Amy Goodman and the CIA

...find a fascist.

the establishment "Left", including the intellectual and oh-so-clever and somewhat stuck-on-herself Amy Goodman, has purposely missed the train on the 9/11 investigation issue. she and her kind are so afraid of "how it will look" if they question the official theory (which is a pack of lies) that they go so far as to attack anyone who attacks it. fucking pathetic.

yeah, she does good work sometimes, but when it really counts, she bails. typical liberal.

I was a big fan of DN, but that was a real disappointment.

 http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/oxman04162004/

 http://www.media-criticism.com/Amy_Goodman_03_2004.html

 http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/0518_ruppert911.html

Amy Goodman is actually an infiltrated operative who's objective is to undermine the carefully crafted, liberal facade of DN. In other words, by showing *any* recognition of alternative explanations to 911, she is chipping away at the wall erected by the Ford foundation, Soros, et al. The only way her supposed "masters" would allow Griffin and his questions on the show was in the form of a public flogging. However, the flogging was uninteresting at best and whiney at worst and listeners were reminded that there are still nagging questions surrounding the incident.

It was a brilliant double-cross!

Amy is probably working for the French...

In all seriousness,

I really laughed when Berlet got all rightous when nit picking the speed of F-15s. To paraphrase:

"Just becasue an F-15 has a maximum speed of 1800 MPH doesn't mean they can accelerate to that speed immediately. If they could, that would kill the pilot!"

So, if F-15s can't instantly accelerate to their maximum speed, it is impossible that they could have intercepted the airliners. That is just a childish attempt to dismiss that particular problem.

"By specifically choosing Berlet to challenge Griffin this episode of Democracy Now! strongly resembles a CIA propaganda campaign."

ludicruous jumps in logic.

JUST BECAUSE SHE'S A LEFTIST POSEUR DOESN'T MEAN SHE'S CIA.

so, anyone who doesn't agree with your lame conspiracy theories is part of the conspiracy, is that how it works? you people need to get back on your meds.

It is the government story that is lame. If you have anything that will make their case, I'm sure everybody would like to see. If you think the case against the government is lame, then let's see what you got.

And BTW, why was there never an investigation? I mean a REAL investigation?

Let's see what you got.

Local boy Craig, makes it painfully obvious in his books. U.S. government is completely left out of implacation, in rgards to evidence of internal gpvernment planning and execution. 2 planes causing 3 buildings collasping in text book demolition fashion right next to eachother is completely a coincedence, maybe I am supposed to believe. Don't even mention Oklahoma. "Working for the CLAMPDOWN" indeed.

A woman who faced down US-backed Indonesian death squads is actually working for the CIA?! You don't say!

Really, you'd do yourself and your favored theories more credit by toning down the rhetoric. When people start becoming this emotionally attached to their favored worldviews, they can really get ugly when confronting people who don't agree with them.

Give me a break! Sibel Edmonds (not Edwards as in Scott's letter) called the 9/11 commission a cover-up!! IS that really the official version of things? She may paint some of the problems with the FBI as incompetence, but she also says that it can't all be explained away by incompetence. How about the reason that Goodman was nicey-nicey with her is because Goodman knows she'd have gotten her ass kicked if she'd gotten nasty with Edmonds. Edmonds has the government scared and that's why she's under a gag order. If you're going to make a case that Goodman = CIA operative, at least be logical about it. Edmonds, and Clarke for that matter, don't spout the official version of events.  http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

acts of bravery become suspicious when followed by acts of cowardice.

No one should be surprised regarding DN's stance on the 911 conspiracy. If Amy were to take any other position besides the official government cover up, she would be lucky to find herself with an audio stream on some obscure web site. Although the CIA operative makes for a good novel, I hardly think it's the case. Let's not throw the Amy out with the bath water...

I would however like to see her take on Alex Jones on this subject. He'd have her for lunch.

tm

are we cowards? i don't trust cowards, tellit like it is, if she were fired it would totally defend her argument! she stood up to death squads huh? really? then why is she sooo scared now?

...although that makes a lovely straw man argument for apologists of the official conspiracy theory to easily shoot down.

The fact is that Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Soros, etc all help to fund those "leftist" organizations which effectively cripple the left. By supporting organizations which consciously exclude systematic analyses of problems (instead of personality electoral polics) or media groups who impotently plea to corporations to be fair, or groups with an ostensibly "left" agenda but ignore or paint over Israel, 911, etc, in a favorable light (such as DN), the CIA-funded foundations can meet the aims of the CIA without ever using a single agent. The CIA, and these foundations which they fund, are all to be NON-socialist, NON-anarchist, NON-revolutionary and NON-violent. That is how the authorities want the left to be; defanged, impotent. Most non-profit organzations are grateful for any money and don't scrutinize where it comes from. They must first exhibit a will towards non-critical journalism, though.

Amy Goodman:
 http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/oxman04162004/

Who do you think will win this series? It should be well-known that the NBA and Hollywood have masterminded a joint conspiracy to return the Lakers to the Finals and eventually "the throne" for primo ratings during Sweeps.

Liberal facists have ruined The Game!
HAVE A WONDERFUL WEEKEND!

Maybe if folks had more energy for organizing and less for infighting we'd be accomplishing something.

I'd estimate 30% of the comments on pdx.indymedia site are back-and-forth the same debates over and over and over again. It's pathetic - if any party in these arguements (the "crazy anarchists" vs. "sell-out liberals") we're truly doing something truly and clearly effective it would have way more effect in influencing people of the validity of their arguments than this lamo back and forth.

Even what I'm saying right now has been said a bizzilion times before. Oh well. It's great to be an armchair revolutionary critic when oppression and government/corporate murder is happening constantly. How many of you reading this spend time every single day looking to debunk what others are saying on indymedia? How many hours a week, a month, a year? Can you tell me about some of the concrete positive, world changing effects of this?

