Chomsky Joins "Jersey Girls" Petition for 9/11 Documents

[reprehensor]

http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id359.html

Noam Chomsky joins 9/11 “Jersey” widows in calling for release of 9/11 documents

February 14, 2007 -- Noam Chomsky has signed a petition written by the 9/11 “Jersey” widows calling for the release of classified documents relating to the 9/11 attacks. The Muckraker Report has contacted him by e-mail and verified that the individual listed on the petition is indeed Noam Chomsky. Chomsky’s name is #6432:

This appears to be a pretty significant change from Chomsky’s past views on 9/11, where it’s been his opinion that no further investigation into the attacks is necessary, and it’s our view at the Muckraker Report that Chomsky really deserves credit for taking this step. Chomsky has suffered more abuse at the hands of the 9/11 truth movement than probably any other figure on the left – he’s been called everything from a CIA mole, to a lapdog of the Neo-Cons, to an Israeli agent – and the sense I got corresponding with him was that he probably would have signed something like this a long time ago, if it hadn’t been for all the people lobbing insults at him. You know, the “left gatekeeper” accusations, etc.

I’ve talked to Dylan Avery over at Loose Change, and we agree that as a gesture of goodwill towards Chomsky for taking this step it’d be really awesome if people in the 9/11 truth movement could please cool it with the bashing of Chomsky and other figures on the American left. At this point, the Jersey widows need all the friends they can get.

That said, now that Chomsky has agreed to sign the widows’ petition, the Muckraker Report would like to see the following people sign too: Alexander Cockburn and crew at Counterpunch, the editorial staff at the Nation, Michael Moore, Barbara Ehrenreich, Amy Goodman, Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Seymour Hersh, Nicholas Leman at the New Yorker, Christopher Hayes, anyone who writes for the Daily Kos, including Kos himself, and the absolutely divine Camille Paglia...

Continued...
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id359.html

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

I had really lost respect for Noam Chomsky for his general stance on 9/11 anomalies.

Somehow, somewhere down the line, somebody got through to him.

My respect for Chomsky is on the rebound.

You can join the petition too!

Public's Right To Know - Declassification and Release of Documents
http://www.petitiononline.com/july10/petition.html

[JohnyCanuck]

1. 9/11 Widows Keep on Asking the Tough Questions

Here's a previous Muckraker's report about the Jersey widows Chomsky is supporting.

9/11 Widows Keep on Asking the Tough Questions

Note to Reader: The Muckraker Report stands by the Jersey Widows in their fight to learn the truth about 9/11. We encourage you to sign their petition, which you can either do , or at the link at the end of this article. As Lorie Van Auken puts it below, “if we were to get 15,000 names on this petition, we’d take it to Washington.” Due to polls suggesting that nearly half of the country has doubts about the official story of 9/11, however, we at the Muckraker Report expect far more than 15,000 signatures.

February 12, 2007 -- When it comes to 9/11, America right now is divided between two camps, those who trust the official account of the attacks, and those who, well, have questions. It’s occasionally the case that the first camp will publicly denounce the second camp as a bunch of nutcases, and when this happens, it’s usually the rowdier section of Camp Two, the Loose Change, bullhorn-wielding, “death to the New World Order” crowd, that takes the most heat.


What tends to get ignored, however, is the quieter section of Camp Two, and especially a group of widowed mothers from New Jersey and New York who over the last six years have worked harder than just about anyone to protect the country from terrorism. Few people realize that had it not been for the tireless efforts of the “Jersey girls” – Mindy Kleinberg, Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Patty Casazza, and Monica Gabrielle – not only would the 9/11 Commission never have happened, but there most likely never would have been any investigation into what was the worst loss of life on American soil since the Civil War. No inquiry into our failed military defenses, or the collapse of the towers, or just why it was that President Bush sat in that Florida classroom for a full seven minutes after the second plane struck. No scientific reports, no effort to discover what went wrong, no hearings of any kind. No attempt to figure out the details of the whole who, what, where, when and why of the attacks. And again, what few people realize is that today, six years later, the Jersey girls are still fighting the exact same fight they were fighting on September 12, 2001, and for the same reason: to keep you, and me, and everyone we know, safe from terrorism.


SNIP

“It was a pathetic excuse of a report,” says Lorie Van Auken, whose husband Kenneth was killed in WTC I. “Seventy percent of our questions went unanswered. The legislation gave the Commission eighteen months to do the investigation, and even though they had subpoena power from the start, they waited a full ten months to use it and then only reluctantly. Also, anyone who appeared for questioning, from Rudy Guliani to George Tenet, was handled with kid gloves and lauded with accolades. The Commissioners would say, ‘You’re fabulous, you did a fantastic job on 9/11,’ and they would run out the clock. We couldn’t understand what the point was in having a hearing if no substantive questions were being asked or answered.”

SNIP

“It’s hard for us to come to any other conclusion than that the 9/11 Commission was a political cover-up from the word go,” says Patty Casazza, who lost her husband John in WTC I. “We were so naïve, we had no idea we were going to run into this kind of fight. We just wanted an investigation into the attacks, for safety reasons. And yet it took President Bush fourteen months to agree to the 9/11 Commission. This was the man I’d voted for in 2000, and all of a sudden he was my biggest adversary. I look back, and I think, well, at least we got them to put down their version of the events on record, so you can see where they weren’t being thorough. It was supposed to be a complete account, but it was anything but. If my husband had been run over by a car I’d know more.”

http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id358.html

[Kurovski]

2. K&R.

My admiration for the Jersey Girls is here to stay.

