Rather ominous that someone on our Forum posts this without comment; without mentioning if they find it reprehensible [which it is] or is posting it in silent glee and gloating. Given who posted however, no surprise - anything to cause havoc and discomfiture to those felt to be targets. There is also some nut posing as, or a very misguided, progressive who has condemned her in rather unfriendly terms [though not to death] for not reporting on the 911 Truth movement, which she and her show avoids - along with a few other progressive issues.

No glee Peter I find calling for journalists like Goodman to be executed morally reprehensible. I'm surprised no one else has add their 2 cents.

I would like to go on record as formally opposing the condemnation to death of Amy Goodman by a right wing blogger. I find it morally reprehensible.

Truth be told they never was such a blog entry. I adapted it from rant written by Kevin Barrett the “nut posing as, or a very misguided, progressive who has condemned her in rather unfriendly terms” Peter referred to. Though he was wrong, Barrett did condem her to death. He wrote:



He has since offer a half-hearted retraction. (ibid).

The part about her being there during the countdown is pure BS, she was several blocks away close to the radio studio where she work with dozens of other people. No count-down can be heard in the video.

Nut is an apt description of Barrett. He is also condemned every mainstream journalist to death
“…anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity.”
http://www.oilempire.us/mujca.html
And is a Holocaust denier
(ibid)
And of all the truther books out there tried to foist “Painful Question” by Holocaust denier and rabid anti-Semite Eric Hufshmidt on Goodman, who is Jewish
http://www.911blogger.com/node/11700
He even thinks it seems that bloggers who oppose his views should be condemned to death http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2...-jew-hater.html
He is not however unfortunately on the fringes of the movement; he gets positive coverage by 911Blogger the most active truther site

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11700

He is the other half of the “Dynamic Duo” with our very own Jim Fetzer who has once again called for a military coup in the US.

So now knowing those words came from a truther, I wonder if the will receive the same opprobrium of Nathaniel and Peter?

You have only confirmed [for those who haven't yet figured it out] that you are a deceptive provocateur here on this Forum - here to create as much dissention and havoc [minus logic, honesty or any real interest in the matters you post 'about']. It is you who should be thoroughly condemned - again. A/The prime candidate for getting kicked-off this Forum, if I had anything to do with it. You are a first-class creep and troublemake with no shame, and by your own admission above a deceptive lFiRaArUD. [no, don't push that button - I didn't say it - you did!]
Your false right-winger, may be a nutty guy or another one of the provocateurs and/or impostors [as to their real position/motive/affiliation], just like you. There are even fake 911 Truth sites set-up by folks of your ilk. Sinking to new lows, you now aside from dissembling, deceptive and purposely annoying and diverting posts are doing the same with whole threads. You are just as likely a candidate to be 'Barrett' as anyone. Would fit your m.o. Mr. Deception. May I suggest therapy and a morality transplant.

Joseph Welch to Joe McCarthy: “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

Amy Goodman, Je Pourrais Te Pardonner

Of all the articles I have written and posted, none has been more controversial than my warning to Amy Goodman that her refusal to report honestly on 9/11, and especially on the demolition of WTC-7, could get her condemned at a future Nuremburg trial. [u]Anti-9/11-truth shills have circulated the lie that I issued Amy a death threat.[/u] Predicting that the laws against mass murder, high treason and war crimes will one day be enforced, and the Nuremburg precedent followed, is hardly a threat. It is simple common sense, given the obviousness and outrageousness of the 9/11 crimes, and the fact that people around the world are becoming more and more aware of them.

I stand by the opinion that the support Amy Goodman has given to the worst blood libel in human history, and her ensuing participation in the murder of over a million people in Iraq, Afghanistan and the USA, constitutes complicity in high treason, mass murder, war crimes, and other crimes against humanity. I still expect that one day she and a great many other American media decision-makers will be charged with these crimes and put on trial at a new Nuremburg. Their defense "we didn't know" or "we were only following orders" (from their bosses, the Ford Foundation, or whomever) may not get them much further it got the Nazis before them.