Mostly likely responses to this comment:
Argument #1 / Semantics: "I take issue with being called the left, the left an obsolete-blah-blah-blah"
Argument #2 / Missing the point: "I don't like labels and I'm not an anarchist or a liberal"
Argument #3 / Hyberbole-absurdity-revolutionary-minority-of-one-and-proud: "It's not infighting b/c we're not on the same side"
Argument #4 / Millenarianism: "If we could only decide on our unified strategy (i.e., ditching the radicals or the liberals) then we'd be truly effective"
Argument #5 / Paranoid-schizo: "that comment was obviously cointelpro"
Argument #6 / Self righteous indignation/intellectual snobbery: "It's my responsibility & personal-activist-calling to speak truth to power (by bashing liberals / radicals)"
Argument #7 / Kinda accurate: "your just doing the same thing!"

Yeah, but at least I'm actually doing shit 90% of the time....anyhow, venting done.....

Are you running on a treadmill (getting nowhere)? Are you playing the game proscribed to you? Are you believing lies?

Activity is all well and good, but without meaningful reflection it is mere buglike zombiewalking, possibly even hurting your own cause. THINK - *THEN* ACT. Most people hate thinking but it's a requirement for EFFECTIVE action.

wow, hard to believe it, but I NEVER EVER even thought of thinking before doing something until you suggested it Gringo, thanks for this BRILLIANT and insightful tip! I'll pass it on.

"Are you running on a treadmill (getting nowhere)?"
uh-huh, I think I'm gonna break a sweat!

"Are you playing the game proscribed [sic] to you?"
oh yes! BASEBALL!

"Are you believing lies?"
woah- your like, blowing my mind, dude.

What a load of patronizing crap.

Forgot to mention:

Argument #8 / infantile-praxis-fixation-analysis-paraylsis: "No one is thinking before their acting, everyone is running around like a chicken with head cut off (so that's why I'm here - a talking-chicken-head! - to spout these fountains of tasty-wisdom-tidbits and aid in the collective intellgence)"

What <<ExAcTlY>> are you doing?

And the conspiracy dude sounded like a total jackass. really did a disservice to that perspective. Now I think Cynthia McKinney is totally awesome, but i'm not going to spend a whole lot of time on 9-11 conspiracy because i think it's beside the point. we live in a system so evil it must be destroyed regardless of who did what on 9-11.

btw: it's a shame people are using such ablist language throughout this thread. as a poster called speedy J pointed out on infoshop awhile ago, if you wouldn't describe something stupid as "gay" then why will you call it "lame" (or "crippling")? For good info on the disability rights mvmnt, see www.ragged-edge-mag.com/ and  http://www.h-net.org/~disabil/

She DID face down live fire from the Death squads, in size formation, at the Santa Cruz Event. Allen Narn(?) got his dead fractured trying to cover Amy as they used rifle butts on them. The citizens of E. Timore got hard ammo.
They also DID bring out the glaring tumor of 9-11 government conspiracy theory at least into the 'main stream' as a particular safety valve indeed. This would have been unheard of, say at the JFK hit. The cracks are showing and it's time to push now with mutual support now more then ever. These bastards are frightened of unforeseen consequences. They have never had to deal with the info war before. We are the many only when we decide to pull together on this leash and take it away. Getting on Amy's case is not productive or unifying. We saw the curtain come down even with the monkey like chitterings of 'Chip' as an idiot echo of Griffin who did well for himself. His message was clear and sensitive points came out. Hey, I like her.

As pointed out Craig Rosebraugh and Ward Churchill have the same problem in their post-9-11 writings which is quite suspicious. Check out their books. These two talk about the attacks of 9-11 as a blow to empire and fail to point out the Bush administration may have known and let 9-11 happen to bolster public support to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. And if you take a better look at Craig and the fact that the feds were all over him when he was ELF spokesperson...now he is talking about political violence as "actions causing harm to humans" for political ends...terrorism,assasination (and the govenment is leaving him alone?). Tell me do you buy or sell drugs with someone who just got busted? The feds have Craig by the throat...but don't say that too loud your friends might think that you're not cool. They may call you a "f*cking liberal" or turn in on you by calling you a fed. And if you try and publish a story on this indy will censor it as they may with this one.

"Democracy Now! strongly resembles a CIA propaganda campaign"

Yeah, I'm sure that's why Amy Goodman almost got herself killed to bring attention to the Genocide going on in East Timor when no one else would report about it. I'm also sure the CIA appreciated her being the only reporter with the guts to dig up the truth concerning the U.S. role in the coup in Haiti, that would've otherwise gone unreported. Tell me, how exactly does bringing attention to U.S.-funded atrocities and covert actions worldwide help the CIA? How is doing whatever one can to stop genocide and the overthrow of socially conscious democratic leaders by U.S.-backed military dictatorships "working for the clampdown"?

Tell me, what are you doing with your life that you feel you are in such a rightious position to bash someone like Amy Goodman? If you are so brave and perfectly uncompromising, then please get a radio show and do a better job. See how long it takes before someone bashes you online because the guests on your show didn't say exactly what they wanted them to say; or you didn't telepathically predict who they would criticize in order to have that person as a guest to defend themself.

From your complaints it seems you should be critiquing the guest's statements, rather than Amy Goodman for being one of the only national reporters willing to touch the issue at all. Is she supposed to have complete control over what comes out of her guests' mouths or something? If she were a ventriloquist, maybe your criticisms would be valid.

"We are appalled by Democracy Now's guest Berlet demanding that Griffin defend the scientific work of researchers who have never been invited to appear on your program.

Fourth, Berlet specifically (and very crudely) dismissed the crucial research of "Holmgren" (i.e., Gerard Holmgren). If Democracy Now! does not invite Holmgren on to defend his highly significant work then it is working on behalf of no democracy that has ever existed.

Fifth, during Griffin's ordeal he made many important points concerning specific anomalies with 911 (e.g., the Pentagon, WTC 7, etc.) that were ignored by Berlet. When will these be addressed on your program?

Until Democracy Now reexamines what happened on 9/11/01 with some intellectual integrity we will regard you and your program to be speaking on behalf of the CIA. To quote the Clash, you are solidly "Working for the Clampdown."


