VIDEO: William Kristol Confrontation

"We know that y'all did it!"

Aaron Dykes & Kevin Smith/ | October 5, 2006

William Kristol, chairman of the Project for a New American Century (founded in 1997) spoke at the University of Texas in Austin about the current political climate and the "new order" or "new world" that emerged after 9/11. He was confronted by a large number of protesters who carry banners and question his role in 9/11. The event was covered by the Daily Texan.


That was kick-ass. I

That was kick-ass.

I salute every person involved in that demonstration. This is what we need: balls.

Kristol's smirk says it all.


I'm gonna watch that a

I'm gonna watch that a second time.

Mark my words, this video will be shown to our grandchildren, assuming we're not living in caves at that point.

I love it!

After watching this great video I think I had an orgasm! We need way more of this. Confront these scum bags. Get right in their face. Never back down. ..........................."Every Dog Has His Day"..........


Yes, never give up til the very end, for that effort may change the world. Stick 'em where it hurts!

Cool glad ya liked it.

FYI, there's a lot more video at the link I dropped for the story, including an interview with two people from the Jones Report who were in attendance, Kevin Smith and Aaron Dykes (the man who was escorted out at the end of the video for confronting that rat William Kristol).

Obviously, these goons need

Obviously, these goons need to be confronted head-on. It just seems, perhaps, that these protests could have been more effective if the people involved actually provided some context before attacking Mr. Kristol. Truthers don't need to be convinced in these settings, people ignorant to the movement do. When someone gets heckled, many skeptics shut themselves off and harden their opinions. We need to open people's minds, not force them to take a defensive position. Of course, Kristols need to burn, but we got to get our mob together and come correct.

Just my opinion.

We're way past that point

We're way past that point

(2) We're also past the point of licking boots and asking nice.

It's not about asking nice, mate...

It's not about asking nice, mate. It's about being effective. Why give the tossers more ammunition? ("It's nice we can have a civilized debate." Kristol-SARCASM MODE)

Given the organizers allowed enough time at the end of this wanker's speech, we lose nothing by waiting until he's done before roasting him. Hold up banners, groan loudly, hell, even lol at the irony, but don't give the bastards any excuse to dismiss Truthers as an unruly mob. They make up enough excuses as it is.

That said, I'm bloody proud of the spirit shown. If it comes to fighting in the streets we know we have good company. But we're not there yet, and hopedfully we never have to. Learn to fight the bastards with their own tools and win. Need an example? Watch the clip of ex-prez Clinton on Fox news. Yeah, the MSM spun it as him being "angry" and "out of control", but only an idiot would believe that seeing the source material.

"Bugger this; I want a better world!"

"Learn to fight the bastards with their own tools and win."


"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I prefer...

Saying "use their words against them", but it's the same thing.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Someone remarked that

Someone remarked that Kristoll is "odious'.

LOL. Couldn't have said it better myself.

The "man" is pure pond scum.

make no mistake, he and other neocon freaks are the archs of 911..

Spencer in Salt Lake

Demonstrations like this are not about informing people, they are about letting people like Kristol know we ARE WATCHING THEM and they won't get away with it.

The information for the criminal motive and intent on the part of PNAC is abundant, and if people want to know why these accusations are being made then the information is there.

I agree. The concept was

I agree. The concept was right on, but once they got the ground, they didn't have enough to say. Gypsy was like a machine gun when she did it. The more articulate people who do this are, the more powerful and less prankish it looks


yes, while it may have been more effective to list off some evidence a la gypsy taub, this was a very satisfying video to watch. sure thing, these liars need to be shouted down, they need to know that we're not scared to stand up and call them out.

reminds me of the classic mike ruppert / john deutch video.

thanks to all involved. can't wait to see more students joining the truth movement.

International Truth Movement

Brilliant, it's so good to

Brilliant, it's so good to see these people confronted like this, i find Bill Kristol particually odious.Good work.

Notice how Kristol...

