Updated: Richard Falk Is Right on 9/11—Will Obama and Friends Forsake Falk for Telling the Truth

Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Occupied Palestine, is under fire for writing what is obviously true about the U.S. government and the media. Calls for his firing abound from the usual suspects.

Such commitments to truth as Falk possesses can pose problems for prospective careerists, but the 80-year-old human rights activist and scholar likely doesn’t care all that much about resulting slander.

Update: The level of McCarthyite hysteria directed at Richard Falk is astonishing.  “UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s office condemned Richard Falk, a retired Princeton professor and a member of the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, for questioning in a recent blog posting” the official version about the 9/11 terror attacks. … The secretary-general’s spokesman, Vijay Nambiar, wrote that Falk’s remarks were “an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in the attack.” (Horn, Jerusalem Post)

In fact, Falk wrote: the “media … [is] unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events [of 9/11].” And that author David Ray Griffin is of a caliber of “other devoted scholars of high integrity.”

That’s it. Why is the Lobby and its supporters so enraged by Falk’s rather banal comments?

The truth will set you free.  How about the editorial boards of The Nation and The Progressive where Falk has long served? When will the statements of support come out?  Falk’s story is an excellent candidate for The Progressive editor Matthew Rothschild’s exellent McCarthyism Watch. [To contact Matt Rothschild about Richard Falk.]

Falk’s lifetime commitment to the truth puts him beyond the reach of McCarthyite slanderers and cowards who see Falk and other human rights activists and truth-tellers as betraying the causethat is, America and Israel right or wrong and don’t make waves.  Liars cannot erase a lifetime with one lie. It’s been tried with Helen Thomas and it failed.

So what’s the hubbub that has U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, demanding that Falk step down from his UN position and saying, “In my view, Mr. Falk’s latest commentary [a paragraph on the media and 9/11] is so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he should no longer continue in his position on behalf of the U.N.”? (Reuters, Charbonneau)

Falk’s Blog January 11, 2011 Commentary [Full text posted below]

Turns out Falk has the temerity to suggest that the mainstream media refused to accept “well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the [9/11] events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials.” (Reuters, Charbonneau)

We thought this was axiomatic. But the American Jewish Committee and various crusaders for truth in the U.S. Congress want Falk fired.

The 9/11 Commission member and staff is composed of the sort of insiders Washington elites wanted on the blue-ribbon committee to prevent accountability and disclosure to the American people 0f what their government knew and when its many agencies knew it.

Remember when George W. Bush made his over-the-top appointment of Henry Kissinger to the 9/11 commission in late November 2002. (CounterPunch,  December 17, 2002;  Leon) Even then those—like the 9/11 victims’ families—who doubted the would-be chair Kissinger’s commitment to investigate the truth of the events leading up to 9/11 were smeared as conspiracy theorists and un-American radicals.

Kissinger’s appointment as chair was withdrawn as too obvious a choice for a cover-up. And Kissinger gave away the store on the Lou Dobbs Moneyline show (CNN, December 16, 2002) in a laugh-a-minute interview excerpted below. Said Kissinger:

 I hope that everybody has his partisanship out of his system now. And that people remember that this [9/11] was an event that was totally unexpected to the American public; that it came from a direction that nobody had ever thought of. And that it was the first attack on the continental United States … . (Dobbs quickly interrupts)

As for Falk, here is his commentary crime:

The arguments swirling around the 9/11 attacks are emblematic of these issues [of secrecy in government]. What fuels suspicions of conspiracy is the reluctance to address the sort of awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations that David Ray Griffin (and other devoted scholars of high integrity) have been documenting in book after book ever since his authoritative The New Pearl Harbor in 2004 (updated in 2008). What may be more distressing than the apparent cover up is the eerie silence of the mainstream media, unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials. Is this silence a manifestation of fear or cooption, or part of an equally disturbing filter of self-censorship? Whatever it is, the result is the withering away of a participatory citizenry and the erosion of legitimate constitutional government. The forms persist, but the content is missing.

Did we miss something? What’s the problem here?

Of course, the official 9/11 version of events is a lie.

As the great journalist I.F. Stone once wrote: “All governments are run by liars and nothing they say should be believed.”

Falk knows this truism about governments; most everyone does. He dare speaks this truth? Thank you, Richard Falk.

