US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
What's LEFT to Talk About?
21 Jul 2002
Modified: 23 Jul 2002
Many factors - including the flimsy response of these "liberals" to independent 9-11 investigations - demonstrate that celebrity dissidents such as Noam Chomsky have taken on the demoralizing role of George Orwell's not-so-fictitious Emmanuel Goldstein for The Establishment - divide & conquer citizens.
As an ex-student of Noam Chomsky and other "progressives" - having questioned him and other "activists" on issues such as JFK, banking, Buckminster Fuller, Mondragon, and the Third Way - I can personally attest to their intellectual and spiritual bankruptcy.

Niether "right" nor "left", but ahead of the curve.

What's "LEFT" to Talk About?

A Discussion On Why Many of the Leading Voices on the "Left" Have Avoided Asking Questions About the "official story" Surrounding The Events of Sept. 11, 2001.

by MalcontentX

Main Page

David Corn

Norman Solomon


Overview of "left/right"

Buddy, What's The Paradigm?

Chip Berlet

Michael Albert

Noam Chomsky

Micheal Parenti

The "Intellectuals" and "we, the People"


"The Movement"

Notes on Vreeland
As readers may or may not know, there has been a remarkable silence amongst many of the "leading" voices on "the left" -concerning the "official explanation" for what happened on Sept. 11th.

There has, indeed, been much valuable criticism of the so-called "war on terrorism," the invasion of Afghanistan, the "Patriot Act," and so on, (publications such as Znet, The Progressive, DemocracyNow...); yet in terms of the day's actual events, very few questions have been raised.

In the words of Stan Goff, former soldier in U.S. special forces, "the left... has [accepted] the [gov't] framework... for what happened." (

There appears to be numerous reasons for this, which we shall attempt to explore here.

For those of us who have taken the time to look at the evidence behind the day's events, (Unanswered Questions amongst others) it's quite clear that the failure to question the "official" explanation is a serious error in judgement: a reflection, perhaps, of where "the left" is "at" in certain important respects; and an opportunity, here, to gain some critical insight into the broader movement for change.

To the credit of the cautious observer, it's certainly understandable that they/we would want to be careful in approaching this subject; for to question the "official" story implies either:

negligence/incompetence, (on the part of U.S. officials) tending to be of far less significance than the fact that the main support for global terrorism/violence, (and "blowback") comes from the most-powerful global governments, militaries, and the corporations they serve.


complicity, (on the part of U.S. officials) something far more sinister, than the usual machinations of the world's leading imperial power

Would it be fair to say that the "far more sinister" scenario would seem so incredible to most people that they would not even want to give the subject a hearing?

Would most people assume that the degree of negligence/incompetence was not extreme - simply because the trauma involved would tend to make it seem more extreme than it actually was? Or too sensitive an issue to pursue?

If so, we who consider ourselves intelligent observers cannot allow the assumptions of others to serve as an excuse for us to avoid an open-minded review of the concrete facts.

The supposition that 'No one would believe it,' or, 'it's not a politically feasible position to take,' is insufficient grounds for refusing to critically examining the "official story." This should be second nature to those who presume to think independently.

Until we examine the evidence, and find the "more-sinister" scenario untrue, it's simply dishonest for us to discount it altogether -no matter how much it may upset our assumptions of human nature, the state apparatus, or whatever.

Until then, we don't know how serious the negligence may have been. The possibility remains that a combination of the above two scenarios is at hand; and, if/or when such negligence crosses over into the realm of official cover-up/deception, then complicity in the deaths of thousands -we can only determine that by impartial examination.

Now, we should not feel obligated to consider every theory put forward, that's true; yet this only grants us the right to suspend a judgement, temporarily -not to pass judgement without a reasonably thorough review.

At a certain point, such caution must give way to a willingness to consider; otherwise, we open ourselves to a selective ignorance, into which an unknown quantity of denial may flow... eventually leaving us far astride from the truth; and further, given the shocking nature of the event, and the past history of government deception, manipulation, it would seem only logical to at least question the "official" story... to critically assess it in the light of logic and historical precedence.

