Chris Hedges, CIA?

[Belligerent Savant]

How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/



You know we armed Iraq. I wondered about that too, you know. During the Persian Gulf war, those intelligence reports would come out: "Iraq: incredible weapons – incredible weapons." "How do you know that?" "Uh, well … we looked at the receipts. But as soon as that check clears, we're goin' in. What time's the bank open? Eight? We're going in at nine. We're going in for God and country and democracy and here's a fetus and he's a Hitler. Whatever you fucking need, let's go. Get motivated behind this, let's go!"
- Bill Hicks

[brekin]

I think one of the things I keep returning to is that while at the NYT Hedges wrote a lot about 9/11 and the War on Terror.
There was the special "A Nation Challenged" post 9/11 section which he contributed regularly to, usually dealing with the international
war on terror.

His pieces are peppered with sources from various Intelligence agencies and some of the pieces definitely support, actually
begin at times, the official narrative that many on this forum find implausible normally regarding 9/11, waging war with Iraq, and the
War on Terror. Link to articles, and article list below.
http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?f ... year2=2012

Other then the previous example of the bogus terrorist/biological Iraq camp which the Bush administration used as lunchmeat
for their yellow cake sandwich to invade Iraq there is the piece at bottom which details the ramblings of Mohamed Atta & Zacarias Moussaoui.

Now those who want to believe Hedges was in the dark then, (maybe he didn't read Jeff's Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11
at the time http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2 ... o-911.html) but is in the light now, why
doesn't he speak to any of this?

If we put Hedges in the way back machine and put him in the 60's he basically would have done the journalistic equivalent job on the Gulf of Tonkin
with Vietnam and toed the party line on the JFK assassination. Would it really matter if in the 70's he was no longer a "tool" and wrote groovy
books that really stuck it to the man? Do these groovy books ever talk about conspiracy at all? Or even the dealings of the C.I.A?
(I do appreciate how he has talked of the U.S.'s previous support of Al Queada) But with his expertise in Bosnia and the Middle East surely he
would be privy to the Intelligence overlap with Al Queda and be able to speak to it.

But what I think is most interesting though is this piece from July 1993 detailing how and why Muslim terrorists (from Egypt) will be targeting
American targets in the wake of the first WTC bombing.

Islamic Group in Egypt Vows Attacks on American Targets
By CHRIS HEDGES,
Published: July 3, 1993
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/03/nyreg ... ged&st=nyt

CAIRO, July 2— The Islamic Group, whose spiritual leader surrendered to Federal authorities in New York, vowed today for the first time to start a concerted terrorist campaign against American targets in Egypt and the United States in retaliation.

"We will hit American targets," a leader of the Islamic Group said in an interview late this evening in the sprawling slum and militant stronghold in Imbaba. "And not just American targets in Egypt, but throughout the Middle East, Europe and the United States."

The group, which is waging a violent campaign to topple the Government of President Hosni Mubarak, has aimed at police, government officials, Coptic Christians, intellectuals and foreign tourists. Militant violence has taken the lives of more than 180 people in the last 18 months and gutted the nation's billion-dollar tourist industry.

But the militants have so far refrained from directing attacks exclusively against American interests, although they have warned foreign companies and expatriate workers to leave the country for their own safety.

Friday sermons, at more than a dozen mosques controlled by radical clerics, thundered the threats in a prepared statement that lambasted the Egyptian Government for being a "puppet" of the Americans and vowed retribution for the detention of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. The statement was read in mosques in Cairo, the suburb of Giza and the southern cities of Beni Suef and Faiyum.

The State Department cautioned American travelers tonight that the detention of Mr. Abdel Rahman "may precipitate strong reactions" among his followers in Egypt and elsewhere in the Islamic world. While it said it had no specific information about potential incidents, it added that Americans overseas, especially those in the Middle East, "should be alert to continuing developments."

The detention of Mr. Abdel Rahman on immigration charges is seen by his followers as part of a concerted Western campaign against Islam. Many see the United States's recent raid on Baghdad and Western countries' failure to protect Muslims in Bosnia as part of the campaign.

To many Egyptian officials, struggling to fend off mounting violence by Islamic militants, the high profile the Clinton Administration and the American press have given to the arrests of bombing suspects in New York only serves to enhance the stature of Egypt's Islamic militant movement and Mr. Abdel Rahman.

Some of Mr. Abdel Rahman's supporters were arrested in both the World Trade Center bombing on Feb. 26 and in an alleged assassination and bombing conspiracy last week.

The local coverage of the recent events has been muted, with most reports from agencies and news organizations based in the United States, rather than in Cairo.

