Counterpunch misquotes Brzezinski

I sent the following mail to Counterpunch (http://www.counterpunch.org) on Saturday. They have yet to make a correction:

"Hi. I'm enjoying my new subscription to Counterpunch and am pleased that you decided to publish Christopher Ketcham's article. In all honesty, it's largely what motivated me to finally subscribe. I would urge you to have the same courage by publishing 9/11 related articles by noted CIA veteran Bill Christison. Christison is a person for whom you otherwise seem to have a great deal of respect. But as I understand it, you have sent him to the showers on 9/11 issues the same way Salon and the Nation sent Ketcham packing.

During an interview on Electric Politics, Christison says that you will not publish any of his articles suggesting that 9/11 may have been an "inside job":
http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2006/09/the_case_for_intellectual_inte.html

As for the misquote mentioned in my subject line, I noticed while reading "The Tragedy of a Dozen Evil Men" by Paul Craig Roberts that the Brzezinski quote is incorrect. It does appear to be correct in Roberts' earlier article "Brzezinski's Damning Indictment".

The Tragedy of a Dozen Evil Men
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03012007.html

Brzezinski's Damning Indictment
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02102007.html

The quote from Brzezinski in the first article reads:

"a terrorist act blamed on Iran, culminating in a 'defensive' US military action against Iran"

In the second, earlier article, it reads:

"a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a 'defensive' U.S. military action against Iran"

The difference in these two quotes has profound implications for your readership - most of whom I'm assuming are in the United States. Don't get me wrong. Everyone everywhere should be concerned about any terrorist attack committed by anyone against anybody; but when Brzezinski seems to be suggesting that it might take place in the United States, your readers should be alerted to his warning. It should also raise questions in people's minds as to just what he meant by that statement particularly in regards to 9/11. I'd very much like to think that this omission is simply a mistake and not due to bias."