It's shameful how the Right wing has behaved as regards them. Case in point: nutty ol' Ms. Coulter.

[robinlynne]

3. signes that one. let's kick it and get some signatures on that thing.

[eridani]

4. His general stance has always been--

--that hashing over stuff like the Kennedy assassination and 9-11 detracts from work exposing real power structures. He says that all the "secret government" hypotheses are just obvious statements about how powerful people and institutions usually behave.

There comes a time when you have to look more deeply at specific cases, though.

[reprehensor]

6. He has shifted a bit.

“Peter Dale Scott succeeds in achieving new insight into the American war in Indochina with his meticulous and fascinating analysis of intelligence conspiracies and the links between the “intelligence community” and corporate power. The logic of the Nixon doctrine leads to a still greater reliance on the devious workings of this system of bureaucratic and private power. The great importance of this book extends well beyond the new understanding it provides with regard to past escapades. Scott exposes an element in the American system of global power that poses an increasing threat to the victims of this system, the American people among them.” – Noam Chomsky, review blurb from Peter Dale Scott’s The War Conspiracy, 1972.

Where once he acknowledged the value of examining specific cases, he practically erected a wall separating 9/11 skepticism from polite discourse. To the consternation (me included) of many.

[JackRiddler]

10. This is like saying I'm for macro but not micro

The real structures of a system of power concentrated in a very small class of owners, corporate captains and warlords happen to be obvious from afar, as abstractions to the sociologist, and quite obscure in the details to the historian. An institution is composed of people, and they can collude and conspire. Besides, we don't have a "secret government," we have a vast complex of secret institutions that are allowed to act outside the law and the constitution, and that naturally spawn conspiracies.

When it suits Chomsky, he gets into specifics and talks about events, like the Pinochet coup or the covert war in Central America. I think the whole Z-mag left's emphasis on the terminology of "structural" or "institutional" analysis was adopted on the go, as a reaction to not wanting to stake one's credibility on a view of the JFK assassination or 9/11. Even though your view of these events can force a change in how you view everything else!

Chomsky would never make a statement like, "since Leader X is just another member of the ruling class, the American-backed coup against him is irrelevant." He would never say such a thing about Aristide, or even a genuine dictator. Only in JFK's case does he speak that way -- and again, it's to avoid being associated with "conspiracy theorists." (I can relate, given much of the idiocy that circulates among them.) (Whoever wrote this article, by the way, is not doing the cause of 9/11 research or truth activism any favors by letting Dylan Avery stand in as the "movement spokesperson.")

Anyway, I welcome Chomsky's finally coming around by an eighth of an inch.

I was in a brief correspondance with him, the very week of 9/11. He called an inside job scenario "plausible, but highly unlikely." After that, I think he got increasingly pissed off at the attacks and reluctant. He is not the only one to blame; so are the all-or-nothing demands of many a 9/11 truth activist, and the perfectly idiotic ease with which they cry CIA/Gatekeeper/COINTELPRO/infiltrator at everyone on the left who doesn't "see" 9/11. The mistake is to impute motives in the absence of evidence (or to use secondary associations as "evidence"), instead of sticking to the arguments.

Later.

[eridani]

25. Chomsky accurately perceived JFK--

--as an ardent cold warrior completely committed to the postwar US imperial project. I think what he is rejecting is the notion that everything would have been very different if JFK hadn't been assassinated. He did run on the totally fake "missile gap" platform, after all.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Noam_Chomsky

While his critics accuse him of conspiracy theory, Chomsky states that his arguments are "institutional analysis." "If I point out that General Motors tries to maximise profits and market share, that's not a conspiracy theory, it's an institutional analysis."

I think there is quite a bit of disinformation put out to discredit 9/11 questioners, and some of the impossibly detailed MIHOP theories are way out of line. Why aren't people paying more attention to skeptics like Dr. Bob Bowman (an actual rocket scientist in real life), who says that the real truth of 9/11 is that we don't know what really happened on 9/11? I'd classify him as LIHOP--he thinks that Cheney knew the date of the attack in advance and deliberately ordered training exercises approximating the real thing to confuse our defenses, but he freely admits that he doesn't have the evidence to prove it. That, of course, is why he wants an actual investigation.

[bananarepublican]

28. JFK was going to withdraw forces from Vietnam, and de-escalate the 'Cold War'!!!

He was also going to trash the Fed. To me it looks like Wall-Street-military-industrial-big-oil-right-wing-freakouts had their day of days on November 22, 1963.

[eridani]

30. The withdrawal from Vietnam was hypothetical

Plenty of people argue that he would have escaleted.

