Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA

Latest LIVE show

Hereward Fenton

November 15, 2014
Today in the 2nd hour we welcome back Professor Bob Carter to the show. Get the podcast »

Listen Live or Call In !

Recent News & Podcasts

NIST to Release Report and Recommendations from Investigation of World Trade Center Building 7

20 August 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Agency Will Hold Public Webcast on August 21
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/calmed/wtc_081808.html

NIST - National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, Md. -- The Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will hold a media briefing and live public webcast on Aug. 21, 2008, in Gaithersburg, Md., on the findings and recommendations from its building and fire safety investigation of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7). WTC 7 was a 47-story building that fell nearly seven hours after the World Trade Center (WTC) towers collapsed following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The NIST WTC 7 report will present the probable collapse sequence for the building and will provide recommendations for improving building and fire safety in other buildings similar to WTC 7. The draft WTC 7 investigation report released at the briefing will be open for public comment through noon Eastern Daylight Time on Sept. 15, 2008.

Shyam Sunder, director of the NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory and lead investigator for the federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, will present the report and answer questions from reporters at the briefing. The public will be able to view the briefing through a live webcast that will be accessible from NIST's WTC Web site at http://wtc.nist.gov

What: A media briefing and public webcast on the findings and recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7).
When: Thursday, Aug. 21, 2008 11 a.m. - Noon Eastern Daylight Time
Web Info : The WTC investigation Web site at http://wtc.nist.gov will contain links to the webcast as well as accompanying materials such as the full report, news release, and accompanying visuals at the time of the briefing.
Reporters: Credentialed journalists who wish to register for the media briefing should contact Ben Stein, (301) 975-3097, ben.stein@nist.gov

Video: Sydney Truth Action - 11 August 2008

19 August 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

11th August - a bright, crisp winter's day in Sydney.

As always the encounter with passers by was interesting, informative and very worthwhile.

For information about public events planned for September 2008, please visit this page: http://www.911oz.com/weblogid/168

Enjoy!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sczZLSybs_s

Four Principles of Disinformation

16 August 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

After several years reading and studying, I have come to the realisation that there are some key principles to the art of disinformation, and that these principles need to be understood in order to ultimately defeat it.

1. Disinfo is a weapon
This is often the hardest principle to grasp and it is also the most important. Disinfo is, and always has been, a tactic used in war. When it is used in "apparent peacetime" it is still a weapon of war, for war encompasses far more than just bullets and bombs. Disinformation is indeed one of the most important tools in the military arsenal.

2. Disinfo is aimed at a designated enemy
This principle follows naturally from the first. Disinfo is rarely omni-directional or generic - in order to work at all it must have a vector. As with conventional weapons, this vector is in the direction of the group/individual designated as enemy. When directed at an individual, disinformation is often used as part of a scam - think of the Nigerian chain letter or those emails telling you that you have won the lottery.

In the case of the internet scam the goal is to rob the enemy/victim, but the basic tactic is more or less the same when conning a citizen into supporting a war based on a false flag terrorist attack, only in this case the concept of "enemy" must be expanded to include both the citizen and the perceived external enemy.

3. Disinfo succeeds by disguise.

Since disinfo is rooted in deception, it must be disguised as something other than disinfo in order to fulfill its function. Conversely, once disinfo is exposed it no longer "works" to the same degree. An example of this might be the disinfo claim that "no plane" hit the WTC on September 11.

This claim works as disinfo only to the extent that most people believe that the view is genuinely believed by those who promote it. If, by contrast, it could be proven that the "no plane" theory was concocted in by the CIA in Langley Virginia, then it would lose its effectiveness. Perhaps surprisingly, the observation that the "WTC no plane" theory is flawed does not neutralise it as disinfo, since it is quite common for people to believe things in good faith which turn out to be false. In order for the disinfo to be fully neutralised it must be exposed as a deliberate reverse propaganda operation orchestrated for the purpose of weakening a designated enemy.

4. Disinfo sews division and confusion in the enemy
As a weapon, effective disinfo has the combined effect of creating/exacerbating division and confusion in the enemy. This, of course, weakens the enemy, which is the military objective. As an example of how disinfo weakens and divides, let us return again to the "no plane hit the WTC" proposition. To start with, this proposition potentially has the effect of creating a schism within the 9/11 movement. It also has the effect of creating confusion or the perception of confusion when mixed up with the quite distinct proposition that "no plane hit the Pentagon".

