As someone who exchanged a few emails with Alexander Cockburn regarding 9-11truth, and became frustrated with his refusal to address evidence and/or research that brings into questions the government's 9-11 conspiracy myth, I was pleased to see that Counterpunch decided to print this Paul Craig Roberts essay. I'm going to send CP a thank you mote. ;-)
I could not download the story with all of the videos and all, so go to the link for best reading and viewing. This story is sort of going viral. Hope it gets the attention of the people in the alternative media censoring the news about Kevin Bracken and 9/11 truth in general. They need to be exposed and criticized, POLITELY, or something like that!
So-Called Alternative Media Are a Bunch of Wannabe MSM Cowards
November 3, 2010 by Shepard
Filed under Constitution and Politics, Intel Hub Featured Articles, Propaganda
September 11th is indisputably the greatest crime in modern history. Everyone agrees that it has been the catalyst to excuse everything that has taken place in America since: wars, illegal surveillance, and torture, most notably.
It is the story of the century and it is still not to be questioned by the leading so-called alternative news websites that have reached mainstream levels of viewership. 9/11 is the stinky fart in the newsroom, where everyone with half-a-brain knows who cut the cheese, but because the boss is the culprit they’re afraid to be ridiculed or fired for speaking out. It’s authentic cowardice in the first degree.
A recent article on Disquiet Reservations called out specific “alternative” news sites for their cowardly unwillingness to mention 9/11 at all costs. The story they refused to cover happened last week in Australia, where the country’s top Union official, Kevin Bracken, caused international uproar when he was attacked for claiming on a national radio show that “the official story of 9/11 does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.” Of course, on the surface this doesn’t seem like a big story, but what is a huge story is that when the Herald Sun posted an online poll about it, an astounding majority (76.79%) agreed with Bracken, as reported by Excavator:
The Herald Su
The Kevin Bracken Story: These Alternative Websites and media outlets have not covered the story AT ALL.
I have just done a search on several of the most popular alternative websites for any information they have posted about Kevin Bracken. This story, about an important person in Australia, and the popular support he has gotten after his stand about 9/11 truth, should be everywhere, at least on the alternative media.
And yet, not a word.
I went to each of these sites, put a search for whatever they had published about Kevin Bracken. None of the searches came up with any stories.
I feel this is a good indication of a real purposeful censorship. It is hard to miss this huge story. I am not surprised at the msm avoiding the story. But we rely on the alternative media to tell us about issues that the msm and their corporate sponsors are not keen on us seeing.
Let's follow these sites about other big 9/11 stories and see how they avoid the topics.
Something is obviously going on. It is not just ignorance of the facts. They do not want to publish this information. I call that very irresponsible, if not criminal.
These are the media outlets that have not covered the Kevin Bracken story:
If you have seen some stories about Kevin Bracken in these outlets, let me know. I am only going by what I have seen, not seen, and searched.
Cockburn ridicules Castro regarding his doubts about the US government’s official version of 9/11. There are numerous US and international scientists, engineers, and writers who have raised very important questions about the validity of the government’s version. David Ray Griffin’s article, “Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?”, contains extensive factual information and analyses in this regard (Web link: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20039).
Here is the article. The link is: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21185
Counterpunch and 9/11 and Alexander Cockburn: From exposing the truth to complete 9/11 censorship and insults...in just 2 years
The alternative media has been hijacked, conquered, by forces that will not allow the truth of 911 to even be discussed. What in the world has happened? Here is one example.
In 2002, Counterpunch runs an article deeply questioning the official story, one that could be found on 911 blogger, with information that shows clearly that something is wrong with the official 911 story.
In 2004, Counterpunch runs a story that insults the 911 movement, calling us "conspiracy nuts", and never again runs any story at all that has any of the mounting and well documented evidence that shows the official story to be at least conflicted.
What happened during the years from 2002 to 2004? Alexander Cockburn was the editor throughout it all. Was he threatened, or convinced of something, or did he receive some kind of support from foundations that would ultimately not want the real truth to come out?
The exact same thing happened with Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com. In fact, Raimondo even sold a book about the Israeli connection to 911. And then he went mum, except to also insult 9/11 truthers.
Something is going on, and I wish someone would come forward with what it could possibly be.
and 4 years later . . .
I have just perused some of the most popular "alternative" media sites this Saturday morning to see what is being written about Ahmadinejad's speech at the UN this week.
Seems like complete avoidance.
Censorship is a better word.