Nevertheless, news of the detention of Mr. Abdel Rahman spread on short-wave radio broadcasts and by word of mouth along the dirt streets in Imbaba, where children in rags and goats picked at piles of rubbish that towered over the two-story mud brick homes. Young men quickly gathered and vented their rage. Hostility to Muslims Charged

"The imprisoning of Dr. Omar Abdel Rahman is an assault against all Muslims," said Mohammed Attiyaa, 29, a shop owner recently released from prison for involvement in the Islamic movement. "He is a scholar, who represents Islam. He is blind, and could not have been involved in these attacks. This shows America's hostility to Muslims."

The leaders and followers of Mr. Abdel Rahman, who listen to the cleric's sermons on smuggled cassettes, singled out the American Embassy in Cairo and American citizens living in Egypt for retribution.

"The Americans have challenged us," said a 27-year-old leader in the group, as he stood on Ahmed Mattar Street, next to a group of veiled women. "We have issued statements warning the Americans never to touch Dr. Omar Abdel Rahman. And now they will see our response."

Walls along the busy street were covered with the slogan "Islam is the Solution." Next to a small mosque the Egyptian Government, which provides few services to these slum dwellers, had erected a pink marble plaque promising to build a hospital on the site.

The militant leaders said they had understood from associates based in the Pakistani border town of Peshawar that American officials would not arrest Mr. Abdel Rahman. 'Do Not Blame Us'

These militants claim that an American diplomat had held a meeting with Mohammed Shawki Islambuli, the head of the Islamic Group in Peshawar, and the current Prime Minister of Afghanistan, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a year ago.

At the meeting, the militants said, the diplomat promised the United States would not detain or harm the Egyptian cleric. The United States has denied making such promises.

The cleric was arrested in 1981 on charges that he sanctioned the assassination of former President Anwar el-Sadat, but he was acquitted. He was also imprisoned for inciting rioting in 1989 and again acquitted, but he is currently being re-tried in absentia. Three days after plans for the re-trial were announced, thousands of copies of a letter from the cleric were distributed in mosques calling for the overthrow of the government.

"Do not blame us for what will happen," said a leading radical cleric. "If American does not respect Islamic scholars, it does not respect Islam. And everyone will fight for Islam, for its dignity and sanctity."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/28/world ... ged&st=nyt

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRAIL; Terror Cells Slip Through Europe's Grasp

On July 28 -- six weeks before Sept. 11 -- in the Dubai airport transit lounge, Mr. Beghal's plan fell apart. With his name on a watch list, he was arrested for a forged visa extension. His lawyer said that he was tossed into a darkened cell, handcuffed to a chair, blindfolded and beaten and that his family was threatened. After some weeks he talked and out poured a wealth of information. Agents in half a dozen countries went to work.

It was a real intelligence break, later recounted in detail by senior French intelligence officials, but it would prove too late to stop the World Trade Center plot. Enough time and work could have led investigators from Mr. Beghal to an address in Hamburg where Mohamed Atta and his cohorts had developed and planned the Sept. 11 attacks. But the hijackers had already slipped into the United States and were within days of carrying out their mission.

In London, Mr. Beghal met another French child of immigrants, Zacarias Moussaoui, according to British intelligence officials and members of two London mosques. While there is no evidence that Mr. Beghal had any direct ties with the September attacks, Mr. Moussaoui had a connection to the Hamburg cell of Mr. Atta.

Now under arrest in the United States, Mr. Moussaoui is believed by investigators to have been selected to be the 20th hijacker.

#
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRAIL; Terror Cells Slip Through Europe's Grasp

...Frenchman, was summoned to the home of a senior aide to Osama bin Laden. The...Pakistan and head for the mosques,'' said a senior French intelligence official...coverage are on the Web: nytimes.com A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRAIL
December 28, 2001 - By STEVEN ERLANGER and CHRIS HEDGES - World - 3951 words

#
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SCHOOL; Defectors Cite Iraqi Training For Terrorism

...those who have hearts of lions. He is a very skilled and brave man, and he is...Sections will be broadcast tonight in a ''Frontline'' documentary about Iraq in association with The Times. A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SCHOOL
November 8, 2001 - By CHRIS HEDGES - World - 1427 words

#
A NATION CHALLENGED: POLICE WORK; The Inner Workings of a Plot to Blow Up the U.S. Embassy in Paris

...are pulled from our midst,'' said a French official in the Interior Ministry...almost impossible to detect. If they get a little more sophistication and training, we could all be in more trouble.'' A NATION CHALLENGED: POLICE WORK
October 28, 2001 - By CHRIS HEDGES - World - 1369 words