Ironically, she would have been spared your criticism as well as the criticism of many right-wingers as well, had she never had the guts to touch the 9-11 issue at all...just like every other American journalist who escapes your scathing keyboard. Apparently complacency is a monkeywrench, and asking critical unanswered questions is the role of the CIA.

Gringo, do you understand what the counter intelligence programs (COINTELPRO) were aimed at? Do you understand what a provocateur is?

Agent Provocateur: one who associates with persons of a group in order to incite them to acts which will make them or their group liable to penalty.

Maybe provocateurs are provoking people into non-violence. Is this how it works? I don't think so.

Provocateurs are probably supposed to incite people to violence.

Tell me who benifited most from the actions of 9-11? Was it Iraq? Was it Afghanistan? Was it the people who lost their civil liberties? Or was it the ruling establishment that benifited most? You tell me who benifited from the act of political violence carried out on 9-11?

Are you suggesting that more violence is needed to stop the violence that is plauging the world?

Hmmmmmm...more violence that would be effective. You sound like a provocateur. You sound like a fed.

Democracy Now! and the brave journalism Amy Goodman are the best! Is she perfect? Hell No. Are you?

Consider that probably less than 10% of our voting electorate could even engage in this discussion <they don't even know who the hell she is>, and consider the majority of the other 90% are tricked...let us delcare that MORE VOICES like Amy/DN! are the path for democracy. No shit! More voices, more points of view, more information, more democracy. now!

How much would it cost me to put on my own radio show now?
I have a internet connection a computer, and recording equipment. So the only thing it would take is time. Now imagine if I knew 10 other people that wanted to make a radio show as well. Wow, it doesn't seem like it would be that hard. Now I do admit a satelite to air the program would be costly, but in the end for me to complete a 3 hour long radio show and put it out over the internet is essentially free. Post a link on indymedia and if its a good show who knows how many people i could get to listen to it. I wonder how many people would be able to say the same thing I just said. I bet alot. Then why do we think that someone who feels they need hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to tell you what to think does not have a vested interest in the reaction of not only the listeners of the radio show as well as the interest of the underwriters of the radio show. I've worked at a community television station and to say that they didn't change the station to meet the needs of the financiers would be a lie, and this was cable access tv the bottom rung of television. The well-funded liberal media is no different than the much more well-funded conservative media like fox and msnbc. You have "personalities" in the form of journalists who are very marginalized in the way they think and in what they cover and they get paid to do what they do. If your job is to sell news to a particular type of individual or culture and you aren't doing it well you'll be replaced. Everyone knows this, it's capatilsm. They think what there doing is great and they want to keep doing it. What a novel concept.

An interesting note in all of this is that if major corporate public opinion polls show the percentage of americans that feel the u.s. government had some role in 9/11 attacks to be well above 30 percent, why has no major news outlet cashed in on the seemingly large audience of the topic. I guess we'll have to wonder why instead of sitting back and watch the system eat itslef.

<<Argument #8 / infantile-praxis-fixation-analysis-paraylsis: "No one is thinking before their acting, everyone is running around like a chicken with head cut off (so that's why I'm here - a talking-chicken-head! - to spout these fountains of tasty-wisdom-tidbits and aid in the collective intellgence)" >>

You are SO right. We should quit discussing ANYTHING! ACTION, NOT WORDS! Let's run around like brainless bugs/chickens and just DO things, damn the consequences! (sorry if I said anything specieist)

Let's nevermind the fact that Goodman is relegating the role of 911 information to "conspiracy nut" land. That doesn't matter! Hell, 911 doesn't matter! 911 has NOTHING to do with anything, and neither does Goodman. All yew ayg-heads jabberjawing about high-faluting nonsense! Let's be unanimous in our tepid condemnations of republicans, OK? NO MORE DISCUSSION! DISCUSSIONS ARE NOT HELPFUL! ID YOU DISCUSS THINGS, YOU ARE THE ENEMY! After all, more than a decade ago, Goodman did a good report, so no need to criticize her NOW. The statute of limitations for respecting someone for their earlier work is like, 30 years right?

<sarcasm off>
UabUab is right. Most all of the foundation-funded left is nothing less than capitalist. As capitalists, their critique of current policies will be tepid points of policy rather than any kind of systemic criticisms.

Capitalism Uber Alles! All hail Goodman for upholding Bush's 911 conspiracy theory! Bush couldn't keep the left in line without you!

gringo, you illustrate my points exactly. Hyperbole, straw man, and just plain bad listening skills all in one....and you are SO convincing when you talk all angry/sarcastic and use ALL CAPS like that. Regardless of the (in)validity of your believes, there is no reasoned arguement with unreasonable people....I'm done with this conversation, feel free to have the last word....

1. Her "advocacy journalism" is too wedded to the most conservative elements of The Nation magazine. She serves as a spokesperson for ABBers. When all is said and done, repeated footage of people like Kerry, Edwards and Clarke on the campaign trail — often without negative commentary — simply reinforces the notion that the starting point for activism should be the electoral process practiced in traditional fashion. Clips of Bush and his coterie are often as hard to explain as they are to digest.

2. Her "radical" steps lead her audience to nothing further than a UFP&J march; you'll be hard put to find the influence of the Zionist lobby — one of the most monumental driving forces in our foreign policy today — in Democracy Now!'s archives. Reverend Jesse Jackson's missions designed to appease Zionists who control the American media and to serve the imperialistic interests of the U.S. government are given a free ride. Violence in Seattle, say, was treated in terms of police brutality. Activist violence is played down as unrepresentative, unnecessary and/or unapproved of by the vast majority on the Left.

3. Her guests are much more likely to include the voices of the most palatable personalities on the Left such as Michael Parenti and Noam Chomsky than the likes of, say, Ward Churchill or Winona LaDuke. The last time she had WC on was October 14, 2002, and when she has had people like him on it's usually for token appearances in the name of such events as Columbus Day or "a revival of Cointelpro" by the Bush administration. As Winona LaDuke told her on one segment, "we don't need a Native American Week" or a day set aside in October for recognition. Just so.