That said, I now regret the angry tone in which I phrased the warning. Some of my words took hyperbole way over the top: Obviously Amy Goodman is not "infinitely worse" than my old pals O'Reilly and Hannity. After meeting Amy Goodman in person, my heart has softened toward her. My intuition tells me that she is a good, idealistic person. Yet my intellect cannot understand how someone who witnessed the pre-announced demolition of WTC-7 could fail to report on that demolition, and its cover-up by the government and the mainstream media, without being complicit in mass murder, high treason, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

As William Rodriguez might say: Amy, you got a lotta 'splainin' to do! But I am open to listening to your explanation, and I hope your future Nuremburg judges will find it an adequate defense.

Amy Goodman, je pourrais te pardonner!
http://www.mujca.com/amy.htm

But YOU Len are not pardoned.

The post about Goodman was clearly an absurd overreaction, and potentially dangerous. It is quite possible it was disinformation, and quite possibly it was just someone venting about the foundation-funded limited-left press. In either case it is regrettable and counterproductive.

It is wrong, however to see it only in individual terms. Our completely undemocratic media make this sort of irrational and counterproductive outburst inevitable.

There is no doubt there has been an uptic in efforts that try to depict those who want a new investigation as entirely on the right. How predictable, and also how impossible in earlier years. It took years of left-gatekeeping for this latest effort to take hold.

This makes it all the more important that we put forward examples of those on "the left" (whatever that means these days) who also demand a new investigation. Not because their questions are any better-- I don't know-- but because disinformation must be dealt with if you see truth as socially constructed and want it to matter.

Nathaniel, I agree there are left-gatekeepers, as there are [more obvious] gatekeepers for the mainstream/corporate media and all other. The issue here is IMO more Len's devious post, rather than what Goodman did or didn't do, ditto Barrett - who seems a bit unstable, at best. That said, I'm also disturbed about Democracy Now! not reporting on 9/11 or the major assassinations and have emailed to Amy aboout this [never with response]. I don't know her, personally, so can't comment precisely. I sense in her case it is either personal blindness or fear of taking on 'that nature of beast' and loosing some large portion of their audience. Whatever, and even if [though I think not] she is a gatekeeper on those extreme issues the show is the most widely watched progressive [on what topics they do cover] alternative I know of. Barrett's statements on Goodman are, at best, unbalanced - as clearly Goodman is not responsible of a crime for not reporting on 9/11 only being unethical or blind. Len, again is the issue here - as he plays dirty - but then a provacateur only has that in their bag of tricks. Maybe Goodman will eventualy see the light of day. Len I'm sure not.

Point well made, imo.

Better for all concerned they stay inside the tent, and avoid participating in MSM's smearing of CT's. MSM's treatment of official dissenters has all the paranoia of the Inquisition.

p.s. I'm seeing '9-11 was an inside job' bumper stickers everywhere lately.

Jan, I agree that your analysis is likely the like correct one [or I hope so]...nothing to applaud, but....pragmatic and a sad reality. Mark, aren't you outside of USA? And seeing 9-11 was an inside job bumper-stickers!...well, well, well! Goodman also has avoided all major assassination researchers and theories for the same reason, I believe. I hope at some time she'll have the courage to tackle them too....as they are the skeleton-key to the whole shabang!!! - that is exactly why the mainstream and corporate media [and their masters] won't let it be discussed and try to dismiss it as 'nutty' and outside the limits of sane debate and questioning.

Robert Fisk?

The "pragmatism" defence is tired and historically without defence: I can imagine Geoffrey Dawson, or some BBC functionary, employing it circa 1938. Goodman's a gate-keeper and a licensed jester. It's in the US establishment's interests to portray her as an imperilled, prospective martyr.

Paul

Jan,

Up to a point, Lord Copper, I agree: Fisk is given greater latitude than the rest of the drones; but the Independent as "freethinking"? Yipes, that's overdoing it a bit, surely? Didn't the Grauniad - talk about the pot libelling the kettle - once run a piece in which it was flatly stated that MI5 had a hefty section working within it?



Quite true, which just shows you what a pathetically narrow spectrum of carefully sifted opinion is allowed us by the establishment and its spook vetters. The BBC's position is particularly despicable because we have to pay for this "privilege" - or else.



So quit and retain self-respect. What you are defending is a compromiser's self-interested charter. It would appear you didn't follow that path, so why defend it when others do?



No, but I was surprised that someone I was under the impression had fled the suffocating confines of the BBC intellectual gulag should defend so vigorously what seems to me a profoundly flawed position. If one can't speak truth to power when it really matters, what on earth is the point of a career in journalism?



