portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

9.11 investigation | katrina aftermath

Leftist denial of 9/11 truth

.
The Left Gatekeepers Phenomenon

The denial that 9/11/01 was an inside job is nowhere deeper than in the traditional Left and the established left media, such as The Nation. Respected commentators for the Left, such as David Corn of the Nation, poo-pooed challenges to the official story of the attack, or at most suggested complicity of the Bush administration by pointing to Saudi connections to the Bush family, all while staying within the confines of the official myth of the hijackers, crumbling skyscrapers, etc.

Researcher Mark Robinowitz devotes much of his vast website to tracking the left gatekeeper phenomenon.

e x c e r p t
title: Denial is not a river in Egypt: 'Not See's,' Nazis and the psychological difficulty in facing the truth about 9/11
authors: Mark Robinowitz


Both the corporate, mainstream media and most of the foundation-funded "alternative" media have sought to restrict investigative journalism and dissident opinions about the so-called "War on Terror." Since 9/11, the left media -- including The Nation, Z magazine, The Progressive, Mother Jones, Alternative Radio -- have shied away from examining the pretext for endless war. They have ignored the national "Deception Dollar" campaign, which has printed over three million DD's listing websites of the independent investigations of 911, despite a massive distribution effort across the country, especially at peace rallies.

Worse, several of these institutions have gone on the attack against independent media and journalists who have done excellent work exposing the lies behind the official stories of 9/11. In the spring of 2002, when some of the material documenting official foreknowledge of 9/11 began to surface in the corporate media, The Nation, Z and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting attacked independent investigators who are piecing together the evidence, instead of helping those who have done the best work.

...

site: www.oilempire.us page: www.oilempire.us/denial.html


Democracy When?
One of the most notable cases of Left denial is that of the respected journalist Amy Goodman and her show Democracy Now. Goodman has long rebuffed requests that she interview an expert on the subject. Instead she has tiptoed around the core facts of the attack and addressed only peripheral issues, such as the EPA's fraudulent assurances that the air in Lower Manhattan was safe to breathe while Ground Zero was still smouldering. Finally, after a concerted campaign by the 9-11 Visibility Project, Goodman featured David Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor on her May 26th show. Goodman pitted Chip Berlet against Griffin, and gave the last word and closing summary to Berlet, who spun the myth that the attack was strictly blowback. Nonetheless, Griffin was allowed to make the case that the attack was an inside job for the first time ever on the nationally syndicated show.

Mark Robinowitz recounts confronting Amy Goodman about her refusal to cover the issue prior to the Griffin interview.

e x c e r p t
title: Amy Goodman's Not-So-Good Coverage of 9/11
authors: Mark Robinowitz


...

In the fall of 2002, Ms. Goodman spoke in the same room at the University of Oregon during a previous speaking tour. After her speech (which was very similar to her May 2004 speech), I asked her after the event if she would help investigate the recently disclosed story of how the Air Force, CIA, NORAD and National Reconnaissance Office were conducting "war games" similar to 9/11 during the 9/11 "attacks," which were apparently used to confuse the air defense response. She would not reply, and looked at me in apparent fear. It was a particularly strange response considering she had just spoken eloquently about her tremendous courage in reporting on the massacre in East Timor. (The issue of the 9/11 war games on 9/11 has not ever been mentioned on Democracy Now -- and it is likely that if they were, DN would run the risk of losing their foundation funding, which would force them to lay off much of their staff.)

...
site: www.oilempire.us page: www.oilempire.us/democracynow.html


On of the factors behind the reluctance of journalists such as Goodman to give a voice to skeptics of the official 9/11 myth may be their dependence on foundation money.

e x c e r p t
title: THE GATEKEEERS: Foundations Fund Phony 'Left' Media
authors: Shiu Hung



site: www.leftgatekeepers.com page: www.leftgatekeepers.com/chart.htm


Cracks in the Wall
Two early exceptions to the left media's blackout of evidence that the attack was an inside job were the radio shows Guns and Butter and Taking Aim, both of which prominently feature Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone. These researchers focus on issues of historical precedents and economic and imperial motives pointing to the attack being an inside job or false-flag operation. Guns and Butter also made the historic step in January of 2004 of airing an interview with researcher Jim Hoffman on the physical evidence of the demolition of the World Trade Center, whose transcript is posted on 911research.wtc7.net, a site focusing on physical evidence.