[reprehensor]

34. Not according to Robert McNamara.

Exit Strategy
In 1963, JFK ordered a complete withdrawal from Vietnam

"A pivotal period of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, punctuated by three important events: the overthrow and assassination of South Vietnam’s president Ngo Dinh Diem; President Kennedy’s decision on October 2 to begin the withdrawal of U.S. forces; and his assassination fifty days later." (Emphasis added.)

http://bostonreview.net/BR28.5/galbraith.html">James K. Galbraith's review of McNamara's book

It looks like McNamara was tired of the obfuscation of Kennedy's intent, which he seems to have been a part of in the 60s;

The Kennedy Assassination and the Vietnam War (1971) - (revised in 1976)

"With respect to events in November 1963, the bias and deception of the original Pentagon documents are considerably reinforced in the Pentagon studies commissioned by Robert McNamara. Nowhere is this deception more apparent than in the careful editing and censorship of the Report of a Honolulu Conference on November 20, 1963, and of National Security Action Memorandum 273, which was approved four days later. Study after study is carefully edited so as to create a false illusion of continuity between the last two days of President Kennedy’s presidency and the first two days of President Johnson’s. The narrow division of the studies into topics, as well as periods, allows some studies to focus on the “optimism” which led to plans for withdrawal on November 20 and 24, 1963; and others on the “deterioration” and “gravity” which at the same meetings led to plans for carrying the war north. These incompatible pictures of continuous “optimism” or “deterioration” are supported generally by selective censorship, and occasionally by downright misrepresentation.

…National Security Action Memorandum 273, approved 26 November 1963. The immediate cause for NSAM 273 was the assassination of President Kennedy four days earlier; newly-installed President Johnson needed to reaffirm or modify the policy lines pursued by his predecessor. President Johnson quickly chose to reaffirm the Kennedy policies…

Emphasis should be placed, the document stated, on the Mekong Delta area, but not only in military terms. Political, economic, social, educational, and informational activities must also be pushed: “We should seek to turn the tide not only of battle but of belief…” Military operations should be initiated, under close political control, up to within fifty kilometers inside of Laos. U.S. assistance programs should be maintained at levels at least equal to those under the Diem government so that the new GVN would not be tempted to regard the U.S. as seeking to disengage.

The same document also revalidated the planned phased withdrawal of U.S. forces announced publicly in broad terms by President Kennedy shortly before his death: “The objective of the United States with respect to withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remains as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963.”

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

On the other hand, Gore Vidal has stated publicly that he does not believe this to be true. We all make mistakes.

[JackRiddler]

42. It doesn't matter what JFK wanted, Chomsky's excuse is still wrong

The debate over whether JFK would have withdrawn from Vietnam or ended the Cold War is ultimately hypothetical. I think the evidence is clear on the former, and a policy change was underway. I think JFK was under the illusion he was actually the president, and that he was ready to challenge the covert policy apparatus generally (starting with the CIA/Pentagon matrix described by Prouty).

But who is to say that a living JFK wouldn't have been pressured to stay in Vietnam, and escalate? After all, it was his guys who pushed Johnson into it. We aren't privy to what was going on in his head.

In the 1960 election JFK ran on claims of a non-existent missile gap -- posturing like he's more of a military hawk than Nixon! Up until 1963, you can make the case that JFK had indeed acted like the macho cold warrior type Chomsky decries, launching a more interventionist policy in Latin America, playing at brinkmanship with the Soviets. (His conduct during the Bay of Pigs and the October missile crisis is variably interpretable, but I think in both cases he was the moderating factor against the mad-dog approach.)

And none of that matters. Chomsky's critique of Camelot may apply, but his implication that it doesn't matter who killed JFK is pure, opportunistic butkus. It absolves Chomsky of having an opinion on a topic where he might pick a premise (lone gunman or conspiracy?) that is factually wrong. Everyone with a political interest faces this choice of what to believe with regard to Nov. 22nd, and our answer affects how we view all American history since then.

What matters is obvious to a child: Was there a coup d'etat in 1963?

Does it matter when the president is removed from office by a secret coup d'etat? Obviously it does! All the more so if it's secret. Even if LBJ changed nothing in the policy. Even if it were merely the case that JFK was killed simply because certain elements of the establishment hated his guts. (The latter is obvious, beyond any policy debates: many right-wingers went crazy at the mere thought of him as an Eastern intellectual libertine commie sympathizer. This was no more rational than the later view of Clinton as some kind of radical.)

If you don't buy Oswald and the magic bullet and the purely-coincidental Ruby, you therefore accept a conspiracy. The logic leads you invariably to some form of coup d'etat (since a cover-up was possible only with assent by the key players in the government, including the security services and Hoover). A coup d'etat, especially a successful one that was kept secret or out of the history books, means the pretense of constitutional government and democracy was ended on that day. From that time, the coup d'etat plotters and their successors were in charge.

And history is suddenly hidden, even to the most brilliant of leftist intellectuals. That's something they can't stand. (I believe the preference for a formal "structuralism" lies largely in how it makes everything knowable on an abstract plane; you may not like the system, but at least you know how it works and why things happen.)

Again, if the US overthrows an inconvenient dictator and replaces him with another dictator, Chomsky would never say it didn't matter because they're both dictators. He would understand that the important question was that of who holds power, who makes the decisions.

[rman]

36. Chomsky doesn't really perceive JFK as such -

not as an individual, but merely as a symbol of the JFK admin and its policies. After all Chomsky does "institutional analysis", not analysis of factions or individuals within an institution.
Such analysis have value, but are limited in scope since it does in effect discards the influence of individuals and factions within an institution.

I.e. the same "JFK" that went ahead with the Bay of Pigs invasion also fired some of the people who came up with that plan and related plans (see "Northwoods").

JFK was a cold warrior only in so far that there were many influential cold warriors in his administration. That doesn't mean JFK agreed with their ideas.

[JackRiddler]

44. I don't believe that either (re: Chomsky's view of JFK)

I think Chomsky betrays a clear personal animosity to JFK, in the tone of his speeches and writing on this subject. He may disguise it behind an institutional analysis, but he dislikes the man.