Again, no, I was referring to the BBC's appalling role during the creation of Hitler at the same time as Dawson and other Round Table creatures were doing their bit for the strategy.

As to my point about historical indefensibility, I can't think of a single case where the kind of strategy you outlined has yielded anything other than career preservation. Such an argument assumes, for one thing, that the individual who replaced the resignee would have proved even less satisfactory. That's a big assumption.

Paul

So I guess it didn’t occur to any of you that Goodman hasn’t given 9/11 conspiracy theories more coverage is because like 64% of Americans she concluded they are “not very likely”. She’s in good company, only some infinitesimally small number of engineers, pilots, firemen and people who were there publicly question the overall 9/11 theory. Generally some minute fraction of a percent.

She has already done two programs on the subject, perhaps she should do programs with creationists, Holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and perpetual motion device ‘inventors’ as well.

Only a truther could classify her as “a licensed jester”. She already risked her like and was badly beaten for her coverage of a massacre of East Timorese by the Indonesian Army in 1991*. How many of those so quick to criticize her can say they’d risked their life for what they believe in? She doesn’t seem to shy away from any other story that would offend the powers that be. Are (were) Noah Chomsky, Ed Said, Ward Churchill, Alexander Cockburn, Norman Solomon etc etc licensed jesters as well?

David Rovics wrote an excellent take down of “left-gate keeper” nonsense.**

What I also found interesting was that Nathaniel thought the condemnation to death of Goodman “morally reprehensible” when he thought it came from a right-winger but only a “regrettable” albeit “inevitable” “outburst” when informed it actually came from a fellow truther. Why would it be less “morally reprehensible” , just because one agrees the person making the condemnation about the issue he disagreed with Goodman about?

This reminds me of when a truther on the Loose Change forum threatened to kill (or blind) Mark Roberts, a debunker. The response of Dylan Avery was to tell the guy were to find Roberts, the reaction of most posters was support. Those who voiced disagreement (all newbies) only did so because it was ‘bad for the cause’ not because it was “morally reprehensible”.

* http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_re...ence/nairn.html
http://www.etan.org/timor/SntaCRUZ.htm
http://www.democracynow.org/1997/11/12/mas...y_of_east_timor

** http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=69564

-------------------

LEN SHOW ME IN MY QUOTE WHERE I SAID THAT IT WAS MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE BECAUSE IT WAS FROM A RIGHT WINGER SHOW ME NOW NOW NOW.
THEN YOU GO ON TO A CONCLUSION WHERE YOU IMPLY SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING I NEVER CAME CLOSE TO SAYING .. SHOW ME RIGHT NOW . RIGHT NOW . You have slipped to a new low here and I demand moderator action. This is the first time I have ever asked for it. How can someone just outright LIE about what someone said. I AM WAITING LEN FOR YOU TO SHOW ME THE QUOTES on WHICH metaparaphrasing is based. This is Goerbels level verbal contortionism. Len show me now.

I used to think that what Peter said about you was extreme. You've just proved him right. Im waiting for your your explication of how you deciphered my comments into the sewage that you have just attributed to me without using a single quote longer than two words.

Yes.

Paul

I think the bigger point here is is Len a 'jester' of the psyop spin to twist our words, thoughts and meaning to cause anger, dissention, doubt, etc. - Len you stand naked and fully self-exposed with this thread, IMO......it really doesn't matter if you've had professional training on how to be provacateur and twister of other's words to cause harm, or if self-taught. Everyone who's had encounters with you has concluded you play dirty with words. It is reprehensible and wrong. Again, I think everyone should just turn their backs on this entity [who may be a composit]. He thrives on causing upset and problems - that is why he is here - and the only reason. His 'legend' as a reasonable, inquiring and even 'liberal' guy is only to cozy up and disarm, in order to cause problems and harm. IMO and that of many others, and growing...... David G. bent over backwards to give you some slack and then concluded you only twist the words of others to deceive and mis-represent - ultimately to harm. Rational discourse is not in his heart of darkness and ill will. He is not here to enlighten, but to cast a shadow - not to debate, but to defame and provoke. He holds this Forum and its members in contempt and uses black-arts to try to thwart it. It is, however, only a dark reflexion on who he is and who he serves. [IMO]