Regarding David Ray Griffin, I am going to make a point to read:

Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance

by Richard Falk, Jan. 11, 2011

I spent a year in Swedena few years after the assassination of Olaf Palmein 1986, the controversialformer prime minister of the country who at the time of his death was serving as a member of the Swedish cabinet. He was assassinated while walking with his wife back to their apartment in the historic part of the city after attending a nearby movie. It was a shocking event in a Sweden that had prided itself on moderateness in politics and the avoidance of involvement in the wars of the twentieth century. A local drifter, with a history of alcoholism, was charged and convicted of the crime, but many doubts persisted, including on the part of Ms. Palme who analogized her situation to that of Coretta King who never believed the official version of her martyred husband’s death.

I had a particular interest in this national traumatic event as my reason for being in Sweden was a result of an invitation to be the Olaf Palme Professor, a rotating academic post given each year to a foreign scholar, established by the Swedish Parliamentas a memorialto their former leader. (after the Social Democratic Party lost political control in Sweden this professorship was promptly defunded, partly because Palme was unloved by conservatives and partly because of a neoliberal dislike for public support of such activities)

In the course of my year traveling around Sweden I often asked those whom I met what was their view of the assassination, and what I discovered was that the responses told me more about them than it did about the public event. Some thought it was a dissident faction in the Swedish security forces long angered by Palme’s neutralist policies, some believed it was resentment caused by Palme’s alleged engineering of Swedish arms sales to both sides in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, some believed it was the CIAin revenge for Palme’s neutralism during the Cold War, some believed it could have criminals in the pay of business tycoons tired of paying high taxes needed to maintain the Swedish maximalistversion of a welfare state, and there were other theories as well. What was common to all of these explanations was the lack of evidence that might connect the dots. What people believed happened flowed from their worldview rather than the facts of the event—a distrust of the state, especially its secret operations, or a strong conviction that special interests hidden from view were behind prominent public events of this character.

In a way, this process of reflection is natural, even inevitable, but it leads to faulty conclusions. We tend to process information against the background of our general worldview and understanding, and we do this all the time as an efficient way of coping with the complexity of the world combined with our lack of time or inclination to reach conclusions by independent investigation. The problem arises when we confuse this means of interpreting our experience with an effort to provide an explanation of a contested public event. There are, to be sure, conspiracies that promote unacknowledged goals, and enjoy the benefit of government protection. We don’t require WikiLeaks to remind us not to trust governments, even our own, and others that seem in most respects to be democratic and law-abiding. And we also by now should know that governments (ab)use their authority to treat awkward knowledge as a matter of state secrets, and criminalize those who are brave enough to believe that the citizenry needs to know the crimes that their government is committing with their trust and their tax dollars.

The arguments swirling around the 9/11 attacks are emblematic of these issues. What fuels suspicions of conspiracy is the reluctance to address the sort of awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations that David Ray Griffin(and other devoted scholars of high integrity) have been documenting in book after book ever since his authoritative The New Pearl Harbor in 2004 (updated in 2008). What may be more distressing than the apparent cover up is the eerie silence of the mainstream media, unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaedaoperation with no foreknowledge by government officials. Is this silence a manifestation of fear or cooption, or part of an equally disturbing filter of self-censorship? Whatever it is, the result is the withering away of a participatory citizenry and the erosion of legitimate constitutional government. The forms persist, but the content is missing.

This brings me to the Arizona shootings, victimizing both persons apparently targeted for their political views and random people who happened to be there for one reason or another, innocently paying their respects to a congresswoman meeting constituents outside a Tucson supermarket. As with the Palme assassination, the most insistent immediate responses come from the opposite ends of the political spectrum, both proceeding on presuppositions rather than awaiting evidence.
On one side are those who say that right-wing hate speech and affection for guns were clearly responsible, while Tea Party ultra-conservatives and their friends reaffirm their rights of free speech, denying that there is any connection between denouncing their adversaries in the political process and the violent acts of a deranged individual seemingly acting on his own.  If we want to be responsible in our assessments, we must restrain our political predispositions, and get the evidence. Let us remember that what seems most disturbing about the 9/11 controversy is the widespread aversion by government and media to the evidence that suggests, at the very least, the need for an independent investigation that proceeds with no holds barred.

Such an investigation would contrast with the official ‘9/11 Commission’ that proceeded with most holds barred.  What has been already disturbing about the Arizona incident are these rival rushes to judgment without bothering with evidence. Such public irresponsibility polarizes political discourse, making conversation and serious debate irrelevant.

