knowledge - published hardly any investigative exposes of deep black operations.

Whereas the list of left gatekeepers, drawn up by those who like to sling such mud - often purely because they interpret a particular event in a fundamentally different fashion - includes many who have produced outstanding investigative journalism.

Hmmmm... Who's playing whom here?

For instance, it was Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair who wrote: "Whiteout, Drugs and the Press", describing in part how the press refused to support or publish Gary Webb's outstanding investigative journalism. The journalism which led to Webb being "suicided", managing the spectacular feat of shooting himself twice in the head.

Yet Counterpunch and the Cockburn tribe are routinely described as "left gatekeepers" by those who throw such labels about.

I find the use of such a label to describe the work of Counterpunch and those who write for it to be destructive and entirely counter-productive.

Nate - let me ask you a question. I believe you regularly post on Democracy Now. Some, including Paul Rigby, describe Amy Goodman as a left gatekeeper.

Do you agree with that label? And, if so, how does it affect your behaviour?

Paul Rigby
05-14-2010, 06:26 PM
Encounter had a CIA agent on its editorial board in neocon godfather Irving Kristol, and - to my knowledge - published hardly any investigative exposes of deep black operations.

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6657&postcount=9


Encounter, June 1964, pp. 73-74, 76 & 78

Books & Writers: Whodunnit

By Goronwy Rees

Who Killed Kennedy? By Thomas G. Buchanan. Secker and Warburg, 18s.

For the overwhelming majority of Americans, the office of the President has a numinous quality which is reflected upon all its occupants. The President is hedged by a kind of divinity which has long ceased to surround a king. Thus, for Americans, there is something sacrilegious in the murder of a President, which others cannot wholly understand, however much they may sympathise. It is a desecration of the Union’s hallowed ground and for an American it is almost inconceivable that this could be anything except the work of a diseased and deranged personality. To think otherwise, one would have to assume that there are evil men who for their own ends would plot and conspire to violate the most sacred altars of the Republic, and, unless of course such men were Communists, this is something most Americans cannot bring themselves to accept.

Mr. Buchanan, himself an American, has now written a book which will outrage all such beliefs, or superstitions, and at the same time give profound offence to many who believe themselves to be friends of the United States. Who Killed Kennedy? is in many ways an unpleasant book. It is marred by that kind of sour malice, of innuendo and Schadenfreude, to which left-wingers (Mr. Buchanan is a recent ex-Communist) are so often unfortunately prone; even the shade of Jefferson Davis does not escape a perfectly irrelevant sneer. It is also marred by errors of historical interpretation which make one doubt Mr. Buchanan’s credentials as a commentator on the contemporary American scene. If he can be so wrong about the historical situation which led to the assassination of Lincoln, about which after all one knows a great deal, if still not everything, why should we trust his account of the forces which led to the assassination of Kennedy, about which we as yet know very little?

Nevertheless, it would be a pity if its faults denied Mr. Buchanan’s book the attention it deserves. Who Killed Kennedy? asks a serious question which demands a serious answer; and if no better answers are given than those we have already received from Dallas, one might reasonably conclude, as Mr. Buchanan does, that the United States may be threatened by even greater disasters than the murder of a President.

Jan Klimkowski
05-14-2010, 06:48 PM
And your point is?

I don't see any original investigative research into deep black operations in that Encounter piece.

Paul Rigby
05-14-2010, 07:28 PM
And your point is?

I don't see any original investigative research into deep black operations in that Encounter piece.

Encounter wasn't set up to undertake "original investigative research into deep black operations," as anyone remotely familiar with it knows; but it did do gatekeeping and steerage, which is what both Buchanan's book - published in the UK by the CIA's favourite UK publisher - and Rees' review (ditto) were all about.

Your defence of the left-gatekeeping invites us to confuse evidence with mud. Pish. The evidence is abundant and detailed - the US establishment, like its UK counterpart, funds pseudo-leftists to set limits on dissent. At the heart of this deception lies a trade-off based on a hierarchy of subjects. At the pinnacle of the latter stands the two world-historical post-WWII covert ops, Dallas '63 and 9/11. To keep the Left from asking serious questions about these, they'll trade almost anything, not least elementary consistency, their consciences, and self-respect.

There, the careers of Chomsky and Cockburn in a nutshell.

Jan Klimkowski
05-14-2010, 07:54 PM
Paul - the "pish" in this thread is entirely yours.

I'm glad you acknowledge that Encounter didn't conduct orginal investigative journalism.

Counterpunch has published a large amount of investigative journalism.

Scahill has published original investigative journalism.

Democracy Now continues to broadcast original investigative journalism.