I’m not really sure what you’re getting all upset about Nathaniel. I never said that you “SAID THAT IT WAS MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE BECAUSE IT WAS FROM A RIGHT WINGER”. However your exact words in post # 4 were:



Thus the 1st part of my sentence (the one which you seemed to objected to) was accurate. After I revealed that she was condemned to death by a truther rather than a right-winger your evaluation (in post #7 ) mildened, you wrote:



The jist was that it was an “inevitable” (i.e. understandable) albeit “absurd overreaction” but you obviously no longer felt it was “morally reprehensible” thus the 2nd part of my sentence (which you didn’t challenge) was accurate as well.

"THEN YOU GO ON TO A CONCLUSION WHERE YOU IMPLY SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING I NEVER CAME CLOSE TO SAYING .. SHOW ME RIGHT NOW . RIGHT NOW"

I have no idea what you are going on about, which “conclusion” were you referring to?

"How can someone just outright LIE about what someone said. I AM WAITING LEN FOR YOU TO SHOW ME THE QUOTES on WHICH metaparaphrasing is based. This is Goerbels level verbal contortionism. Len show me now."

Take a pill and go back and look at your previous posts, your last one was an “absurd overreaction” since I quoted you on the same thread where you’d made your original comments and presumably + 90% of the people reading my post had already read yours.

Let’s try the following, choose one of the English teachers among your collegues and show him (or her) this thread, ask them if they think I misquoted you. Tell us what he (or she) says.

If anybody should be requesting moderator action it would be me because you falsely claimed I’d lied and compared me to “Goerbels” by whom you obviously meant Goebbels but you seem to have made your post mid apoplectic fit so I’ll let it slide.

EDIT - Formatted for clarity.

So who do you consider to be genuine opposing voices? Alex Jones and Chris Bollyn?

Everyone is free to do as you want, but I suggest you not answer this Borg and thereby play his game - but that all email or PM to the John S. and complain over this deceptive provacateur on this Forum. Answering him is only feeding the troll. I'll no longer respond to any LC-911 posts or threads. He more clearly than ever IMO works for the dark forces behind events like 911 and only seeks to drag people in to this tarpit of moral and provocational excrement. He has actually contacted real entities outside of this Forum to try to poison the waters for my research and also tried to post my location - which was removed by the moderators - and is a security necessity. This entity is pure poison - don't drink from it and don't feed it. He invented this tar-pit and false thread - but this is nothing new for this deceptive entity. All his posts are disingenuos twistings of our words and the those of others on internet sites and in books, etc. for his evil 'masters'. Makes you a servo-Borg LC-911. IMO

NB, I see Antti watching all this and suggest you send the whole thread directly to John S. for his evaluation.

Guido Giacomo Preparata and David Ray Griffin for two.

Paul

Peter,

I am in complete agreement with you as to Len's motivations etc but I make four arguments against banning and/or ignoring.

First and foremost, he does, intermittently, ask important and sensible questions that demand answers.

Two, he's so visibly a servant of the what you so felicitously style "the Borg" that he is much less dangerous than more subtle presences serving the same end.

Three, group-think is as injurious to the side of virtue as to its opponents.

Four, banning is everywhere and always a weapon of the fearful and the dishonest. Have more confidence in your own arguments and those broadly on your side - on 9/11 et al, they're very obviously right.

Paul

Sadly Paul, such a position entirely disregards the human factor.

It is a very big step to turn your back a career, on a known and regular income - security if you will - and to step out on to that slim branch not knowing it will support your weight. Truth is a wonderful thing in life but putting food on the table is essential for life.

I can speak personally as one who turned his back on a successful career and stepped out on that branch. There's slim pickings out there, my friend. From the Savoy Grill and room service at the George V, to baked beans on toast in a rented kitchen, in one foul swoop.

But hey, baked beans. Yum.

Sometimes, I was lucky to come across other journalists, like Jan, who shared the unlikely areas of interest I did and cared about them, and tried to arouse interest in them in the msm ---- with the usual results (but sometimes making a difference, too).

So I would defend others trying to do the right thing inside the beast even when when they know their chances of success are minimal.