....tries to make light of the PNAC's "New Pearl Harbor" statement? That it only has life on the "Internet"? How he attempts to be so dismissive of the statement and the Internet?

Do these people think we are supposed to regard their policy papers as so much paper napkin-like doodlings? Revisionist bullshit.

I wish someone had asked him about the "political desirability of bioweapons that can target specific genotypes", that was also contained in that document.

When can America expect that?

Revisionism is never BS.

Revisionism is never BS. In fact it is exactly what we 911 truthers are doing.

We are revising the official 911 fairie tale. So, it becomes more in accordance with the truth.

Little treasures all over!

Guys good work!

So many little treasure all over.
Just the moment when Kristol defends Trockites as a better alternative to Stalin, haha.. The only difference is that Trockites believe in exporting the revolution..

Not only his smirk was

Not only his smirk was noticable, but his facial change of color when lying through his teeth was also.

"You are a liar, a thief and a scumbag!". Way to Go!!

facial change of color

I noticed the same thing. At one point his face turned beet red. I would love to get this sub-human scumbag alone in a roon. Just him and me. I hate these people with such a passion it scares me. How dare they try to destroy my country. They will all pay in spades. You can count on that.


Makes you feel good, don't it? We need more of this on a daily bases!

Loved it, thanks stallion.


Wouldn't it be great to hook

Wouldn't it be great to hook some of the PNAC members up to lie detecter machines, i mean you can tell by there body language there hiding something, where these people are confronted the go all defencive and change complexion and start to fumble.

Secret Service 24/7 after Kristol

Well, in the case any of us had wet dreams about some brave "renegate" army officers or firefighters some day in future storming the White House, get over it..

As seen from this footage, Kristol has got at least one assigned agent 24/7 perhaps others were outside the lecture hall. So, that's telling how they are prepared for any uprising..

Yes, Kristol probably plants at least a few anti-hecklers...

Yes, Kristol probably plants at least a few anti-hecklers in the audiance to act "outraged" when anyone tries to helckle him or bring up 9/11 truth to him.

Peas in a Pod

That was amazing. Kristol's smirk is founded in a deep disdain he and all the other followers of Leo Strauss have for the public at large. George Bush the 43rd has it as well. The disaster that's about to unfold in the middle east can only be prevented by a full scale mutiny at this point, or the former Soviet Union.

What would prompt the Dean of this school to invite such a malignant figure to the University in the first place?

Spencer in Salt Lake

Yes, his mannerism certainly suggested both an underlying fear, and a projection of ridicule and disdain.

I think I read that the Dean, or whoever invited Kristol said: "I though we needed a conservative voice".

The Dean & Kristol Buddies.

Before making the above statement. The dean mentioned they had been friends for years. Translation, we have been in secret societies together for years. We hang together at Bohemia Grove. I support the politics of fear.
"Not being aware of these facts is in itself an evil because ignorance serves evil." Juri Lina - "Architects of Deception"

That smirk

I don't know. I think that smirk is less about disdain--which he's got in spades--and more about basic nervousness. How many times is this little toe-rag ever challenged by informed truthers? Bet he'll do more to control the attendance of the next speech he schedules. I wonder what compensation he gets for the humiliation?

this is one of the most

this is one of the most beautiful pieces of footage i have ever seen. my deepest respect goes out to everyone involved. especially the guy who flat called him a scumbag. hilarious.


Chris, that was Revere Radio Network host Kingmob. He'll probably have something to say about it on his next show, Saturday night starting @ 9pm EST:

never heard of him, but he

never heard of him, but he sounds like a great guy,haha. i'll have to give him a listen, thanks for the heads up.

Next to confront: Paul

Next to confront:

Paul Wolfowitz

Douglas Feith

Feith was confronted at Harvard in March '05 go to 57 minutes into the vid...

Also, read the student paper's account of the event and the confrontation, note the

Feith's Speech Draws Hostile Reaction at IOP

Published On Friday, March 04, 2005 12:00 AM


Crimson Staff Writer

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith ‘75 discussed President George W. Bush’s approach to the war in Iraq in a speech at the IOP last night.

Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith ’75 fended off hecklers, protesters, and cries of condemnation last night during a speech defending the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq and strategy in fighting terrorism.

Speaking to a largely hostile audience gathered at Harvard’s Institute of Politics (IOP), Feith—the third-highest official at the Department of Defense—addressed issues from civil liberties to the Middle East.

In the speech, Feith said the United States must make an effort to delegitimize terrorism by making it an evil as reviled as slavery.

“To defeat our enemies in this war, we will have to do more than disrupt and attack—we’ll have to counter their ideology,” he said.

Feith said that the attacks of Sept. 11 exposed the costs of international terrorism.

“To protect ourselves physically, we might be compelled to change fundamentally the way we live,” Feith said.

In addressing Iraq and Afghanistan, Feith said he hopes “tolerance and compromise” will lead to the creation of more democratic societies in the Middle East.

Some audience members flashed peace signs and chanted “1,500 dead because of what you did” in unison during the speech, referring to the latest death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Feith dismissed allegations that the United States is forcefully imposing democracy on Middle Eastern countries.

“It’s inherently self-contradictory to talk about ramming democracy down someone’s throat,” he said. “We’d like to see people in the area choosing to democratize their countries.”

Feith has been accused by some of allegedly misusing pre-war intelligence developed by the Office of Special Plans (OSP), an agency he oversaw. The Pentagon has denied the charges.

But at the event, Feith stood by his agency’s analysis, stating that the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee proved that there was no “systematic pressure” by his agency on the White House to go to war.

“In fact, that report gave [the OSP] a completely clean bill of health,” he said.

But Feith did identify what he called an “inordinate focus on the WMD issue” as one flaw in pre-war intelligence.

“In retrospect, one thinks it might have been better to have a more balanced discussion of all of the elements,” he said.

After an audience member asked why the issue of North Korea had lost momentum, Feith affirmed the administration’s desire to pressure the communist regime into six-party talks on nuclear proliferation.

During the course of the question-and-answer session, an attendee brandished a sign calling Feith a “war criminal,” prompting a Harvard University Police Department to confiscate it.

Brooks E. Washington ’06, a board member of the Harvard College Democrats, said that he thought the audience constituted “the most hostile environment towards free speech” that he has ever seen at Harvard.

“That’s not the spirit we’re going for at Harvard and I’m quite frankly ashamed of the display I saw tonight,” he said, adding that he personally enjoyed the speech, although he disagreed with some of what Feith said.

Kennedy School of Government first-year student Steve W. Aldridge, a supporter of Feith, said that the audience’s behavior was a reaction to Feith’s political affiliation.

“I think if the roles were reversed—if you had somebody from the left wing up there—I don’t think you would have seen a whole bunch of conservative students laughing, holding up signs, and jeering and snickering,” he said. “That reflects poorly upon the school.”

Before the event, a group of 10 students staged a protest organized by the Harvard Social Forum outside of the IOP’s main doors.

—Staff writer Javier C. Hernandez can be reached at

Letter from Gustavo Espada to the Crimson, not published:

March 4, 2005
Re: Feith's Speech Draws Hostile Reaction at IOP

Brooks E. Washington's assertion that Feith's audience on Thursday night constituted "the most hostile environment towards free speech" that he has ever seen at Harvard is a sign that the board member of the Harvard College Democrats attends a different Harvard than that of his peers. Mr. Feith, who has been accused by Senator Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee of perpetrating a "continuing deception of Congress" in the course of the Senate's investigation into the dubiously selective prewar intelligence on Iraq's links to Al Qaeda, was not interrupted a single time during his 25 minute talk. The Q&A session that followed was dominated by Talon News-style softballs that aimed not to engage Mr. Feith on any controversial issues, but instead to provide him additional time to voice his questionable views uncontested. The heckling that this elicited from some frustrated members in the audience was no worse than that engaged in by the Harvard College Democrats at Ralph Nader's pre-election talk last year, a strategy which in the end did nothing to help their pro-war candidate whose name I can't recall.