4. She's a bit of a starstruck, celebrity groupie at times. To permit Tim Robbins to pontificate about his righteousness regarding Iraq, but not call him on the statement that he was "all for the invasion of Afghanistan" is tantamount to allowing the mounting of the next U.S. invasion to take place with one's blessings.

5. There's much talk of her betraying many in The Movement such as former colleagues at Pacifica, and she's failed to honor a number of commitments to others on The Left. February 15, 2003 she enlisted many community activists for advance work respecting the NYC peace demonstration, promising full credit and broadcast opportunities which never materialized, to say the very least. Since first being informed that she has a running reputation for stealing others' scoops, my investigation has revealed her, by some, to be career-driven, power hungry and a somewhat of a control freak. Witness the lack of spotlight provided for others, shared with others on DNow!. There's been one for Juan, of course, but that can be looked at as quite obligatory at base. To quote one of the contacts I truly trust: Her "only evident abiding commitment is to self-promotion, and maybe a faction of the Democratic party, equally disastrous for journalism."

6. Her weakness on segments devoted to the plight of the Palestinians is a huge problem, the April 25 and November 25, 2003 segments notwithstanding. If one discounts the pluses related to the show's "headlines" this year, things are pretty pathetic as per Henry Norr's observations:

"If you were to count only the pieces that dealt with the situation on the ground in Palestine,...on that score I have to say the coverage has been pretty pathetic. One thing that particularly strikes me: it doesn't appear that she's ever had even one segment that goes into depth about what the apartheid wall is doing to the Palestinians, nor much about the growing grassroots resistance to it (not counting a couple of pieces about arrests, shootings, etc.) Another observation: aside from Edward Said and Mustafa Barghouti (twice in the 15 months), she's had only a few Palestinians speaking for themselves."

Aftim Saba wrote: "I listen to democracy now on a regular basis, and it has been clear that even NPR has more stories on Israel and Palestine than Democracy Now!. It appears that Amy Goodman studiously avoids discussing Israel, the occupation, the apartheid wall or even Israel's role in the mess we see the US is in the Middle East."

7. She's lost* Jeffrey Blankfort; check out the various points that JB touches upon below in a recent email to me.

Aside from the Palestinian issue, one of my criticisms of her is that since she has made DN a TV show, she has tended to have more mainstream known figures on the air than before and she seems to mention their names with a reverence I find disturbing. Also, she, like Chomsky, Bensky and others have been accused of being gatekeepers on the left when it comes to airing alternative narratives concerning 9-11. (I think I heard Bensky refer to the head of the 9-11 commission as "the honorable Thomas Kean."). Re the lobby issue ... I think this is one of the most underreported stories that goes along with the fact that most corporations don't pay any taxes. One would think that the takeover of the Democratic Party by the lobby might be something that people could get their balls in an uproar about, to use an expression from my childhood, as in "Don't get your balls....."

*Did she ever have him? JB, host of a radio program on KZYX and KPOO in Mendocino County, Northern California, notes: "I have given up waiting to hear the kind of reporting and analysis regarding Occupied Palestine on DN! that we hear regarding other struggles and issues, and this is due no doubt to the fact that, like other sectors of the US media of which DN! is a part, there is an effort not to offend those who pays the bill."

The enema that is this article did not come about as a function of a) envy, b) lack of appreciation of Amy's good points and/or c) lack of awareness of how difficult and complex her life/work are at this juncture. I am fully aware of the service she provides...and for whom.

 http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/oxman04162004/

She's got courage and tenacity, and she's out there working every day to make a difference. It is interesting about the Rockefeller Foundation funding Big Noise films like This is What Democracy Looks Like and The Fourth World War, but where the hell else are film makers and journalists who are not independently wealthy supposed to get money? And it probably does help them set the boundaries of the debate, and what are WE going to do about it? We're sure not sending them much(antiwar.com finally made $50,000 in their fund-drive, and that's with hundreds of thousands of hits a week). It's tough living in a capitalist oligarchy, and I'm glad Amy's keeping on, even if she might sound somewhat compromised at times. At least she's talking, and as someone pointed out, most people don't even know and/or care who she is--they're sights are fixed on MSNBC(if they're "liberal").

Why not send Pacifica some money so she won"t have to lean on the likes of Ford and Rockefeller?

Some people reading this comment are dorks. Some are not. Those that are dorks are the ones who waste everybody's time by posting comments that don't debate any premises of a published article, just transcribe a lot of insults and vulgar language against those who's position they don't agree with. How constructive is that? Paid propagandists who seek to keep people confused and from forming groups large enough to exercise any real political power are the only ones who really value your diatribes.

Without taking sides, Amy Goodman has had guests on Democracy Now! who have directly attacked the official story behind 9-11. Gore Vidal was interviewed last week and did exactly that during much of his air time.

The 911 Truth Movement is battling the Bush regime where it is most vulnerable. Instead of merely reporting on the growing infrastructure of the Bush regime's planned police state, the activists investigating 9-11 are attempting to remove the justification for each piece of it. They are attempting to isolate some basic ideas that can be delivered to large masses of people. Unfortunately, misguided Left Gatekeepers like Amy Goodman continue to block their efforts at pursuing the path that has the greatest chance of success.

Democracy Now!'s contribution to the global struggle to remove the neoconservatives from power in the US is undermined each day that passes that Amy Goodman fails to invite on her show an articulate critic of the official story of 9/11/01. In addition, what little that has been said on DN! about 9-11 should be regarded as disinformation which is completely at the service of the Bush regime.

What many of her critics want from Amy Goodman is for DN! to speak truth to power on the most important issue of our time. We all know from her past that when she speaks truth to power she can move mountains. Many of us also believe that we're running out of time waiting for her to get moving.

September 11th isn't an issue like any other. It is the catalyst for the Bush regime's dramatic expansion of US imperialism and very open foundations for a police state. Activists who are interested in removing the harm done by the Bush regime since 9/11/01 should focus on conveying the scientific anomalies with the official story of that day. To do otherwise is to fight a losing battle.

 http://www.media-criticism.com/Amy_Goodman_03_2004.html

Lets secede and abandon this ship of fools!