David,

I understand your points, and sympathise: kids, mortgages, the whole shebang. It is, unquestionably, a bloody difficult and frightening choice. But let's not pretend that small truths can be preserved while acquiescing in the bigger lies. That's even more facile than anything I've argued. And, in the end, it's about choices. To remain in the bosom of the Beeb, CBS, the Guardian and the NYT - to name but four - while proclaiming a commitment to virtue is no longer tenable. If it ever was.

Best,

Paul

Paul, on the other hand, sometimes the big truths are pushed through the restraining mesh. Take Richard Belfield's three ITV documentaries on the Diana assassination (er, accident). He also, years earlier, had broadcast his documentary on Delgado's bull, to an unsuspecting public. The few brave souls out there battling the msm from the inside deserve our respect rather than opprobrium, I think. Better that a small but high quality contribution slips through the net than none at all.

I don't suppose we will agree on this one, mate...

Take care,

David

There is more than one truther out there that conduct themselves pporly; Peter's sometimes quoted Killclown is a good example:



http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm

Perhaps Killclown would like his details posted?

Fair point.

Paul

Upon reflection - well, two hours or so in the sun gardening while waiting for a plumber - I've decided I'm a hypocrite. In the somewhat improbable event the Beeb came to me and said "make a film on the Z film" or Richard Starnes, reasonable budget, no censorship, would I take up the offer? My goodness, what a temptation, and what a dilemma.

Very probably. Under an alias.

The hypocrite. Times two.

Evan, no disrespect intended to you personally, but I hate to see the word "truther" used in this or other forums. It is one of those emotive and pejorative words I would like to see banned, in fact.

Truth is something to be admired, not tarnished as a handle applied to those who have no rigour, discipline or probity -- or otherwise follow a hidden agenda. Such folk fully deserve to be called something, but whatever word chosen, it shouldn't be confused with the truth. Imo.

I can understand where you are coming from, but they do call themselves the 'Truth Movement', and often refer to themselves as Truthers. I find it amusing because many of them seek not the truth but what supports their own beliefs (whatever that may be).

What would an alternative name? 911CTs (911 Conspiracy Theorists)? RO911Es (Rejects Official 911 Explanations)?

Some people might call themselves that, I agree.

I see no problem with 911 CT's because what we are examining is a conspiracy theory, not an established fact.

I say this even though I personally lean towards the Pearl Harbour/government insiders knew and stood down perspective. Rejecting Official Explanation (ROE's) also works for me. Rejecting official explanations is a time honoured citizen activity that goes back thousands of years and would be a required and necessary adjunct to safeguarding democracy -- supposing we lived in a free and democratic society to begin with.

Sadly, we don't...

A quick Google reveals that the word ‘truther’ is commonly used by both sides of the debate to describe people who belong to the 9/11 truth movement.

There is even a truther site http://truther.org/

It is used frequently by Alex Jones’ sites www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/240407truthershooter.htm
www.infowars.net/articles/march2007/160307ODonnell.htm
www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/chretien_ex_canadian_pm_next_truther.htm
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/220307truthersconfront.htm
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/210307policeharass.htm


And other truther sites

www.total911.info/2005/06/911-truthers-confront-nist-at-wtc.html
www.rense.com/general76/trthers.htm

I don’t see a better alternative, “member(s) of the truth movement” is too awkward and I think most would find “911 revisionist” favored by Holocaust ‘skeptic’ Kevin “hang’em” Barrett, offensive.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+...ite%3Amujca.com

Others of course would object to "9/11 CT's" claiming that was pejorative as well.

I think 911CT is workable. I'll start using that.

That's very good of you, Evan.

It is a a useless and ambiguous term, as those who support the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 are also 9ll'CT's but since they are persons in denial or involved in cover-up they may even deny this obvious fact - the official version is one of a conspiracy....only who was involved differs in the two camps. Further, these are all and all meant to be derrogetory to paint those who whould ever see a conspiracy as not-all-there-psychologically. Conspiracy is common in business, in love, in war, in pollitics and in life. Only those who have a vested interest in control of the news and views paint 'conspiracy' as a rare event that never can be kept from general knowledge - both big fat lies.

So how do I address them Peter? There are the 'no-planers', who believe that no aircraft hit the WTC and Pentagon, that it was hologrammes, laser beams, and cruise missiles. There are those who say the aircraft were intercepted in mid-flight, to be replaced by empty aircraft flown by remote control. MIHOP, LIHOP, no-planers, pod people... there are so many variations!