[rman]

47. I don't think it's personal

Of all the people with in positions of power in US history there are many far more likely to be hated by Chomsky - if he'd want to hate anyone.
I don't think there's a big difference in way Chomsky talks and writes about any of them, or US foreign policy.

[JackRiddler]

49. Yes but...

All those Republicans whom Chomsky criticizes are not icons to any of the leftiststs to whom Chomsky generally speaks. It's JFK who is styled into a lost savior (mostly an illusion: I would agree with most of what Chomsky says in his critique of "Camelot"). Anyway, this is on the level of a Rohrschach test and I won't insist on it. I simply hear personal animosity in Chomsky's tone re: JFK compared to his approach to other elite figures.

[Mr Rabble]

15. Understandable really.

Chomsky makes the point that 9/11 "type" events are a regular occurrence. The difference in this case, obviously, is that it happened to us this time.

While I agree with him on the order of importance in seeking truth, I think that the population of the US is just too far gone to really understand what he is saying.

Finding out the truth about 9/11 on the other hand could be just the thing to wake everyone up, so that we may then be able to start a dialog about the structure which allowed this to happen in the first place.

[nolabels]

26. You state "allowed this to happen"?

//======= How about "made this happen"?

I am just a working stiff, but a working stiff that has cut and welded enough steel to know that it's not possible for a naturally aspirated petroleum fire to degrade steel enough make it collapse on its self. Look at that that steel beam in this picture, that is a cut with some type of cutting specific type device and not no melt job.


http://www.thepowerhour.com/news2/thermite_wtc.htm
(click this link, more there if you need)

[Mr Rabble]

39. Did you just totally miss the context of what I said,

or are you trying to start an argument? I said:

"so that we may then be able to start a dialog about the structure which allowed this to happen in the first place."

The structure, in this case, being the power structure in the US which allows the government to commit acts of terrorism. And the same structure which allows these things to go largely unnoticed and unreported.

[nolabels]

41. No, really didn't want to start argument

And thank you for the reply. Maybe i was reading the words out of context or assuming. I don't really know who has kept or would of been able to keep up with all the secret and strange happenings that were involved on 9/11. I like to look at evidence of what happened to try and determine cause and effect.

Being a Truck mechanic in my professional trade i am often trying to determine why things are wearing or have broken after the fact. The physical evidence will almost always tell you what happened if you spend the time and have enough of all of it. Also when a mechanic is working on fleet trucks they get to know the good drivers from the abusers. You can often notice the abuser will come in right away with to offer up a scenario of how something broke that don't jive with the way things are broken. To me, 9/11 is the same thing on just a larger scale.

I was only mostly questioning the word "allowed". That would seem to indicate a kind of amorphous tone to all the players on the scene. That is still the only part that seems a little confusing to me, the elaborate and brain twisting coincidental. The simpletons, the politicians working the White house probably would be out of pay grade planning such a thing that happened on 9/11. There seem to be too many layers, and too much planning for just them and few operatives. I am ambivalent to what really happened but am sure the real story has not quite been uncovered yet.

We have a government out of control that spends billions and billions unchecked. With that just about anything is possible.

[Mr Rabble]

51. This is very telling-

"We have a government out of control that spends billions and billions unchecked. With that just about anything is possible."

Your assertion here is entirely correct. However, this is a systemic problem, which goes far beyond the Bush Crime Family. Of course the OCT is rubbish. But the system allows the OCT to be repeated endlessly, without any opposing view.

That is the real problem.

What I am suggesting is that while excessive outside tire wear is a result of excessive positive camber, or possibly toe-in, it does not matter.
We should be transporting most freight by rail, period. This would surely eliminate a significant amount of issues relating to maintaining roads and the trucks which damage them, while also reducing our oil consumption.

Does that analogy make sense?

Chomsky is simply pointing out that 9/11 was a symptom, not the problem. He chooses to focus on the problem, and the cure.

I will be honest here in saying that a few hours spent on youtube watching some Chomsky talks will really blow your hair back.
You will know the truth when you hear it.

[nolabels]

59. I have listened to him for quite a few hours here and there on the radio

Also read major parts of a couple of his books(i am not big on book reading). I just disagree on the fact that this just part of the disease (or at least was at the time). It was something beyond that and maybe not even totally part of anything to be exact. It's like the parable of when the three blind men check out the elephant to describe what it is. We either are too close or the things being hidden have been well concealed. The more it is laid open the stranger it looks (unless there are bunch devious sadistic psychopaths in charge and running the show somewhere in secret) The evidence don't stack up to what has been told and yet others refuse to question that, that is just crazy

The reason i would be skeptical of a person like Chomsky is he also has one foot wading in an establishment that feeds him and treats him well for his intellect (not bitting the hand that feeds him too much). Thanks again for the reply and i will try to check a little more out a little better next time too. Got to go to work now :hi:

[reprehensor]

5. Edit!

The above article has been edited, and now appears as below;

http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id359.html

"February 14, 2007 -- Noam Chomsky has signed a petition written by the 9/11 “Jersey” widows calling for the release of classified documents relating to the 9/11 attacks. The Muckraker Report has contacted him by e-mail and verified that the individual listed on the petition is indeed Noam Chomsky. Chomsky’s name is #6432:

That said, now that Chomsky has agreed to sign the widows’ petition, the Muckraker Report would like to see the following people sign too: Alexander Cockburn and crew at Counterpunch, the editorial staff at the Nation, Michael Moore, Barbara Ehrenreich, Amy Goodman, Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Seymour Hersh, Nicholas Leman at the New Yorker, Christopher Hayes, anyone who writes for the Daily Kos, including Kos himself, and the absolutely divine Camille Paglia.