Check out this chart:

 http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/chart.htm

I agree that Democracy Now and Amy Goodman have not only avoided focus on the many issues regarding the events of 9/11/2001, but Amy Goodman's line of questioning seemed very strange when interviewing Griffin.

For instance, while Griffin continually asserted that his book asks a number of questions without making specific charges, Goodman continually questioned the "accusations" or "charges; thus missing the point that there are many unanswered anomalies. Goodman seemed to question the sensibility of the questions themselves rather than face the anomalies themselves that deserve scrutiny.

Significant questions were not discussed at all in the interview, such as published photographs that seem to indicate patterned explosions within the World Trade Center long after the planes crashed into the buildings, which suggested some sort of controlled demolition.

Goodman has failed to take serious note of published writings by the Project for a New American Century which specifically called for a "Pearl Harbor sort of event" in order to facilitate the actions desired by the neo-conservatives. A good connection would have been to interview recent sources who have demonstrated unequivocally that Franklin Roosevelt had access to the top secret Japanese communications that indicated in real time the planning and operational actions involved in the Japanese Pearl Harbor -- which prove that Roosevelt deliberately allowed that attack to occur when it could have been forestalled -- in order to motivate the American public to enter WWII.

Interestingly, Goodman and Democracy Now have never hestitated to criticize the Bush Administration's Environmental Protection Agency response to the WTC destruction, and the exposure of rescue personnel to high levels of contaminants. But the actual role of the Bush administration in the attacks themselves both before and during the events continue to be ignored by Democracy Now, including the apparent high level overrides of State Department border controllers which repeatedly allowed the terrorists to enter the United States from various countries around the world despite anomalies with their visas, passports, being caught on watch lists as they attempted to cross borders, etc.

Something is very fishy with the way Dmocracy Now and Amy Goodman continue to avoid these well-publicized issues.


Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA  hawkman11@hotmail.com

In my opinion Democracy Now is manipulated by our government and big business, Amy Goodman is just another tool (if she knows it or not we should care less, the show is worthless brainwash). If you people want a real voice that adresses real issues with passion then tune into Alex Jones at www.infowars.com

I heard the DN program with Griffin et al. Ms. Goodman noted at the top that Griffin and Berlet had a "cordial" ongoing dispute based on Berlet's published review, which included Griffin's response to published side-by-side. Both Berlet and Griffin referred to this. The URL was given so people could read them. Ms. Goodman didn't take sides, as I heard it. Griffin came across as a serious scholar and Berlet as a poor journalist.

Hey all, thanks for having strong interest in this discussion. I'd like to thank Gringo Stars for outstanding dialogue. Gringo's comments are well worth heeding, imo.

A few points about Amy Goodman. If I write that her show "resembles a CIA propaganda campaign" that doesn't say that she's necessarily a CIA agent. Amy is positioning herself as a CIA asset, which is a different thing altogether. The CIA asset, for whatever reason, manages to do things that always benefit the CIA. For example, Osama bin Laden, for example, may really despise the West. However, every Jihad he announces benefits the CIA.

So, Amy could be trying to court favor with the Agency in order to survive the tough times coming. That's why she has been engaging in a multi-year propaganda campaign on behalf of the Bush Regime's ludicrous official story of 911.

So the complaint to Amy is stop being a CIA asset.

Moving to East Timor, I was particularly struck by her courage there:
 http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/media_jun02.html

In the 1990s I greatly admired Goodman.

Regarding Sibel Edwards, she may be stating that the 911 Commission is a "coverup". However, unless she states why this is so she is hardly being an opposition figure to it. Also, her claim to have translated documents discussing planes flying into the WTC coincides with the Bush Regime's propaganda that they were merely negligent.

peace,
Scott

Chip Berlet is a fascist feces eating bacterial orgasm that doesn't deserve to be mentioned!!! After reading his dribble against Lyndon Larouche how can anyone think that this fool has any credibility?!!!!!!

They blacked out Larouche, now we should black out these drips!

Should this be "organism"?

Choose your team for the November Super-super bowl: The zinging Zionists, coached by George Bush, or the gassing Globalists, coached by John Kerry.

I have bad news for all you internet debating society folks.

It's hopeless, totally hopeless. If a big "incident' like the Kennedy assassination or 911 isn't solved in a few weeks, then it will never be solved. The simple fact, that took me a long time to understand, is that 99% of the American people will never believe in great "conspiracies". They really think we are the bastions of freedom and democracy around the world, and that we live in a free enterprise system. If I mention anything to my friends even slightly outside of their televised reality, I am looked at as if I just landed from Mars. I no longer waste my time.

Humans are genetically locked into an us vs. them modality, sometimes with a religious overtone. The ruling bloodlines who use secret societies to achieve their goals have long known how to play the peons. And "Amurricans" are the dumbest sonsabitches who ever inhabited planet earth - and that takes in a lot of territory. There will be no revelation about 911, even if someone comes up with a video of agents planting charges, it will simply be explained away. This endless "Detective Columbo" back and forth on the internet is a useless waste of time, done by Don Quixote's flailing at windmills. It's been almost 41 years since Kennedy's brains were splattered over the trunk of his limo, and people are still arguing over who the three shooters and three rifle carriers were. Nobody cares except the lunatic fringe, right? Why waste time trying to enlighten people who don't want to be enlightened, and who will want to fight with you if you do break through their Alice-In-Wonderland. (Like that Neanderthal who punched the S.F. female art dealer in the eye). You see, if there were conspiracies associated with JFK MLK RFK Wallace Lennon Oklahoma Waco 911 etc., then everything you believe in is false, and you have no control of your destiny, and voting is meaningless. This is too painful to confront, painful thoughts must be avoided.