#
A NATION CHALLENGED: EUROPE; Belgium Is Hindering Investigation, U.S. Says
October 17, 2001 - By CHRIS HEDGES - World - 680 words

A NATION CHALLENGED: INTELLIGENCE; A Powerful Combatant in France's War on Terror
November 24, 2001 - By CHRIS HEDGES - World - 1359 words

A NATION CHALLENGED: SPAIN; Rendezvous Of Suspects In Hickackings Is Investigated
October 3, 2001 - By CHRIS HEDGES with EMMA DALY - World - 821 words

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SEARCH; A European Dragnet Captures New Clues to bin Laden's Network
October 12, 2001 - By CHRIS HEDGES - World - 1380 words

A NATION CHALLENGED: SHOE-BOMB INVESTIGATION; Faintly Connected Dots Portray a Qaeda Man
January 11, 2002 - By DOUGLAS FRANTZ and CHRIS HEDGES - World - 1444 words

A NATION CHALLENGED: TUNISIA; Explosion At Synagogue Tied to Jihad; Arrest Made
April 24, 2002 - By CHRIS HEDGES - World - 580 words

A NATION CHALLENGED: INTELLIGENCE; New Clue Fails to Explain Iraq Role in Sept. 11 Attack
December 16, 2001 - By CHRIS HEDGES with DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. - World - 1492 words

[Grizzly]

Fuck it, I might as well continue to piss off some of you guys. Though that is not my intent, but I have always been one to eat sacred cow, it's the tastiest cut... I have no idea if these prominent personalities are CIA or not, but I find that the mere question of such being verboten by astute para-political types a bit disturbing.


I ran across the following, while listening to CIA asset Susan Lindauer in that she, Amy, (see below) "refused to interview her" during her detainment. Who knows whats true, but off limit questions will never being anything into the light.




Amy Goodman walks the Dark Side on Libya invasion
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/a ... -invasion/

From: Full spectrum Defiance

Amy Goodman of Democracy NOW! has become one of the most disingenuous news figures this country has to offer and that’s saying a lot because there are numbers of them. She is not worthy of your trust, she is not worthy of your time, she is not worthy of your respect… anymore. Such a sad legacy she now leaves behind after a long and storied career as a dedicated teller of the truth in spite of the power aligned against her.

For whatever reason, she has become just another presstitute in service of the globalists who are at this minute still attacking the people of Libya, still bombing them and their infrastructure, still laying siege to cities and populations who refuse to surrender to NATO powers, and still planning how to dice up the people of Libya’s state assets to hand them over to their favorite corporate contributors.

And Amy Goodman is in their service, lying to her audience on a daily basis.

Yesterday Amy had some “reporter” on who has been traveling around Libya (supposedly) with the “rebels” and various others, so that she could give Amy’s audience a first hand glimpse into what she (and Amy’s website) called the “revitalization” of Libya.

If this “reporter” did actually go to Libya, she was there as an embedded journalist, just like the ones CNN and Fox News sent off to Iraq to tell the “real” story about how the Iraqis were so happy we blew the shit out of their country. Remember the Saddam statue? Remember the Jessica Lynch story? That’s embedded journalism.

So Amy Goodman has this embedded “journalist” on to set the record straight and paint a nice rosy picture of a post Gadhafi Libya. According to her, the people of Libya and Tripoli specifically, are just so damn happy that NATO bombed the shit out of them and killed many innocent civilians in the process, because…

“The mood across Libya, particularly in Tripoli, is absolutely—like there’s just a feeling of euphoria everywhere. People are incredibly relieved to finally be rid of the man who ruled their lives, minute details of their lives, for 42 years.” Democracy NOW!

And don’t worry that the people of Libya are concerned that NATO is coming in to take over their nation and chop it up and sell it off to the lowest bidder because according to Amy’s “journalist”, the people of Libya don’t think that at all. At ALL!

“One more point I want to make, which might be interesting to listeners and viewers in the U.S., is that very few Libyans I met seemed concerned about NATO hijacking their revolution.”Democracy NOW!

See? NATO didn’t hijack their revolution because this journalist met “very few” Libyans who felt that way.

Of course, she was embedded with the “rebels” who were completely supported by NATO, trained by MI6 and British Special Forces, advised by Washington, led by exiled leaders who lived in Washington, funded by NATO, armed by NATO countries, and provided all the massive fire-power they needed to destroy Libya by NATO. But of course, the rebels Amy’s journalist met didn’t think that NATO had plans to take over Libya.