Like I said in my article from a few days ago, 9/11 Widows Keep on Asking the Tough Questions, the Jersey widows say that once they have 15,000 signatures on their petition, they’re going to head back to Capitol Hill. Right now they have 6,600 signatures, 1023 of them in the last 60 hours. Please e-mail the link of the petition to all your friends. Ask them to sign and forward the petition to their e-mail contacts. The Jersey widows have to get 8,400 more signatures. They need your help. Come on - give them a hand!"

[JackRiddler]

45. A fine edit...

Not that edits make a difference on the Internet in the era of cut and paste!

The new version sticks to the point, and leaves out the extranea of what this or that putative 9/11 activist thinks of Chomsky.

It's also important not to overemphasize: all he did was sign a petition calling for a document release. This is consistent with all of his free-speech, open government stances (including signing a petition defending the academic rights of Faurisson, a French holocaust denier).

It doesn't say anything about his views on 9/11!

[wildbilln864]

7. Thanks for the heads up rep!

Kicked and recommended!
:hi:

[wildbilln864]

8. I hope everyone here signs this for these ladies!

They deserve the truth not stonewalls! America deserves the truth!

[JohnyCanuck]

9. America deserves the truth!

Looks like Shrub and his neocon handlers are of the opinion that Americans can't handle the truth, hence the stonewalling, spinning and fancy footwork to avoid having to answer the Jersy Girls' questions. Now that makes me wonder, just how bad is the truth if they don't want Americans to learn what it is.

[wildbilln864]

11. Oh it's bad, it's really bad!

Bush senior said that if Americans knew what all they'd really done they'd be drug down the streets or some shit like that.

911!
Iraq!
Illegal spying!
Who knows what else! It's bad I suspect and we must find out how bad!

[autorank]

12. My, my the walls are falling down. Dr. Z let the cat out of the bag;)

K & most clearly R!!!

Help the Jersey Girls and get the DVD linked in this article http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0609/S00147.htm

In fact, here's the direct link to the DVD http://911pft.com/pft/catalog/

They'reamazing!!

Thanks reprehensor!

[petgoat]

29. Here's a trailer to the movie

http://www.911pressfortruth.com/

There are upcoming showings in Phoenix, Tucson, Chicago, Louisville, and Minneapolis

http://pressfortruth.bravenewtheaters.com/

You can see it on line if you google it.

This movie is bulletproof--all based on mainstream research




200 of the widows' 300 questions were ignored by the 9/11 Commission.

Sign the Petition of Solidarity here:

http://www.justicefor911.org/

[autorank]

33. Thanks for this. It is quite something. Very moved when I saw it! n/t

[petgoat]

66. Thanks, autorank.

Consider this speculation:

They had to steal the 2000 election to do 9/11. They knew that if they
waited until 9/2005, the internet and cell-phone cameras would make getting
away with the plot impossible.

They had to steal 2004 to prevent an investigation.

[FourScore]

13. K&R

For the Jersey Girls!

[Emit]

14. kick n/t

[Manifestor_of_Light]

16. They completely ignored the Hart/Rudman report on airline safety

I believe it was released in January of 2001, and dealt with multitudinous flaws in airline security.

NONE of it was implemented, of course, because it cost too much.

[wildbilln864]

17. bada...

bump!

[Selatius]

18. Oops, the 9/11 petition is now bullshit because of Chomsky

We don't need no fucking socialist or anarchist staining anything of worth, do we?

:sarcasm:

[dorkulon]

24. Why does he hate America?

Actually, he answered that question here:

http://buffalobeast.com/113/Noam2.htm

Why do you hate America?

I realize that the question is not intended seriously. However, there is a serious point lurking behind it. A crucial totalitarian principle is that the state is identified with the people, the culture, the society. For those who adopt that principle, criticism of the state is hatred of the country. In the old Soviet Union, for example, dissidents were condemned as “anti-Soviet” or “haters of Russia,” because they condemned policies of the Holy State. We, however, rightly regarded them as the people most dedicated to the welfare of the Russian people. The concept has biblical origins. King Ahab, the epitome of evil in the Bible, condemned the Prophet Elijah as a hater of Israel because he denounced the crimes of the evil king, who, like all totalitarians, identified state power—himself—with the society and people. Where there is a democratic culture, such a notion would be ridiculed. In Italy, for example, if someone were to publish a book called “the Anti-Italians,” denouncing people who dare to criticize government policy, people would collapse with ridicule. It is rather striking that in the US, such a book (of course full of outlandish lies) is reviewed seriously and treated with respect. The US is alone, to my knowledge, outside of totalitarian states, in that concepts like “hate America” or “anti-American” are adopted in the style of King Ahab and his totalitarian successors. That should trouble us.

[reprehensor]

37. Actually, we do.

But in my opinion, there should be some acknowledgment that paradigms on the Left that shut out "elite agency" themselves draw this harsh criticism about conspiracy denial.

The Left has written critically about 9/11 in very pointed terms, but the writing is not well-known.