Does Mr. Washington honestly think that the audience reaction to Feith's propaganda in any way put more of a damper on free speech than President Summers' insinuation that the actions of those who dare to publicly criticize the actions of Israel's right wing Likud government are "anti-Semitic in effect if not intent?" Their talking points /du jour/ aside, I think the Harvard College Democrats and their Young Republican friends would better serve campus discourse by using an invaluable forum like the IOP to hold our public servants to higher standards of conduct and accountability than that to which Mr. Feith has been held for his instrumental contributions to the disastrous campaign in Iraq, which is a matter of public record that I invite anyone to scrutinize for themselves before passing judgement on his enthusiastic critics.

Gustavo A. Espada '96

Now see the Crimson Staff's editorial published ten days later, note the similarity of topics and failure to print or even acknowledge receipt of Gustavo's letter:

A Far More Friendly Forum

The IOP should create a system more conducive to tough but civil questions

Published On Monday, March 14, 2005 12:00 AM


Fifteen-hundred dead because of what you did!” This and other jeers were thrown at Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith ’75 as he spoke at an Institute of Politics (IOP) Forum on March 3. The contentious nature at the Forum was not at all surprising given that Feith was defending the war in Iraq, and he was undoubtedly prepared for this. But the heckling Feith received from some audience members went beyond asking tough questions and showed a complete lack of decorum. Such behavior is simply unacceptable.

The Forum is a chance for politicians or experts to express their opinions and then have their viewpoints questioned in a hard but polite manner. At the same time, the IOP needs to ensure that speakers are challenged during the question session—which some claim Feith was not—and it should tweak the question-and-answer format in order to achieve this goal.

The Forum gives Harvard students the incredible opportunity to hear the world’s policy-makers in person and then question them on their positions. Few colleges give their students this kind of access to politicians, and Harvard students should be mindful of the fact that they have this privilege. Audience members must be courteous to speakers and allow them to talk without interjections. This, of course, does not mean that when given the chance to grill speakers, students should be deferential. They should pose difficult questions, but they should do so in a way that is both strong and respectful.

It should be said that the behavior at the Forum when Feith spoke was neither unique nor the most egregious example of poor behavior. Last year, Ralph Nader was unduly derided throughout a speech he gave at the Forum. This in no way excuses the actions of those who behaved abysmally when Feith spoke; rather, given the experience with Nader and previous speakers, the IOP should have been forewarned of what was coming. Furthermore, many students came away from Feith’s speech frustrated because they believed he had faced softball questions, and this certainly contributed to the unruly atmosphere at the Forum.

When the IOP knows that a particularly controversial person is coming to speak, they should randomize the question-asking process. One way this could be done is by distributing a limited number of question tickets to audience members at random. The ticket-holder would be allowed to ask a question, and if he or she did not have one, they could pass the ticket to someone who did. This would help ensure diversity among the questions. The IOP should also give the Harvard College Democrats and the Harvard College Republicans one to two questions as a group, guaranteeing the speaker will be challenged.

While there are certain limitations to these procedures, it is far better than the current survival-of-the-fittest system. If adopted, these procedures would bring much needed civility to the Forum, and would still allow future events to be stimulating and debate-filled.

Some good question even

Some good question even before, Q&A starts cca 29min

this video's about 5 years

this video's about 5 years old, but it follows Big Jim Tucker following the Bilderberg meeting, guessing around year 2000 (meeting was in Portugal). It's a British documentary. Has a little bit of Alex Jones too.

"The Secret Rulers of the World"

where's his outrage?

you'd think that if he was NOT involved he'd react with anger and outrage to being accused.

ever notice that about people who are challenged as being in on it??

they try their best to laugh it off and maintain composure, when the natural reaction of an innocent person would be anger and outrage.