However, be advised, you WILL live in a Mexican country currently known as the "United States", the birthrates are immutable, and you will go through a total economic collapse and the ensuing martial law - the financial numbers foretell that with absolute certainty. The only question is precisely when. And you will richly deserve the freight train that is about to run you over. The average person IS a fool, even if they have three doctoral degrees, so I guess they do need to be led around like dogs on a leash. All hail to the ruling bloodlines!

boy i tell ya...
anyone who thinks amy goodman is in bed with the cia didnt see her verbally joust with dennis miller a few weeks ago.
i happened to tune past his train wreck of a messnbcnbcnn show and saw amy goodman and almost spilled hot coffee all over myself.
dennis miller has become a hardcore shill for the right and the worst kind of apologist for the republicans ive ever seen. she made some very bold comments about the reporting of the war and the perspectives that aren't reported... and miller tried to wave a flag until commercials... it was beautiful. At one point, if my memory serves me... she made a brilliant point about the war and all miller could muster was "well im just concerned about the sons and daughters in harms way...maybe a little black ops is ok" line of deadly bullshit.
you could tell that he was just dying to go to break and bring out the dancing hippo or the country star or the gymnast....

so amy goodman has got a big brass pair that clang loud in the face of tyranny!

Amen to alex jones! I listen to him every day, and he never delves into conspiracy theory, for he only shows the facts to the actual conspiracies that the NWO are now installing. Call in to his show, it's free:1-800-259-9231. Monday thru friday from 11 am to 2 pm central time, and 12 noon to 3 pm est. If any of ya'll want the facts, then talk or listen to alex! I've been listening to alex now for about 5 years and he's always been on the money!

Seriously. Check him out do a google on him. infowars,propagandamatrix

Amy Goodman was Alan Narin's partner in reporting on the Indonesian occupation of East Timor.About four years ago I attended a talk given by Alan Narin sponsored by the Orange County Peace coalition. Narin said that when he was arrested by the Indonesian Army that he saved his life by telling the Indonesians that he was CIA agent or U.S. intelligence officer If Alan Narin was CIA and was Amy Goodman's partner she must be CIA as well. Goodman is really an apologist for the American police state.

I have very little to add to The Realist's frank (if disheartening) comments, with the exception of the following 2 observations.

To cast light on that which informs my views, let me say that as a naturalized US citizen who arrived here in my early teens, I missed out on the nationalist conditioning that occurs in the schools (of every nation). (I grew up in Iran, and thus, missed out on the 'America, the God's Gift to Mankind' program.)

My understanding regarding the baffling resistance of otherwise highly critical and highly intelligent Americans to equally critical and equally intelligent dissection of the "official" 9/11 "story" comes down to

1) Bounded Self Image

Have Americans, for example, ever carefully considered the US National anthem? "_Conquer_ we must for our cause is just"? I must admit that I just recently got to read the full text including that jaw dropping line.

Wow!

It takes a very potent dose of self-righteous backpatting to line up in rows and sing that line with your hand on your heart! (Think!)

(Please note, the word isn't "defend", or "stand up", or any other potentially righteous action. The word is "conquer". (As a contrast, let me inform you that the corresponding line in Iran's "Imperial" anthem was "my life is in sacrifice for the pure ground of my homeland" -- defensive. Get it?)

That said, the first problem here is that a true confrontation of facts regarding 9/11, the invasion of Sovreign Afghanistan, the Rape of Iraq, and the continued slow-mo genocide against Palestinians, etc., by thinking, critical sheeples is the required confrontation with an effectively transrational, and deeply emotional, associations in the self image of nearly every single 'Born in the USA American' between 'The Just Conquering USA' and the Sheeple's self image.

And that image is one of Moral Superiority.

2) Having a Stake in the System

Contrary to most "leftist" intellectual's disdain for the thought processes of the "masses", the fact remains that the human is (at worst) a calculating and reasoning animal. Those who think their fellow Sheeple as being unthinking, "rabid", etc. apparently have failed in their own quest for self knowledge.

Let me illusrate this point by a personal example:

I have a friend that, typically (for my friends), is intelligent, highly critical, and quite educated. This friend resides in NYC. This friend is an architect. This friend has a *huge* ego. This friend works for a 'star' architect. This friend has related his deep frustrations for having to be the point-man in the office for relating the glories of his employer regarding certain designs. The said designs being his, my friend's, designs.

This friend is complying with this assignment, even though for a variety of reasons (honesty, truth, ego ;) he would be expected to do otherwise!

Now, this same friend, has actually confronted me with the arguement of "why would a MIT professor lie about the analysis of the collapse of the two towers?"

Why indeed. Do you see, dear reader, that his failure to 'see' is an necessary psychological stance in his continued desire to see himself as a Good, Rational, and Truthful person?

Get it, my fellow sheeple?

*) conclusion:

The *only* hope for a recovery of this nation's Soul is, sadly, through the cathartic effects of a devestating defeat along the lines of that which forced Nazi Germany to confront the 'Prussian meme' that had infested nearly every single German during the rise of the Nazis.

There is no other solution, and certainly, reason and debate will fail to make an effective dent on the psychological (Self Image) and biological (Survival/Stake) armor of the members of this nation.

Salaam.

IT is obvious that the morons who wrote this article are working for the CIA. Look at what they are attempting; 1. To discredit one of the most hard working advocates of freedom on this planet, 2. Attempting to make any conspiracy therorist regarding 911 look like a morons.

With the fallacies in their arguments regarding Amy being so obvious, how could anyone take anything they say, seriously. These are not credible researchers and don't have a clue about what they are saying.

This must be an attempt to discredit the left, along with anyone advocating a government involvement in 911. Obviously, not a very good agent at that. This pathetic attempt at reverse psychology is typical CIA.

I listen to Amy five days a week. The business i work for (a hemp clothing store - no pot related stuff) underwrites her show in New Mexico. I love the woman but she screwed up the 911 show. She was clearly hostile to Griffin and was openly encouraging to Berlet. The Palestinian stuff I didn't notice until reading it here but it is hard to notice what is not there. Like I said I love the woman and her work. She can't do everything, however, she doesn't need to screw-up the work of others. Star-struck, yeah, but aren't we all?

