From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: International | Racial Justice
"At least, we really know where you stand, o Nation Magazine"
by reader
Monday Jul 17th, 2006 11:02 AM
This critique is emotional but excellent, gets at the heart of how many of us feel. The Nation hires fake ex-CIA agents to write reviews to trash those who ask questions that go too deep. It makes you wonder how many other CIA are already on the payroll, and not just doing guest essays.
The American Left and the Middle East: The Case of the Nation Magazine, II.

This was bound to happen. I was just waiting for this. Wake up the children, and free the pigs from the barn. The Nation magazine has spoken. Oh, ya.

The Nation magazine is mouthing off on the Middle East. Let us see. First, they talk about "the spreading of violence in Lebanon and Gaza." Spreading? Is this a disease or a flue? No, o Nation magazine. Israel is bombing and occupying in both cases. Violence is not naturally and blamelessly spreading, ok? And then it talks about Israel's doctrine of "absolute security." Security? As soon as you invoke security in Western discourse on the Middle East, you know that the person is standing solidly behind Israeli bombings, the nation is no exception. Notice that the word security is only exclusively reserved for the Jews, and not for the Arabs, which only underlines the fundamentally racist premise of the Western leftist attitude toward the Arab-Israeli conflict, not to mention the rest in the West.

And then the Nation speaks of "disproportionate" response. Zionist propaganda has infested both words here: "disproportionate" and "response." Who is responding to whom? Arabs claim that they have been responding to Zionist infliction of violence on Arabs which started long before the creation of Israel, and yet Israel is always perceived to be responding, even responding to Arab audacity for living in Palestine for centuries. How dare they, argues the Nation. The second key word here is "disproportionate," which means that the Nation does not disagree with Israel over the principle of aggression and murder, but over the number. So the Nation is saying to Israel that it would not mind if Israel kills scores of Arab civilians, but that it should kill less than a certain number. So 100 Lebanese civilians, instead of 200. Is that it, Nation magazine? How many Arab children do you permit Israel to kill, o editor of the Nation magazine? Please let me know so that we know where we stand with you. The racism of the Nation magazine and its editor then gets revealed more clearly in the following sentence: when the article speaks of "proving counterproductive to Israel's own security". This is the racism of Tikkun magazine that is embedded in many American leftist discourse on the Middle East.

So the criterion and the term of reference is always what is good for Israeli Jews; the rest are a footnote to the narrative. A sideshow, really. So the Nation would really support massive bombings and massacres of Arab civilians IF it is in Israel's interest. This is the crux of the Nation magazine's position.

And notice that the editorial of an ostensibly leftist magazine expresses more concern for the right-wing governments of Lebanon and PA than for the civilians of Lebanon and Palestine. At least we know where the Nation stands: with Dahlan and Hariri Inc. And the paragraph ends with a plea similar to that of Husni Mubarak: that Israeli murders are bad because they radicalize the sand niggers of the regions. And then the Nation sheds a tear or two over the "Cedar Revolution"--and I can't believe that they used that silly propaganda term to describe a demonstration or two that had sectarian, right-wing and racist agenda, and where demonstrators hit and killed Syrian workers on their way to "Cedar" square. Notice that the word "deplorable" first appeared to describe the Hizbullah rockets on Israel.

But I understand. These are the precious and expensive people of Israel, who belong to the superior race. At least, we really know where you stand, o nation magazine. And what a disgusting decline of the Nation magazine when it expresses concern, over the plight "of moderate Arab regimes." This only proves my theory--or one of them anyway--that deep down, the Nation magazine is as racist toward Arabs and as hostile to Muslims as the New Republic. And it also proves that the foreign policy of the Nation is motivated solely and exclusively by concern for Israel. So the Nation is now aligned with the House of Saud and Mubarak, because they are friendly with Israel. But I can't accuse the Nation of heartlessness. In one sentence, it expresses concern for rising oil prices. That is called sympathy and compassion.
by Jessica
Monday Jul 17th, 2006 11:44 AM
Hmmm. Interesting.

If you read the back issues of the Nation published in the period leading to the Iraq war, you will notice something curious: the almost total silence on the coming war and an obsession with Enron. The Nation didn't unambiguously oppose that war until AFTER it had started.

This exemplifies the gutlessness of the left. Bashing dishonest corporate heads takes no courage and is de rigeur on the left. Opposing a war, on the other hand, takes courage. The liberal-left silence was deafening.
by Kris
Monday Jul 17th, 2006 12:24 PM
Why are so many media outlets routinely considered "left"? Obviously, if The Nation didn't oppose the illegal invasion of Iraq before it happened, they are probably not so far to the left. Consider the New York Times. Everyone refers to that publication as "the liberal [left?] media." And yet, they were among the biggest cheerleaders of the invasion/occupation of Iraq. Likewise, the Washington Post.

Please do not confuse leftist/progressive ideals and those who support them with for-profit publications who may be left of center, but certainly not "left."

by Michael A Johnson
(masonsgild [at] Monday Jul 17th, 2006 12:26 PM
I think the previous posters mistake is assuming that The Nation, the Democratic party, etc are 'Liberal Left'.
I am what i would call liberal left, but the Democratic party is Market Liberal right, while the nation is at best centrist.
I think part of the problem is the assumption that the Republicans are conservative. The Republicans are reactionary
State Capitalists.

If the liberal left wants to accomplish something we have to start from scratch, the existing 'liberals' are not liberal.

Michael A Johnson
by Andy Jackson
(ajbanksore [at] Monday Jul 17th, 2006 12:35 PM
Ass-right boys! Spot on. The Nation is a useless rag when it comes to the critical issues. Heads up cuz ol' Operation Mockingbird just shat on yer new hat. May I recommend ya'll spend a moment on the following links: - this is a very important speech that verifies what many people have been complaining about for decades - Wacky Israeli agents celebrating the WTC attack. Their boss bolts the country never to be seen or questioned. Go figure! - Nutjob BBC finds "hijackers" alive and well. Someone rush and tell Dick and Condi. - What the hell is the WTC owner doing saying they "pulled" one of the buildings? doesn't that take weeks of planning? - Relentless spying on US despite our gift of $15 million bucks a day. - Marine Corps General Smedley Butler's classic War is a Racket. A good one for the kiddies to drop on their Social Studies teachers and classes.
by reader
Monday Jul 17th, 2006 12:44 PM
fyi - the hufschmidt and iamthewitness links above are extremely harsh.

Hufschmidt started off doing interesting stuff on 9/11 and then got completely sidelined into how Zionism is the cause of everything. Zionism is cause of a lot of horrors, but not to the extent that he claims. He ignores the role of white supremacists also. And because he's so extreme about it, his 9/11 work is also mostly discredited. It's unfortunate that he bought into and promoted the no-plane-at-the-Pentagon scam - although a lot of us did - but he continues to doggedly promote it, even after its been debunked by many. His early stuff on the WTC collapses was great, and some of his current critiques on groups like Scholars for 911 Truth, the 'bluescreen fakery,' etc. are also great, but even with those he takes them so far to the extreme that you can't really support it because it attacks too hard. Its just sad to see insight get sidelined.
by Chris Floyd
Monday Jul 17th, 2006 1:00 PM
Serpent's Egg: Bush Nurses Nazi Vipers in Iraq
Saturday, 15 July 2006
*This is an expanded version of the column appearing in the July 14 edition of The Moscow Times.*

Over and over, the Bush Regime and its media apologists have peddled the same mendacious line in defense of their war crime in Iraq: "We're fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here." But in fact the brutal occupation is actually breeding a cadre of vicious terrorists intent on bringing death and destruction back home to America's streets, using the deadly skills they've learned – in the U.S. military.

Hundreds, possibly thousands of neo-Nazis and "white power" extremists have infiltrated U.S. forces in a deliberate strategy to get training in weapons, urban warfare and covert operations, the Pentagon's own investigators report. These homegrown terrorists – avowed enemies of democracy, committed to sparking the same kind of horrific civil war in America that George W. Bush has spawned in Iraq – have wormed their way into some of most elite military units, as well as filling up the ordinary ranks with cretinous "race warriors."

This infestation is being actively abetted by the Bush Regime. Who says? Well, Department of Defense investigator Scott Barfield for one. "Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members," Barfield told the Southern Poverty Law Center, in a report issued last week.

In the last year alone, Barfield identified 320 white power extremists at a single U.S. army base, Fort Lewis in Washington state; only two were discharged. Some were part of just one neo-Nazi cell that has burrowed into five bases spread across the entire country, Barfield said; many of its members have joined the hundreds of known neo-Nazis now schooling themselves in Bush's masterclass in carnage.

The infiltration is part of a concerted strategy by the neo-Nazi movement to use Bush's war for terrorist training – much as their extremist brothers in al Qaeda are doing. In skinhead magazines and innumerable websites, they pass along handy hints and exhortations to their cloaked comrades in the field and potential recruits at home. "Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war," writes Steven Barry, a former Special Forces officer now serving as "military unit coordinator" for the neo-Nazi National Alliance, the New York Times reports.