Isn't 911CT fair and reasonable? It does seem to describe their beliefs.

Perhaps the RO911E term is more accurate?

Quite ironic that the person who keeps labeling those who disagree with his views “clown”, “borg”, or some variation of Nazi (brown shirt, kapo, “SS like”, Goebbels worshipper etc) is complaining that “truther” and “911CT” are derogatory. No other member of this forum so consistently insults and personally attacks fellow members.

.

Your best post ever!

From the 'Jan, Steve and Kathy' thread:



I have no idea what you are rambling about. I accurately quoted your positions when you thought the condemnation was from a right-winger and when you found out it was from a “9/11 revisionist” (Barrett’s phraseology). The only people I “impl(ied) things dealing with violence” were Barrett and ‘Jackchit’ who aren’t members and Fetzer who is but isn’t you.

If you understood that I “impl(ied) things dealing with violence” relating to you, you misunderstood.

Well i used to see Democracy Now on Free Speech TV, i think Goodman does a good job of trying to get people involved in listening to independent media and ignoring corporate media. She seems to take a broad-based approach as opposed to the pinpoint focus of 1 particular subject.
There are other things going on the world than "9/11", and if people choose to focus elsewhere does NOT de facto mean "they agree with the party line"

She did 2 programs on 9/11? Really? What are they called Len? Where and when were they broadcast? What are they called 'cause i'd like to see them. And do you mean she aired someone else's program, or that everything in these programs came from her personally? There's a bit of a difference, you do understand that don't you?

YOU are going to bash Churchill and Solomon?? Ha ha ha ha ha ha.


Randy

Since you missed the obvious I’ll explain it to you: the people who keep going on about Goodman towing the party line on 9/11 are truthers. Perhaps you should take Paul to task for calling her a “licensed jester”, a charge I defended her against, or fire off an indignant e-mail to Barrett who said she should be hung. Read the first transcript linked below Goodman seems a bit skeptical of the ‘the Pentagon was hit by a missile’ and CD theories.



Word to the wise before mouthing off like a fool, do minimal research to make sure you know what you’re talking about. Just over 4 years ago there was a debate between David Ray Griffin and Chip Berlet about 9/11 specifically the latter’s book “The New Pearl Harbor” on Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/2004/5/26/the_...harbor_a_debate

On the fifth anniversary of the attacks the title of her show was “9/11 Debate: Loose Change Filmmakers vs. Popular Mechanics Editors of “Debunking 9/11 Myths””

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/9/11/excl...te_loose_change

Those were the 2 shows I was thinking about. They were broadcast years ago and have been widely discussed on “truther” sites, it’s hard to believe someone who claims to be a fan and claims to have looked into 9/11 was unaware of them. You could have found them though minimal effort (you have heard of Google right?). There were a couple of others:

9/11 Responders Speak Out on Government Failure to Address Environmental, Health Impact of World Trade Center Collapse

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/6/21/9_11...rs_speak_out_on

A couple of weeks ago she interviewed Gore Vidal who has been saying he thought ‘9/11 was an inside job’.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/14/lege...re_vidal_on_the

Again if you had bothered to do a rudimentary internet search you would have found them.



If you understood that I was “bashing” any of the leftists I mentioned you really need to improve your reading comprehension. I respect most of them especially Solomon and Chomsky. Churchill however is an unscrupulous ‘sack of $#!t’ who has:

1. Lied about stuff as basic as his ethnic background and used such lies to advance his academic career presumably displacing a candidate who really was a Native American or a better qualified candidate who like him has no American Indian roots.
2. Called the people who worked at the WTC “little Eichmanns” and legitimate terrorist targets as opposed to “innocent” “civilians”
3. Submitted fraudulent research, the U of Colorado president and four university committee with a total of 23 members concluded unanimously he had committed academic misconduct though they disagreed on the appropriate punishment.

There is a good and amply documented Wikipedia page about him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill

A prominent leftist who seems to have nothing but contempt for the “truth movement” is the inimitable Noam Chomsky he thinks it is a bunch of extremely “irrational” “hysterical” “gossip” mongers I imagine Barrett thinks he should be executed as well.

http://www.barrettforcongress.us/chomsky.htm

"Word to the wise before mouthing off like a fool,"
Len, you should stand in front of mirror and say that.