The publication of Griffin's book, The New Pearl Harbor, appears to have somewhat eroded the left establishment's taboo against questioning the attack. Among the endorsments printed on the book is one by Professor Howard Zinn, author of the acclaimed A People's History of the United States. The 9-11 Visibility Project also counts Medea Benjamin, Gore Vidal, Jim Hightower, and Ed Asner among the endorsers of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

The Psychology of Denial
The reasons for the deep denial about the 9/11/01 attack inside the Left establishment appear to go much deeper than the fact that many of its institutions are funded by endowments like those of the Ford Foundation. The official myth appeals to political philosophies that condemn U.S. imperialism by providing the supreme example of "blowback" -- the proverbial chickens coming home to roost. Researcher August West speaks to this and other psychological underpinnings of the denial.

e x c e r p t
title: Left Denial on 9/11
authors: August West


Denial lies at the heart of this unusual Left reaction. Many activists have looked at the questions, thought about the answers for a bit, and retreated in horror in the face of implications. If the government had foreknowledge and let the attacks happen, or worse, actually took part in facilitating them, then the American state is far more vicious than they could have imagined. And if so, what would happen to them should they vocalize this? Needless to say, this would greatly raise the stakes of political action well beyond the relatively superficial level that even many leftists operate at. It would be impossible to go on living as before, being essentially a spectator whose life is work/shopping/entertainment, with the occasional political rally, lecture or movie to spice things up and make one feel involved. People like that, or even ones more involved with some regular effort at political reform, could no longer feel that the political situation could be changed for the better through small, incremental steps, a 100 year or even 500 year plan. This prospect is thoroughly unsettling, and is easier to deal with if simply dismissed outright. ...

Beneath unconscious motivations also lie some conscious agendas. Those on the Left who have embraced "critical support" for a "limited response" war will no doubt not wish to have their political bankruptcy exposed. But even most of those who oppose the War have nevertheless accepted the notion that the U.S. was attacked by a vicious enemy. For some, this represents an opportunity to promote their moralistic approach: let us respond in an appropriate, moral and non-military manner. Others, such as Chomsky, Michael Albert, Howard Zinn and Alex Cockburn, simply trot out the "blowback" explanation: this horrible attack happened because America has done bad things, has not listened to "us" (wag, wag the finger), and better start changing its policies (as if an empire can be run in a nice way!). Yet others who disagree with war boosters like Katrina van den Heuvel of The Nation nevertheless buy their thesis that the war promotes increasing state powers (e.g., making airport baggage inspectors federal employees), and this amounts to a move towards "socialism". If the events of 9/11 were not what they seemed to be, this takes away the chance to promote these political programs, perhaps to even advance certain careers.

page: sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/03/117429.php
. 07.Jul.2005 03:50

.

.

The Bogus Left 07.Jul.2005 04:01

Roland

The denying "Left" does so for the obvious reason that if 19 "crazy" Jihadist Muslims directed by a man squatting in a cave in Afghanistan didn't do it, then some other group must have been responsible. Once the "official" story is rejected, this other group would then have to be identified. Then, they would find themselves staring at the possibility that elements from the United States and other state(s) may have carried out the attacks on 911 precisely to create the Pearl Harbor pretext to launch the "War on Terror," just like the "Misguided Conspiracy Nuts" have been saying for the past four years.

It is curious to watch the Institutional Left spokespersons wring their hands over Iraq and denounce Bushco for its phoney rationale and obvious failure, while at the same time cheer and support the war in Afghanistan because doing so is the acceptable response for them vis a vis their embrace of the "official" 911 legend. But, if bin Laden et al had nothing to do with 911, the justification for their support would be exposed and they would then have to contemplate another possible reality behind the attacks. They can not do this without risking losing their continued status as "Official Left" gatekeepers. Just try and imagine the likes of Al Franken and Amy Goodman blithely commenting on possible Mossad collusion in the attacks. I can't.

. 07.Jul.2005 04:10

.

.

. 07.Jul.2005 04:28

.

.

Good Post 07.Jul.2005 07:39

Anarchy-nonymous

Other cases of the mighty river Denial:

> The rigging of the national elections in America with the Help America Vote Act

> The assassinations of Paul Wellstone, Mel Carnahan, and other progressive leaders who are too popular to steal a vote from

> The FBI assassination of Martin Luther King Jr which was proven in Federal Court during a civil suit by the King Family


The response I usually get when confronting educated Democrats, Liberals, etc., is that "there's no way they could conceal something that big." It's a circular reasoning that gets rejected because it means accepting that ALL of the built in controls have failed--voting, journalism, three houses of government, etc. Without the advocacy of institutions we are conditioned to respect, the amount of critical thinking and personal research required to prove this level of conspiracy is prohibitive.

The Real Issue 07.Jul.2005 13:55

YumiChan Cat

This is what the real issue is. It isn't the Left's denial of 9/11 Truth (tm), but the opposite: 9/11 Truth's rejection of the Left.

afds 07.Jul.2005 17:20

anti-imperialist

yumichan...nice try at logic, but it doesn't fly. The 9/11 truth movement has been essentially "banned" from public discourse (when dealing with the mainstream AND much of the alternative press). To try and say it's the other way around makes you look kinda silly, doesn't it.