The jury's still out on the darker scenario; yet already, the evidence we've gathered together clearly shows that the negligence of the Air force, Pentagon, and the pResident himself was of a most extreme, disturbing nature indeed.

Much of "the left" seems to be unaware of this.

In the early days after Sept. 11th, credible, significant evidence was hard to come by, (swimming in the midst of shock, confusion, then some wild accusations, fuzzy logic, etc.); yet this is often the case with investigative reporting: a "case" for review literally does not exist, (in most people's eyes) until a few instinctive, enterprising reporters follow a hunch and gather evidence together.

Critics of government policy should understand this, support the process of inquiry; and it is instructive to note when and why otherwise intelligent, progressive people choose to rule out certain questions before they/we have taken the time to ask them.

In most "leftist" publications, there has been a sustained unwillingness to publicly question the "official" description of what happened -sometimes turning into an open attack and ridicule upon those that do.

A notable exception to this has been the work of the Portland,

and Hamilton, (Ontario, Canada)

Independent Media Centres.

Also, noted author William Blum,
( has been one of few amongst his peers to publicly express doubts about the "official" explanation. In his Foreward to the latest edition of, "Rogue State," he questions, "the failure of air safety and air defence systems to carry out long-standing, well-practiced, routine procedures and shoot down the second and third planes, perhaps deliberately choosing not to do so; substantial insider trading shortly before the attacks based on the expectation that the stocks of American and United Airlines would plunge along with their planes; US covert meetings with and support of the
Taliban for years; the ties between the Bush family and the bin Ladens; and much more".

"It strains credibility to believe that the FBI, CIA, NSA, et al. were unaware, at least in some detail, that a significant terrorist operation in the United States was in the offing."

Only after revelations about U.S. intelligence failures began saturating the mainstream press in late May, 2002, did major "leftist" publications begin publicly discussing the "official story," (offering important insights missing from the mainstream coverage) as exemplified by the following interview on FAIR's "Counterspin."

On June 7th, the important progressive radio program, "Democracy Now" featured an interview with British-based journalist, Greg Palast, wherein he said,

"What we're all shocked about [in the U.S.] now, [the ignored intelligence warnings] is old news in Europe, because we've been broadcasting it on the BBC for seven months now."

(Among many other interesting points made in this interview, Palast says, "Did you notice that the FBI Agent Rowley did not say, 'If only we had a new department in the Cabinet we would have been able to prevent this.' There's not one agent that I've spoken to in my investigations of what happened before Sept. 11th (what the President knew, and when did he forget it).... not one said, 'Gee, if we only had a different set of laws, if we could only fingerprint immigrants, have a new office of homeland security... Every one of them said, 'if I could just get the guys sitting in the desks above me to get their foot off my neck, I could get my job done.'")\

Simply open up your Real Player, and copy/paste above address; or go to -and click through to "Democracy Now," June 7.

As many readers may also know, there has been active discussions on many "leftist" discussion boards;\

May this be an indication, that the grass-roots will always find a way to keep its leading lights honest.

See also:
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.


Straw Man
23 Jul 2002
Modified: 12 Sep 2002
What are you talkin about? You quote the words "offical story" without explaining what is the "offical story" and you site many examples of what this altenative to the "offical story" is yet you never explain what your position or the contra-position is. Three plains crashed into three buildings, whats to argue about? Are you talkin about the interpritation of that incident? Are you talkin about prior knowledge to the act? What the hell are you talkin about? Anyway you so easly set up a straw man and never explain yourself thanks, for nothin.
Even A Baby May Understand
23 Jul 2002
President Chance is the only president since the late J.F.Kennedy whose words are transparent and may be fully understood even by a baby.
He touched a very important topic - the playing ground, the "attributes" Left-Center-Right, the timely attitudes of the different "gurus" and their quite understandable fears.
It is obvious - we are all buried under the megacontainers of the idle words. We all understand we must act, the short demonstrations are not helping much. Helas, we do not know how. Some people forgot it's not a XIX century we live in.
We must act. A real Parallel Government?..Small parallel governments in every city of America/Israel?...Stop the circumcision, keep your body whole?..Arm our brains?..Or are we going back and begin to shout "make love, not war" because the slogan is so easy to understand?..Regression is not an answer.