While the msm at least covered the story, the alternative media has avoided the story, hoping it would go away. They are, it seems, under strict guidelines to not mention 9/11 truth or any of the evidence that conflicts with the official story of 9/11.
I looked at Alternet, CommonDreams, Truthout, DemocracyNow, Counterpunch, antiwar.com.
I did see a small mention of the speech on DemocracyNow, as part of their news rundown. No details.
I didn't see anything on antiwar.com's listing of headlines around the world that normally would have had information about the speech.
Just noticed this advertisement in Counterpunch.org for its print edition. Sort of a shocking headline, and it got my attention because Counterpunch has never presented any 9/11 truth at all, ever. In fact, I remember Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch being downright insulting of the entire 9/11 movement. Like almost all other alternative media, Counterpunch has felt the need, for some still unknown reason, to censor the most proven and well documented evidence provided by the 9/11 truth movement proving the official 9/11 story to be untrue.
And yet, here is this ad. Seems odd to me, but I will not again pay the $35 to get the print edition and find that the truth is censored on this media outlet like so many others. My money is better spent on organizations that support the truth, no matter how unappealing.
If any of you do get this print edition, please tell us where they are going with this ad.
CounterPunch Print Edition Exclusive!
By Paul Craig Roberts
March 24, 2010
There was a time when the pen was mightier than the sword. That was a time when people believed in truth and regarded truth as an independent power and not as an auxiliary for government, class, race, ideological, personal, or financial interest.
Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it.
Truth is an unwelcome entity. It is disturbing. It is off limits. Those who speak it run the risk of being branded “anti-American,” “anti-semite” or “conspiracy theorist.”
Truth is an inconvenience for government and for the interest groups whose campaign contributions control government.
Truth is an inconvenience for prosecutors who want convictions, not the discovery of innocence or guilt.
Truth is inconvenient for ideologues.
In Search of Morale - Are Americans Too Broken for the Truth to Set Us Free?
By BRUCE E. LEVINE
Can people become so broken that truths of how they are being screwed do not “set them free” but instead further demoralize them? Has such a demoralization happened in the United States? Do some totalitarians actually want us to hear how we have been screwed because they know that humiliating passivity in the face of obvious oppression will demoralize us even further? What forces have created a demoralized, passive, disCouraged U.S. population? Can anything be done to turn this around?
Can people become so broken that truths of how they are being screwed do not “set them free” but instead further demoralize them?
Re: "Shining a Light on the Roots of Terrorism"
Letting the "elephant out of the bag" on 9/11 would of course require the word "treason." You're a bright, studied guy. You know this.
Further, if your intent is to fight terrorism, as the article positions itself, then western INTELLIGENCE support for terrorism should be front and center. From Mujahadeen in 1979 to KLA in the 1990s, Jundullah and MEK today, and Alpha 66, death squads on most continents and other seedy CIA connected "terror," this is quite an omission.
Besides the Israeli question -- which is all well and good, but not the whole story by a long shot -- we have US ALLIES supporting Islamic terrorist networks.
Further, these networks could not have accomplished 9/11 or numerous other attacks without treasonous support by US leaders and their allies in the Saudi Arabian government, the Pakistani government and elsewhere. When are your readers going to see an in-depth analysis of these matters, truly the matters that bear on the issue?
Remember Gandhi's three stages... ;-)
Also, I love how now that we have a democrat president, all of a sudden 9/11 truth is a "far right" issue.
By ANTHONY DiMAGGIO
The full extent of the conservative movement’s radicalization is becoming more apparent after nine months of the Obama administration. Increasingly, reactionary media pundits and much of the rank-and-file of the Republican Party are taking the American right down a dangerous path, marked most ominously by the abundance of conspiracy theories directed against the Democratic Party and mainstream liberals.
Prominent writers have long warned about the rise of the reactionary right into the national spotlight. Thomas Frank leads the way in many of these charges with bestselling books like The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule, and What’s the Matter with Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. Frank’s warnings are particularly insightful in light of the rise of right wing conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy, Inc.: Wild Tales From the Reactionary Right
You can't even provide a reasonable definition of "conspiracy" in your mindless call to ignorance. I also strongly detest your guilt by association approach, as if we are all alike, all incredible, all in the same category because you say so. The smear that people who call out government complicity and cover-up must be from the "reactionary right" is worthy of the drooling neanderthals you hoped to lampoon.
If you had a dictionary handy, you might have learned that conspiracy is any crime involving multiple parties. It's one of the most prosecuted charges in the US by the justice department (sic).