The latter proposition, although controversial, is not (in the writer's opinion) to be discarded, for the simple reason that the authorites have refused to release the video which would prove their case. But, the "no plane hit the WTC" proposition unfortunately gets conflated with the "no plane hit the Pentagon" proposition, creating a fog of confusion which may lead the uneducated outsider to conclude that all alternative theories are crazy. This of course achieves the goal of weakening the enemy (ie. the people's movement seeking truth about 9/11).

I hope you found this exposition of four principles of disinformation helpful.

Hitler, the big lie and 9/11

14 August 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

"... in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie..."

(Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p.134)

The above quote explains many things about why the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is not investigated or questioned even by those who in other situations would sieze on any opportunity to attack the status quo.

Perhaps Hitler was merely describing how cognitive dissonance coupled with extreme violence works in the favour of power elites.

Possibly this stategy of violence + deceit exploits a deep instinctive mechanism which humans have evolved in order to preserve group cohesion: when your tribe is attacked you rally around your leader - for good or ill.

An interview with Glen Clancy (Fool Me Twice)

08 August 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Download mp3 » click here

On 1st August Truth News Radio Australia interviewed Glen Clancy, creator of the film Fool Me Twice, which explores evidence that the 2002 Bali Bombings were orchestrated by intelligence operatives, while the governments of Australia and Indonesia looked the other way.

During the interview we get into an interesting discussion of the physics of the explosions which devastated a large area of Kuta Beach, and the coverup of vital information such as the alteration of flight log data at Bali's International airport.

We also examine the Howard Government's willful deceptions in regard to the East Timorese independence campaign which led to many deaths, culminating in the Australian led military intervention (INTERFET) in 1999.

Glen currently lives and works in Japan, but he is planning to return to Australia soon. We look forward to his next project.

Fool Me Twice is a must see film, and you can watch the whole production for free on Google Video.

The Way of the World - Fabricating A Case For War

06 August 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Yet another glaring example of how criminal deception lies at the heart of the current status quo. This deception was not unique the United States. It was and is still at the heart of Australian foreign policy in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The basic premise of this website is given further support each time a new whistle blower steps forth from the shadows with another expose of government high crimes and misdemeanors.

We await the final act.

From NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93293353

Ron Suskind - The Way of the World

Morning Edition, August 5, 2008 ·In his new book, The Way of the World: A Story of Truth And Hope In An Age of Extremism, author Ron Suskind alleges that the Bush administration knew Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and eventually fabricated intelligence assets to support its case for war. Both the White House and the CIA deny his claims. Steve Inskeep talks with Suskind about the book.

TNRA 1 August 2008

August 1, 2008, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

06 August 2008 | Permalink | comments: 4

On tonight's show we lead with the proposed impeachment of George W. Bush - led by Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. We play an excerpt from Rep. Kucinich's speech to the house - then we get into a discussion of politics and music with our special studio guest, Simon.



In the second half of the show we speak to the film maker Glen Clancy - creator of "Fool Me Twice", a film which explores evidence that the 2002 Bali Bombings were not indeed the act of fanatical Islamists, but rather orchestrated by intelligence operatives, while the governments of Australia and Indonesia looked the other way.

Fool Me Twice is a must see film - and you can watch the whole thing for free on Google video:



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4135706276167925924

We are very grateful for Glen's time coming on the show.

To our audience: thanks for listening - & see you again real soon!

Hereward & Josh

The 2001 anthrax attacks: a proven false flag operation from start to finish

03 August 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

With the publication of the following article by Glenn Greenwald it is now a matter of public record that the 2001 anthrax attacks were indeed a false flag operation launched from within United States Government Military facilities, for the purpose of building public support for the "war on terror" and the Invasion of Iraq.

No doubt, slurrs of "conspiracy theory" will fly from the mouths of the well fed, criminally complicit, mainstream media hacks against those who voice these facts.

 

Others will recognise that, if these attacks can be shown to have been orchestrated from within the government, it is hardly a leap of the imagination to say that the 9/11 attacks were the same type of operation.

 

The naive argument that so-called democratic governments would not stoop to hurting their own people simply cannot stand up to the hard facts any more.


Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html

A top U.S. government scientist, suspected of the anthrax attacks, commits suicide. ABC News knows who is responsible for false reports blaming those attacks on Iraq, but refuses to say.

Glenn Greenwald


Aug. 01, 2008 | (Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV - Update V - Update VI)


The FBI's lead suspect in the September, 2001 anthrax attacks -- Bruce E. Ivins -- died Tuesday night, apparently by suicide, just as the Justice Department was about to charge him with responsibility for the attacks. For the last 18 years, Ivins was a top anthrax researcher at the U.S. Government's biological weapons research laboratories at Ft. Detrick, Maryland, where he was one of the most elite government anthrax scientists on the research team at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease (USAMRIID).

 

The 2001 anthrax attacks remain one of the great mysteries of the post-9/11 era. After 9/11 itself, the anthrax attacks were probably the most consequential event of the Bush presidency. One could make a persuasive case that they were actually more consequential. The 9/11 attacks were obviously traumatic for the country, but in the absence of the anthrax attacks, 9/11 could easily have been perceived as a single, isolated event. It was really the anthrax letters -- with the first one sent on September 18, just one week after 9/11 -- that severely ratcheted up the fear levels and created the climate that would dominate in this country for the next several years after. It was anthrax -- sent directly into the heart of the country's elite political and media institutions, to then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt), NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw, and other leading media outlets -- that created the impression that social order itself was genuinely threatened by Islamic radicalism.

 

If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab, sent by a top U.S. Army scientist at Ft. Detrick. Without resort to any speculation or inferences at all, it is hard to overstate the significance of that fact. From the beginning, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax attacker to create a link between the anthrax attacks and both Islamic radicals and the 9/11 attacks. This was the letter sent to Brokaw:


The letter sent to Leahy contained this message:

 

We have anthrax.

You die now.

Are you afraid?

Death to America.

Death to Israel.

Allah is great.

 

By design, those attacks put the American population into a state of intense fear of Islamic terrorism, far more than the 9/11 attacks alone could have accomplished.

Much more important than the general attempt to link the anthrax to Islamic terrorists, there was a specific intent -- indispensably aided by ABC News -- to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. In my view, and I've written about this several times and in great detail to no avail, the role played by ABC News in this episode is the single greatest, unresolved media scandal of this decade. News of Ivins' suicide, which means (presumably) that the anthrax attacks originated from Ft. Detrick, adds critical new facts and heightens how scandalous ABC News' conduct continues to be in this matter.

 

During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax -- tests conducted at Ft. Detrick -- revealed that the anthrax sent to Daschele contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since -- as ABC variously claimed -- bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons."

 

ABC News' claim -- which they said came at first from "three well-placed but separate sources," followed by "four well-placed and separate sources" -- was completely false from the beginning. There never was any bentonite detected in the anthrax (a fact ABC News acknowledged for the first time in 2007 only as a result of my badgering them about this issue). It's critical to note that it isn't the case that preliminary tests really did detect bentonite and then subsequent tests found there was none. No tests ever found or even suggested the presence of bentonite. The claim was just concocted from the start. It just never happened.

 

That means that ABC News' "four well-placed and separate sources" fed them information that was completely false -- false information that created a very significant link in the public mind between the anthrax attacks and Saddam Hussein. And look where -- according to Brian Ross' report on October 28, 2001 -- these tests were conducted:

 

And despite continued White House denials, four well-placed and separate sources have told ABC News that initial tests on the anthrax by the US Army at Fort Detrick, Maryland, have detected trace amounts of the chemical additives bentonite and silica.

 

Two days earlier, Ross went on ABC News' World News Tonight with Peter Jennings and, as the lead story, breathlessly reported:

 

The discovery of bentonite came in an urgent series of tests conducted at Fort Detrick, Maryland, and elsewhere.

 

Clearly, Ross' allegedly four separate sources had to have some specific knowledge of the tests conducted and, if they were really "well-placed," one would presume that meant they had some connection to the laboratory where the tests were conducted -- Ft. Detrick. That means that the same Government lab where the anthrax attacks themselves came from was the same place where the false reports originated that blamed those attacks on Iraq.