Randy

Tell me that again when you can point to examples of me making repeated unfounded accusations against members of this forum based on my ignorance, inability/unwillingness to verify the facts and/or reading comprehension errors. Speaking of the facts I’ve repeatedly shown you to be factually in eror, funny that you chose to avoid addressing those errors.

Once again the "truthers" are giving Amy Goodman grief, it seems some of them at Pacifica want to silence or at least intimidate her just because she doesn't believe in their theories regarding 9/11. Perhaps not coincidentally they cut funding for her show and changed its airtime.

From The Nation

The Paranoid Style at Pacifica
posted by Eyal Press on 10/22/2009 @ 4:20pm

In his Wall Street Journal column yesterday, Tom Frank paid homage to Richard Hofstadter's famous essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." As Frank noted, Birthers convinced that Barack Obama's birth certificate was forged in a plot to turn the United States into a fascist state are heirs to a long tradition of conspiracy thinking that has periodically flourished on the fringes of the American right.

But the paranoid style has seeped into some institutions on the left as well. For proof, look no further than a recent meeting of the Pacifica radio network's National Board, where a resolution was introduced that requires all programmers to disclose funding sources above $5,000. "The reason I created this motion," Chris Condon, a member of Pacifica's National Governance Committee, explained, "is because there has been a lot of debate about whether or not Amy Goodman has received CIA conduit foundation funding from the Ford Foundation and other places."

Amy Goodman is, of course, the co-host of Democracy Now!, an unabashedly progressive news program that airs on over 800 stations across the country. As anyone who has listened to even five minutes of the program knows, Goodman is about as likely to be on the payroll of the CIA as Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky. She has probably devoted more airtime to dissecting the CIA's transgressions in the past decade than any other member of her profession.

No matter, the Governance Committee at Pacifica passed the resolution, a step taken to discover whether you-know-who has been funneling money to Goodman to cover up "the truth" about 9/11. "We'd like to know what kind of 9/11 coverage the Ford Foundation paid for," said Condon. "The whole issue of 9/11 and Amy Goodman has been ongoing for years and years and years."

The disquieting coverage was apparently just journalism, as when Goodman had the gumption to ask David Ray Griffin, a 9/11 Truther who appeared on her program several years ago, to name some engineers who supported the theory that passenger planes could not have brought down the Twin Towers. (The real cause was explosives set off by the attack's covert plotters, 9/11 Truthers allege.) When Griffin referred vaguely to the notes in his book, Goodman persisted: "Name just one. Name just one structural engineering expert who said it is not feasible that the planes caused the towers to go down." "I'm sorry, I don't have that information at my fingertips," Griffin replied.

The suspicions about Goodman would be laughable were they not coming from board members at an independent radio network with a proud history of promoting progressive dialogue and dissent. Pacifica was founded by conscientious objectors a half-century ago and has stations in some of the largest markets (New York, Los Angeles, Washington) in the country. In the late 1990s, some of the network's supporters fought off what they believed was an attempt by the National Board to standardize programming and soften its edge.

The struggle was successful, but the unintended consequence was to democratize Pacifica in a way that has ended up empowering many cranks. Instead of serving as a vibrant home for incisive programming that challenges the assumptions of mainstream debate, the network has fallen into the hands of sectarians and crackpots whose control over the Governance Committee may be strong but whose hold on reality appears tenuous.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/487369

From Counterpunch



http://www.counterpunch.org/boal10062009.html

From Indybay

A proposed amendment which would have limited the policy to Pacifica's internal paid and unpaid programmers - exempting such syndicated programs as DN! and BBC World News - failed on a 4 to 4 tie vote, with Condon, O'Brien and Wanzala joined by George Reiter, another Aaron ally, in voting against. In further discussion, Condon revealed another goal of his resolution - to reduce funding of Democracy Now! - the network's most popular program - in future contract negotiations. During this discussion, no recognition was made of the fact that the program is, in actual dollars, the network's largest fundraiser. The resolution passed 5 to 4. It's full text is available at http://pacifica.org/documents/pnb091009agenda.htm under "Motion on Funding Disclosure."

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2009/10/230997.php

Truthers constantly complain about suppression of free speech but have few if any qualm about trying to restrict those with contrary views when they can.