portland independent media center  
images audio video
promoted newswire article reposts global

9.11 investigation

The Nation: Phony Left Opposition Uses CIA Agents to Attack 9/11 Researchers

It is fascinating that The Nation got a genuine admitted CIA agent to write this hatchet job - Baer's review of "New Pearl Harbor" in the September 27the, 2004 issue that supports Cheney's innocence by ignoring the evidentiary record. The Nation has clearly allied itself with the CIA by publishing this article, and has announced in no uncertain terms that it is not interested in journalism on this subject that attempts to examine factual evidence. This is far different that merely ignoring the issue (which much of the Left has chosen to do).
The Nation tries to take down NPH, but has to use CIA agents to do it
The Nation tries to take down NPH, but has to use CIA agents to do it
THE NATION: Phony Left Opposition Uses CIA Agents to Attack 9/11 Researchers
September, 2004

In early 2002, The Nation ran several articles by David Corn, their Washington Editor, attacking journalist and whistleblower Michael Ruppert, for daring to piece together a mountain of evidence that 9/11 was not a surprise attack. Corn is a long time defender of the Warren Commission (which covered up the coup against JFK), wrote a biography of CIA dirty trickster Ted Shackley that ignored evidence of drug complicity, attacked journalist Gary Webb for writing his series in the San Jose Mercury News about the CIA and the cocaine trade, and attacked the peace movement before the Iraq war for being too leftist (but didn't do anything to organize less leftist peace rallies). After Corn attacked Ruppert, the Colin Powell / Richard Armitage State Department sent Corn on a government paid trip to influence media in Trinidad (a major oil / gas exporter to the United States). Corn's article on Alternet even stated that he had been "dispatched" to go there, and that it was your "tax dollars at work." Real journalists who investigate government scandals usually don't get that sort of treatment -- most get harassed, not feted on taxpayer funded junkets to infiltrate media elites in tropical destinations that export fossil fuels to the US market.
The Nation has clearly allied itself with the CIA by publishing this article, and has announced in no uncertain terms that it is not interested in journalism on this subject that attempts to examine factual evidence. This is far different that merely ignoring the issue (which much of the Left has chosen to do).

The Nation has been perhaps the strongest supporter of the Warren Commission on what's left of "The Left" for four decades -- it is not a surprise that they are providing such critical support (whether witting or unwitting is ultimately irrelevant) to the Cheney re-election effort by urging nervous liberals to shut up about Cheney's complicity in 9/11, just as they defended Bush against accusations of foreknowledge after 9/11, when the allegations had the potential to thwart the political momentum for the US invasion of Iraq. And then they wonder why "The Left" has so little political influence ...

None of the pundits, CIA agents, media "experts," political consultants, candidates, elected officials and other fixtures of the media dare talk about the multiple war games that were being coordinated on 9/11 that paralyzed the Air Force defense of New York and Washington, the multiple warnings from allied intelligence services that specifically identified what, when and where the "attacks" would be, the warnings to selected elites not to fly or otherwise get out of the way (the most famous is the caution given to San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown not to fly to NYC on 9/11), or the stock trades placed a few days before on Wall Street and other financial markets betting the values of United, American and other impacted companies would drop. These are topics that cannot be reconciled with the official story, and therefore must be put into George Orwell's "memory hole."

A Zogby poll of New York City residents released during the Republican National Convention found that 49% of those surveyed think that the Bush administration had foreknowledge of 9/11. It is likely that if the media -- whether corporate establishment or liberal "alternative" -- had covered the anomalies in the official story, the 49% statistic would probably be more like 79% or 89%.
In any military coup d'etat, one of the first places that is seized is the television and/or radio station (depending on the technological sophistication of the country being changed). The US coup d'etat has been more subtle, but more widespread -- encompassing the so-called "alternative" publications like The Nation in addition to the more obvious suspects like the major television networks. The best disinformation is mostly correct -- and The Nation has done a tremendous favor for the Bush-Cheney re-election effort by publishing a CIA agent's critique of "The New Pearl Harbor." Of course, this critique ignored the CIA exercise underway the morning of 9/11 at the nearby headquarters of the National Reconnaissance Office, which controls US spy satellites, which simulated a plane-into-buildingn scenario at the exact same time that 9/11 was underway. It's hard to know what defenders of the official story think about this amazing coincidence, since they don't dare discuss it (Mike Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon" explores the wargames of 9/11 in considerable detail, and concludes that they were in fact the means used to paralyze the Air Force defense of New York and Washington -- and that they were being coordinated by Cheney in the White House. What does "The Nation" have to say about this? Do they really want four more years of Bush and Cheney, and decades more of the "military industrial complex," which President Eisenhower warned us about as his final statement to the nation?).

It is fascinating that the "book review" in The Nation did not actually deal with any of the evidence presented by Dr. David Ray Griffin in his book, which is a summary of much of the best information unearthed by a variety of investigations into the 9/11 attacks. Dr. Griffin did state very clearly in the introduction that not all of the material needs to be proven true in order for there to be overwhelming evidence for some level of complicity -- yet Mr. Baer's review did not attempt to debunk a single claim with any level of specificity. While it is likely that a couple claims for complicity will not hold up under scrutiny (for example, the claim that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon is likely incorrect - see  http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html ), the cumulative nature of the evidence that the official story is riddled with lies is overwhelming.