It's extremely possible -- one could say highly likely -- that the same people responsible for perpetrating the attacks were the ones who fed the false reports to the public, through ABC News, that Saddam was behind them. What we know for certain -- as a result of the letters accompanying the anthrax -- is that whoever perpetrated the attacks wanted the public to believe they were sent by foreign Muslims. Feeding claims to ABC News designed to link Saddam to those attacks would, for obvious reasons, promote the goal of the anthrax attacker(s).

 

Seven years later, it's difficult for many people to recall, but, as I've amply documented, those ABC News reports linking Saddam and anthrax penetrated very deeply -- by design -- into our public discourse and into the public consciousness. Those reports were absolutely vital in creating the impression during that very volatile time that Islamic terrorists generally, and Iraq and Saddam Hussein specifically, were grave, existential threats to this country. As but one example: after Ross' lead report on the October 26, 2001 edition of World News Tonight with Peter Jennings claiming that the Government had found bentonite, this is what Jennings said into the camera:

 

This news about bentonite as the additive being a trademark of the Iraqi biological weapons program is very significant. Partly because there's been a lot of pressure on the Bush administration inside and out to go after Saddam Hussein. And some are going to be quick to pick up on this as a smoking gun.

 

That's exactly what happened. The Weekly Standard published two lengthy articles attacking the FBI for focusing on a domestic culprit and -- relying almost exclusively on the ABC/Ross report -- insisted that Saddam was one of the most likely sources for those attacks. In November, 2001, they published an article (via Lexis) which began:

 

On the critical issue of who sent the anthrax, it's time to give credit to the ABC website, ABCNews.com, for reporting rings around most other news organizations. Here's a bit from a comprehensive story filed late last week by Gary Matsumoto, lending further credence to the commonsensical theory (resisted by the White House) that al Qaeda or Iraq -- and not some domestic Ted Kaczynski type -- is behind the germ warfare.

 

The Weekly Standard published a much lengthier and more dogmatic article in April, 2002 again pushing the ABC "bentonite" claims and arguing: "There is purely circumstantial though highly suggestive evidence that might seem to link Iraq with last fall's anthrax terrorism." The American Enterprise Institute's Laurie Mylroie (who had an AEI article linking Saddam to 9/11 ready for publication at the AEI on September 13) expressly claimed in November, 2001 that "there is also tremendous evidence that subsequent anthrax attacks are connected to Iraq" and based that accusation almost exclusively on the report from ABC and Ross ("Mylroie: Evidence Shows Saddam Is Behind Anthrax Attacks").

And then, when President Bush named Iraq as a member of the "Axis of Evil" in his January, 2002 State of the Union speech -- just two months after ABC's report, when the anthrax attacks were still very vividly on the minds of Americans -- he specifically touted this claim:

 

The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade.

 

Bush's invocation of Iraq was the only reference in the State of the Union address to the unsolved anthrax attacks. And the Iraq-anthrax connection was explicitly made by the President at a time when, as we now know, he was already eagerly planning an attack on Iraq.

There can't be any question that this extremely flamboyant though totally false linkage between Iraq and the anthrax attacks -- accomplished primarily by the false bentonite reports from ABC News and Brian Ross -- played a very significant role in how Americans perceived of the Islamic threat generally and Iraq specifically. As but one very illustrative example, The Washington Post's columnist, Richard Cohen, supported the invasion of Iraq, came to regret that support, and then explained what led him to do so, in a 2004 Post column entitled "Our Forgotten Panic":

 

I'm not sure if panic is quite the right word, but it is close enough. Anthrax played a role in my decision to support the Bush administration's desire to take out Saddam Hussein. I linked him to anthrax, which I linked to Sept. 11. I was not going to stand by and simply wait for another attack -- more attacks. I was going to go to the source, Hussein, and get him before he could get us. As time went on, I became more and more questioning, but I had a hard time backing down from my initial whoop and holler for war.

 

Cohen -- in a March 18, 2008 Slate article in which he explains why he wrongfully supported the attack on Iraq -- disclosed this:

 

Anthrax. Remember anthrax? It seems no one does anymore -- at least it's never mentioned. But right after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, letters laced with anthrax were received at the New York Post and Tom Brokaw's office at NBC. . . . There was ample reason to be afraid.

The attacks were not entirely unexpected. I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way from a high government official, and I immediately acted on it. I was carrying Cipro way before most people had ever heard of it.

