--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-
Reformatted for legibility, and corrected spelling of a few names.
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Joseph Wanzala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 19:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Transcript of Mike Ruppert on KPFK
This is a rough transcript of the interview. [SEGMENT BEGINS]
Sonali Kolhatkar: "Due to the overwhelming interest that
government and military agencies have shown our website and
facilities, we are offering a special research package for
all U.S. Government and military agencies. Normally the
on-line-only subscription is $35 per year, but for the
above-mentioned groups, we have a special for an on-line
subscription for only $25 per year." That's a message for
U.S. Government and military agencies on the website of From the
Wilderness, edited and published by Michael Ruppert. Ruppert is
also an investigative journalist and a former narcotics officer
at the Los Angeles Police Department. But why are government
officials so interested in him and his website? We'll find
out today as we bring you Michael Ruppert himself. He's on
the line with us from Canada as he goes on his speaking tour
in Canada where he's speaking to packed audiences and he is
taking some time out to join us on the phone all the way from
Canada to share with us his insight, some of the research that
he's done, some of his theories and some of the controversies
that have surrounded Mr. Ruppert, going all the way from David
Corn to folks right here, to the community. He has enjoyed a
lot of support as well as a lot of derision, so we are trying
to get him on the line right now, and bring him...bring him
on to talk about his information and some of the cutting edge
research that he is doing which is not really easy to find in
too many other places. Michael is also involved in a website
that is going to be released, or was released, very soon called
www.unansweredquestions.org. That's unansweredquestions.org.
And that is a site where a lot of other folks as well as Michael
Ruppert are going to be helping populate with information about
what happened during September 11th and before. And welcome,
without further ado, welcome to the Morning Show, Michael.
Michael Ruppert: Thank you. It's good to be with you.
SK: It's good to have you with us. Now, let's begin by talking
about what...about that which makes you so interesting to
government officials, but also to the packed audiences who fill
your speaking halls and those who subscribe to your publication,
"From the Wilderness."
MR: Well, primarily it is the fact that we've had an editorial
policy which I adhere to extremely strictly, that says that, in
our presentations, we do not use anything that is not verifiable
documented material that can't be replicated by anyone in the
audience or who looks at the website or any other means that
we publish by, and we do not focus on any ideological aspects.
Strictly, we follow the money, and we show how the money works
in any given situation, that liberates the mind to help analyze
what's going on.
SK: Now there's been a lot of coverage of what the CIA possibly
knew about the terrorist attacks on September 11th last year,
but you had been talking about CIA involvement in the events of
9-11 well before. And the "Truth & Lies of 911" is videotape
produced by you with hours of presentations on the events of
9-11, as well as an indictment of the CIA, and without any
advertisement, this tape is selling fast. Can you describe
very briefly what the tape is intended to reveal?
MR: Well, the tapes have historical context. In other
words, most people, in order to even remotely believe that
the U.S. Government had foreknowledge of the attacks and
allowed them to happen, are grappling for a reality without
some kind of historical context to paint for them why such
a move was necessary or even practical in the minds of the
people that are making their decisions. Our tape was first
made in November of last year. It's still extremely timely
because the historical context has not changed, and we did that
at Portland State University when a thousand people turned out
for my first lecture on the "Truth & Lies of 911". Since then,
we've now done 19 lectures in 3 countries. I'm here in Toronto
finishing up a Canadian tour, and we added to the Portland
tape by interviewing three members of Congress and putting in
a lot of documentation that's visually displayed in the tape,
and that remains very, very pertinent today even as we have
daily revelations of how much the government really did know
and overlook before the attacks...[interrupted]
SK: Now, Michael, I think there are two separate issues here:
What the CIA knew and did nothing about, which means guilt
by complicity, and what the CIA might have done to encourage
the attacks or engineer the attacks themselves. Now, the
former sounds plausible, probably, to most who are aware
of CIA history and a lot of the stuff that you talk about,
but the latter sounds a little bit far-fetched. What is it
exactly that you espouse?
MR: OK. That's a very good question. First of all, let me
draw one more distinction that's very critical here. I do
not think that the CIA is the prime mover. By definition,
an "agency" is someone who works for or on behalf of someone
else's interests. The CIA is an entity (and we show this very
clearly in the lectures) that is and always has worked for the
benefit of Wall Street, the major banks, the oil companies, and
that's how I start the lecture, in fact. So where you might
say, "CIA was involved in the attacks", they were following
orders and representing interests of other more powerful
interests, especially the major oil companies. Now, CIA...we
have clear statements from, let's say, Coleen Rowley,
the FBI agent from Minneapolis, and from Robert Wright,
who had a press conference in Washington, that there were key
FBI personnel who obstructed, thwarted, blocked, intimidated,
harassed, threatened. These are not words of negligence. These
are not words of passive actions arising from incompetence,
let's say. These are words of malicious, deliberate actions.