If you want facts = Alex Jones. Need I say more?.....

does anyone remember the interview amy goodman did with bill clinton. that was awesome. amy goodman is a very talented, intelligent, and brave journalist. she may not be perfect, but her interviews are generally very well balanced, and she often has guests debating issues that they dont agree on. does she always ask the right questions all the time? no. but remember, its a live show. i love democracy now, and i think it really is an asset to the left. only a tiny fraction of the american people are exposed to the kind of information that DN presents. and most that are exposed only get to read shitty trotskyist rags and are turned off by the content of most leftist media. DN presents these issues in a way that seems journalistic and balanced. thats why it has the real potential, if it reached more people, to seriously change hearts and minds. those who spout BS about Amy Goodman being a CIA agent wont change any hearts and monds. they will just marginalize themselves from the rest of the nation.

and yes, i listened to the interview. it wasnt perfect. but why couldnt Griffin answer the simple question about his research? she asked him to name one researcher. he couldnt. maybe she should have asked better questions to berlet, but it was at the end of the show. griffin would have seemed a lot more credible if he had answered the question quickly, and then used the opportunity to point to holes in berlets 'research'. instead, he stumbled over his own words. is that Amy Goodmans fault? you think crossfire would have been easier on Griffin? they wouldnt even have let him on the show. have some perspective, pull your head out of your ass, and realize that this online community is really disconnected from the rest of the country. dont fight against a resource like DN, when its really one of our greatest assets.

After reading the comments here I wonder how many of you who posted have read the debate  http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/150221 It was a debate, Goodmans only moderating, her questions to Griffin were in regard to his claims, which in a public forum need to be backed up.

For questions as serious as this a full show would have been aproprate, it seems more for entertainment value than for serious questioning.

Although I agree that things are particularly grim these days, your "99% don't care" is not borne out by polls. In most polls, it is 30% who do not believe the official conspiracy theory involving Osama with 911.

Furthermore, your biological determinism regarding people's "us vs. them" mentality is not borne out by anthropology, history, and simply observable facts. People are SOCIALLY hardwired to be competetive, but this cultural framework didn't exist before 8,000 years ago. before then, cooperation was the main mode. Study more and you'll see that what you are fed daily in the corporate media is designed to dishearten you.

Those who study the media have observed a particularly American trait: the sincere belief that "everyone is so duped except me" - this arrogance is within most every American, progressive left included, and can definitely be seen in your comment, "Realist." Why is it that Americans believe that the media affects everyone but themself?

I think there is a socially-propagated equation that realism equals negativity, but this isn't true either, since there are a myriad of REAL things which are in fact very positive.

As an aside, I'd like to thank the LaRouche supporter who called LaRouche's supposed enemy a "fascist." I guess two fascists can never peacefully co-exist. That was funny to imply that LaRouche is NOT a fascist. Good clean irony. That was a good one! The site with links to LaRouche and anti-chocie sites was a hoot too!

Let me reiterate to people who don't seem to be getting it: Amy Goodman is NOT a CIA operative, she is a mere CIA asset. Her Democracy NOW! is funded by the CIA through the ford, Rockefeller, Soros, etc foundations. She upholds a non-socialist, non-anarchist, non-violent, pro-capitalist "left" which is the "left" that the CIA has been hustling to establish as a parallel left for many decades. She is unwitting. Perhaps she has no idea of the long list of unwitting CIA assets which include Orwell and Borges and Bertrand Russell...

Check out this interesting book:
 http://www.monthlyreview.org/1199petr.htm

 http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/58832.php

 link to www.amazon.com

What kind of retard microwaves and burns money and claims that it was secret RFID devices located in Jackson's eye? The moron could have cut a stack of paper to a similiar size of money, stuck it in the microwave and saw the exact same burn patterm. These RFID devices are so secret that nobody can find them or see them, only Alex jones and his microwave oven can detect them.

Alex Jones is for retards who'll believe anything they're told. You may as well read sci-fi comic books and take them as truth.

Some excellent commentary/analysis here on a sorely-needed critique of DN!
You've nailed it all right on the head: pacifist and liberal groups like Democracy Now! are the ruling class' "useful idiots", and the source of too much "Left"-originated disinformation these days.

Me? I'm still waiting on the "Communist Brodcasting System": i.e. CBS..!

The point is what Amy Goodman is doing NOW, not 10 years ago or 4 years ago. Over the last several weeks she's had an endless parade of guests such as Michael Moore and Craig Unger, who contend that Saudi Arabia is the real 9/11 culprit, ie not the US gov't. Unger even called Bush unfit to lead the war on "terrorism" (the phoney excuse for a US-initiated war for total global control) because he's unable to target what should be a prime target, Saudi Arabia, due to his close connections to the Saudi royal family. Moore has said the same. She's also had an endless parade of "former" CIA agents blaming 9/11 on Bush administration "negligence". She is part and parcel of spreading the notion that the "war on terrorism" is legitimate and worth fighting, even if the Iraq war isn't, and in fact is a distraction from the "necessary war". In that, she clearly acts as a CIA asset, and her defenders are not dealing with that. Upholding the official version of what happened *on* 9/11(the most idiotic conspiracy story of all, search for "Debunking Conspiracy Theory" by Gerard Holmgren) is participating in the biggest cover-up of history, on behalf of the empire, no two ways about it. Amy Goodman is a spokesperson for a faction of the ruling elite that wants to oust Bush in favor of a "kinder, gentler" New World Order.

I will first readily admit that I have only recently emerged from the fog that most Americans still wander aimlessly through. I started watching Democracy Now! during the crisis in Haiti and haven't missed a show since. Those of you who remember, the networks provided non-stop Martha Stewart coverage and about two-minutes per hour about the events that were unfolding in Haiti. I admittedly still use mainstream news as a comparison to the coverage of DN! So I am still in the "honeymoon" phase. I thought Amy Goodman's book was excellent as well as the DVD "Media in a time of War."

I'm more than a little shocked by the castigation she is receiving. I just don't believe at this point it is at all justified. Does she go as far as Alex Jones (who I literally stumbled onto a few weeks ago)? Absolutely not! This doesn't mean we should declare her and DN! as the Ministry of Disinformation. I recently read Victor Thorn's "New World Order Exposed" and thought that if he toned down some of the strident rhetoric and just presented the facts he might reach a wider audience. We have to realize that most Americans have been "plugged in" to the machine too long. To go straight from network "news" to Alex Jones would create a systems overload for most people.