 

For this and other reasons, the anthrax letters appeared linked to the awful events of Sept. 11. It all seemed one and the same. Already, my impulse had been to strike back, an overwhelming urge that had, in fact, taken me by surprise on Sept. 11 itself when the first of the Twin Towers had collapsed. . . .

 

In the following days, as the horror started to be airbrushed -- no more bodies plummeting to the sidewalk -- the anthrax letters started to come, some to people I knew. And I thought, No, I'm not going to sit here passively and wait for it to happen. I wanted to go to "them," whoever "they" were, grab them by the neck, and get them before they could get us. One of "them" was Saddam Hussein. He had messed around with anthrax . . . He was a nasty little fascist, and he needed to be dealt with.

 

That, more or less, is how I made my decision to support the war in Iraq.

 

Cohen's mental process that led him to link anthrax to Iraq and then to support an attack on Iraq, warped as it is, was extremely common. Having heard ABC News in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack flamboyantly and repeatedly link Saddam to the anthrax attacks, followed by George Bush's making the same linkage (albeit more subtly) in his January, 2002 State of the Union speech, much of the public had implanted into their minds that Saddam Hussein was not just evil, but a severe threat to the U.S., likely the primary culprit behind the anthrax attacks. All along, though, the anthrax came from a U.S. Government/Army research lab.

Critically, ABC News never retracted its story (they merely noted, as they had done from the start, that the White House denied the reports). And thus, the linkage between Saddam and the anthrax attacks -- every bit as false as the linkage between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks -- persisted.

 

We now know -- we knew even before news of Ivins' suicide last night, and know especially in light of it -- that the anthrax attacks didn't come from Iraq or any foreign government at all. It came from our own Government's scientist, from the top Army bioweapons research laboratory. More significantly, the false reports linking anthrax to Iraq also came from the U.S. Government -- from people with some type of significant links to the same facility responsible for the attacks themselves.

 

Surely the question of who generated those false Iraq-anthrax reports is one of the most significant and explosive stories of the last decade. The motive to fabricate reports of bentonite and a link to Saddam is glaring. Those fabrications played some significant role -- I'd argue a very major role -- in propagandizing the American public to perceive of Saddam as a threat, and further, propagandized the public to believe that our country was sufficiently threatened by foreign elements that a whole series of radical policies that the neoconservatives both within and outside of the Bush administration wanted to pursue -- including an attack an Iraq and a whole array of assaults on our basic constitutional framework -- were justified and even necessary in order to survive.

 

ABC News already knows the answers to these questions. They know who concocted the false bentonite story and who passed it on to them with the specific intent of having them broadcast those false claims to the world, in order to link Saddam to the anthrax attacks and -- as importantly -- to conceal the real culprit(s) (apparently within the U.S. government) who were behind the attacks. And yet, unbelievably, they are keeping the story to themselves, refusing to disclose who did all of this. They're allegedly a news organization, in possession of one of the most significant news stories of the last decade, and they are concealing it from the public, even years later.

 

They're not protecting "sources." The people who fed them the bentonite story aren't "sources." They're fabricators and liars who purposely used ABC News to disseminate to the American public an extremely consequential and damaging falsehood. But by protecting the wrongdoers, ABC News has made itself complicit in this fraud perpetrated on the public, rather than a news organization uncovering such frauds. That is why this is one of the most extreme journalistic scandals that exists, and it deserves a lot more debate and attention than it has received thus far.

UPDATE: One other fact to note here is how bizarrely inept the effort by the Bush DOJ to find the real attacker has been. Extremely suspicious behavior from Ivins -- including his having found and completely cleaned anthrax traces on a co-worker's desk at the Ft. Detrick lab without telling anyone that he did so and then offering extremely strange explanations for why -- was publicly reported as early as 2004 by The LA Times (Ivins "detected an apparent anthrax leak in December 2001, at the height of the anthrax mailings investigation, but did not report it. Ivins considered the problem solved when he cleaned the affected office with bleach").