Do I agree with everything published or broadcast by Counterpunch, Scahill, Democracy Now, Naomi Klein etc? No, of course not.

But to describe them as "left gatekeepers" because you disagree with this or that and thereby throw out everything published there is plain crazy.

Paul Rigby
05-14-2010, 09:05 PM
... to describe them as "left gatekeepers" because you disagree with this or that and thereby throw out everything published there is plain crazy.

Nothing to do with opinion, it's a matter of evidence. Chomsky is a left-gatekeeper not because I want him to be so, or don't like the cut of his gib, but because he lies, chiefly, but by no means exclusively, by selectivity, hypocrisy, omission and inversion. The evidence for this is unarguable. You demonstrate this rather well by your steadfast refusal to engage with it. I don't blame you.

Chomsky on the Lone Nutter in the White House, 1961-63

Stone’s JFK, whatever its precise strengths and weaknesses, provoked a new generation to look at the assassination. This bubble of interest had to be swiftly deflated, and America’s centre-left preserved from contamination by conspiratorialist fever. Who better to inject the narcotic of conformity than the CIA’s favourite left-gatekeeper, the Gnome?

Rethinking Camelot, the preferred delivery mechanism, is one of the crudest pieces of CIA hackwork ever written. Much of it is laughably bad. Consider the question of responsibility for the US assault on Vietnam.

Early on in the book - all the quotations to follow are from the Verso paperback edition published in London in 1993 – Chomsky serves up one of those impressive-seeming, quasi-aphoristic criterion which so intoxicate his army of academic exegetes and hagiographers:
“Policy flows from institutions reflecting the needs of power and privilege within them, and can be understood only if these factors are recognized, including the case now under review” (p.9). That eternal verity solemnly proclaimed, Chomsky proceeds to ignore it more or less entirely for the rest of the book.

How so? The text is littered with a mantra which makes nonsense of Chomsky’s assertion: It wasn’t an institution what done it, after all, it was that bloody awful man Kennedy. Single-handedly. Count the violations of Chomsky’s own tenet:


“Kennedy escalated” (p.2); “John F. Kennedy’s escalation” (p.23); “Kennedy’s escalation” (p.27); “Kennedy…escalated the war” (p.37); “JFK raised the level of US attack” (p.43); “As he prepared to escalate the war…in late 1961” (p.46); “Kennedy’s 1961-62 escalation” (p.51); “his 1961-1962 escalation” (p.67).

Just in case his less nimble readers missed the point, the Gnome served up a variation on the theme. Subtlety, as we shall see, was not his strongpoint:


”Kennedy’s war” (p.2); “Kennedy’s war” (p.36); “Kennedy’s war” (p.39); “Kennedy’s war” (p.52); “Kennedy’s war” (p.53); “Kennedy’s war” (p.69); “Kennedy’s war” (p.73); “Kennedy’s war” (p.81); “Kennedy’s war” (p.86); “Kennedy’s war” (p.105).

Still not got it? Chomsky had a third variant on the same basic slogan:


”Kennedy…his aggression” (p.15); “Kennedy moved on to armed attack” (p.25); “JFK’s aggression” (p.32); “JFK’s aggression” (p.35); “Kennedy’s aggression” (p.52); “Kennedy’s aggression” (p.63); “JFK’s 1961-1962 aggression” (p.66); “JFK’s aggression” (p.115).

Impressively sophisticated stuff: If you can’t convince ‘em with the quality of your argument or evidence, beat ‘em into submission by mindless repetition. Was Chomsky’s real research at MIT anything to do with mind control/MK Ultra, one wonders? Psychic driving, anyone?

Magda Hassan
05-15-2010, 03:18 AM
To be sure the JFK assassination is something of a blind spot for Chomsky. As a linguist and academic he can't be unaware of his use of words here. But I take that on board and still find much of his analysis useful. I also find some limitation to structural analysis when it comes to looking into this area in general.

Paul Rigby
05-15-2010, 04:48 AM
To be sure the JFK assassination is something of a blind spot for Chomsky. As a linguist and academic he can't be unaware of his use of words here. But I take that on board and still find much of his analysis useful. I also find some limitation to structural analysis when it comes to looking into this area in general.

Language matters


Children must be rigorously indoctrinated in these conventions to ensure that Political Correctness will reign unchallenged. The most extensive study of high school history texts found that the word terror "does not appear once in reference to U.S. or client practices in any of the 48 texts examined in 1979 and 1990..."

Rethinking Camelot (London: Verso, 1993), p.61

Diction and repetition matter hugely, according to the author of RC.

Trouble is, Maggie, his followers don't really read him.

Magda Hassan
05-15-2010, 05:12 AM
Well, that is true enough in many cases.