Well that’s good except for…

“Libya’s revolution may still be incomplete, but Western leaders are swooping into Tripoli to celebrate the rebels’ victory and offer support for the new Libya, whose success they see model for other Arab revolutions.

With sharpshooters on Tripoli rooftops, a 5-star hotel sealed by tight security, and fighting continuing less than 100 miles away, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron were today the first heads of state to arrive in the capital and embrace Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC).

The backing of Britain and France, which led NATO’s military charge, was crucial to turning the tide for Libya’s rebels – at first little more than rag-tag militias – and enabling them to oust the Qaddafi regime.” Alaska Dispatch

I would go on and on with this, but to be honest, Amy Goodman and Democracy NOW! aren’t worth anymore of my time or yours.

I don’t know what price it took to buy off Amy Goodman, but whatever it was, I hope Amy enjoys it a lot because she sold out her legacy of legitimacy. Her entire career is now nothing more than a bargaining chip she used to cash in big time. I hope and pray her audience has enough sense to abandon her once and for all for this shameless propaganda piece she aired on her show. The memory of her courage and dedication to the truth is now faded away completely and all that’s left is just the realization that they can get to just about anybody these days.

And Amy? Do yourself a favor. Do us all a favor. Just fucking retire before you help them justify another Shock and Awe in Syria or Lebanon or Iran, ok? We expect that shit from Bill O’Reilly. It’s kinda sad to see you doing it as well. Whatever they’re paying you, whatever they are promising you, it isn’t worth it.

We are watching you sit there looking like a vapid, pathetic shell of your former self, reading this propaganda, setting up these fake “journalists”, and going through the motions and quite frankly all you are doing is proving to them that everyone has their price. Frankly, we are sick of it. So just retire already and sit back and write your memoirs or something. Because if you think that no one has noticed the change in you over the last few years, think again.

Am I an Agent provocateur? Paid contractor? I'd sure put beans on the table. FBI informant? I was interviewed by them once. CIA? Perhaps, but if so, it is without my knowledge or consent. Useful/useless idiot? Maybe. Mental? Quite possible. But who isn't in the mad-house of mirrors we now live in. I know my heart, and this post wasn't done for malice or disruption. I truly wanted to know what you guys thought. And believe that the questions are much much more important that the answers. Hypocrite? Of course.

<STRIKE>Chris Hedges</STRIKE> Amy Goodman, CIA?

[Simulist]

Fuck it, I might as well continue to piss off some of you guys. Though that is not my intent, but I have always been one to eat sacred cow, it's the tastiest cut... I have no idea if these prominent personalities are CIA or not, but I find that the mere question of such being verboten by astute para-political types a bit disturbing.

Hi Grizzly. If I may, I'd like to suggest that you may not be understanding the reason for some of the rancor over this issue. For me, it wasn't the question itself so much as it was that the only reason for asking it (in the OP) appeared to be some particularly silly speculation on still another message board (as if there weren't plenteous helpings of particularly silly speculation here already — some of which, I must admit, I've engaged in myself on more than a few occasions). That, coupled with the fact that the label, "agent," is flung around conspiracy sites like an unwanted booger* as frequently as it is may have prompted much of the response.

Still, when I think of "Grizzly," I have no bad feelings at all; in fact, when I read how it came to be that you posted your question just before going to work, it seemed quite understandable. Something that might easily have happened to any of a number of us, including myself.

Cheers.

_________
* Which of course does beg the question about the wanted ones. Eww...

[Nordic]

What he said. ^^^^

As usual.

[TerryBain]

Here is an alternative possibility to this issue - black bloc is endangering the occupy movement by infiltration. GA's have been infiltrated by RAND corp Delphi techniques. Now, offering a dissenting view will probably cause a kneejerk reaction that I am not one of the "good guys" - please don't jump to any conclusions. Jeff knows I am kind of thin skinned - the author of this article is doing good work. He is a friend, as is Jeff. Just consider what is said here, as a possibility. He is not saying GA is bad, just saying that Delphi may not be a friend of people seeking more, rather than less freedom. Be gentle with me guys - I cry easy.

http://occupyamerica.ning.com/profiles/ ... filtration

[jlaw172364]

With regard to inconsistency, if individuals want to have use of the privately owned, centrally controlled mass media outlets such as television and the newspapers, then they have to keep their mouths shut about certain things, or they will NOT get on the air, OR they will be grievously punished.

For example, Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen, Janine Garafalo all got bitch-slapped down when they started talking about 9/11. Bill Maher lost a show for saying that the alleged hijackers weren't cowards.

So, one possibility is Chris Hedges has to reign himself in, engage in self-censorship, in order to even get on the air to rail against things that are within the bounds of acceptable discourse.