There is one more issue raised, with typical candor and innocence, by the filmmaker, Michael Moore. If a Muslim group has published a list of twenty political leaders in this country, and put crosshairs of a gun behind their pictures, is there any doubt that the Arizona events would be treated as the work of a terrorist,, and the group that had pre-identified such targets would be immediately outlawed as a terrorist organization. Many of us, myself included, fervently hoped, upon hearing the news of the shootings, that the perpetrator of this violence was neither a Muslim nor a Hispanic, especially an illegal immigrant. Why? Because we justly feared the kind of horrifying backlash that would have been probably generated by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly,  Sarah Palin, and their legion of allies. Now that the apparent perpetrator is a young white American, the talk from the hate mongers, againswithout bothering with evidence, is of mental disorder and sociopathology. This is faith-based pre-Enlightenment ‘knowledge.’

What must we learn from all of this? Don’t connect dots without evidence. Don’t turn away as soon as the words ‘conspiracy theory’ are uttered, especially if the evidence does point away from what the power-wielders want us to believe. Don’t link individual wrongdoing, however horrific, to wider religious and ethnic identities. We will perish as a species if we don’t learn soon to live together better on our beautiful, globalizing, and imperiled planet.



The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on January 26, 2011, With Reads Filed under WarZone. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

26 Responses to "Updated: Richard Falk Is Right on 9/11—Will Obama and Friends Forsake Falk for Telling the Truth"

  1. notexactlyhuman  January 30, 2011 at 7:47 am

    Perhaps they fear if questions about the 9/11 report’s veracity begins to again saturate the public’s awareness, the public will fail to fall for the next false flag shenanigan. Here, senator Lieberman seeks Gamal Mubarak’s advice on various U.S. matters. Among other things, Gamal suggests that America’s economy is in need of a “shock.”

    “During an hour-long meeting on February 17, Gamal Mubarak discussed with Senator Joseph Lieberman the problems with Gaza and Palestinian reconciliation, as well as the broader political split within the Arab world. Senator Lieberman sought Gamal’s advice on ways for the U.S. to engage Iran; Gamal offered that the best way to defeat Iranian ambitions in the region is to make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Unfortunately, Qatar is playing “spoiler” in order to get “a seat at the table.” Gamal, a former international banker, opined that the U.S. needed to “shock” its financial system back to health, and said that Egypt — which had so far escaped much of the pain of the global economic crisis — was preparing to face tough economic times ahead. The Ambassador, Senator Lieberman’s foreign policy adviser, and the ECPO MinCouns as note taker were also present. End summary.”

    http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/02/09CAIRO326.html

  2. Ken Rechtstein  January 29, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    Again the Zion Talmudic Mafia is bullying those who speak up and tell the truth, with as usual US Useful Idiots, like Susan Rice, who like Condo Rice suffers from a “Gratitude Syndrome” to the Zio Establishment that has carried her to where she is.

    Wasn’t it Madeleine Albright, the former United States Secretary of State, under Bill Clinton, who helped Susan Rice get in Govt?

    Susan Rice since then and walking the Zio line has been showered in stocks both in Canada and Hong Kong based companies: Favors by the Bribing Machine that manages Wall Street, promotes servants of its agenda at will and demotes foes waging waring campaigns of defamation and vilification against them.

    They did it against Profs Mearsheimer & Walt, against Profs Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappe, Shlomo Sand, against Helen Thomas and now against Prof Richard Falk for speaking up the truth.

    They want us all gagged and muzzled and use ASSETS like Rice 1 & Rice 2 to do their bidding… That’s how the International Mafia works, placing its “chips” in key offices where from they can lean on even the Gen Secretary of the UN and demand that anyone who is decent & honorable (can’t be bought or subject to blackmail) steps aside…

  3. love Uncle George  January 28, 2011 at 10:34 am

    Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper. It seems all political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. Has anyone noticed people can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome?

    Uncle George commented once, “The nationalist, the patriot tends to not only disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” It does seem to be true, I’m afraid.

    All the political language seems to be too often designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. It more and more appears that during times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. In our age there is certainly no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.

    I’ve noticed, it is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it; consequently, the defenders of every kind of regime clamor to claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning; perhaps some of this is why every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac. It hasn’t missed my observations over the years either, that war against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.

    The idea really came to me the day I got my new false teeth…The atom bombs are piling up in the factories, the police are prowling through the cities, the lies are streaming from the loudspeakers, but the earth is still going round the sun.

    I told my grandchildren the other day, “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever”.

    The older I get, I am convinced mankind is not likely to salvage civilization unless he can evolve a system of good and evil which is independent of heaven and hell. When all is said and done, I suppose, it is as Uncle Orwell said, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

    Many thanks to George & Orwell for what I learned in 1984,and they knew in 1948. Ziocons are on the loose.