 

In October 2004, USA Today reported that Ivins was involved in another similar incident, in April of 2002, when Ivins performed unauthorized tests to detect the origins of more anthrax residue found at Ft. Detrick. Yet rather than having that repeated, strange behavior lead the FBI to discover that he was involved in the attacks, there was a very public effort -- as Atrios notes here -- to blame the attacks on Iraq and then, ultimately, to blame Stephen Hatfill. Amazingly, as Atrios notes here, very few people other than "a few crazy bloggers are even interested" in finding out what happened here and why -- at least to demand that ABC News report the vital information that it already has that will shed very significant light on much of this.

UPDATE II: Ivins' local paper, Frederick News in Maryland, has printed several Letters to the Editor written by Ivins over the years. Though the underlying ideology is a bit difficult to discern, he seems clearly driven by a belief in the need for Christian doctrine to govern our laws and political institutions, with a particular interest in Catholic dogma. He wrote things like this:

 

Today we frequently admonish people who oppose abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide or capital punishment to keep their religious, moral, and philosophical beliefs to themselves.

Before dispensing such admonishments in the future, perhaps we should gratefully consider some of our country's most courageous, historical figures who refused to do so.

 

And then there's this rather cryptic message, published in 2006:

 

Rabbi Morris Kosman is entirely correct in summarily rejecting the demands of the Frederick Imam for a "dialogue."

By blood and faith, Jews are God's chosen, and have no need for "dialogue" with any gentile. End of "dialogue."

 

It should be noted that the lawyer who had been representing Ivins in connection with the anthrax investigation categorically maintains Ivins' innocence and attributes his suicide to "the relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo."

On a note related to the main topic of the post, macgupta in comments notes the numerous prominent people in addition to those mentioned here -- including The Wall St. Jorunal Editors and former CIA Director James Woosely -- who insisted rather emphatically from the beginning of the anthrax attacks that Saddam was likely to blame. Indeed, the WSJ Editorial Page -- along with others on the Right such as Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report and Fox News -- continued even into 2007 to insist that the FBI was erring by focusing on domestic suspects rather than Middle Easterners.

 

The Nation's Michael Massing noted at the time (in November, 2001) that as a direct result of the anthrax attacks, and the numerous claims insinuating that Iraq was behind them, "the political and journalistic establishment suddenly seems united in wanting to attack Iraq." There has long been an intense desire on the neoconservative Right to falsely link anthrax to Saddam specifically and Muslims generally. ABC News was, and (as a result of its inexcusable silence) continues to be, their best friend.

UPDATE III: See this important point from Atrios about Richard Cohen's admission that he was told before the anthrax attacks happened by a "high government official" to take cipro. Atrios writes: "now that we know that the US gov't believes that anthrax came from the inside, shouldn't Cohen be a wee bit curious about what this warning was based on?"

 

That applies to much of the Beltway class, including many well-connected journalists, who were quietly popping cipro back then because, like Cohen, they heard from Government sources that they should. Leave aside the ethical questions about the fact that these journalists kept those warnings to themselves. Wouldn't the most basic journalistic instincts lead them now -- in light of the claims by our Government that the attacks came from a Government scientist -- to wonder why and how their Government sources were warning about an anthrax attack? Then again, the most basic journalistic instincts would have lead ABC News to reveal who concocted and fed them the false "Saddam/anthrax" reports in the first place, and yet we still are forced to guess at those questions because ABC News continues to cover up the identity of the perpetrators.

UPDATE IV: John McCain, on the David Letterman Show, October 18, 2001 (days before ABC News first broadcast their bentonite report):

 

LETTERMAN: How are things going in Afghanistan now?

 

MCCAIN: I think we're doing fine . . . I think we'll do fine. The second phase -- if I could just make one, very quickly -- the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don't have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may -- and I emphasize may -- have come from Iraq.

 

LETTERMAN: Oh is that right?

 

MCCAIN: If that should be the case, that's when some tough decisions are gonna have to be made.

 

ThinkProgress has the video. Someone ought to ask McCain what "indication" he was referencing that the anthrax "may have come from Iraq."

 

After all, three days later, McCain and Joe Lieberman went on Meet the Press (on October 21, 2001) and both strongly suggested that we would have to attack Iraq. Lieberman said that the anthrax was so complex and potent that "there's either a significant amount of money behind this, or this is state-sponsored, or this is stuff that was stolen from the former Soviet program."