Another example: Upton Sinclair engaged in a great deal of self-censorship regarding The Jungle; I found an uncensored version at the library that was published years later. He had to get rid a lot of politcal rhetoric, and tone down all of horror in the book, remove pieces of it, in order to even get it published. And this was a time period when people were WAY more radical about certain things than they are today.

Another possibility is that like anyone who has any prominence in the centrally controlled, privately owned mass media, Chris Hedges has rubbed elbows with people in the intelligence "community," knowingly and unknowingly, and has mixed feelings about them. Maybe sometimes he collaborates with them, and maybe other times he is at odds with them. Its like the police: you hate them when they write you a ticket or arrest you for protesting, but maybe you'd call them if a burglar broke into your house, and be grateful when they showed up.

Or its possible that he's manipulated in a number of subtle ways through handlers he doesn't even realize are handlers, like friends he has made over the years, who are actually undercover agents, who steer him towards certain projects and ideas, and away from other ones.

The intelligence agencies have so much money, and are so completely amoral, that they are free to play god with people's lives. There is less and less limit to what they can do.

I do know one thing though.

Being accused of something like this without any shred of any real proof aside from circumstantial evidence sucks. And its divisive. Its easy to accuse someone, and all they can do is deny it and then seem more guilty.

[JackRiddler]

brekin you argument above sounds suspiciously like, he, one of thousands of writers, must be an agent if he doesn't call 9/11 an inside job, and she, one of hundreds of people with a show, must be an agent if she doesn't choose to interview the very interesting but also highly unsettling Susan Lindauer.

Whereas this, I'm happy to echo on all points. As possibilities, mind:

With regard to inconsistency, if individuals want to have use of the privately owned, centrally controlled mass media outlets such as television and the newspapers, then they have to keep their mouths shut about certain things, or they will NOT get on the air, OR they will be grievously punished.

For example, Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen, Janine Garafalo all got bitch-slapped down when they started talking about 9/11. Bill Maher lost a show for saying that the alleged hijackers weren't cowards.

So, one possibility is Chris Hedges has to reign himself in, engage in self-censorship, in order to even get on the air to rail against things that are within the bounds of acceptable discourse.

Another example: Upton Sinclair engaged in a great deal of self-censorship regarding The Jungle; I found an uncensored version at the library that was published years later. He had to get rid a lot of politcal rhetoric, and tone down all of horror in the book, remove pieces of it, in order to even get it published. And this was a time period when people were WAY more radical about certain things than they are today.

Another possibility is that like anyone who has any prominence in the centrally controlled, privately owned mass media, Chris Hedges has rubbed elbows with people in the intelligence "community," knowingly and unknowingly, and has mixed feelings about them. Maybe sometimes he collaborates with them, and maybe other times he is at odds with them. Its like the police: you hate them when they write you a ticket or arrest you for protesting, but maybe you'd call them if a burglar broke into your house, and be grateful when they showed up.

Or its possible that he's manipulated in a number of subtle ways through handlers he doesn't even realize are handlers, like friends he has made over the years, who are actually undercover agents, who steer him towards certain projects and ideas, and away from other ones.

The intelligence agencies have so much money, and are so completely amoral, that they are free to play god with people's lives. There is less and less limit to what they can do.

I do know one thing though.

Being accused of something like this without any shred of any real proof aside from circumstantial evidence sucks. And its divisive. Its easy to accuse someone, and all they can do is deny it and then seem more guilty.

Amen.

[Sounder]

No, come on Terry, folk here do not seem to be that mean, do they?

I for one totally agree with Mr. Hedges that the black-block is bad news.

And jlaw your observation is worth noting also. One of my favorite books is called Philosophical Style with Berel Lang as edt. where it's pointed out that in the old days teachers would present exaggerated versions of the 'party line' in hopes that rebellious students would be inspired to challenge the dogma, while still remaining safe from reprisals of dim-witted inquisitors.

The times have not changed as much as people would like to think.

[jlaw172364]

@Sounder

But we can't look at it as a binary thing, where Chris Hedges is right and the so-called Black Bloc is wrong. The military-industrial complex, the police departments, the intelligence agencies, et al. all destroy lives and property on a far grander scale than any Black Bloc, and then they hypocritically whine when somebody dents a squad car. They wear body armor and beat the crap out of unarmed people, but then if one of them gets hurt, they go on the news and play the martyr to cynically manipulate sedentary television viewers into thinking that the demonstrators are dangerous.

Some of the Black Bloc people are legit, as in, they're not police provacateurs. They're fed up with sign-waving and can't think of anything else to do. Or maybe they're trying to make the point that actions are superior to words, because they bring down more of a reaction from the authorities.