Same thing happens with

Same thing happens with crininals of violent crimes, when arrested they become quiet and contemplative.  While an innocent will get irate for being arrested for something they did not do, for they KNOW they are innocent.

That made my month! America

That made my month!

America is an Idea, and ideas never die! 

Oh Dear

I am extremely sorry to say that the clip shows that what is required is not 'balls' to quote one of the remedial contributors to this page, but brains. It does our cause no good whatsoever having pre-pubescent students slagging Kristol off in such a boorish manner. Kristol was allowed to appear calm and sane while we came off looking like animals. Keeping a sharp yet civil tongue in the heat of battle would be wise.

it's past that

it's past that

that's true, that's very

that's true, that's very true. I hate to say it, but the reason a guy like kristol is out in front of the neocon movement and on fox news all the time to tell you what insidious murder they are going to commit months before they commit them is because he has a very disarming, sortof ronald mcdonaldish, self effacing, saliva sucking demeanor. He doesn't seem like one of the master minds of a team of well organized mass murderers, and that's exactly why he walks point for them. It's true it felt at some points that you were looking at a bunch of bullies in a circle around the zany little jewish kid on the playground rather than a bunch of forthright activists standing up to a calculating, fire breathing, Machiavellian zionist zealot. I liked the part where they compared him to Joseph Goebbels however, because it's a harsh, as well as a thoughtful, and sensible comparison. The point being I guess, that these guys understand and pay handsomely for their public relations, and they knew that stuff like this would start to happen long ago. That's why nobody with an unrehearsed question gets anywhere near rumsfeld anymore, because if he were in a circle of bullies on the playground, you'd like it.

pre-pubescent? Um yeah.

pre-pubescent? Um yeah.

Being "boorish" to William Kristol is the least we can do, lil' Tony; why don't YOU get off your ass and do something productive instead of whining about other people's actions on a message board?

Kristol did not appear "calm" in the slightest. As previous posters have stated, his body language says it all.

In fact, we need both balls and brains, lil' Tony. Being polite to mass-murderers has never really helped much. Direct action and civil disobedience, on the other hand (even the more "boorish" actions) have been a major vehicle for change throughout history.

Your plea for "polite" discourse in the face of mass murder is disturbing.

Kristol was clearly lying

Kristol was clearly lying through his teeth; any child could see it; therefore the action was a smashing success. Some of the critics were overcome with emotion and simply insulted him, others hammered him with the facts. Both responses were called for. It' s a truly inspiring piece of footage. The clowns on this thread who urge "politeness" are the same dolts who condemned the Boston tea party. Sorry folks, but decorum will only get you so far. We're on the verge of WWIII and yes, we need BALLS as welll as brains.

Lies, damn lies, and more lame lies

Watch who you call a clown, sunshine.

I've said my peice earlier about being EFFECTIVE: bollocks and effectivness aren't mutually exclusive. Anyone who thinks they are is an unimaginative, useless little git.

About the lies though: it's not that that he lies; it's that they're such BAD lies. No "I understand your concerns, and yes it does seem we're full of shite but if you let me explain.." Nah, it's all "you lot are silly for expecting accountability ". Tells you what they REALLY think of the public.


Anonymouss (pseudonym?), just to be clear, what I am advocating is an approach whereby we present simple FACTS that destroy the official story. Only facts. No hearsay, supposition or part-validated theories. Before we start (almost randomly) pointing the finger at those we believe cui bono, we have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the official version is a lie by presenting immutable evidence. I must have missed something because I fail to see what the (positive) corollary of the Kristol 'mugging' was/is. What do we believe the outcome would be?

Tony, Kristol is one of the

Tony, Kristol is one of the heads of PNAC. He's one of the creeps who WROTE the document "rebuilding Amerika's defenses". He called for a new Pearl Harbor. The official fairy tale has been proven a lie ten times over. The Neocons are neck-deep in lies. Everything they say is a lie. Almost wthout exception. The "Al-Qaeda" scam is just that. If you fail to see something positive in regular folks standing up to that vampire -- even if some of them showed a lack of decorum -- what can I say? You need to go log on to democraticunderground or some other goofy faux-progressive site. There are real men (and women) about. People who stand up for the truth. If you can't take it, go bake a cake.