    • love Uncle George  January 28, 2011 at 10:35 am

      For the content of my previous comment my thanks go to Eric Arthur Blair. Blair was at one time a writer in the interesting stable of early twentieth century writers for ‘Wellington House’. Wellington House, an early organized propaganda effort of the British was aimed at influencing mass U.S. opinion; and (hopefully) attracting the U.S. into joining the British effort as an ally, or in the least keeping the U.S. neutral.

      Blair’s ‘truisms’ ( I compiled and reorganized into a satirical order that makes some sense) are most oft (individually) attributed to Eric under his pen name, “George Orwell” .

      Perhaps, Blair was a prophet of sorts.

      Controlling information flow to and from a nemesis, as the British did when they cut the submarine cables to Germany at the outset of the the war in 1914, creates a climate to take charge of what targeted groups hear and don’t hear, therefore assisting the masses in forming a band-wagon of ‘common belief’, not necessarily upon fact but instead often times upon unverifiable information.

      Today, in the U.S. ( and the ‘Western world’) many of the major news media organizations quickly sing the same song (as if on cue), so it is of important interest to ask, “Why” does this happen?

      How is it that American elders (over 80 years of age), such as Helen Thomas and Richard Falk are attacked so quickly and so viciously by purportedly independent news media organizations for (Thomas or Falk) expressing their opinions?

      It would seem such collectively-styled and collectively-timed timed attacks may best occur when the vastness of media corporate control (at the top) resides with one, a few, or several individuals of a common-mindset and agenda, which in this instance and essence is extremely opposed to Thomas’ or Falk’s opinions being heard, or worse, considered credible by the masses.

      Mathematician/Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) had some interesting takes on approaching the process of developing opinion. He commented, “It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious.” As it “cannot be true that contradictory notions can apply to the same fact. Thus reconcilement of these contrary concepts must be sought in a more searching analysis of the meaning of the terms in which they are phrased.”

      Since, “The present is all that you have; and unless in this present you can find general principles which interpret the present as including a representation of the whole community of existents, you cannot move a step beyond your little patch of immediacy.”

      In the end, “It is a curious delusion that the rock upon which our beliefs can be founded is an historical investigation. You can only interpret the past in terms of the present.”

    • love Uncle George  January 28, 2011 at 11:12 am

      To make a correction to my above comment, Blair was influenced by the Wellington House writers, he was not one of them.

  4. tim gallien  January 27, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
    — George Orwell

  5. danton  January 27, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    9/11 and Other Mysteries

    Gabrielle Giffords was shot. The prime target of media reaction to the shooting was against Sarah Palin. Palin, though not a particularly loveable person, was very popular with a large segement of Republicans. Two weeks after the shooting, support for Palin evaporated. Mitt Romney handily won the Republican presidential nomination in New Hampshire for HIS wing of the Republican Party. Remember those guys? Remember how they used 9/11 to change America.

    Connect THOSE dots!

    (Whether through happenstance or enemy action, my comment keeps disappearing.)

  6. David Martin  January 27, 2011 at 10:30 am

    Waxing Indignant over 9-11 Truth

    “How dare you!” they said;
    What else can they say?
    The facts of the case
    Will not go away.

    More verses at http://www.dcdave.com/poet15/100524.htm.

  7. Debbie Menon  January 27, 2011 at 9:57 am

    Thank you Michael Leon for this superlative posting.

    Here’s my modest contribution to this story…

    http://mycatbirdseat.com/2011/01/richard-falk-under-fire-for-911-comments-on-his-personal-blog/

    The defenders of truth must be defended.

  8. Hetware  January 27, 2011 at 12:27 am

    Notice how the organizations clamoring for Falk’s head are self-designated representatives(sic) of the Jewish people. Why would they object to a re-examination of available evidence if they are confident of where it leads? Perhaps ‘where it leads’ is exactly why they fear an investigation? Truth does not fear investigation.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=“Truth+does+not+fear+investigation”

  9. foo  January 26, 2011 at 11:45 pm

    From what I’ve read, it appears that it was a letter from UN Watch to the UN Secretary General that started this move to oust Falk.

    So I decided to investigate UN Watch. Here is their Web site:

    http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1277549/k.D7FE/UN_Watch__Monitoring_the_UN_Promoting_Human_Rights.htm

    In the upper left-hand of that page, if you click on About Us, you will read:

    “UN Watch is a non-governmental organization based in Geneva whose mandate is to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter. UN Watch was established in 1993 under the Chairmanship of Ambassador Morris B. Abram, the former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva. UN Watch participates actively at the UN as an accredited NGO in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and as an Associate NGO to the UN Department of Public Information (DPI). UN Watch is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee (AJC).”