Jan Klimkowski
05-15-2010, 12:39 PM
To be sure the JFK assassination is something of a blind spot for Chomsky. As a linguist and academic he can't be unaware of his use of words here. But I take that on board and still find much of his analysis useful. I also find some limitation to structural analysis when it comes to looking into this area in general.

Language matters


Children must be rigorously indoctrinated in these conventions to ensure that Political Correctness will reign unchallenged. The most extensive study of high school history texts found that the word terror "does not appear once in reference to U.S. or client practices in any of the 48 texts examined in 1979 and 1990..."

Rethinking Camelot (London: Verso, 1993), p.61

Diction and repetition matter hugely, according to the author of RC.

Trouble is, Maggie, his followers don't really read him.

Paul - you have taken this massively out of context. In addition, you have only included part of the paragraph and ignored the broader argument within which it sits.

The passage can be seen on page 70 (not p61) here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3096270/Noam-Chomsky-1993-Rethinking-Camelot

The full paragraph is as follows:


Children must be rigorously indoctrinated in these conventions to ensure that Political Correctness will reign unchallenged. The most extensive study of high school history texts found that the word terror "does not appear once in reference to U.S. or client practices in any of the 48 texts examined in 1979 and 1990. The Viet Cong, it is duly noted, murdered and terrorized; one can only wonder how they could possibly out-terrorize Diem's US-backed forces." (Footnote 32). The answer to that question is quite simple: it is true by definition, the same device that expunges the vastly greater US terror, and its aggression itself, from the annals of history.

Footnote 32 reveals that the section in speechmarks is from John Marciano's "Ideological Hegemony and the War against Vietnam: A Critique of United States History Textbooks", 1992. And cites another study.

Chomsky is performing structural analysis of how "ideological hegemony" is maintained by ruling elites. He is not advocating its usage.

Indeed, it's rather curious that your "left gatekeeper" Chomsky, who you seem to consider an asset of American intelligence, talks about "the vastly greater US terror".

Paul - this is precisely why I don't get involved with your "specifics". I've just wasted an hour of my life searching out the original quote in full, and attempting to understand its proper context.

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.

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

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. I am certain I will disagree with a signficant proportion of what is published there.

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.

Paul Rigby
05-15-2010, 07:56 PM
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.

Paul Rigby
05-15-2010, 08:30 PM
To be sure the JFK assassination is something of a blind spot for Chomsky. As a linguist and academic he can't be unaware of his use of words here. But I take that on board and still find much of his analysis useful. I also find some limitation to structural analysis when it comes to looking into this area in general.

Language matters


Children must be rigorously indoctrinated in these conventions to ensure that Political Correctness will reign unchallenged. The most extensive study of high school history texts found that the word terror "does not appear once in reference to U.S. or client practices in any of the 48 texts examined in 1979 and 1990..."

Rethinking Camelot (London: Verso, 1993), p.61

Diction and repetition matter hugely, according to the author of RC.

Trouble is, Maggie, his followers don't really read him.

Paul - you have taken this massively out of context. In addition, you have only included part of the paragraph and ignored the broader argument within which it sits.

The passage can be seen on page 70 (not p61) here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3096270/Noam-Chomsky-1993-Rethinking-Camelot

The full paragraph is as follows:


Children must be rigorously indoctrinated in these conventions to ensure that Political Correctness will reign unchallenged. The most extensive study of high school history texts found that the word terror "does not appear once in reference to U.S. or client practices in any of the 48 texts examined in 1979 and 1990. The Viet Cong, it is duly noted, murdered and terrorized; one can only wonder how they could possibly out-terrorize Diem's US-backed forces." (Footnote 32). The answer to that question is quite simple: it is true by definition, the same device that expunges the vastly greater US terror, and its aggression itself, from the annals of history.

Footnote 32 reveals that the section in speechmarks is from John Marciano's "Ideological Hegemony and the War against Vietnam: A Critique of United States History Textbooks", 1992. And cites another study.

Chomsky is performing structural analysis of how "ideological hegemony" is maintained by ruling elites. He is not advocating its usage.

Indeed, it's rather curious that your "left gatekeeper" Chomsky, who you seem to consider an asset of American intelligence, talks about "the vastly greater US terror".

Paul - this is precisely why I don't get involved with your "specifics". I've just wasted an hour of my life searching out the original quote in full, and attempting to understand its proper context.

You could have saved that hour, Jan, by checking within the book version cited - where the instanced quote is indeed to be found on page 61 - and not an on-line version, which I wasn't citing.

Nor is Chomsky "performing structural analysis of how "ideological hegemony" is maintained by ruling elites" - he's replicating their techniques, having first taken care to suggest his opposition to their methods. That's a very different thing. It's all part of the rich charm of Chomsky's CIA-serving oeuvre.