"[The race war] will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood, until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and 'cleansed,'" writes Barry, as if he were channeling one of the deadly Iraqi militias sponsored by the Bushists in their self-confessed "Salvador Option" – an undercover program named for the right-wing Central American death squads armed and trained by the Reagan-Bush administration in the 1980s, as the New Yorker reports.

"Join only for the training, and to better defend yourself, our people and our culture," says another all-American goosestepper, Army engineer and Iraq war veteran John Fain. "We must have people to open doors from the inside when the time comes."

But it looks like some big-time insiders are already opening those doors. The percentage of "moral waivers" being granted to recruits for past misdeeds – and for previously disqualifying factors such as violent extremism and gang membership – has "more than doubled since 2001," the Chicago Sun-Times reports. Some recruiters are even helping skinheads cover up their tell-tale Nazi tattoos to get them into the military, Barfield says. Meanwhile, officers in the field are routinely failing to report obvious neo-Nazi activity – and those now-uncovered tattoos – when they spot them.

It's a far cry from the crackdown on extremism in the last decade, after the great white-power infestation of the military during the Reagan-Bush years – peaking in the Bush family's first war with Iraq, where domestic terrorists like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh learned their trade. When skinhead troops from the elite 82nd Airborne Division randomly murdered a black couple in 1995 to earn their neo-Nazi "spider web tattoos" for killing non-whites, the Pentagon brass began turfing out hatemongers and banning racist associations; one general even ordered his 19,000 men strip-searched for extremist tattoos, the SPLC reports.

Now the brass help hide those same inky taints of evil, and knowingly send "race warriors" to occupy an Arab land, to storm undefended Iraqi homes. How many "spider webs" have been earned with Bush's blessing as these extremists lord it over the "non-whites" in their power?

The tacit acceptance of neo-Nazis in the military is part of a broader pattern at work in the Bush Imperium: the "mainstreaming" of right-wing extremism in American society, an alarming development well documented by journalist Dave Niewert at Orcinus. White-power advocates once stuck under rocks on the lunatic fringe now appear on network television as respected spokesmen on the "immigration question." High-profile Bush-backers in the mainstream media – Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh and other gasbags – routinely tout "fantasies" of ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, and death for "traitors," i.e., anyone who opposes the hard-right line. Bush himself has openly embraced demented religious extremists like the "Dominionists" whose rabid doctrines of Christian nationalism are scarcely distinguishable from the religious perversions that undergird most neo-Nazi philosophies. He has brought them to the very center of power, in government, the media and in institutions like the Council for National Policy, the right-wing steering group whose regular meetings of White House officials, TV evangelists, corporate honchos, conservative journalists – and Dominionists – help set the party line peddled by those media blowhards.

In its heedless lust for loot and dominion, the Bush Faction will use anyone: neo-Nazis, neoconservatives, theocrats, dictators, death squads, nutballs, gasbags. The blowback from this nest of vipers will poison American life for generations – but of course the Bushists don't care. America is nothing to them but a cash cow and a billy club. Let the stupid rabble worry about war-trained Nazis in the streets; the Bush elite will be safe and cozy in their gated, guarded mansions.

by andy jackson
(ajbanksore@hotmail) Monday Jul 17th, 2006 1:09 PM
Benjamin Freedman, the fromer Zionist insider, IS quite harsh. I agree. Whaccha wanna do? Ignore what he said? You seem to be ripping Smith and Hufschmidt for taking him seriously.

Here's a very relevant quote from the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Thomas H. Moorer:

I’ve never seen a President – I don’t care who he is – stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn’t writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don’t have any idea what goes on - Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (from former Rep. Paul Findley's book, They Dare to Speak Out)

That's kinda harsh, too. Please post your response to Freedman and Moorer. I really don't know how to avoid what they say.

Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty in 1967 if Admiral Moorer, Dean Rusk, Richard Helms, and many others are to be believed. That's harsh, but not as bad as being machine-gunned and napalmed like the men on the Liberty.

As for the Pentagon and whether a plane hit, who knows? I still trust Jamie McEntyre's eyewitness report that "it may look like that to you in the studio, but I can tell you that here on the ground there is NO EVIDENCE that a large airliner hit the building...there's no evidence of the engines, wings, tail section..." Or do you really think we should trust the TV, Condi, and the Boys? How many closed eyes does a coach potato have by the way?

by researcher
Monday Jul 17th, 2006 1:42 PM
I recommend, among others.

