The last time that Amy Goodman had Sibel Edmonds on her show Democracy Now! it was a friendly (and extended) chat between the two women in DN’s curmudgeonly firehouse studio. Goodman and many others have consistently identified Edmonds as a 911 “whistle-blower”. Edmonds is a former FBI translator who claims to have seen documents warning that al Qaeda would attack the World Trade Center using hijacked airplanes. Notice that her position directly corresponds with the Bush Regime’s official story that they were merely negligent over the events of 911. It is the sign of a very dark era that a person whose story is actually repeating the propaganda of the state is widely being given the stature of a legitimate whistle-blower like Daniel Ellsberg.

A particularly surreal part of the segment between Goodman and Edmonds comes at the end. Goodman gently asks Edmonds whether she is “afraid”. Edmonds pauses and one can feel Goodman’s sycophantic question hanging in the air. It is moments like this that make many wonder about Goodman’s persistent defense of the official story of 911. Goodman has had at least five advocates of the official story on her program for lengthy interviews featuring softball questions. Meanwhile, the one person so far permitted to dispute the official story on Democracy Now was treated with obvious contempt.

Another person besides Edmonds whose views on 911 are being given significant exposure by the neoliberal media is Scott Ritter. Regard his recent commentary about the CIA. Ritter tells us that the CIA has a reputation that could be damaged if the top guy suddenly left. More crucially, Ritter also informs us that 911 was an “intelligence failure[s]” for the CIA.

It seems curious that this very tough ex-marine is defending the CIA’s reputation so vigorously. After all, in the last few years Ritter has earned a reputation for being the Bush Regime’s most formidable opponent to their unlawful invasion of Iraq, garnering a lot of exposure from the established left media in the process. Ritter has already enthralled anti-war audiences everywhere with his opposition to the idea of the Bush Regime manufacturing evidence about Iraq’s weapons capabilities in order to start an unnecessary war. It seems very inconsistent that the year following this campaign he is now vociferously defending the CIA’s reputation. Also, as a leading opposition figure of the Bush Regime he might act like he was somewhat concerned about the suspicious circumstances of Paul Wellstone’s plane crash. Instead, Ritter’s tone of voice reflects very strong solidarity with the Agency.

In books written by fiction writers Graham Greene and John Le Carre spies can never leave their business once inside. In contrast, notice Ritter’s statement that he “was an intelligence officer for many years…”

What could Greene or Le Carre write after reading a sentence like that? They might write a story where a charismatic, tough-talking ex-marine infiltrated a large anti-war movement by posing as a leading opposition figure to a criminal invasion of a sovereign nation. With the anti-war movement successfully infiltrated he proceeds to betray his new friends by echoing the state’s propaganda over its true role with the day of terrorism which directly led to aggression by the Empire.

Greene and Le Carre also come to my mind every time that Ray McGovern is heard from. McGovern is represented as an ex-CIA man (with 27 years of experience) by the established left media. Like Ritter, McGovern also earned his connection with the anti-war movement by opposing the criminal Iraq war. Naturally, Democracy Now invites McGovern on regularly. McGovern certainly is immediately likable on the radio. With his soothing, paternal voice he freely mentions that he used to provide intelligence briefings to the first President Bush in person. Yet, with each appearance on Democracy Now and with every new article he writes, McGovern makes sure to confirm some aspect of the Bush Regime’s official story of 911. Like Ritter, he’s also functioning to promote the CIA as a respectable institution to the anti-war movement.

Richard Clarke is another figure with a questionable identity. Clarke is described as a “defector” from the White House. Like everyone else mentioned so far Clarke’s view is the Bush Regime is only negligent over 911. Clarke’s book about his experiences in the White House was curiously timed for publication only a few months before the 911 Commission was reaching a climax. When the latter hearings were underway Amy Goodman hosted Clarke twice for easy, extended interviews. While members of the 911 Truth Movement were begging her to invite a 911 skeptic on her show Amy icily maintained Clarke as the outer limit of permissible dialogue during the height of the 911 Commission hearings.

Then there is Michael Moore. Moore has endorsed the Presidential campaign of war criminal General Wesley Clark. In addition, Moore’s new film, “Fareinheit 911”, reiterates the propaganda that there were 19 hijackers on 9/11/01 and 15 of them were Saudis. However, what is really revealing about Moore is his amazing claim to have met and videotaped recent decapitation-victim Nick Berg. One would think there are a few degrees of separation between them. Moore is one of this country’s most famous filmmakers. At the same time the Berg video has been declared a fraud around the world. It seems incredible that Moore managed to videotape the one guy in this country who would later be seen being killed in a clearly fraudulent video that many suspect was a botched PsyOps campaign by the Regime. Personally, I don’t believe Moore for a minute.

If Michael Moore, Richard Clarke, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, Sibel Edmonds and Amy Goodman were to meet at a tea-party what would they discuss? Each is working in some capacity to uphold the propaganda of the State. In my (unprofessional) opinion it is very dangerous for the anti-war movement to continue accepting this particular group as allies in the struggle to stop the Bush Regime.

Scott Loughrey
Baltimore