Does he tell his readers that the US does beastly things all over the globe? Absolutely. He has to, it's part of his brief, and the primary means by which he established, and sustains, his "legend." Critics of left-gatekeepers have never denied any of that. What we argue is all together subtler, as befits the intellectual secret police work we critique.

Chomsky doesn't deny the CIA is guilty of monstrous crimes, he simply transfers responsibility for them to successive US presidents: The CIA, we are to understand, was just obeying orders.

A somewhat ironic defence, no, for a committed Zionist who has dedicated much of his career, as Blankfort details, to defending the state of Israel from the US left?

Austin Kelley
05-16-2010, 12:18 PM
Once again, we're looking towards a synthesis ala Peter Dale Scott, where things are not so simple as "the CIA runs the President" nor "the President runs the CIA" but rather that it is the Deep Political System which organizes, frames and defines many of the covert actions with which we are concerned.

As to Chomsky being a "Zionist"- that's rather a stretch. It's always possible to play more radical than Thou (provocateurs do this all the time) but Chomsky is clearly an important critic of the policies of the Israeli State. I don't agree with him in every way but I certainly don't buy the extreme right-wing conspiracy model which often makes use of tropes like the putative world Jewish, er-Zionist conspiracy, broad use of "left gatekeeper" charges, and the like.


All of this sort of gratuitous CIA-baiting seems to be both thoughtless and destructive to me. Isn't it time we moved beyond this, taking guidance from the exemplary lead of Peter Dale Scott?


...

Paul Rigby
05-16-2010, 03:10 PM
Once again, we're looking towards a synthesis ala Peter Dale Scott, where things are not so simple as "the CIA runs the President" nor "the President runs the CIA" but rather that it is the Deep Political System which organizes, frames and defines many of the covert actions with which we are concerned.

The obvious, if rarely expressed, objection to find-sounding phrases like "it is the Deep Political System which organizes, frames and defines many of the covert actions with which we are concerned" is that a) such phrases aren't telling us very much; and b) they obscure a key reality - human decision making. Someone or some group chose course of action a) over course of action b) - who and why? A discourse that evades the identity of the perps is simply aiding the perps.


As to Chomsky being a "Zionist"- that's rather a stretch.

Blankfort demolishes your objection. Do read his piece.


It's always possible to play more radical than Thou (provocateurs do this all the time) but Chomsky is clearly an important critic of the policies of the Israeli State. I don't agree with him in every way but I certainly don't buy the extreme right-wing conspiracy model which often makes use of tropes like the putative world Jewish, er-Zionist conspiracy, broad use of "left gatekeeper" charges, and the like.

Ah, what a pity, you were doing so well. The old anti-sem ad hom. Sorry, won't do. Pointing out that Chomsky, Arnoni and Stone - to name but three - chose loyalty to Israel's interests over the truth of Dallas is merely to state a fact. If Zionists don't like it, tough.


All of this sort of gratuitous CIA-baiting seems to be both thoughtless and destructive to me. Isn't it time we moved beyond this, taking guidance from the exemplary lead of Peter Dale Scott?

"Gratuitous CIA-baiting" - you mean Angelton's SIG didn't run Oswald? I'm shocked, Austen, shocked I say...

Austin Kelley
05-16-2010, 03:15 PM
There is no inherent contradiction between having a systemic analysis and identifying individual perps.

As to Chomsky's position on Palestine, one can agree with it in its entirety or not, but that hardly makes him a "Zionist shill"...

Paul Rigby
05-16-2010, 05:32 PM
There is no inherent contradiction between having a systemic analysis and identifying individual perps.

I wasn't aware I'd ever argued there was, Austin, though for what it's worth, I agree.


As to Chomsky's position on Palestine, one can agree with it in its entirety or not, but that hardly makes him a "Zionist shill"...

Oh yes it does:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article143703.html#article143703

Austin Kelley
05-16-2010, 06:47 PM
I don't think a compelling case has been made that Chomsky is a zionist operative, nor a CIA agent.

Once again, I think that Peter Dale Scott's work presents a far better alternative to the kind of fulminations we are being treated to here.

That's really all I have to say for now...

Mark Stapleton
05-17-2010, 12:08 AM
I don't think a compelling case has been made that Chomsky is a zionist operative, nor a CIA agent.

Once again, I think that Peter Dale Scott's work presents a far better alternative to the kind of fulminations we are being treated to here.

That's really all I have to say for now...


Goodness me. Paul's made a very compelling case, and there's the Blankfort piece to boot.

Chomsky's a Zionist tool. It's bleedingly obvious.

Old Jack was right all along. Some people can't handle the truth.