The idea that FL 77 didn't hit the Pentagon was first floated in early October 2001 by French author Thierry Meyssan, who never had visited DC and was saying it was a truck bomb, and by US War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was the first person to imply that a "missile" hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Rumsfeld gave an interview to Parade magazine on October 12 where he said a "missile" hit the Pentagon.

You do the math.

Meyssan went on to create the "Hunt the Boeing" website and then published two books "The Horrifying Fraud" (published in English as "9/11 The Big Lie") and Pentagate. These books have been translated into a total of 28 languages, which ensures that they are the dominant version of the claim suggesting complicity or conspiracy that is seen around the world.

Chris Farrell, the Director of Investigations & Research at Judicial Watch, the organization to which the DoD released 2 Pentagon videos, warned in a 2006 interview that his organization "could be the water carriers for a honey pot operation, in which the government attracts overwhelming attention to the Pentagon issue, making it the cornerstone of the 9/11 truth movement, and then blowing it out of the water by releasing clear footage of Flight 77." He stated, "Let's just call it a baited trap, it draws somebody into a situation in which they're compromised."

The Pentagon evidence for Fl 77 having hit is here, among other places:

fyi, a few 9/11 researchers and activists who do not support any 'no-planes' theories:

* Michael Ruppert, From The Wilderness
* Jamey Hecht, From The Wilderness
* Jeff Wells, Rigorous Intuition
* Kris Millegan, author, Fleshing Out Skull and Bones; Trine Day Press (publisher of "Welcome to Terrorland" by Daniel Hopsicker)
* Emanuel Sferios, (9/11 Visibility Project)
* Scott Bingham,
* Sander Hicks, author of "The Big Wedding: 9/11, The Whistleblowers and the Cover-Up"
* Lisa Pease, Real History Archives, co-editor "The Assassinations"
* Joël van der Reijden
* Cheryl Seal, Unknown News
* Jan Hoyer, Digital Style Design, 911 Research
* Jim Hoffman, 911 Research, co-author Waking Up from Our Nightmare, the 9/11/01 Crimes in New York City
* Michael Green, PhD, 911 Research contributor
* Vince Sauve, Northern CA 9/11 Truth Alliance
* G. Edward Griffin
* Brian Salter, Questions Questions
* John Judge, Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA)

by Minerva's Owl
Monday Jul 17th, 2006 2:13 PM
It's perfectly alright for some American "progressives" to criticize U.S. aggression, linking it to the "military/Industrial Complex," war profiteering and what have you. But when it comes to Israel - which behaves exactly like the U.S. in this respect, only on a smaller scale - criticism of it somehow loses its legitimacy in their eyes. In their collective mind, these "progressives" reduce the critique to "anti-semitism," that all-embracing buzz word whose sole purpose is to stifle debate and make it illegitimate on its face.

The "reality" they work to sustain by relentless propaganda - rather than the true reality that Zionist-controlled Israel is a colonialist aggressor in the Middle East - is that little "Democratic" Israel is a basically "good" country, surrounded by a multitude of "vicious" enemies who want to see it utterly destroyed and its people pushed into the sea. Therefore, Israel always has its excuse ready-to-hand to wage its aggression in the region because it is just fighting for its very right to exist.

In a nutshell, what these "progressives" find "reprehensible" with respect to aggressive U.S. foreign policy, is, on the other hand, quite alright and even "necessary" when it comes to Israel's aggression.

For profit media organizations like The Nation and Air America Radio cater to these phony American "progressives."
by repost
Monday Jul 17th, 2006 2:23 PM

The Nation's Washington Editor David Corn

Corn has been the most vocal critic of Ruppert and the 9/11 truth movement. His behavior on 9/11 is consistent with The Nation's attack on Oliver Stone's film JFK, his defense of the CIA in 1996 when Gary Webb published an expose of CIA cocaine dealing in the inner cities, and his criticism in late 2002 that the peace rallies were too leftist.

After spearheading the attacks on Ruppert, Corn was "dispatched" (his term) to Trinidad, an oil exporter to the US, by the US State Department at taxpayer expense to teach journalism. Authentic journalists generally don't get free junkets to influence media in foreign lands.