And there is a very clear-cut pattern of that to show that the
U.S. Government effectively blocked the right information from
getting into the right hands, and it did not involve many,
many people. The FBI case clearly demonstrates this, that
Coleen Rowley specifically refers to only one supervisory
special agent in Washington who was blocking many terrorist
investigations, and this man who would have been criminally
negligent in many cases, was promoted after 9-11. I have not,
and I am not, asserting things, and of course the spin to
try to counteract me has run this way, but this is not what
I'm saying, "that the CIA flew the airplanes", or anything
like that. That's not the point. What intelligence agencies
do, and always have done, is to run covert operations with the
hostile assets, even, being manipulated without knowing who's
pulling the strings. On September the 11th, we have, though,
major questions unanswered. That includes: why fighters
were not scrambled as standard procedure would have dictated;
why the U.S. Government has now spent 9 months covering up
massive insider trading connected to the attacks that could
lead directly to suspects. There's a whole host of questions
where it certainly looks, and acts, and smells, and walks and
talks like the U.S. Government, in effect, opened the door
and facilitated the attacks. Not necessarily by flying the
airplanes, but by making sure that the attacks were successful.
SK: Now, are you saying that it's likely they had foreknowledge
that such attacks were coming and thought it was convenient
to allow them to happen, or strings were pulled to encourage
the attacks? You know what I'm saying?
MR: Well, there's two separate threads here. I mean,
clearly we know that the statements by the Administration,
now, that they had no idea, golly gee, that airplanes were
going to be used as weapons were lies. We have clear-cut
warnings documented from German intelligence, from Russian
intelligence, from many sources. Now, there's some damning
new reports out of Morocco and Jordan showing that the White
House had been directly warned. In one case, by the head of
State, Vladimir Putin, that 25 pilots had trained for suicide
missions to attack buildings. Bush is totally disingenuous to
expect us to belief that, golly gee, the FBI and the CIA lost
these warnings. How does he explain ignoring direct warnings
from the heads of State? You can't do that.
SK: Some people say that folks like investigative journalist
Greg Palast say things th...ha...have shown that the United
States relationship with Saudi Arabia has been the prime reason
and that the need to preserve that relationship has been the
prime reason why the investigations were not continued because
we certainly don't want to upset our friend, who we make a
lot of money from which is Saudi Arabia. Is that something
that you think would be an adequate reason?
MR: Well, I think he makes a good point. However, there are
other signs. If you take any one data point out of what's
known, you might be able to come to that conclusion. And I
have the utmost respect for Greg Palast. His production of the
W-199(I) report showing that the Bush Administration had ordered
the FBI to stop investigating some of bin Laden's relatives
outside of Washington, D.C. was a watershed moment in this case.
Nonetheless, the pattern is very clear when taken as a whole
that the Administration had a direct motive to let the attacks
happen and make sure they succeeded. There was provocation...
SK: When you say, "make sure they succeeded", what exactly
do you mean by "making sure they succeeded"? How do we know
that the Administration wanted to make sure that the attacks
succeeded apart from, I mean, there's actions that allow things
to happen by...well, there's inaction that allows things
to happen, and then there's specific action that fosters.
I mean, how do we know which was which?
MR: Well, one of the key points of my lecture, which is
becoming more important as time goes by, is a book by Zbigniew
Brzezinski called "The Grand Chessboard" published 5 years ago,
in which he has a map where the next world conflict was going
to occur and the motive for the conflict was going to be the
control of the largest untapped oil reserves on the planet in
Central Asia. And, of course, we see that scenario playing out
on a daily basis now. But at 3 specific points in his book,
Brzezinski, who is an extraordinarily powerful man, who has
been, not only a National Security advisor to Jimmy Carter years
ago, but he has served Presidents Reagan and Bush, he's on the
Trilateral Commission, he's a mover and shaker today, closely
allied with David Rockefeller. At 3 points in his 5-year old
book, he says clearly that, without an attack on the order of
Pearl Harbor that threatened the domestic sense of well-being
of the American people or produced a direct external threat,
in effect, terrifying the American people, the American people
would never, ever have supported the military action necessary
to control the Central Asian oil reserves.
SK: But, I mean, I think that's absolutely right that he had
that sort of prediction based on his experience, but does
that necessarily mean that the United States planned it?