I feel deeply sorry for

I feel deeply sorry for Billy K. They should have dun showed more respect!

After all, he's only been instrumental in killing hundreds of thousands of people and poisoning the planet with DU and calling for WWIII and a new pearl harbor.

If I met Hitler before the Holocaust I would have been very polite! Shame on those ruffians who spoke in such an uncouth way!

We need to sit down and have tea, not dump it!

nope, Kristol appeared

nope, Kristol appeared guilty and scared, while the people making comments about 9/11 seemed patriotic and righteous.

Have you handed out a 9-11 DVD today?

Thank 911 blogger for posting.
I salute and give all a tip of my hat who confronted

LMAO Check out Kristol


Check out Kristol waffling on the "new pearl harbor".

On the one hand he says: "some of us thought we needed a military build up" and admits he was CHAIRMAN of the organization; then in the next sentence he says he actually didn't WANT a "military build-up".

He basically contradicted himself in the space of three sentences.

This video is a coup. the man is guilty. It's plain to see.

A very astute poster pointed

A very astute poster pointed out that Kristol should have reacted with outrage to the comments.

In fact, he just chuckled and maintained his smarmy veneer throughout the interrogation.

Very telling.

I just watched this...

He tried to play the famous quote from "Rebuilding America's Defenses" off as ludicrous because of the internet.

Whether that quote resides on the internet, on a piece of paper, in a newspaper, in a magazine, in a book, on a billboard, in a movie, or even on the television, it STILL shows that your "process of transformation", which you mentioned 27 TIMES in that document, could never have taken place without a "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

Isn't it convenient for your little group of neocons that something like that DID happen.


"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Wow, I had no idea Re: 27

Wow, I had no idea Re: 27 times.

Thanks Jon.

No Problem...

Do you think America's Defenses have undergone a "Process Of Transformation" since 9/11 happened? Considering America's military is now taking part in two wars, and are on the verge of a third, I think it's safe to say that they have.

Isn't it interesting that a lot of the individuals affiliated with the PNAC, like Dick Cheney for instance, are associated with those corporations that would benefit the most from a "Process of Transformation" in America's Military?

Don't you think we, as citizens of these United States, should REALLY take a look at that day? Especially when you consider that the very people that called for this "process of transformation" are still in office today, and have lied to us about everything else?

I think we should.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I remain amazed at the

I remain amazed at the ability of prominent leftists to ignore the obvious.

Did you listen to the debate wth Rothschild?

They cling to blow-back like a babe at the tit. Everything's "incompetence".

It's not just "funding" a la Amy Goodman. Most leftists HAVE NO FUNDING. We're dealing with serious denial here, a sort of pathology.

So many words written on "blowback", so many book sales, that they refuse to admit they were wrong. I think that's what it comes down to. Ego and faux reputation. They take themselves WAY TO SERIOUSLY. They've forgotten what it's all about.

No matter. Chuss, Sander, Peter Dale, Ruppert, David Ray and countless others are showing the way.

Keep up the good work Jon.


It's funny you mention "blowback." If that's what they think it was, then they should be FURIOUS that John McCain said "we were attacked not for a wrong we had done, but for who we are."

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Bite the Oligarchy Hand

While I can't vouch for it's veracity (Skull & Bones?),it's certainly food for thought.

De-Nile on the Left

Ignoring the obvious on the Left at the expense of your cause isn't confined to 911. If you put litterally DECADES of work into making a better world based on the system as you understood it, even if it wasn't working you might be tempted to look at any other cause than your flawed understanding. Facing that might drive you to drink(Micheal Ruppert ,as an example, is in recovery. Do you blame the poor bastard?).