To my knowledge, the best collection of serious writing on 9/11 from the Left is Elsevier's The Hidden History of 9-11-2001. It's from a publishing house that makes textbooks and publishes scientific papers, so the cost is abnormally high.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka/volume23.htm

[JackRiddler]

46. Well said ("shut out elite agency") n/t

[bananarepublican]

65. Which ever way you cut IT 911 was a conspiracy!

The official version seeks to prove an Al Queada centric conspiracy.

When you look at the 911 Commission 'findings' we are all asked to believe in 'coincidence theories'. The Pentagon was successfully attacked because there just happened to be a military exercise (Northern Vigilence or some such similar name) requiring most air force interception assets to be postured against a hypothetical attack from Russia. There are many more 'coincidences' which when you take a close look at them closely strongly suggests that the 'terrorists' had effectively won the lottery.

The MSM loves to denigrate all those who think the official version is crap as conspiracy nuts. THE FACT IS THAT ANYONE WHO HAS A BELIEF IN HOW 911 WENT DOWN IS A BELIEVER IN CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!

[lala_rawraw]

19. woot...

now buy the film!

[upi402]

20. a wise man can change his mind at the expense of his ego upon new information

good to read that

[rman]

32. yes, still it bothers me

that at first Chomsky argued "if you look at the evidence..." - while it was clear from the beginning than a lot of evidence was being kept secret, and while Chomsky has never published any research on 9/11 - in fact i'm pretty sure he has not researched it. And yet he claimed there's nothing suspicious about it.

[wildbilln864]

21. halfway to the needed 15000, please....

please sign the petition and pass the link along for others to sign.
:hi:

[burrowowl]

22. K&R

Signed petition.

[Laurier]

23. So, after calling him a "left gatekeeper" for years, you're

okay with embracing him wholeheartedly and saying "oops, sorry" now that you think that maybe he can be of assistance to the tinhat conspiracy fantasist movement. Got it.

Do you really think that he gives a toss about the fact that you "really lost respect for him" because he refuses to buy into your conspiracy fantasies? Do you really think that Noam Chomsky needs a "gesture of goodwill" from you or the lunatic conspiracy fantasists at "loose change"?

Think again.

edit to fix grammar and syntax.

[Usrename]

27. Do you think people are ready for faith-based law enforcement?

I think I can understand why someone would advocate for a faith-based justice system, where justice is done without any of the old fashioned methods, but how can you be sure justice has been done (I guess my lack of faith is showing)?

Of course it would be much more efficient to avoid criminal investigations and trials and such to determine who the criminals are, but how does that all work exactly?

But just what is the mechanism that is used to replace the old-fashioned, tried and true methods?

Any instruction you could provide on how the new faith-based justice system works would be appreciated.

[reprehensor]

35. Jeez.

"okay with embracing him wholeheartedly and saying "oops, sorry" now that you think that maybe he can be of assistance to the tinhat conspiracy fantasist movement. Got it."

No, not wholeheartedly, and wrong again about the sorry part. "tinhat conspiracy fantasist movement" ad hominem, anyone? Wrong about the "years" part. I've only looked critically at Chomsky's conspiracy stance for a few months.

Here's what I've said specifically about Chomsky;

"The most controversial chapter in Zwicker’s book is clearly the chapter titled “The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left”. It will be most uncomfortable reading for those like me, who have placed Chomsky on a pedestal.

Chomsky’s interviews on David Barsamian’s Alternative Radio played a formative role in my understanding of media and the ways that America’s elite get things done, within or outside of the confines of Lawful conduct.

Zwicker present us with a question asked of Chomsky after a public meeting, “Would you consider your media analysis as a ‘conspiracy theory’ at all?”

Chomsky replied, “It’s precisely the opposite of conspiracy theory, actually … ‘conspiracy theory’ has become the intellectual equivalent of a four-letter word: it’s something people say when they don’t want you to think about what’s really going on.”

Later, on a different occasion, in a different context (in a conversation with Zwicker) Chomsky had this to say about evidence suggestive of government involvement in 9/11, “Look, this is just conspiracy theory.” (TOD pp. 179-180)

This dismissive stance toward the subject of 9/11 skepticism is standard issue from Chomsky. Ask a 9/11 activist who has corresponded with Chomsky about 9/11 and the answer is ultimately the same, with some derivation, “There’s nothing to see here, move along.”

Do you really think that he gives a toss about the fact that you "really lost respect for him" because he refuses to buy into your conspiracy fantasies?

This post isn't for him. "conspiracy fantasies" - another cheap shot. How about some Conspiracy Facts?

a) Oswald worked for the CIA and other Federal agencies. (Chomsky still hasn't budged on JFK, but hey, paradigms shift.)

b) MLK's assassination involved a greater conspiracy than just one Lone Gunman, proven in court by lawyer William Pepper;

THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes…

Funny thing is, Chomsky has always had a soft spot for this conspiracy. It was just too "in your face" for him to deny, but he never called for any sort of investigation. Another decapitation of the Left, ho hum.

c) Upthread I noted that Chomsky used to acknowledge "conspiracies" in a very de rigeur mode;

“Peter Dale Scott succeeds in achieving new insight into the American war in Indochina with his meticulous and fascinating analysis of intelligence conspiracies and the links between the “intelligence community” and corporate power. The logic of the Nixon doctrine leads to a still greater reliance on the devious workings of this system of bureaucratic and private power. The great importance of this book extends well beyond the new understanding it provides with regard to past escapades. Scott exposes an element in the American system of global power that poses an increasing threat to the victims of this system, the American people among them.” – Noam Chomsky, review blurb from Peter Dale Scott’s The War Conspiracy, 1972.