We are to take it -- from you -- a priori that the government never commits crimes. People in the white house, for example, never agree to break the law.
Large mountains of empirical evidence dispute this "theory" you posit. Your position is laughable on its face, of course, and your rant is gibberish.
Ketcham keeps bolstering the Big Lie by pretending that the incompetence theory of 9/11 has merit. In numerous ways he defends the criminal actions of high level players who have a long history of helping terrorists and funding their networks. While admitting to such practices in the distant past, Ketchum ignores the period leading up to 9/11 as well as the present.
What Ketcham should have grilled Baer about is terrorism by proxy: ISI and Saudi intelligence in particular, (MI6, BND and Mossad also engage in this practice).
It is no longer even denied that ISI created and protected "Al Qaeda," and assists the Taliban to this day, nor is it reasonable to deny that the USA funds the ISI.
Much credible evidence links the Saudi government to the 9/11 hijackers, and we don't hear anything about that, despite Senator Graham's open admissions of the facts. FBI surveillance showed links between a Saudi agent and the Saudi embassy, as he assisted hijackers in San Diego.
"Paul Krassner is the editor of The Realist. His books include: Pot Stories for the Soul, One Hand Jerking and Murder at the Conspiracy Convention. He can be reached through his website: http://paulkrassner.com/"
Subject: what a completely idiotic and useless bit of propaganda
If the matters weren't so serious, it would be just another sad joke.
Again, Mr. debunker9978451236,
I'll spell it out for you.
The focus of your attack piece was not the 9/11 COVER-UP, which is clearly the elephant in the room and undeniable, even by you. No, the focus was some fringe people in the 9/11 Truth Movement who you use to malign the entire movement in a guilt by association attack.
Crimes of the State Blog
"Conspiracism is raising its Medusa’s head again, her lethal visage wreathed with hissing absurdities, immobilizing judgement, melting intellect to pumice." --Alexander Cockburn (ignoring all evidence that is contrary to his irrational biases)
Blather at new heights of cognitive dissonance over at CounterPunch this weekend. Cockburn uses the term "conspiracism", as if that were a real thing, to mock any and all comers, even in a piece about the minutiae of some Wall Street fraud (Bernie Madoff).
But how can he get away with this childish mocking about the JFK assassination, without having to address even one piece of evidence at all?
Here is the entirety of what Cockburn says about "conspiracism" and the JFK assassination in that piece:
Facts to the contrary, there just are no conspiracies
David Lindorff has finally stuck his foot in his mouth, over at Commondreams.org, a notorious anti-truth gatekeeping site. I suppose we should all just abandon even the hope for justice, truth and reconciliation and take orders from the establishment Democrats?
Lindorff mixes irrational hyperbole with some revisionist whitewashing, all in an effort to put those pesky "conspiracy theories" behind us -- in the service of "the left." This tactic was employed previously by Alexander Cockburn among others, and is quite simply shameful.
I just stumbled on this must-read article concerning Taliban and a US State Department paid Afghan businessman.
Cockburn and St. Clair lay out shocking evidence that implicates both Clinton And Bush (although they only blame Bush in their editorializing) for deliberately leaving bin Laden free and at large, despite numerous offers by Taliban to turn him over, kill him or deal with him in any other way -- unconditionally.
Note, that bin Laden was indeed on the FBI Most Wanted List for the African embassy bombings of 1998, at the time the article recounts. Bin Laden had also declared war on the US and "the Jews," in two fatwas issued in 1998. The fatwas encouraged Muslims to attack US and Israeli civilians as well as military targets.
So, why would the US government -- across two administrations -- repeatedly refuse the Taliban's offers of extradition?
The below information fits in seamlessly with other reports of a similar nature.
CounterPunch's editorializing (spin) is the weak part. This insider witness, Mr. Mohabbat, should be a household name and a part of any new investigation into 9/11.
posting this in full to preserve it for posterity. Counterpunch should be ashamed; they knew all this in June 2002 (presents a strong "LIHOP" perspective), and since then they've posted numerous hit pieces instead of doing the obviously sorely needed investigative reporting- although they have published stories on Sibel Edmonds, and one on the high-fivers.
The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies by Bernard Weiner
Don't know about you, but all this who-knew-what-when pre-9/11 stuff is mighty confusing. So once again, I head to that all-purpose reference series for some comprehensible answers.
Q. I've heard all these reports about the government knowing weeks and months in advance of 9/11 that airliners were going to be hijacked and flown into buildings, and yet the Bush Administration apparently did nothing and denied they did anything wrong. They claimed the fault lay in the intelligence agencies "not connecting the dots," or that it was the "FBI culture" that failed. Can you explain?