To that end, they have a point. The genius of the control system in the West is that you have a wider lassitude in what you can say, whereas in other control systems you get burned at the stake or stoned to death for "blasphemy." In the Western control system, you are pretty much free to do whatever you want . . . so long as you don't try to step on the toes of the wealthy and powerful, especially by trying to change any aspect of the system that makes them rich and powerful. And their strategy has gone from defensive to compromise, to full frontal assault 24-7 since the reforms of the 1930's-1960's.

Additionally, protests used to be called demonstrations, as in demonstrations of force through strength in numbers. Traditionally, when a thousands of people showed up in front of your office, they're doing it to warn you that you're pissing them off, and if you don't stop pissing them off, they may go further, as in run you out of your office, tar and feather you, or worse. It was probably not to say, we're upset, but we definitely will never do anything more than tell you that we're upset because to do otherwise would make as bad as you, therefore you must change your behavior because it is the right thing to do according to us, and not because if you don't, we'll make sure that you experience unpleasant consequences.

The Black Bloc is trying to make people aware of the possibility that they don't just have to wave a sign, that they can act in some way.

From what I've seen of most of their activities, its mostly annoying nuisances, and not especially destructive acts, otherwise they'd be terrorists, and all in jail, and not parading around with cardboard tubes.

[temp-monitor]

brekin you argument above sounds suspiciously like, he, one of thousands of writers, must be an agent if he doesn't call 9/11 an inside job

Brekin raises quite a few more interesting questions than simply that. And you're putting words in his/her mouth -- or, it "sounds suspiciously like" you are. Brekin doesn't call for Hedges to "call 9/11 an inside job".

The fact that Upton Sinclair felt compelled to self-censor 90 years ago, or that public figures do so in contemporary times, only points to a bad paradigm of public discourse. Where is the line of demarcation that constitutes more favorable coverage? If Upton Sinclair would've watered his books down even farther, would he have gotten even better coverage?

The topic of "acceptability of mention of conspiracy in public discourse" is probably close to the heart of all topics on this board. It may be the most important topic to be discussed on this board. Which makes it all the more fascinating to see many people insisting upon (and possibly projecting) an "Occam's Razor" explanation for the very good questions Brekin raised.

And to see people insisting on how dangerous and close to COINTELPRO smear tactics it is to ask questions regarding public figures.

Which raises a point of irony: It's OK to raise the historical spectre of COINTELPRO and its tactics in defense of certain public figures. But to ask those public figures to assert an honest "new" paradigm of public discourse that acknowledges the reality of (for example) Operation Mockingbird up front, as a condition of context to their dissertation ... is asking too much?

Chris Hedges needn't declare 9/11 was an inside job.

But like anyone in public or private life, repentance & redemption from past actions doesn't come cheap. Some acknowledgement on the public record of his participation in the corrupt narrative that was built between 9/11 & the Iraq invasion would be helpful -- not just to a handful of paranoid skeptics, but helpful to himself.

If he wants to claim he was duped, so be it. But are we expected to exempt certain favored public figures from the historical context of The Journalists' role in the sins of the State?

Or, instead, can we create a new paradigm of public discourse that acknowledges the historical reality of conspiracy and covert action in the West?

Or are we, instead, expected to continue to point fingers at Russia, and say "Conspiracy only happens in their press"?

What would we expect of a former Soviet journalist who didn't necessarily work for the State, but then wanted to be a public figure and give commentary?

Would it be "fair" to harbor skepticism toward that former Soviet journalist who didn't necessarily work for the State?

Or is it fair to absolve him, declare that suspicions are "dangerous" and "smears", and express an Occam's Razor explanation for his inconsistencies?

These would be fair skeptical questions to harbor toward a former Soviet journalist, and that journalist should accept up front the circumstances of his historical reality.

Why not also in the U.S.?

It would be a useful paradigm of public discourse for ALL journalists to acknowledge the sins of the State, and the participation of some journalists in covert intelligence programs & psy-ops, as a context for their own further participation in public discourse.

In other words, if Chris Hedges or Amy Goodman or any U.S. journalist is unwilling to accept the stain of Operation Mockingbird as a cross to bear, even if they did not participate in any such covert intelligence psy-op program, then they're asking the public to ignore the White Elephant in the room.

And that's not the only White Elephant that we're all being asked to ignore, in this public discourse paradigm that we're all being asked to accept "for the sake of Upton Sinclair's paradigm of mainstream success".

But where does that other paradigm end? If denial of White Elephants is a pre-requisite for success, then why not all become Larry King?