Nonetheless, after a daisy chain of decapitations, JFK, MLK, RFK, MalcolmX, many, many, Black Panthers and the extensive roll-out of the FBI's COINTELPRO... something changed -- "there's nothing to see here, you can move along". Actually there is PLENTY to see here, and purely studying structures and setting up anarcho-syndicalist coffee klatches is not going to expose oligarchic networks that work in the dark, nor is it particularly valuable in terms of Deep Politics.

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

"Left resistance to alternative explanations of 9-11 reflects a general antipathy to conspiracy theory even though the official (9/11) story itself relies on a very elaborate web of conspiracy, involving bin Laden and many others. This may explain why the editors of the respected left journal Monthly Review signaled soon after the tragedies in New York and Washington that independent investigation of the actual events was off-limits.

There is little we can say directly about the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, DC – except that these were acts of utter, inhuman violence, indefensible in every sense, taking a deep and lasting human toll.

The left favors structural explanations of political and social events, with capacious categories such as social class, globalization, international relations and so forth brought to bear on social phenomena, including terrorism. Oppositional theory (which takes dialectical approach to social relations) emphasizes along with structural factors, elite agency: the actions of powerful leaders and organizations with more control over critical events that directly affect our own lives than many leftwing analysts are prepared to accept. Moreover, elites operate within a deep political structure … that is an unacknowledged part of the network of political power analyzed by the left.

Commentators on the left, like pundits elsewhere on the political spectrum, are hesitant to go far astray of the limits on accepted discourse regarding controversial questions, especially, as in the case of 9-11, when corporate media and the state heavily police these boundaries. There is a left bias toward explanations of terror as the result of exploitation and revolt of the underprivileged. Finally, the left is averse to conspiracy theories spun by critics of the system, seeing such theories as antithetical to systematic analysis based on larger factors, like class struggle or globalization.

Leftist failure to consider official complicity in the events of September 11 may also arise from a common misapprehension of the historical roots of terror. Most commentators regardless of political stripe regard ‘‘terrorism as a non- or extra-state menace, rather than as state violence.’’ However, this perspective ignores ‘‘the possibility that the excessive violence of the state might itself, in certain instances, constitute a form of terrorist violence’’." - David MacGregor in Elsevier's "The Hidden History of 9-11-2001"

Do you really think that Noam Chomsky needs a "gesture of goodwill" from you or the lunatic conspiracy fantasists at "loose change"?

"lunatic conspiracy fantasists" - are you a psychiatrist, or do you administer free psychiatric evaluations at random, sort of an "armchair psychiatrist"? Just want to know if I need to take this observation under advisement, or if you are just chucking feces again.

Yes, I think the people that have been his harshest critics either need to account for Chomsky's gesture, or accept prima-facie that a little light-bulb went off in Chomsky's head. The same little light that flashed for MLK and flickered for MalcolmX.

AlterNet.org, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Democracy NOW!, LINK TV, all of these acknowledgments of 9/11 skepticism by the Left in one month.

Chomsky is a capstone of sorts.

However, if Chomsky is true to form, he'll issue some sort of caveat about his signing the petition, which is to be expected from someone with such an expansive profile.

[Grateful for Hope]

54. Excellent responses n/t

[Decruiter]

31. Signed and thank you Rep for all your work. n/t

[Twist_U_Up]

38. Nice addition. This will wake up a few folks.

The Zombies that follow the OCT theory and Chomsky are about to be smacked in the face with a bit of stark reality.

911 was an inside job.

[jarnocan]

40. seems to be the crux of the matter.... nt K+R for ACCOUNTABILITY!

[jarnocan]

53. article recommended by Cindy S. concerning OIL/ WAR relates to topic!

just thought in case nayone did not see it. Others have wrote concerning much of this information but it is still a good read and reminder.

BU**SH**'s "WARS ... were conceived and planned in secret long before September 11, 2001 and they were undertaken to control petroleum resources."http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/47489/

[Grateful for Hope]

43. K&R

and, thank you for posting this.

[reprehensor]

48. Digg it.

If you wish;

http://digg.com/politics/Noam_Chomsky_Joins_9_11_Jersey_Widows_in_Calling_for_Release_of_9_11_Docu

[Mnemosyne]

50. Found my signature in the 800's. Everyone sign please!

:kick:

[NotGivingUp]

52. k & r & signed!

[mistertrickster]

55. Chomsky has done more for our causes than DU and the entire left

blogosphere will do in our lifetimes.

The fact that he didn't sign on to the wildest conspiracy theories imaginable post 9-11 doesn't make him the enemy.

Ever heard the expression that 'perfection is the enemy of the good?'

There's a lot of evidence out there that the WTC actually fell down and weren't the result of controlled demolitions. Heated steel is weak steel. Weak steel sags. What appear to be "charges" exploding can also be explained as huge girders sagging and pulling away at their ends, leading to loss of structural integrity, leading to collapse.

There may well be a cover-up of what gov't officials knew prior to 9-11. But a lot of the MIHOP crap is just that: unsubstantiated crap, using a thimbleful of evidence built into a mountain of innuendo.