Paul Craig Roberts brings 9/11 truth to COUNTERPUNCH !! Is a FALSE FLAG Dirty Bomb in Our Future?
Secret Schemes and Undeclared Agendas
Inside the Shell Game
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The investigative journalist Edward Jay Epstein has taken up the Litvinenko case.
The media used the Litvinenko case as sensational propaganda against Russian President Putin and then tossed it aside. For those whose memories of the case have faded, Alexander Litvinenko was a former KGB officer living in England who died in 2006, apparently from the radioactive isotope Polonium-210 . . .
Those who have attempted to clue in fellow citizens are invariably frustrated, because Americans have been trained to dismiss the messenger who brings news of "false flag" events as a "conspiracy theorist."
I know some of you believe this is a no-brainer. You might say, "oh, well Mark Roberts is a schill or an idiot" but consider for a minute that he is another human being like all of us. (and for the record I am not a Mark Roberts apologist) However, I just spent well over 5 hours (more than I would have liked to really) reading over his material and I have a simple question; How is Mark Roberts wong? Please do not come at me with disinfo non-sense or any sort of character assault. I have read his material and have my own opinions on the matter. However I am interested in what other people think. If you have never read a word from him, DO NOT RESPOND. I am not interested in immature name calling or unsubstantiated claims. If you do have solid evidence that might be of interest to us all, please share but please do not throw out inflammatory comments that do nothing to address the issue at hand. And to make sure I am making myself absolutely clear. This is not an attempt at Debunking! I am simply encouraging critical thinking and investigation. So please if you would humor me...How is Mark Roberts wrong?
Mr. St. Clair,
I commend you for openly disagreeing with your co-editor. As global temperature does change all by itself without human intervention -- and I have never seen an accurate accounting to date of the natural vs. manmade contributions to temperature, I'm not 100% convinced that Cockburn is wrong about the reasons for climate change.
I am 100% sure that he's wrong about September 11th. Your own website has supported the allegations of Sibel Edmonds and several others who spoke of protected drug smuggling which has financed terrorism, and probably still does today.
If I could prove that there were indeed laws broken intentionally, to the benefit of the 9/11 terrorists -- would it matter over at Counterpunch? Cockburn doesn't seem willing to look at any evidence, no matter the source, no matter the damning implications.
I can prove criminal behavior by US government operatives easily in a dozen ways. I'll cite two incontrovertible cases.
Al Mindhar and Al Hazmi
CounterPunch, infamous for its attacks on the very idea of 9/11 government complicity, has published an article detailing some old news about Israeli spying in connection with the 9/11 attacks. The Christopher Ketcham article "What Did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attacks?" is from its title onward, a confined and limited interpretation of the available information. It's limited to a debate about foreknowledge of 9/11, therefore Israeli participation in the attacks is strictly off-limits.
This is in part because it was written for mainstream publication, with the corollary that one must accept the official story of 9/11 in its broad strokes, and selectively edit the data to conform to that narrative.
The Counterpunch article which Reprehensor previously wrote about is now available online for free (it was previously only for subscribers).
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":
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".
(NOTE: There is an error in the following. Please see the correction in the comments below.)
Andrew Cockburn, I was going to challenge you to a debate, but I see now you do an even better job of dismantling yourself.
One week you attack 9/11 skepticism using every cheap shot worthy of a Limbaugh, reducing it all to a laughable caricature that you yourself must recognize as unfair. (The families who lobbied for the 9/11 Commission ended up condemning it? Really? How would a busy fellow like you know that?)
The next week, you try to compensate - for the lost subscriptions, perhaps? - by reaching for the "Art Students," as though the only intelligence agencies who could have known that 9/11 was in the works would have had to be Israeli.
Now you present this great profile of Rumsfeld in the 1990s, the little emperor of a self-appointed Shadow Government who enjoyed nothing more than playing Strangelove in a bunker, firing off all his missiles and killing everyone. (READ MORE...)
The following are excerpts from the recent Counterpunch article, "Cheering Movers and Art Student Spies," by Christopher Ketcham. The article itself takes up about 10 pages, so what follows is a selective representation, beginning with the tale of the five Israelis in a van arrested on 9/11.