I too was curious about why there was even a need or desire to have an opposite view to Mr. Griffin's theory about 9/11. There is no shortage of sources disseminating the "official story." You can read that in any mainstream TV and print outlet. I think anyone who has taken the time to read the lack of evidence supporting the "official story" came away with the idea that Mr. Berlet's case was incredibly weak. We didn't need Amy to point that out for us. In fact, he went so far as to agree that more investigation is necessary and that Bush was impeding the process. This, I think, more than anything speaks volumes about the events surrounding 9/11. While I think Ms. Goodman's choice of questions could have been much better, it is important that she not be the antithetical equivalent of Bill O'Reilly. The ideal position should be moderator not mouthpiece. She also had the widow of a 9/11 victim, Ellen Mariani, and her lawyer on the show discussing the complicity of the President. Gore Vidal was also on the show raising questions. She may not be pursuing it with the same vigor as we would like, but Amy Goodman is not ignoring it!

I am now at a point (albeit very late!) where a massive and concerted effort must be directed at creating an official and credible investigation into 9/11. I think DN! Should have Mr. Holmgren on as a guest. There are quite a few people I would like to see exposed to a larger audience. There is retired US army Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre that wrote a book based on an independent inquiry of military and civilian pilots that he assembled after 9/11. I would like to see Clinton impeachment-lawyer David Shippers discussing his attempts to warn the Justice department. I wouldn't mind seeing Alex Jones on the program with some regularity discussing his theories and the facts that support it. Let people hear it and determine for themselves if it is valid. Are we assuming she is deliberately preventing these individuals from appearing on the show? I have not personally contacted the show via E-mail requesting a specific guest. Perhaps a flood of E-mails to the show would be a more constructive use of time than bickering. I am open to any and all suggestions.

I think the comparisons to NPR as far as coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict need to be qualified. NPR has a variety of different shows that broadcast all throughout the day. Democracy Now! Is on one-hour per-day. There is only so much you can cover thoroughly in an hour. Is that not the essence of how the corporate media operate? Give the people what they can understand in a five to ten-minute segment, but tell them nothing. Obviously a two-hour show would allow them the flexibility to cover some of the issues critics say aren't being covered or not covered enough. What is preventing them from expanding their time? I would assume money! I pay to have access to all of the content on Alex Jones' Prisonplanet.com. I would pay just to continue watching DN! and its current hour per-day format. I have no idea how much it costs to produce the show or how much it would cost to increase the time. I can't imagine Amy demands a lucrative salary to go along with her lavishly furnished private dressing room, which her contract stipulates must have room temperature Evian and a bowl of tropical fruit awaiting her arrival every morning. I was under the impression that mundane gossip was the sole province of the "mainstream" folk. Before we start casting aspersions on character and personality traits or flaws - because the two are entirely subjective - perhaps some introspection is needed. I can speak with authority on the subject of flaws because I possess so many. I think she is entitled to bask in her own self-importance from time to time. If she even does this at all. From what I have seen or read so far, it doesn't appear that she has compromised herself. I would imagine that only the wishy-washy, who have to be told what-to-buy and what-to-think, aren't controlling to a certain degree.

I am becoming more and more aware of how labels and special-interest groups are preventing the unity that is needed to right this faltering ship of American democracy. It is classic divide and conquer strategy. Just perusing these threads illustrates just how divided we are. Most of us have views that in the larger context are more similar than the views shared by those in power. Yet, I can't help but think if we were all in the same room a shouting match would ensue. I am not saying you shouldn't criticize Amy Goodman. I cringe every time I hear the phrase anti-American. I just haven't been provided with ample evidence that would substantiate lumping her together with the likes of tele-prompt readers Brokaw, Jennings and Rather. We need to stop defining just how left we need to be and start identifying common ground. Until then we are just chasing our tail.

Until someone can provide me with something else as substantial, I believe the events surrounding 9/11 are the most pivotal in the history of our country. This should be of the highest priority to anyone remotely interested in preserving what little Democracy we have left. I have signed my name to every petition concerning it. I have donated money. I have read as much as is available. I am prepared to do whatever is necessary (except any and all actions that could be construed as terrorism - for your eyes Mr. Ashcroft, in case you're eavesdropping) to expose the truth. We should inundate DN! On a daily basis with E-mails until they increase the coverage of 9/11. If they fail to respond, then it will serve as evidence of tacit complicity. I have sent the link to Alex Jones' "9/11 The Road to Tyranny" to everyone I know. Perhaps the popularity of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" will lead to more coverage of Jones' movie. The Moores' and Goodmans' of the world are closer to mainstream than the Jones'.
We The People, need to push them into the mainstream with our support or expose them for what they are and send them back to the margins. We need to put on the back burner Nader, gay-marriage, the environment, health-care, and yes... EVEN THE WAR IN IRAQ!! The domino theory applies to 9/11. Once that is uncovered everything else will fall. We are getting too distracted. I am not ready to jump on the "Globalist" bandwagon just yet, but I have seen enough to realize that our government no longer represents us and there are powerful forces that see what little democracy that is left as an impediment to their goals. I just saw Ridge the other day explaining the elevated threat status. I have reached such a level of distrust when it comes to our government, when I hear him say potential targets like the Republican and Democratic conventions; I infer it as a threat. If you haven't noticed, this is a never-ending war. I think the powers-that-be need to shake up the people a little. We are clearly not all on the same page like we were after 9/11. It may be time to reinvigorate the people and get them back on sight in this "war on terror." You can't possibly have a "war on terror" without the terror.

One last thing; Does anyone else believe that if flight 93 had not taken off 40 minutes late and then shot-down (perhaps against orders) it would have targeted the Capitol Building, which they didn't evacuate until like 9:48 or something? It seemed like they were trying to give as much time as possible to complete the objective. I think I read that the building was full that day. A severe loss of Congressional members from death would seem like a plausible reason for Martial Law. I don't remember reading anyone hypothesizing this, but I have read so much about that day, I could be wrong.