Reading "Crossing the Rubicon" and "The Terror Timeline" should be mandatory reading for every citizen before voting in the National Election. It is unlikely that The Nation will dare to review these books, since the amount of evidence they provide is far too much to be dismissed with a simple "nyaah" by a CIA agent who spent many years manipulating politics in the Middle East.

Discrediting the fiction surrounding 9/11 should be of prime importance for a publication like The Nation, which claims to want lower military budgets, a less belligerent foreign policy, human rights abroad and domestically, energy efficiency and renewable energy, etc. Numerous commentators have charged since 9/11 that The Nation and similar publications funded by the Ford Foundation and other conservative, establishment interests are compromised -- and cannot cover the "deep politics" of 9/11, Peak Oil, and the empire's invasion of the Middle East oil fields due to their dependence upon philanthropic gestures from institutions heavily invested in petroleum interests (ie. Ford).

Please support independent journalists by buying copies of Crossing the Rubicon and The Terror Timeline. If you subscribe to The Nation, you could ask for a pro-rated refund on the rest of your subscription.


The Nation issue is September 27, 2004
Dangerous Liaisons
David Ray Griffin: The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11
[book review] by Robert Baer

The Baer piece is not available to non subscribers.

has it archived for everyone


A good article about CIA agent Robert Baer is
"Stacking The Patsies of 9/11"
by Chaim Kupferberg
www.globalresearch.ca 20 December 2003


David Corn complains about Mike Ruppert:

One thing I do want to respond to is Michael Ruppert telling the good listeners of [missed on tape] Independent Media Center up in Portland Oregon, he said, even more explicitly, and this is a quote from the transcript available on the web. "If I'm asked honestly, and I will say that I have an opinion, that David Corn is one of the Establishment CIA/FBI operatives who has long been planted within so-called progressive circles. And the primary argument that I use for that is that he was chosen by one of the most venal characters in American history, Ted Shackley, to be his chosen biographer."

Michael Ruppert on David Corn:

My dear friend, colleague and mentor, Peter Dale Scott at U.C. Berkeley, has a great quote, that: disinformation in order to be effective has to be 95% accurate. And that is always the case. I debated David Corn. I met him first at Sara McLendon's(?) group at the National Press Club when "The Blond Ghost" first came out. I've read it twice, and the book completely omits the entire, extremely well-documented history of Shackley's involvement in the drug trade, and that is a glaring omission.
 link to www.leftgatekeepers.com


'The New Pearl Harbor' is available everywhere . . .

homepage: homepage: http://www.oilempire.us/gatekeepers.html

Also 29.Sep.2004 17:23


Two Bay Area 9/11 researchers have also recently put out a new book - another way to get non-CIA-censored info . . .

by Don Paul and Jim Hoffman
A Book Exposing the Core Facts of the September 11th Attack
This concise, thoroughly-sourced and richly illustrated book exposes the core facts of the 9/11/01 crimes -- that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed through controlled demolition, and consequently, that the attack was an inside job.

One editor does not make the magazine 30.Sep.2004 12:28


I haven't read the book review, but just because David Corn has a few quirks, or just because of an allegeded faulty book review, does not mean that the Nation is leaning toward CIA complicity and a secret relationship with Cheney/Rumsfeld. I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than that.

There are so many editors and managers that it would be impossible to come up with a conspiracy that all of them are somehow involved in something. The magazine has its own quirks, and it tries to influence as many people as possible--for instance they once ran an ad for Fox News, which made 50 people cancel their subscription. They also had a cover piece about how Howard Stern was getting screwed by the FCC. I can't stand Howard Stern, and wouldn't even want to pick up a magazine that had him on the cover, but I think in that case they're simply trying to influence as many people as possible, for instance that unique group of people who really like Howard Stern.

I personally think 30.Sep.2004 14:49

Red neck

the Kennedys were behind 9/11 taking out high level conspirators in the JFK assassination. I wonder if 49% of Yorkies have figured out that they were poisoned by toxic, asbestos laden ash of the World Trade Center or is that to much too much of an conspiracy theory? Yeah, the Nation ain't what used to be...

Check your souces 30.Sep.2004 15:32


There is widespread agreement that the earth is round, including from the CIA, because there is proof.

Daniel Ellsberg is asking for the document holders, to leak. A few of them have. Until Ruppert and other conspiracy theorists get proof, the rest of us are using the few primary sources. Ruppert has no such credibility. Check your sources before paying any old huckster's speaking fees:

From the testimony of Ruppert to the Department of Justice, Inspector General Report

"c. Allegations by Michael Ruppert

Former Los Angeles Police Officer Michael Ruppert has made allegations that the CIA aided the Contras by allowing them to smuggle large quantities of drugs into the United States. The CIA OIG initially interviewed Ruppert by telephone, and Ruppert said that he had no first-hand knowledge of any cocaine trafficking by the Contras. He said that he had never met Meneses, Blandon or Ricky Ross.
The Office of the Inspector General interviewed Ruppert. Ruppert told the OIG that he had no personal information about misconduct by the Department of Justice but had received information from, and given information to, Dept Of Justice officials about CIA involvement in drug trafficking.
Based on our review, we believe that while Ruppert communicates his allegations fervently, they have no firm anchor in reality."