 

As I said, it is not possible to overstate the importance of anthrax in putting the country into the state of fear that led to the attack on Iraq and so many of the other abuses of the Bush era. There are few news stories more significant, if there are any, than unveiling who the culprits were behind this deliberate propaganda. The fact that the current GOP presidential nominee claimed back then on national television to have some "indication" linking Saddam to the anthrax attacks makes it a bigger story still.

UPDATE V: I tried to be careful here to avoid accepting as True the matter of Ivins' guilt. Very early on in the article, I framed the analysis this way: "If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab," and I then noted in Update II that Ivins' lawyer vehemently maintains his innocence. My whole point here is that the U.S. Government now claims the anthrax attacks came from a Government scientist at a U.S. Army lab, and my conclusions follow from that premise, accepted as true only for purposes of this analysis.

 

It's worth underscoring that it is far from clear that Ivins had anything to do with the anthrax attacks, and someone in comments claiming (anonymously though credibly) that he knew Ivins personally asserts that Ivins was innocent and makes the case as to why the Government's accusations are suspect. As I see it, the more doubt there is about who was responsible for the anthrax attacks, the greater is the need for ABC News to reveal who fabricated their reports linking the attacks to Iraq.

UPDATE VI: I'll be on Rachel Maddow's radio show tonight at 8:30 p.m. EST to discuss this story. Local listings and live audio feed are here.

Numerous people have advised me in comments and via email that ABC News is deleting any mention of my piece today in the comment section to their article on the Ivins suicide (though many such comments now seem to be posted there). Last year, ABC was in full denial mode when responding to the stories I wrote about this issue. The key here, I think, will be to try to devise the right strategy to induce the right Congressional Committee to hold hearings on the false ABC News stories and the anthrax issue generally. I hope to have more details on that effort shortly.

 

Page 88 of 107 pages ‹ First  < 86 87 88 89 90 >  Last ›

Listen Live

Recent Comments

Wayne Hall said:

“It is no use implying or not implying things.”

You got this right. So why are you doing it?

As long as you don’t show evidence to the contrary, you will have to take the word of the debunkers that they do this out of passion and without any payment.

By Josh on 2012 08 21 - 19:25:09
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

It is no use implying or not implying things. 

I know that I am not being paid for what I do here. I do not know which debunkers are being paid and which are not. Do you?

The central point I have been making from the beginning at this site is that the contrails vs chemtrails argument is not something that should be concerning people whose problem is i)what they see in the sky or alternatively ii) what others are saying about what they see in the sky.

I came to the chemtrails debate from the anti-nuclear movement. It is a transition that has not been made by the great majority in the anti-nuclear and anti-war movements and that is unfortunate because the other side has made the transition. Geoengineering is largely a product of US nuclear weapons laboratories, and many well-known geoengineers even feel secure enough of their professional prospects to declare themselves in favour of universal nuclear disarmament.

I reject the contrails/chemtrails debate for the same reason that I would refuse to enter a debate on whether the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to save the lives of American soldiers. Would you as a German enter such a debate Josh?

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 21 - 19:19:59
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne Hall,

do you imply that the debunkers that I referred to are paid for what they are doing?

If so, is this just an assumption of yours? Or do you have evidence?

By Josh on 2012 08 21 - 18:13:27
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Of course it will have begun.  Everyone has his job to do. I wish I were being paid for doing mine,  though.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 21 - 17:10:09
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Debunking has just begun:
http://metabunk.org/threads/712-Factual-Errors-in-quot-Why-In-The-World-Are-They-Spraying-quot

Check often as it will be supplemented over time.

By Josh on 2012 08 21 - 16:36:33
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Why in the world are they spraying.  Released today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mEfJO0-cTis

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 21 - 04:05:58
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/6/bolivian_un_ambassador_pablo_solon_reacts

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 19 - 17:21:03
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

who interviewed Dr Ball, Leon Pittard or Hereward Fenton?

By who interviewed Dr Ball, Leon Pittard or Hereward on 2012 08 17 - 23:01:12
From the entry 'Interview with Dr. Tim Ball'.

While TrapWire is breaking, ur worried about climate news?

By John on 2012 08 15 - 19:44:06
From the entry 'Interview with Dr. Tim Ball'.

The Enouranois website has been down for the last few days. As soon as we get it back online we will post a link to a debate of a few years ago between climate change sceptic Tim Ball and chemtrails activist views.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 15 - 18:17:29
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories