Ron Unz on Neocons, 9/11, and Chomsky
RSS
Search Text�Case Sensitive �Exact Words �Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Ron Unz of The Unz Review discusses his latest, “The Neocons and Their Rise to Power,” as well as my latest, “Chomsky’s Ties to Jeffrey Epstein—and Suspected 9/11 Mastermind Ehud Barak—Exposed.” We largely agree on the neocons. But Ron thinks my article is too hard on Chomsky. We also disagree about allegations of Cheney-Rumsfeld complicity in 9/11, and to a lesser extent whether the truth movement made a mistake by emphasizing Bush Administration rather than Israeli authorship of the attacks. So it’s a livelier Ron Unz interview than usual, since we have very different views on some of the topics.
(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
Follow @truthjihad 
•�Category: Foreign Policy, History •�Tags: 9/11, Conspiracy Theories, Dick Cheney, Mossad, Neocons�
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thanks for this interesting discussion. Regarding the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 attacks, please consider ‘Another Nineteen’ by Kevin Ryan (2013). This book outlines nineteen people who are legitimate suspects in the multiple mass murders committed that day.
I don’t like listening to Ron Unz. Let’s face it, the Jews are weird people. The way they communicate is foreign to the Western Man. The topic is really how we are controlled by a global mafia who are wrecking the West, but Ron Unz makes it sound like Mr. Rogers singing it’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood, a wonderful day in the neighborhood, Won’t you be my neighbor? No, Mr. Unz I will not be your neighbor. And no Jew should be our neighbors. They need to go. Will you censor this post, Mr. Rogers Unz or Mr. Shitlib Barrett?
Tough going..not enough time on Chomsky but I can see why. Intractability always frustrating as all hell. Up to now I’d just judged by the roles played and the behaviours presented by the three stooges (bushchenyrumsfeld), that they were all well in the loop and able to obstruct and obfuscate as their role in the greater game demanded. Being such a gargantuan enterprise, the argument that they weren’t ; in fact didn’t know and actively participate to the degree their place in the scheme required, is like listening to a flat earther for the first time. It is neither here nor there of course, but I began the 911 journey watching these three involved at the highest levels of containment and damage control. Cheney’s interaction as relayed by Norm Minetta always seemed to be, without doubt, participatory. Primary source. That these three weren’t the originators, nor necessarily the main protagonists, is easy to understand, but that they didn’t knowingly participate reminds me of that line by cia to all stations regarding the warren commission fight back, reminding each other the cia role was “to guard against the illicit transformation of probability into certainty” in the public mind, that they had indeed played their part in the murder of the President.
Al Gore’s running mate was Joe Lieberman. Lieberman is about the same age as Dick Cheney. Scooter Libby is several years younger. I’d never known that Libby, as Chief of Staff to Cheney, basically ran the country in the early 2000s.
If Gore had won, and continued the policies of the Clinton neocons, and a false flag attack on the Twin Towers had occurred, would there have even been a Truth movement? We might know the truth about the attacks today because the ballot chads in Florida in 2000 were counted in Bush’s favor.
Mr. Unz only censors comments that deflate his hyperventilated ego.
Letting those like yours through has helped to obscure this. I still see the occasional expression of gratitude from free speech advocates who haven’t caught on.
I usually don’t listen to Barrett’s podcasts, because his interviewees are frequently either crackpots or conmen.
I made an exception for this one and listened to almost all of it. It’s really more of a debate than an interview.
The Chomsky affair raises an interesting point: how exactly does a limited hangout, or controlled opposition, works? Is it better to have a controlled opposition than none at all? Who is the reall “controlled opposition”? Is it Chomsky? What about sites like Veterans Today, which specialize in cognitive dissonance-inducing fake information, including the allegation that Julian Assange is an Israeli agent? These are interesting questions which someone should address.
For example, people who think the pro-Israel looby is important might think Michael Hudson is a sort of controlled opposition because he disagrees with that assessment. But he is generally viewed as a valuable contributor to the debate. Chomsky, on the other hand, who has very similar views as Hudson, has been much more heavily criticized on that account, even before the alleged Epstein-related revelations, which by the way were made by the very establishmentarian Wall Street Journal. It must feel very “based” to play into the hands of the WSJ.
To say, as Ron Unz does, that Chomsky is “mainstream” is mind-boggling or hilarious, depending on your acquaintance with Ron Unz’s intellectual output. Interestingly, Chomsky’s close associate Edward S. Herman, who was a lot less famous than him, and was actually the main author of Manufacturing Consent, placed a lot of weight on the pro-Israel lobby. Here’s a well-argued short piece by him on that topic:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230417135602/http://www.gtr5.com/evidence/proisrael_lobby.htm
I am not aware of any major fall out between Chomsky and Herman over differences on that issue, but we are talking about civilized people.
Now I’m waiting for the Michael Hudson interview/debate. Will you do it?
I have to agree with Ron Unz that the direct involvement of Bush and Cheney in the planning of 9/11 is largely implausible.
Dr. Barrett should have just let it go.
It has been my view for some time that George W. Bush was the first working prototype of the purely figurehead US president that we see today. That is he lacked the intellect, education and awareness to have ever had any serious role in planning and orchestrating US foreign policy much less the day-to-day decision making skills critical for the successful execution of such policy. These elements were not evident in any demonstrable capacity during either of his two terms. It is also not something that is consistent with Dubya’s prior educational, military or professional accomplishments. He was a rich boy from a powerful family with just enough brains to function as a convincing front-man on stage but only when real professionals were doing the work in the studio behind the scenes.
On the other hand, I do believe that Cheney himself effectively demonstrated the attributes lacking in George W. Bush while functioning as George H. W. Bush’s SOD during the First Gulf War. I had always gotten a clear sense that Cheney was highly cognizant and had a volitional role in this campaign.
Based only on these observations, Cheney, as George W. Bush’s vice-president, “could” thus have had a role in planning the 9/11 attacks.
Therefore, aside from the surface political similarities of these two men, I think it may be a mistake to refer to them in the same breath except at the highest level. There is no Bush and Cheney with respect to the architecture and implementation of US foreign policy immediately prior to 9/11. They were not two peas in the same pod. What held true for one with respect to these attributes did not hold true for the other.
Moreover, internally, the US had changed radically in the 10 years between the First Gulf War and the years leading up to 9/11. As Ron Unz has convincingly shown, the Neocons had by then achieved absolute, even nepotistic, control over US foreign policy. The much vaunted US system of checks-and-balances had been effectively circumvented. This is evidenced by the sheer impotence of Congress and the Supreme Court in the face of these Neocon machinations.
Yet there is an equally important and woefully under-discussed factor in this equation. By the mid-to-late 1990’s, the Neocons had also achieved effective operational control over the entire US mass-media establishment. This was accomplished by consolidating it under the umbrella of a handful of mega-corporate entities. But no less importantly by also exploiting the state of affairs in American journalism that had begun to emerge in the early 1980’s with the phenomenon of the “multi-million dollar” anchor – evening news anchors arguably being the most powerful people in the media with respect to their ability to influence large masses of people. Walter Cronkite opined in his autobiography that news anchors had begun to becomee largely disconnected from the general populace by virtue of two factors: 1) their overall educational level vastly exceeded that of the average American; and 2) the large salaries of these individuals propelled them into the highest social classes where their closest friends and associates became rich and powerful politicians and business figures all of whom now shared the same interests. As history shows, not a single one of these highly paid and influential journalists ever sacrificed their salaries and social status for journalistic integrity with respect to 9/11. Nor have they with any other major issue since.
So with both the governmental system of checks-and-balances and America’s much vaunted 4th-Estate effectively compromised and under top-down operational control, the Neocons had free reign to do as they pleased without having to confront any of these inconvenient constraints. And they certainly did.
Thus, by considering his role as George H. W. Bush’s SOD, Cheney definitely had the skills to be a player in 9/11 and so he certainly “could” have had a role. Yet, by the same reasons presented by Ron Unz, that Wyoming cowboy Dick Cheney – a key member of George H.W. Bush’s cabinet, arguably the last “American” administration in the White House – would have come up with or been an active participant in a plan to attack his own country using his own military to bring about Neocon ambitions stretches my credulity to the brink.
Instead, I believe that 9/11 was a pure Neocon operation and that Cheney’s role by this time, similar to Bush’s, was to simply go along with a charade that he himself as it unfolded would have wanted to believe was orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden and his henchman. It is critical not to forget that the First Gulf War had been an incomplete job. It was a far cry from Mission Accomplished. Saddam was still a thorn in the side of American. The opportunity to redeem this legacy would have been a strong psychological motivator for Cheney to go along with whatever was presented to him in whatever terms.
These are all elements of consideration crucial for successful social engineering, i.e. in more colloquial terms: a good con job. I believe that both Bush and Cheney were marks, useful idiots to be played by the Neocon architects of 9/11 serving in the roles they were most suited. So maybe Bush and Cheney were two peas in the same pod after all.
Both Cheney and Rumsfeld’s behaviors on 9/11 are suspicious enough to indicate that they were more than simply dupes. Neither Kevin nor Ron mentioned the importance of Bush’s ties -through his dad- to Carlyle Group and the permanent intelligence establishment. It seems likely that there might have been enormous pressure on President Bush through friendly channels to accept plausible deniability, shut up, and do as he was told.
Chomsky’s never been mainstream. There was a huge demand for him to offer his commentary on the MacNeal Lehrer NewsHour (according to Jim Lehrer) and they invited him on the show a grand total of once. I never heard him on NPR or saw him on any of the Sunday morning shows. His books were not published by the big houses, and he wrote for fringe periodicals like Z Magazine. He’s smart enough not to have let himself be filmed in any compromising positions while chilling with Epstein, so he either went along to have his big ego stroked, or there was an intelligence angle.
KB & RU did a very nice job with this discussion; keeping; implausible ‘truth’ narratives alive, for decades now…
I agree that “both Cheney and Rumsfeld’s behaviors on 9/11 are suspicious enough to indicate that they were more than simply dupes.” For details, read David Ray Griffin’s books.
As I recall, Cheney was whisked to the White House command bunker not long after 9 a.m., almost immediately after the second Tower was hit, and served as acting Commander-in-Chief throughout the day. Yet he and others, including the 9/11 Commission, lied and claimed he didn’t get there until after 10 a.m., that is, until after the air defense response ended. If Cheney was innocent, why go to the trouble of getting tangled up in multiple, increasingly implausible lies?
So Cheney was at the top of the acting command chain on 9/11, most pertinently between 9 and 10 a.m., and actively commanded the air defense (non-)response. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified, and never changed his testimony, about witnessing Cheney give what can only have been a stand-down order shortly before the Pentagon was hit around 9:35 a.m. (the actual time is in dispute, but only by a few minutes). The ludicrously false current official story, changed for the umpteenth time and then set in stone by the 9/11 Commission, has it that Cheney was not there until around 10:10, and that Mineta must have been hallucinating.
As I recall, laws were changed a few months before 9/11 to put Cheney in charge of Air Defense response.
For these and a very long list of other reasons, I am convinced that Cheney was an active, conscious participant in the 9/11 false flag. The idea that he would not want to participate in a huge crime that would greatly increase his power, and lead to the institution of policies he had advocated throughout his career, strikes me as absurd. (Remember, he forced himself on the 2000 Republican ticket saying something like “a really big thing is coming and I want to be part of it.”)
I have read many books on him (and on 9/11) and it is obvious to me that he is a classic power-freak psychopath – not because he is a conservative Republican, but because he (like “liberal Democrat” LBJ) is…well, an obvious power-hungry psychopath. Like LBJ the pubic defecator, Cheney is the kind of the guy who would shoot his hunting buddy in the face if the hunting buddy said the wrong thing…the kind of guy who deniably brags about doing 9/11 by answering the question “What was the highest moment of the past eight years?” by saying: “Um…er…9/11 itself.” (The pause before he says that indicates that he’s thinking about whether and how he can say it deniably.)
Yet, irrespective of any distinction you’ve drawn, both Bush and Cheney are fully culpable war criminals who shamelessly ground up their (purported) countrymen and many more innocent people to further the interests of themselves and their paymasters.
Agree? (Whoever made you Goldiebox should respond, too.)
First and foremost, Chomsky is a complete nobody in my book. Beyond that, our host Ron Unz has no military or intelligence background of any kind, other than being friends with Gen. William E. Odom, who was DIRNSA (1985-1988) under Pres. Reagan.
These shortcomings in Ron’s background and experience are probably what lead him to believe goofy ideas like ABC’s April 2021 allegations about an NCMI memo warning about an ongoing pandemic in China by Nov. 2020 when no such thing was happening. It’s almost unnecessary to add that nobody has produced a copy of this report, nor has anyone with any credibility said they’ve seen or read it.
Just in passing, I’ll note that the SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to mutate, which is entirely natural viral behavior I would not expect from any engineered pathogen.
Think about it.
From their own statements, it’s obvious to me that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their cohorts in the Bush administration are directly responsible for 9/11.
Ron squirms and dissembles extensively re 9/11. It’s a tribal thing, clearly. Didn’t B. Netanyahu remark re 9/11 “It’s good for Israel before saying it’s awful of course”. Don’t remember exact wording. Uncomfortable to listen to this part of the discussion. Were Ron to focus his usual acute analytical skills to 9/11, he would become a pariah.
while I disagree with some of the abuse you’ve recently been subjected to as perhaps overwrought, and while I don’t generally agree with some of your contempt for ‘white males’ needing a ‘copium’, (or whatever you call it), I do generally read your comments, because even when I don’t agree, I consider them to be sometimes insightful and generally well-constructed.
So, with that said, could you offer an example of a website anywhere on the Internet that compares to The Unz Review for its dedication to the free expression of ideas? Even when they go against the opinions and positions of the owner of the site?
I’ve been here for quite a long time now, and as far as I know, have only been censored once by (I think) Mr. Unz, for a minor quibble. (and- I should mention, who has also honored my requests to have certain of my comments removed for reasons of decorum).
I’ve been censored a few times by Phil Giraldi, and for good reason, because of intemperate and regrettable language. And once by some other Anotoly Karlin, because he didn’t like the truth I was telling.
Other than that, even when my comments have been off-the-charts expletive-laced frothing, (something I’m trying to rein in ; ), I always get published, (even on occasion, when doing so might be of questionable merit).
If you know of a better site for the free expression of ideas than this one, would you be kind enough to post a link? Because I know of none that even come close.
Thanks. You and I better understand each other than we used to, but there’s a ways to go.
1. I know of no better site for the free expression of ideas than this one, but it has declined substantially since Mr. Unz failed — both logically and emotionally — to reconcile his views concerning COVID provenance with the skepticism many of us had about public health measures, especially the Big Pharma shots.
I’ve been on his sh*tlist since last autumn. None of my censored comments was vulgar, threatening, bigoted or otherwise outside his guidelines. I have the screenshots to prove this, but I’m not about to retype any when he would likely block them again.
Maybe you should ask him what of mine he’s blocked, and why.
2. I have empathy, not contempt, for disaffected white males. The poor treatment received by the Establishment includes being mollified with the constant reassurance from cross-publications from VDare, etc., that black people are inferior. That, like Red+Blue politics, is just another distraction.
You must not have listed to the show or read Ron’s work on 9/11. Ron blames Israel and its American agents almost exclusively, whereas I argue for complicity at the top levels of the US executive branch and to some extent the military and intelligence agencies.
I agree, and I think that says a lot.
I tend to give his views on the provenance of Covid a lot of interest, perhaps most of all because there doesn’t seem to be a universally accepted, (even at this date!) agreement from governments and scientists and others on what is- exactly, the provenance of this mysterious virus. I sort of see it like 9/11 or the Ukraine war, where every official outlet either pretends that the truth about these things simply doesn’t matter, or that the official narrative, (that doesn’t even seem to exist vis-a-vis the advent of Covid), is the one to get behind, whatever the Deepstate PTB say on any given day.
So when Mr. Unz says he suspects it may have been a rogue operation conducted by anti-Chinese and anti-Iranian neocon elements within the Trump administration, (without Trump’s knowledge or approval – if I have it right), then I tend to give that theory, as much credibility as ‘it came from a pangolin’, and actually, much more.
As for the jab, I disagree with Mr. Unz, but just as with many of the intelligent and reasonable and rational people I know who got the jab, I respect their decision to do so, so long as they don’t insist that others get it.
I suspect, (as I suspect other’s agree) that those two sentiments of yours are not unrelated.
And that would be a conversation all its own.
Suffice to say that it isn’t, (from a majority consensus- at least as far as I can see), that black people are inferior to white people, at least certainly in every case, but rather than in the whole, and at the collective, they are different. And have different genetic characteristics that are largely responsible for how they conduct themselves.
The problem is, that when blacks excel at sports, (thereby demonstrating the obvious truth about what I just said about the differences), no one cares or complains.
But when blacks excel at violent crime, or languish behind whites (and Asians and Jews and Indians and just about every other people) economically, it is always blamed (cue hurling massive chunks) on ‘white racism’.
Which for guys like myself, has become beyond offensive and abhorrent, (and racist), and now is the equivalent of war talk.
So that is an issue for another conversation all together.
Aside from that, I enjoy reading your comments.
Edit:
2. I have empathy, not contempt, for disaffected white males. What many don’t realize is that the poor treatment includes being mollified by the constant reassurance — increasingly cross-published here from VDare, etc., — that black people are inferior. That, like Red+Blue politics, is just another distraction. The Establishment couldn’t care less for George, Derek, or their riled supporters.
noblesse oblige mandates that the those who’re somewhat more lucky, (let’s say) refrain from denigrating those who weren’t.
But because this issue has been a toxic underlying theme in the world I grew up in, and is now coming to a head with California reparations, and other woke idiocies..
Are you of a mind, Greta, (if you don’t mind my asking) that were it not for white racism (and exploitation and oppression..) that the Congo would look like Switzerland today, because the DNA of Africans and Europeans are exactly the same, but for some inconsequential melanin levels, (and of course the uniquely villainous and racist nature of Europeans)
?
it may be a distraction to you, Greta, but I doubt Derek is quite that academic about it.
I thought Ron did a surprisingly good job at arguing for Cheney’s ignorance on 9/11, and putting the blame for “American” complicity somewhere further down the chain of command. In particular, I thought Ron was right in that Kevin put too much weight on isolated statements and mannerisms. The hard facts brought up in these comments are a more useful focus.
There is also the factor of blackmail. Cheney and Rumsfeld may have had invisible choke-chains around their necks. Rumsfeld wrote Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy a letter urging him not to force the AIPAC of that day to register as an agent of a foreign government. So Rumsfeld’s service to Israel goes way back. Kay Griggs has testified that back in the 1990’s the Israelis were running organized blackmail honeytraps for military personnel and politicians. So Cheney becoming VP may have been arranged along with Dubya becoming POTUS.
Blackmail control of Cheney and Rumsfeld may have been enough to involve them in the “minor” attack on the Pentagon, as Laurent Guyenot suggests. Per Guyenot, they were then blindsided by the WTC attack. Because of their involvement they were powerless to resist or spill the beans.
Chomsky too, may have been coerced, if not by blackmail, then by threats of assassination directed at himself or family members. Arch Zionist John Bolton threatened the head of the OPCW by saying, “We know where your kids live”, as reported by Aaron Mate. This is a mafia-style threat. I’ve long suspected Bernie Sanders was reined in by a threat to a beloved grandchild.
I encountered a book by Chomsky in the 1980’s covering the Zionist crimes against the Palestinians, and on that basis considered him willing to go against the establishment. His dismissal of the JFK and 9/11 cases, essentially declining to discuss them, seemed to me inconsistent with the writer of that earlier book. I explained the change to myself as due to coercion.
Most public figures today, in the press and politics, pull their punches when they get close to the topic of the criminals who control our major institutions. No one will talk about a Jewish mafia, even though they have no reservations about an Italian mafia or a Japanese mafia. And they definitely won’t touch the Talmud and its granting Talmudic Jews permission to commit crimes against non-Jews. So it makes sense to me that Bernie and Chomsky may be similarly risk averse.
One Nation Under Blackmail by Whitney Webb
I think the only book I’ve ever read of Chomsky’s is Manufacturing Consent, which he co-authored with Edward Herman, but I have read a few of his articles and occasionally heard him speak.
It’s obviously a matter of definition, but he’s always struck me as a very mainstream left-liberal, with views not too different from most of the writers at the Nation or similar outlets. Obviously, he’d become famous for his strong criticism of the Vietnam War and other actions taken by the American government, but so have all the other left-liberals. In what respects is he so different from the writers at the Nation? And wouldn’t you agree that the Nation is a very mainstream left-liberal publication?
Similarly, when I read Seymour Hersh’s memoirs a few months ago, I was quite surprised how extremely mainstream and conventional he seemed to be on almost all political issues:
https://www.unz.com/runz/but-that-newspaper-is-dead/
Noam’s views are generally very predictable in that regard, but I think he has to be respected as someone with total consistency of views and general integrity.
I think Israel Shamir described Chomsky best as someone whose role remains a moral voice which remains public by not going too far, whilst also being a crucial introduction to more radical/controversial figures, particularly for younger people.
I certainly wouldn’t have discovered Israel Shahak, Chris Hedges or Norman Finkelstein as a teenager if it weren’t for Chomsky’s collaborations with them.
I think it says a lot about the continual narrowing of acceptable American media discourse that Noam Chomsky has now gained the reputation as some sort ultra-left extremist. I can say that among my generation, many trendy leftists try to vaguely dismiss Chomsky, presumably for being an elderly white male who doesn’t obsess over transvestite wedge-issues.
You may have heard of this, but Chomsky has recently come under a lot of flack for stating the obvious and pointing out the 2nd Iraq Invasion was far more a war of choice, and fought with fewer scruples, than Russia in Ukraine right now.
Video Link
Chomsky’s On Western Terrorism (co-written with Andre Vltchek) is, like a fair bit of Chomsky’s work, a harsher attack on neocolonial wars and interventions than those in The Nation. It argues that the death toll from US military and CIA interventions since World War II is nearly 60 million. That is much higher than even William Blum, who also harshly critiqued what he called the American Holocaust, ever suggested.
Blum, by the way, was able to entertain (though not quite endorse) the 9/11 false flag hypothesis. And unlike Chomsky, he never said insane/mendacious things. All things considered he was a much better critic of the crimes of empire than Chomsky. I used to call him “the thinking man’s Chomsky” which I intended as a compliment, though I’m not sure he entirely agreed.
Essentially accusing someone of being a paedophile drawing on nothing more than a gutter-feed tabloid article is a bit much.
Anyhow, what ‘insane/mendacious’ things has Chomsky said? I can see an argument against him for being too milquetoast, but that’s a pretty mild critique imo.
I do agree. It absolves them of nothing but direct involvement in the planning and orchestration. By any account, they are complicit as accessories to war crimes.
Ron Unz should hire a voice coach — his voice is too shrill. Tucker Carlson has a similar problem but fortunately we are not hearing his voice anymore, perhaps for a long time.
Someone should do a psychological analysis of individuals with that tendency, perhaps that commenter with everchanging handles.
A model who could inspire Unz is Scott Ritter; he has a vigorous utterance, and his voice timbre is just right.
Hey, Barrett, do an interview with Scott Ritter. You can ask him about your favorite topics, and about Noam Chomsky.
No one can accuse me of not helping this site improve its footprint.
Oh come on, give us a break.
I am assuming that you are a real, ordinary person and a man: how many publicly-convicted paedophiles did you ever entertain relations with, by choice, in your social circle? I am sure your answer will be : zero. You would avoid them like the plague.
Which person in their right mind would do what Chomsky did: casually frequent people stained with the vilest crime of abusing children?
Paedophiles are very rare in the real life of ordinary people; conversely, they are extremely frequently found in political circles. It is not by chance, as paedophilia crimes are used as blackmail. Chomsky could have wisely chosen not to willingly muddle in the manure, like any much less intelligent ordinary man would have done. The man is either sick, or insane.
You gave us 400 words, but neglected to include a pithy quote or two by Ron Unz to support this claim.
Norman Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission makes it clear that VP Cheney was hardly ignorant, and indeed seems to have been coordinating the defense of the Pentagon from an underground tunnel or bunker, the PEOC where he was seen by Mineta getting frequent updates about the approach of a plane, purportedly AA77, but more probably a USAF jet flown under the orders of the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and acting Chairman, JCS, and Air Force 4 star General Richard Myers, as you’d have to go all the way to the top to get approval for that kind of air mission.
Certainly, it’s possible the pilot thought he was taking part in an exercise, or conceivably the plane was being flown under remote control. Of course, this plane did not crash into the Pentagon, but overflew the building.
And Cheney certainly did not want to shoot down his own airplane, and in fact no airplane was shot down at the Pentagon, nor were any defensive shots fired at all on 9/11, so Cheney’s order must have been “Hold your fire,” and that was what caused the “young man,” in Mineta’s words, to ask if the orders “still stand.”
Why don’t you actually read Unz’s article before spouting off whole paragraphs yourself?
There is no article here, just a podcast. That’s what JWalters wrote about, not Unz’ article, but I suppose that must have escaped your attention.
In any case, I made several comments under Ron Unz’s article referenced by Dr. Barrett at the outset here, but I suppose that too must have escaped your attention.
https://www.unz.com/runz/the-neocons-and-their-rise-to-power/
Meanwhile, in formulating your own response, you or anyone else here can easily read and/or quote anything from those “entire paragraphs” I’ve written here to support my contention,
Podcasts suck for that reason: There is usually no transcript, and therefore, there is nothing to read, but apparently that shortcoming must have escaped your attention.
In the context of this debate I thought Ron did surprisingly well on that point. This was in large part because, as Ron accurately pointed out (in my words), “Kevin put too much weight on isolated statements and mannerisms.”
Then I added, “The hard facts brought up in these comments are a more useful focus.” Those would include the Mineta testimony, brought up in comment #3 by remo.
P.S. Had there been a transcript available I would have provided you with a pithy quote.
I agree that Ron argued surprisingly well—not that I’m surprised by him arguing well, which he always does, but rather that he managed to make a decent case for downgrading where Cheney and Rumsfeld stand on the suspects’ list. I happen to disagree with his conclusion, which is mostly based on general presumptions rather than debunking the specific evidence that Griffin and others have cited. Some of that evidence, including Mineta’s testimony (partially backed by others) and the outrageous official lies about Cheney’s timeline and actions, is very strong; much of the rest is circumstantial, but adds up to a convincing cumulative case.
runz is far too placid about the overwhelming collaborative evidence between the usd-state and zionist infiltration in every sector of the mic media and academia
it almost appeared runz was gaslighting Barretts falseflag conclusions
I‘m very busy, having just gotten underway with a big project I’d been putting off for years, so I’m more than a little reluctant now to have to clear the decks, set my big project aside, and produce that transcript myself, as I’ve done before, as nobody else around here seems to be capable of rolling up his sleeves and doing a little work.
In the past, Ron’s defense of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld has been laughable, something along the lines of Rumsfeld was elderly, Cheney was sick, and Bush was an idiot. Therefore, none of them could have had anything to do with 9/11.
Yeah, right.
Yes, Kevin Barrett, William Blum was open to the 9/11 false flag hypothesis. Even though I was a nobody, he would answer my emails. One email answer he wrote that he doesn’t rule out the possibility that 9/11 was a false flag. His book “Killing Hope” opened my eyes to the evilness of American foreign policy much more than anything Chomsky wrote. Notice how Chomsky never had a problem with his day job. Even Robert Parry who openly espoused the ‘October Surprise’ never touched 9/11. 9/11 is still a rabbit hole where millions (tens? or more) have been spent making it so, just like the JFK assassination. The JFK assassination and 9/11 and the US moon landings are places you just can’t question and remain credible in public discourse. I agree with you about Chomskly and Sy Hersh agreeing on JFK and 9/11. Even Oliver Stone never looks into the Jewish participation in the JFK and RFK assassinations. The deep state has many different players with different desires. It is not a monolithic Jewish operation though they are a major player. Although there are certainly elements of the deep state operating in Russia and China it is hard for me to determine whether they are active players in the deep state like the WEF or the Bilderbergers, elements of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, the MIComplex, the CFR, the Bohemian Grove, the Trilateral Commission, what’s left of the Royal Families, the Rothchilds and other internal bankers, the Bank of International Settlements, the Knights of Malta, the Pilgrims Group, families like the Rockefellers and Agnellis, the new guys from Silicon Valley and other billionaires like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, and many more others. “It’s a big party and we ain’t in it.”
There’s always room for one more oversized ego, and the tights you wore for your Wiki portrait were endearing.
Chomsky presents himself as a champion of free speech, but he has one exception. Chomsky is the ultimate gatekeeper when it comes to Israel. Here is what he has to say about the holohoax ….
He writes prima facie absurdities with complete chutzpah, like “we demean ourselves to discuss the greatest outburst of insanity … ” when of course the greatest outburst of insanity should be thoroughly studied.
here you go runz. try to walk away from the evidence reported by kevinryan. far too many incidental contacts between nyc saudi intel and the underlying cabalist factions who had financial gain and the mic fronts Cheney/Rummy
https://www.corbettreport.com/9-11-whistleblowers-kevin-ryan/
Take down a missile?.
Or
take down a plane as the missile goes through the Pentagon?
Mineta maybe a misdirection or some confusion going on?
—————————————————————————————————————–
I’m still unsure, did The Noam ever have a grad student or any kind of student?
Did TN ever go into a class room to teach?
A logic explanation is that Cheney gave the order NOT to take down the plane that was delivering the cruise missile that hit the Pentagon.
That explanation seems the most plausible.
Dr Barrett is right because Cheney was up to his neck into the 9/11 conspiracy by enabling the Pentagon attack. But R. Unz and L. Guyenot are correct too, because on the other hand, neither Cheyney nor Rumsfeld or Bush played any operational role in the WTC Holocaust, which had solely Israeli fingerprints over it.
It looks like while they had all agreed on a spectacular “Pearl Harbour”-style attack, Israel decided single-handedly to take it to another level of horror by demolishing the Twin Towers.
thanks, could be.
Very good point. Whether blacks are “inferior” is indeed irrelevant to the discussion. The primary issue is that they are being weaponized by the establishment in a campaign of demographic warfare against European and European derived populations. The issue is the promotion of anarcho-tyranny…
Yes the neocons did it authorised by the Mossad. It’s not difficult. Telling Bush would simply cause problems.
The Jews described the 911 attack in detail, on national television, six months before it happened.
The name of the video?
The Lone Gunman.
September 11, 2001.
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=Q48BsNaz_YM&feature=share
I LOVE the voice of Ron UNZ! it’s ASMR to me