"Most of our critics, notably David Corn of The Nation and self-anointed media critic Norman Solomon, have gone silent as both our reporting and predictions have been completely validated by events. And both Corn and Solomon have also revealed themselves to be agents of the U.S. State Department run by Colin Powell and career covert operative and criminal Richard Armitage. Last November [2002] in a story published on Alternet Corn wrote, "I had been dispatched to Trinidad by the U.S. State Department to conduct a two-day seminar on investigative reporting for local journalists (your tax dollars at work!)..." And just recently Norman Solomon of the Institute for Public Accuracy traveled with sitting congressman Nick Rahall and others on what CNN described as an official delegation to meet with officials of the Iraqi government."
- This is the lead essay from the Oct. 1, 2002 issue of Mike Ruppert's newsletter From The Wilderness [emphasis added]
by Gregg Hearns
Monday Jul 17th, 2006 2:33 PM
Nation is just another arm of the gov't. Remember the debunking by Polpular Mechanics on 9/11 alternate threories only to have it come to life that it was a Chertoff family member who wrote the article?
The MSM is dying but it will still try to deceive you.
The Main Stream Media has friends in high places that do not allow you to see Lebanese causalties, 9/11 theories, books like "America Deceived" by E.A. Blayre III and anti-war demostrations.
But do not worry they are almost extinct. However, be careful because THEY are coming for the internet.
Last link (before Google Books is presured to drop the book):
by andyjackson
(ajbanksore [at] Monday Jul 17th, 2006 3:02 PM
I agree that the no-plane idea may be a plant to discredit the truth movement at a later date. Doubt anyone flew "the plane" making the wild ass turn and flying a foot of the ground, etc, etc.

As for Rupert, he's on record two days after 9/11 saying that bombs weren't in the WTC. #1, how the hell would he know. #2 the firemen would disagree and folks oughta read
about Louie Cacchioli's experience:

Firefighter Louie Cacchioli was called to testify privately before the 9/11 Commission, but walked out on several members of the committee before they finished, feeling like he was being interrogated and cross-examined rather than simply allowed to tell the truth about what occurred in the north tower on 9/11. "My story was never mentioned in the final report [PDF download] and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room," said Cacchioli. "I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out. ... It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible."
by Kris
Monday Jul 17th, 2006 6:47 PM
OK. Let me be clear.

No progressives/real leftists support Israel's brutal occupation of Palestine, or any of the war crimes Israel has committed.

The Nation is NOT a progressive/leftist publication if it didn't oppose the illegal invasion of Iraq, and isn't opposing the current aggression by Israel.

It is increasingly common to find critics on both sides of an issue blaming the so-called leftists/progressives. Please differentiate between the pseudo-leftists (the ones who talk the talk) from the real ones (the ones who walk the walk).

by he-who-must-not-be-named
Monday Jul 17th, 2006 11:05 PM
The Pentagon Mystery Can Never Be Solved

One of the most controversial topics in the 911 Truth Movement is the question of what hit the Pentagon. That it was an inside job is utterly proven, but what hit the Pentagon is still a hot-button controversy.

One side argues that there is simply no way a 757 could have hit the Pentagon and left so little evidence. Where were the wings and engines? Since the hole in the building was only about twelve feet wide, and the wings apparently did not even scar the building, the wings and engines should be visible on the lawn somewhere. Instead, photos of the Pentagon taken just after show, well, almost nothing. Certainly nothing near 100 tons.

The other side argues that there IS enough evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon, and often suggests that people who believe otherwise may be working for the government to set up the Truth Movement. The logic is that someday the government will reveal footage of the plane crash and thereby discredit the Truth Movement. Also, if a 757 did not hit the Pentagon on 911, the conspiracy is complicated further, now involving more witnesses and the difficult question about what did hit the Pentagon.

As Michael Rivero of says,

"Right now, government shills are working hard to trick web sites into running the claim that a passenger jet did not really hit the Pentagon.

"This is an old intelligence trick called "Poisoning the well", the intentional promotion of lies to blend with an embarrassing truth to discredit it. The government shills are trying to conceal real news stories such as the Israeli Spy Ring and its connections to the attacks on the World Trade Towers. So, we get hoax stories poured onto the net by government propagandists, to be used by the media to attack the credibility of anyone who dares doubt the official story.

"At some point in the near future, photographs, or video will be "discovered" clearly showing the impact, and the mainstream media will have a field day ridiculing those "kooky Internet web sites" and their "silly conspiracy theories", all based on a silly theory the government is itself planting on the web."

The problem with this logic, however, is that we are now approaching five years since 911, and even if a 757 did not hit the Pentagon, the government certainly has the ability to create convincing yet fake footage of the Pentagon. Watch any action movie if you doubt this.

So even if video is "discovered" in the future that clearly shows the impact, that has no bearing on whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon, any more than the phony Bin Laden tapes have on the question of whether or not Bin Laden is still alive.

More importantly, though, is the concern that the newly-discovered footage, authentic or not, would enable the government to discredit the Truth Movement.

To put this in context, the government (or secret establishment, Zionists, Illuminati, Globalists, whatever you prefer) has already been able to find scientific shills to explain why the collapses of the Twin Towers were physically sound without demolition charges. The government has already trumped up the fringe belief about "pods on the planes," "no planes," etc. for the purposes of discrediting the Movement. The government has even found people to explain the stand-down, and the seismic data.

So, in light of this massive campaign of disinformation, which the Truth Movement has weathered admirably and in fact grown through, one must wonder how much damage a Pentagon video could actually do.

Certainly the release of such a video would only elicit more people to take a look for themselves, at which they would no doubt be bombarded with the Truth Movement's latest rebuttals to this new information.

Counter-intelligence operations like the 911 Lie Industry typically play both sides: they use informants and propagandists, and they also use agents to spread fear and mistrust that good people are informants or propagandists.

The Pentagon controversy itself has spread more fear and loathing in the Truth Movement than the initial hypotheses about the Pentagon "anomalies" has. Certainly that the government has not released the best Pentagon crash footage (which it obviously has) suggests that it would rather we not know for sure, unless of course the footage it has is incriminating.

In my opinion it is best to drop the hate, and let people debate the issue peacefully without pointing fingers.

I would even forgive people who have done the opposite, because their contributions, regardless of their opinions on the Pentagon crash, are often very good, and the best analysts make mistakes., cited above, is a great source of information, the "Pod People" piece not withstanding.

Aside from Scholars for 911 Truth, few 911 researchers are professionals, and when mistakes are made, well, mistakes happen. Making insinuations about Rumsfeld's slip of the tongue was foolish. But to err is human. To lie is reptilian.

And one should not be quick to condemn someone else as a "propagandist" unless they are able to show some real evidence of it, not just evidence that they're conclusions are incorrect. conducted an informal poll asking people what first led them to investigate 911, and 20% said the Pentagon anomalies were their doorway. That's 20% of the Truth Movement that would have potentially been shut out by a lack of discussion on this evidence.

In conclusion, we may never have a way of knowing for sure what really hit the Pentagon, but it is up to us to decide if fighting over the issue is productive or not. I would definitely say that is isn't, and furthermore, to those who insist that the Pentagon anaomalies are a government-sponsored "Trojan Hoax," you owe me some 90 tons of aluminum.

And for a final perspective, I couldn't say it better than this anonymous author did in 2004. Compare his or her rhetoric to what you find on Pentagon debate pages, and ask yourself who is more on-point:

"In fact, our own evil government would have borne the ultimate responsibility for the disaster even if foreign terrorists actually had carried it out.

"If the homicidal psychopaths of the United States military/government didn’t have the nasty habit of mass-murdering innocent civilian men, women and children around the world, there wouldn’t be anybody who wanted revenge.

"But if foreign terrorists had planned and perpetrated the September 11 attacks they would have to be the best friends the U.S. government ever had. Who benefitted enormously from the carnage of September 11? The American plutocracy, the oil and weapons industries, the criminal Bush regime and its allies in the terrorist state of Israel. They had everything to gain and nothing to lose from this act of barbarism against the American people. And the evidence which has emerged since then makes it absolutely certain that the ruling elites within the U.S. military/government were indeed the ultimate authors of the September 11 attacks."
by Regis
Tuesday Jul 25th, 2006 9:00 AM
I didn't read all of the posts in response to this horrible critique of The Nation, but I noticed some strange patterns among the earlier posts.

Anyone who says The Nation didn't oppose the war until after it happend obviously doesn't read The Nation and never has.

There are a number of articles from 2001, 2002 and 2003 that debunked the claims that Bush was dishing out to the American people, and pleading to Congress and the Senate to do anything they could to keep us out of Iraq.

Furthermore, The Nation had an entire forum dedicated to different ways of getting out of Iraq when many moderate liberals were practicing caution in calling for withdrawal (now practically everyone is calling for withdrawal).

The only person in The Nation who wasn't opposed to the war was Christopher Hitchens (in fact he supported the war). And in case you don't know, Hitchens in gone!!

Open your eyes and it becomes perfectly clear that The Nation has opposed this war since the war pimps started selling it.

We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!


donate now

$ 247.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.


Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network