[eridani]

56. Notice how none of the conspiracy "debunkers" EVER consider LIHOP?

You never hear them take on Dr. Bob Bowman, do you? They just dismiss some of the most obviously whacked MIHOP proposals and denigrate any further questioning.

[mistertrickster]

58. Actually, I was taking pains to include LIHOP. That's why I included

the "what did the administration know before 9-11" in the original posts.

I don't believe LIHOP has been debunked. I don't see a lot of evidence either way. There was certainly a lot of incompetence if one can believe a book (which I read) "The Looming Tower" -- the CIA and the FBI were fighting each other more than the terrorists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/books/review/06filkins.html?ex=1312516800&en=0e30ba3135672953&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[eridani]

62. The 9-11 truth movement activist most associated with LIHOP--

--Dr. Bob Bowman, agrees with the lack of evidence. That's exactly why he wants another investigation.

[Joe Chi Minh]

57. Noam Chomsky has been such a pre-eminent enemy of the far right

for so long, that, as most of you doubtless know, he was once once designated (by the FBI I believe), as Public Enemy Number 1.

Consequently, since Chomsky's profile could scarcely have been higher, and they didn't scruple to assassinate even one of the most popular presidents ever in the whole world, John Kennedy, as well as his brother Robert and Martin Luther King, another world-wide icon, it seems to me that simple prudence would have counselled him that in cases of certain surreal enormities, surreal even for those characters, it would be better for him not to put his head above the parapet at that time.

I (and others) have noticed two or three other totally bizarre positions taken on key issues, other "testamentary" anomalies which icons of the left have adopted, utterly out of character and plain stupid even for an apolitical person. Well, we know it would not fall completely outside of the assassins' m.o., their customary way of acting, to threaten the individuals concerned. Or their families.

So, I don't think it's a good idea to be self-righteous, if you can rant and rail with impunity, not considering that some others might not enjoy that luxury.

If Chomsky's life had been curtailed in some subtle manner - this would not have been a case where they wanted to send out a message to others - he would have added to a public witness which frankly didn't need any high-profile spokesman's imprimatur, the cumulative evidence, even prima facie, being so circumstantially compelling.

On the other hand, there might have been significant work for truth which he alone would have been pre-eminently equipped to carry out, but he would not have able to.

Them's my views on the matter, for what they're worth, anyway.

[twylatharp]

60. There is no way anything truly incriminating will be released

This reminds me of when that conservative group requested the release of the footage at the Pentagon. Then they announce "this settles it, now will those conspiracy theorists please shut up?" although nothing was shown. And "Daily Kos"?, please......
Of course they are going to say release the documents, what possible reason would there be not to?

[Octafish]

61. Jersey Girls are the best.

They've stood up to the Monster.

Glad to seen Dr. Chomsky join them.

Would like to see Alexander Cockburn and crew at Counterpunch, the editorial staff at the Nation, Michael Moore, Barbara Ehrenreich, Amy Goodman, Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Seymour Hersh, Nicholas Leman at the New Yorker, Christopher Hayes, anyone who writes for the Daily Kos, including Kos himself, and the absolutely divine Camille Paglia and everybody at WaPo, NYT, LAT, Chicago Tribune and ABCNNBCBSFoolsNoiseNutwork do so as well.

Condescenda, on the other hand...

Rice More Sordid Than Foley

by Robert Scheer
Published on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 by Truthdig.com

They are such liars. And no, I am not speaking only of the dissembling GOP House leaders led by Speaker Dennis Hastert who, out of naked political calculation, covered up for one of their own in the sordid teen stalking case of Rep. Mark Foley.

Call me old school, but I am still more concerned with the Republicans molesting Lady Liberty while pretending to be guarding the nation’s security, an assignment which they have totally botched. The news about the Foley coverup, while important as yet another example of extreme hypocrisy on the part of the Republican virtues police, should not be allowed to obscure the latest evidence of administration deceit as to its egregious ineptness in protecting the nation.

On Monday, a State Department spokesman conceded that then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice had indeed been briefed in July 2001 by George Tenet, then-director of the CIA, about the alarming potential for an Al Qaeda attack, as Bob Woodward has reported in his aptly named new book, “State of Denial.”

“I don’t remember a so-called emergency meeting,” Rice had said only hours earlier, apparently still suffering from some sort of post-9/11 amnesia that seemed to afflict her during her forced testimony to the 9/11 Commission. The omission of this meeting from the final commission report is another example of how the Bush administration undermined the bipartisan investigation that the president had tried to prevent. Surely lying under oath in what was arguably the most important official investigation in the nation’s history should be treated more seriously than the evasiveness in the Paula Jones case that got President Bill Clinton impeached. Nor is it just Rice who should be challenged, for Tenet seems to have provided Woodward with details concerning the administration’s indifference to the terrorist threat that he did not share with the 9/11 Commission.

SNIP…

Such weaseling would be funny if the topic were not so serious. But there is no way Rice can squirm out of this one, despite her impressive track record of calculated distortion on everything from Iraq’s nonexistent WMDs to the trumped-up ties between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Can there be any better case for turning over control of at least one branch of Congress to the opposition party so that we might finally have hearings to learn the truth of this matter, which is far more important, and sordid, than the Foley affair?

SOURCE:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1004-33.htm

Thank you for the heads-up, reprehensor.

[leftstreet]

63. Thanks for posting this n/t

[Vidar]

64. Good for Chomsky. Signed.