    Note that final sentence, folks.

  10. jt ready  January 26, 2011 at 11:10 pm

    those who make the most noise are the most guilty

  11. 911NewsCentral  January 26, 2011 at 11:07 pm

    This Michael Leon/Veterans Today article is proudly posted at 911NewsCentral.com: Where YOU Choose the news.

  12. Danton  January 26, 2011 at 10:10 pm

    9/11 and Other Mysteries

    Giffords was shot. The prime target of media reaction to the shooting was against Sarah Palin. Palin, though not a particularly loveable person, was very popular with a large segement of Republicans. Two weeks after the shooting, support for Palin evaporated. Mitt Romney handily won the Republican presidential nomination in New Hampshire for HIS wing of the Republican Party. Remember those guys? Remember how they used 9/11 to change America.

    Connect THOSE dots!

  13. Danton  January 26, 2011 at 9:24 pm

    9/11 and Other Mysteries

    Gabrielle Giffords was shot. The prime target of media reaction to the shooting was against Sarah Palin. Palin, though not a particularly loveable person, was very popular with a large segement of Republicans. Two weeks after the shooting, support for Palin evaporated. Mitt Romney handily won the Republican presidential nomination in New Hampshire for HIS wing of the Republican Party. Remember those guys? Remember how they used 9/11 to change America?

    Connect THOSE dots!

  14. Mallee  January 26, 2011 at 8:40 pm

    The world is full of professors, some are listed at http://patriotsquestion911.com and others are not.
    Some professors bully and ridicule those who have questions about 9/11. When anyone, particularly professors scoff at, bully humiliate and ridicule those who see glaring questions about the official 9/11 conspiracy nonsense that need to be answered, then it is a sure indication that the ‘bullies et.al.,’ are short on facts, intellect or are just criminals attempting to protect mass murderers and those who are protecting them etc.
    There is some truth in a saying to the effect that; first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they atack you then you win.
    Congratulations Richard Falk!!!! (and all who support truth with a topping of justice)
    We are in the ‘attack stage’; they are oozing with fear, that the perpetrators of 9/11 and those protecting the murderers from exposure are themselves to be exposed and made to answer for their crimes, failures and/or incompetence.
    The tactic was demonstrated in Australia last October (2010) when ABC radio, via a Jon Faine attacked Kevin Bracken for questioning the official nonsense, then Steve Liebmann did the same on radio 2UE in Sydney. Just search; ‘Jon Faine-Kevin Bracken interview’ and whilst there see the u-tube commentary on Faine’s cowardly comments and distractions supported by the ABC; The Australian Betrayal (‘Broadcasting ‘) Commission that is paid for by the people of Australia. As for Liebmann, search ‘Steve Liebmann conspiracy clap trap’ and see also the comments.
    Even the Australian Prime Minister; Ms Julia Gillard resorted to bullying in absence of intellect when she said in Parliament on 21.10.10 that Mr. Bracken’s comments were ‘stupid and wrong.’
    Bloody amazing: that woman may decide if Australians go on invasions and get people killed, then trun up at our soldier’s funerals in front of mourning families and say she is sorry. (which she does!!)
    LOVE the ‘smell’ of desperation in the morning, tomorrow the ‘stench’ will be most enjoyable.

  15. Brian  January 26, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    Perhaps we should send a copy of this free download: http://www.bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book
    to Susan Rice so she can learn all about the Israelis and Jewish Zionists involved in the deranged 911 attack and the cover up. Richard Falk also needs to read it. Perhaps everyone in the United Nations should read it.

  16. J.F.E.  January 26, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    Veterans Today, Michael Leon,

    Excellent article.

  17. Ron Paul 2012  January 26, 2011 at 4:16 pm

    Must see documentary for new people:

    “The Panama Deception”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBkuHEZ0nKU

  18. Ron Paul 2012  January 26, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    “Dr. Robert Bowman: the impossibility of the official government story”

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6900065571556128674#

    Send these links to everyone, spread the word…

    http://patriotsquestion911.com/
    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    • ProudPrimate  January 27, 2011 at 8:21 am

      With all due respect, and as one who sent his $100 to the first Ron Paul money bomb I would ask: do you remember what RP told — was it Glenn Beck? — about how absurd it was to think even for a moment that 911 might be an inside job? Maybe he should be sent those links.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login


TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS MONTH
From Veterans Today Network