Why can't the U.S. become a nation where public discourse acknowledges the historical record of U.S. conspiracy and covert action and psy-ops and Deep State?

We point & laugh at the former U.S.S.R.: What a fucked up closed society of surveillance & suspicion they all lived under, and continue to bear the daily PTSD hauntings of.

But not us, we're clean & pure, and besides: Let's just not go there. For the sake of mainstream acceptability.

[JackRiddler]

temp-monitor, this is true:

On even days, I am enraged by the limits set on what you call the "acceptability of mention of conspiracy in public discourse," and I agree pretty much with what you say about all the former Soviet journalists not getting a free pass.

Then again, I'll take a repentant Hedges assaulting the lies of the NYT-Pravda over an unrepentant Bill Keller, won't you? Why doesn't every bozo who still writes for NYT-Pravda get their own thread to abuse them, since they are all so much more likely to have CIA-type connections?

On odd days, I am more enraged by all the bullshit spread by people who falsely think they know (or pretend to know) something about "conspiracy," although they don't bother to educate themselves beyond Alex Jones or Gary Null or Terrence Moonbeam. They contribute mightily to making the deep state and secret power such difficult subjects to approach in public. On those days, the mere use of this trigger word enrages me, since it is itself an epic simplification of the real structures of state and power in this system. To say that there is a "conspiracy" view of power is as much an abuse of the Occam rule as anything the fake skeptics do. The secret institutions and the institutions empowered to operate in secrecy are so much more than that.

Please at least consider that some people don't want to "go there" because they think certain ideas are bullshit, and that they might be right about it.

[brekin]

JackRiddler wrote:

brekin you argument above sounds suspiciously like, he, one of thousands of writers, must be an agent if he doesn't call 9/11 an inside job, and she, one of hundreds of people with a show, must be an agent if she doesn't choose to interview the very interesting but also highly unsettling Susan Lindauer.

JackRiddler I think we all can agree that Hedges is not just one of thousands of writers, just as Chomsky is not just one of a thousand political analysts. Both have proven they have the ability, acumen, access and influence to examine an issue and tap resources and distribute their findings far beyond the average crop of progressive writers. Yes it is a little unfair to hold them to higher standards than the normal 9-5 journalist who more traditionally has their eye towards a placid career, safe pension and probably even self preservation. But as self styled uncompromising iconclasts who have made careers on challenging the power structure and speaking truth to power they invite it. We don't read them because we like how they frame a sentence but because we believe they are uncompromising in their pursuit and dissemination of the truth. I don't find fault with Hedges or Chomsky because they are wrong at times, or don't follow my point of view, but when they appear to be disingenuous or only strategically challenging or surgically speaking truth to power then I think it is only fair to examine where they aren't being truthful, when they could and should. [Also I think regarding the interview you are speaking to Grizzly's post about Amy Goodman/Susan Lindauer which I'm not informed enough on to comment. But I understand the parallel you are making.]

I don't think Hedges (or Chomsky) must be an agent if he doesn't call 9/11 an inside job. But I am damn suspicious why after researching and writing extensively about it and international terrorism for the NYT and towing the party line, now that he has bought his freedom he no longer writes about it when he is preeminently qualified and placed to do so. Isn't that a book we need to see instead of more "everyone is guilty in the fall of the empire"? Also when is Hedges critical of the CIA and their global corporate paymasters? (This in not just a rhetorical question I would like to know in his articles or books if anyone has come across him being it would be appreciated.) Another example, Hedges sues Obama over indefinite detention which I applaud but check out this exchange from Democracy Now regarding it:
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/17/j ... bama_admin

AMY GOODMAN: Chris Hedges, Rick Santorum versus President Obama?

CHRIS HEDGES: He’s not a politician I usually have much in common with, but this is right. I mean, this is about the egregious destruction of the rule of law. I mean, we have to remember that under the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act, some of this was already happening. José Padilla, for instance, was picked up by military courts, held without trial, access to due process—again, a U.S. citizen—went to the Supreme Court, and by that time, they handed him over to civilian court to—and the Supreme Court never made a ruling on it. But I think that this essentially codifies this very extreme interpretation of this 2001 act into law.

And more importantly, it expands the capacity by the state in terms of defining who is, quote/unquote, "not only a terrorist, but somebody who is," in their terms, "associated forces" or substantially supports people defined as terrorists. And, of course, the reason for that is that many of these groups that are being attacked in Yemen and other places had nothing to do with 9/11—they didn’t even exist when 9/11 happened—and to expand this into the civilian population of the United States. And I think, Amy, one of the most sort of disturbing aspects of this is that the security establishment came out against it—the CIA, the FBI, the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence. None of them wanted it.