"From inside the vehicle the officers, who were quickly joined by agents from the FBI, retrieved multiple passports and $4,700 in cash stuffed in a sock. According to New Jersey’s Bergen Record, which on September 12 reported the arrest of the five Israelis, an investigator high up in the Bergen County law enforcement hierarchy stated that officers had also discovered in the vehicle “maps of the city … with certain places highlighted. It looked like they’re hooked in with this”, the source told the Record, referring to the 9/11 attacks. “It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park.”
I came across this interview of Jeffery St. Clair this morning and found it enlightening. What struck me most was how specious his argument was regarding the American left. I wasn't surprised that he dismissed the notion of US complicity in the attacks of September 11th, but was a little bewildered by the repetition of the Counterpunch talking points on the subject. He very clearly put forward the notion that interest in theories about 9/11 are not merely a symptom of the left's deep mistrust of the current administration, but are in fact a causative factor behind the left's inability to organize an effective resistance to the current administration. He states unequivocally that this focus on the cause of 9/11 has stopped people from organizing, distracted people from their opposition to the occupation of Iraq, and essentially reflects a retreat.
But he offers nothing in the way of evidence for this assertion, not even anecdotal evidence.
In reference to my first post's mixed-message comment on CounterPunch and 9/11, I thought I'd include the letters I wrote to them on that subject.
After reading this article by Alex Cockburn,
I wrote the following reply:
Dear Counterpunch and Alex Cockburn,
As a long-time fan and paying subscriber to Counterpunch, I am dismayed by the ad-hominem attack on myself and my friends as "nuts" because we are deeply suspicious of the Bush administration's claims as to the events on 9/11/01.
His hyperbolic piece would almost be amusing in its shrillness if it weren't covering such a serious topic.
His refutation arguments are very weak, and he tars with guilt by association with unrelated conspiracy controversies anyone who suspects that the "official" 9/11 story is a bunch of baloney.
His statement: "One characteristic of the nuts is that they have a devout, albeit preposterous belief in American efficiency, thus many of them start with the racist premise that “Arabs in caves” weren’t capable of the mission." completely misses the point and uses the vague "many" to call most of us "racist" because we believe that the 19 names "found" in "Mohammad Atta's" car in the Portland, ME airport are (by the ever-reliable FBI) nothing approaching a definitive list of the operatives involved.
I didn't respond to the Piazza Fontana example because I am not familiar with it. Agents provocateurs working for US intelligence and planted in left organizations in the 60s proposed and possibly executed bombings then too. That doesn't prove your point that the US government planned and executed attacks designed to destroy perhaps the most iconic symbols of capital, the Twin Towers, plunge NY's economy and the financial sector into crisis, kill thousands of people, bankrupt the airlines, etc. etc. That's just New York. It also doesn't prove that thousands of people involved in the crime have for five years maintained an iron silence.
Yes, I know about Clarke and also know how Condi Rice responded to that in testimony. I'm not sure of the veracity or context of the Bush quote, but having a report saying Bin Laden wants to attack the US also doesn't contradict my point of incompetence, indifference, hubris and perhaps opportunism akin to that of FDR, who had warnings of a Japanese attack but didn't figure on the destruction of the US Pacific fleet.
This is my fundamental political problem with the "nutters" (your word, not mine): by suggesting some special monstrosity in the Bush administration they deflect from the average-old monstrosity of US foreign policy, decade in decade out, regardless of the party in power. There is essentially no antiwar movement, essentially no element organized powerfully to press for a reverse in foreign policy, in economic policy, no organization on the left worth a damn. In the void there are conspiracy theorists. Your point is, Why not encourage them? I think they have encouragement enough and certainly shouldn't be beyond critique because of grieving families.
What would you have told Italian dissidents in the 70s and 80s if they’d dared to claim that Italian intelligence was supporting the neofascist terrorist bombings from 1969-1980 starting with Piazza Fontana bombing?
Is the prospect of a US government willing to kill its own citizens with bombs somehow more disempowering than a government willing to kill the species by failing to address Global Warming?
How do you account for the evidence of foreknowledge in light of the stated objectives of the PNAC?
Finally, could you explain the difference between your conviction that the US was in no way complicit in the attacks and your typical 9/11 conspiracy theorists conviction that the US made every aspect of the event happen on purpose?
The US was complicit in 9/11 in the sense that it created the mujahedin in Afghanistan in the 1980s, is an imperialist power with bases all over the Middle East, author via sanctions of the deaths of at least half a million Iraqi children, essential supporter of Israel and of every corrupt Arab state. So, a lot of people have felt the whip-lash of the United States, directly or indirectly, and some of them decided to strike back.