Because we've seen, of course, that because of our foreign
policy, because of our destructive policies, there have been
many instances of certain elements wanting to attack the
United States and have done so, even before the World Trade
Center itself was attacked, and certainly the United States and
Government saw it coming. I think there's a certain issue about
whether these attacks were seen coming and allowed to happen.
Or were they necessarily initiated and planned by the Government
and...are you...I mean...I guess what...[interrupting]...you're
not saying
MR: I'm not saying, and I have never said, I HAVE NEVER SAID
that the U.S. Government initiated the attacks. That has
never been a position that I've taken at From the Wilderness.
What I have said, roughly since October, very clearly, is
that the U.S. Government had penetrated the foreign terrorist
operations, had knowledge that the attacks were coming, had
direct benefit to stand from the attacks succeeding, and de
facto, facilitated the attacks by preventing any investigations
which might have stopped them. I have never once said that
the U.S. Government was a direct planner of the attacks.
SK: Now, one of the people who has been a critic, and the
reason why, of course, I'm asking these questions, is because
there have been a lot of people questioning your research,
Michael Ruppert, not necessarily your research, but your
conjecture, and some of the conclusions that you have drawn,
and one of these has been a writer for The Nation, David Corn.
Can you talk a little bit about his...some of the things that he
had said in an article that he wrote in The Nation called "The
September X Files". And I also want to mention, by the way,
that we invited David Corn to be on the show, and he declined.
MR: Um hmm. Well, first of all, in being attacked in The
Nation, I am utterly honored and proud to join colleagues and
heros of mine, including Peter Dale Scott, Dr. Alfred McCoy
who wrote "The Politics of Heroin", and journalist Gary Webb.
That's august company for me. And this pattern is not unusual
for people who are really threatening the government with
truth to have been attacked in The Nation. We've seen a
pattern in The Nation for a long time of acting sometimes as
an apologist for Government misconduct. David Corn, himself,
was the chosen biographer for former CIA Associate Deputy
Director of Operations, Ted Shackley, one of the most evil men
in CIA history, who ran the CIA station in Laos, dealing tons
and tons of heroin, who supervised the overthrow of Salvador
Allende. And Corn's book, "The Blond Ghost" is almost
an apologia for Shackley, couched and clothed as a critical
piece, which absolutely overlooks Ted Shackley's long-standing
role in the drug trade and many of his other crimes. So, this
is not out of the ordinary for me. There is a term from the
60's Cointelpro, which many old-time activists remember well,
which was orchestrated attacks from within the Left on the
Left to fragment the Left...[interrupted]
SK: Are you suggesting that David Corn has some links to
the FBI?
MR: I am saying that his behavior is certainly consistent
with that kind of a pattern, yes, absolutely.
SK: Ahhh, well, okay. And what about referring specifically
to his concerns. I mean, you didn't exactly address
what...what...what were his problems with what you said?
MR: He has raised no effective argument. All the people who have
attacked our work at From the Wilderness have failed to address
the research that we have done. We have published 57 stories,
most of which have been written by me since September the 11th.
And what has been focused on is one particular case here in
Toronto involving one man named Mike Vreeland, and I'm always
pointing out that, in any lecture, the Vreeland case is only
5 minutes of my 2-1/2 hour lecture... That I have written 51
stories that have absolutely nothing to do with Vreeland, and
this kind of noise is a means of distracting attention from
the other extremely hard-hitting and well-documented stories
that go directly to the heart of the Administration's interest.
For example, I think the most important story that I've written
since September the 11th is called "The Elephant in the Living
Room", and it has to do with the fact that the Attorney General,
John Ashcroft, has massive, potentially criminal conflicts of
interest with two sitting Federal grand juries, one in New York,
one in Washington, involving Exxon-Mobil and BP Amoco, both
of whom were major campaign donors. He has not recused from
those investigations, and yet those are two of the companies
who are directly benefiting from pipelines now being built out
of Central Asia. It's interesting to note that both of those
companies got access to Vice President Cheney's energy task
force, where they're still hiding the documents, breaking the
law, refusing to disclose to Congress who got into those, and
that's the legal equivalent of having Manuel Noriega consulting
in the "war on drugs". The issues in that case are bribery
of the Kazakh President, Nazarbayev, and an illegal oil
swap through Iran in 1997. Both of which occurred out of
Kazakhstan at a time when our Vice President, Dick Cheney,
was sitting on the Kazakh Government's oil advisory board.