AMY GOODMAN: President Obama said he was going to veto it.

CHRIS HEDGES: President Obama said he was going to veto it, but we now know from leaks out of Levin’s office that that’s because the executive branch wanted to decide. They wanted the power to decide who would be tried, who would be granted exemptions. It wasn’t actually about the assault against due process.

And I think we have to ask, if the security establishment did not want this bill, and the FBI Director Mueller actually goes to Congress and says publicly they don’t want it, why did it pass? What pushed it through? And I think, without question, the corporate elites understand that things, certainly economically, are about to get much worse. I think they’re worried about the Occupy movement expanding. And I think that, in the end—and this is a supposition—they don’t trust the police to protect them, and they want to be able to call in the Army. And if this bill goes into law, and it’s slated to go into law in March, they will be able to do that.

It would be interesting to know when Hedges is not inline with the Intelligence agencies. Why isn't he also suing the CIA, FBI, Attorney General, etc. God speed go after Obama, but aren't they complicit along with a thousand other crimes he obviously knows of. I think it is easy to assume that Hedges would have the intelligence agencies panties always in a bunch with his analysis but if you see what Intelligence agencies do in other countries they actually use those who speak truth to power many times to destabilize a society and keep it there. Hedges is basically saying the Empire is over and we are fucked. That causes people to panic, get xenophobic, and withdraw from the civic realm because they think its the end times. That is a great way to keep a society fractured and not looking to change things collectively for the better.

Ultimately I don't know whether he is an agent/asset/flunkie of some intelligence agency. He could be Cheney's personal pet mind controlled flying monkey for all I know. He could just be another progressive journalist who inadvertently helped invade another country. And he could be a straight up solid gold eagle scout who is working on his tome right now in which he EXPOSES IT ALL which will be the new holy book that leads us all into a solar powered promise land. I'd like to think the best but you probably know which way I'm leaning.

[temp-monitor]

I am more enraged by all the bullshit spread by people who falsely think they know (or pretend to know) something about "conspiracy," although they don't bother to educate themselves beyond Alex Jones ... (who) contributes mightily to making the deep state and secret power such difficult subjects to approach in public.

Quite agree about Alex Jones, et al. (The original, unaltered video illustrating Alex Jones' COINTELPRO tactics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNKUvCQFok).

But Chris Hedges saw fit to appear on Mr. Jones' poison-spreading show (January 24, 2012). Hedges was very unchallenging & deferential toward Mr. Jones:

[FourthBase]

Bump, because this thread ain't over. In fact, it was just getting good -- nay, excellent -- on this last page, page 8, with jlaw, brekin, temp, and Jack bringing it. And then, sadly, leaving it. I could quote and +1 or whatever to the last page and a half of posts. I am leaning toward seeing it more temp's and brekin's way. I'll just reply to this one, instead:

And I sure don't trust anyone 100 percent (nobody in any sort of remotely "mainstream" journalism anyway), but in the last few years I've been reading him I haven't smelled anything remotely of bullshit.

Perhaps if you're not a deep-pessimist, if you instead recognize the debilitating, paralyzing, invidious specter that such bottomless pessimism represents, then you might detect in Hedges the foul stench of gratuitous doom-porn. And it's not just some isolated personal vibe that anyone is entitled to feel, not for Hedges the professional journalist, the face of a generation of dissent, the conscience of his time. No. He has duties.

For example: I completely agree with Hedges on the black bloc, I actually hate the black bloc, viscerally, I fucking despise them, and the more authentic the black bloc protesters, the more I hate them. Edit: Here's how much I hate the black bloc: I'd rather endure the stultifying hell of a human-microphone general-assembly 18 hours a day for an entire lifetime than throw a single rock through a single coffee-chain window. (Graffiti is more of a grey area, depends on the message, quality, and substance used.) But, if Hedges the doom-queen is right, then what would be the point of even slightly objecting to the black bloc? "Hey folks, there's no hope at all, so I'm gonna do my thing and grandiloquently mourn our (still-living and undetermined, actually) fate, and you go ahead and break windows and otherwise fuck-shit-up to your hearts' content, because what does it matter, we're doomed"...isn't that the only logically-consistent response that Hedges the Eternal-Pessimist can give to the black bloc?

So, he is either simply being so needlessly depressing on one hand and righteously optimistic on the other that he can't keep track, and hey, self-contradicting happens to the best of us, we're all hypocrites to some degree about something, especially those who care the most, most earnestly...

Or, he's intentionally fucking with us. I feel pretty comfortable about that binary. Either. Or.