Most people, whether they're raised liberal or conservative, aren't taught the skills or given the resources to challenge the premises of this world, much less make a better one. Believing those in power are incompetent is easier than believing they could be evil. The fact that the States is run by a criminal syndacate would scare most people catatonic. They have no idea how they'd fight that so they ignore it.

What they're missing is, however bad it is, appeasing the neo-cons will not make the problem go away. Frankly it's bloody irresponsible and inexcusable. I understand being afraid; only an idiot wouldn't be. But if you can't fight the fire get the hell out of the firehouse and let a body with a spine do the job.

"Bugger this; I want a better world."

William Kristol

Any chance this might mean that John Stewart will stop having Mr. Kristol on as an honored guest? I got so sick of his repeat appearances I had to stop watching.

That's some quality heckling though.

It's funny that Chomsky

It's funny that Chomsky reveals CIA drug dealing, mass murder, the assassination of MLK And Malcom X and Fred Hampton, massive US war crimes across the world, COINTELPRO, maosists trying to blow up a bus during the 60''s, state capitalism in all its guises....but bitches out on 911 and John (though he does reveal John F. for what he was - a war mongernig fink).

But Jon Stewart we love.

We should at least be consistent. We should criticize Chomsky for his gatekeeping on 911, and same with Stewart. And same with Olberman.

At least Chomsky opposed the war in Afghanistan. Not so Stewart.

Funny how "liberals" get a free pass, but not radicals.

a war mongering fink? you

a war mongering fink? you really are a BIG Chomsky fan huh? that comment says it all. not that im a big JFK fan but you guys are way too obvious.Stewart is a comedian. Olbermann is a commentator on MSNBC(G.E.). Chomsky doesnt have those restraints. he has NO EXCUSE.

Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky vs. JFK: A Study in Misinformation
In early 1992, after the release of Oliver Stone's film JFK a media thundercloud erupted.

thats because Chomsky is a

thats because Chomsky is a "radical" control valve. stop falling for it.

Left Denial on 9/11 Turns

Left Denial on 9/11 Turns Irrational
by Jack Straw

People like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill are turning toward the irrational as they continue to deny increasing signs that 9/11 was an inside job.

Noam Chomsky is often hailed as America's premier dissident intellectual, a fearless purveyor of truth fighting against media propaganda, murderous U.S. foreign policy, and the crimes of profit-hungry transnational corporations.

He enjoys a slavish cult-like following from millions leftist students, journalists, and activists worldwide who fawn over his dense books as if they were scripture. To them, Chomsky is the supreme deity, a priestly master whose logic cannot be questioned.

However, as one begins to examine the interviews and writings of Chomsky, a different picture emerges. His books, so vociferously lauded in leftist circles, appear to be calculated disinformation designed to distract and confuse honest activists. Since the 1960's, Chomsky has acted as the premier Left gatekeeper, using his elevated status to cover up the major crimes of the global elite.

Where Noam will not roam:
Chomsky manufactures consent by supporting the official stories of 9/11 and JFK

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
- Noam Chomsky

"I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent. But with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK assassination he is worse than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work of the agency. ... He is unconvinced by the evidence of a conspiracy, but his is utterly convinced that JFK was a consummate cold warrior who could not have changed and did nothing to irritate the military industrial intelligence complex."
- Vincent Salandria

"That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it."
- Noam Chomsky, at a FAIR event at New York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, in response to a question from the audience about US government foreknowledge of 9/11. At that time, 9/11 investigators had already presented substantial documented evidence for: prior warnings, Air Force stand-down, anomalous insider trading connected to CIA, cover-up of the domestic anthrax attacks, inconsistencies in identities & timelines of "hijackers", US connections to al Qaeda in Balkans, a Pak ISI-al Qaeda funding connection, etc etc etc.



Shhh! Neocons Don't Know What We Know

That has to be the most fruitfull meetings today in NYC.


was a smashing success..... shhhhhhhh.