That, by definition, under U.S. law, makes Cheney a target
of the grand juries. This is patently criminal behavior,
and it is a ______ proof of the desperation of the major oil
companies to have this war, that they can turn the billions
in cash they had poured into the region throughout the 1990s
into money. Enron, alone, had a $3 billion investment in a
power-generating investment in Dhabol, India, that is totally
dependent on a natural gas pipeline flowing across Afghanistan.
And guess what, Enron still owns the Dhabol power plant,
and that pipeline is now starting to be built.
SK: Let me actually, just interrupt, unfortunately we have
limited time here and I want to just say that we may be able
to bring an interesting dimension to this conversation, but
I'd like to take a very quick break, if we possibly can, and
come right back. I have on the line with me, Michael Ruppert,
investigative journalist and publisher and editor of From
the Wilderness. We'll be right back after this break.
[MUSIC]
Roy Hurst?: Go behind the stories of the mainstream media,
today at 2:00 on "Counterspin". On today's show, a look at the
movie, "Occupation", made about the protest by Harvard students
demanding implementation of a living wage. That's today at
2:00 on "Counterspin". You're listening to "The Morning Show"
with Sonali Kolhatkar on 90.7 FM KPFK.
["The Geezer" commercial]
SK: Good morning, and welcome back to "The Morning Show".
I'm Sonali Kolhatkar, and I have on the line with me Michael
Ruppert, whom I have been talking with for the earlier part of
this hour. And we've been talking about some of the work that
he's been doing, as well as the controversy it's generated.
And we had a call-in by David Corn, himself, who asked if he
could be on with Michael. This is an unexpected development,
but we're certainly happy to have this kind of debate,
and we had invited him to be on earlier. He had declined.
He has now asked if he can actually be on, and Michael Ruppert
has agreed. So, welcome both, to The Morning Show, Michael
Ruppert and David Corn of The Nation magazine. Michael,
you've been speaking for 28 minutes or so now, and I'd like
to ask David for his comments, but let's be civil [giggle].
Welcome to The Morning Show, David.
David Corn: Thanks for having the flexibility, and I'm for
total civility, although not passissivity [sic]. I really
called to say one thing. I've written 2 stories on The Nation
website and one's out today in the LA Weekly, also available
on its website, in which I critique Michael Ruppert's timeline
and his ________ response to September 11th, questions that,
in my story, points I put there, that you can put to him,
and have a conversation about that, you know, I don't think
we can have a real debate about that long distance like this.
One thing I do want to respond to is Michael Ruppert telling
the good listeners of [missed on tape] Independent Media
Center up in Portland Oregon, he said, even more explicitly,
and this is a quote from the transcript available on the web...
If I'm asked honestly, and I will say that I have an opinion,
that David Corn is one of the Establishment CIA/FBI operatives
who has long been planted within so-called progressive circles.
And the primary argument that I use for that is that he
was chosen by one of the most venal characters in American
history, Ted Shackley, to be his chosen biographer.
Now, KPFK
listeners know that for years I have appeared on this network,
I have raised money, I have flown out to LA to raise money
for KFP... KPFK, and if anyone actually looked at my book,
they would see that I was not Ted Shackley's chosen biographer.
In fact, he threatened to sue me several times in the course...I
was doing this book, and after the book came out. I wa...an
independent biography. It was not a friendly biography.
I interviewed him once after working on it for 3, actually
probably 4, years, and then after it did come out, his friends
told me he was considering a lawsuit. So for Michael Ruppert to
say that I am a CIA/FBI establishment operative, planted within
the so-called progressive circles, based on the fact that I was
chosen to be Ted Shackley's biographer, is completely false.
There is no evidence to say so ["Let's um," Sonali tries to
interrupt] and anyone who makes a claim like that, I am not
interested in debating the merits of what else he or she may
have to say, because I don't think(?) whether Michael Ruppert
is a CIA plant, an FBI plant, or anything else, I look at his
material, and I critique the material, and that's what I've
done in these two stories, and I encourage people to look
at them ["Thank you very much..." Sonali tries to interrupt]
and that's what I called to respond to.
SK: Thank you very much, David. Okay, let's get a response
from Michael Ruppert, and...we have...I just want to remind
our listeners as well as our two guests, that we have about
5 minutes left in this segment.
MR: I have a very quick response. My dear friend, colleague
and mentor, Peter Dale Scott at U.C. Berkeley, has a great
quote, that: disinformation in order to be effective has
to be 95% accurate. And that is always the case. I debated
David Corn...I met him first at Sarah McClendon's group at
the National Press Club when "The Blond Ghost" first came out.
I've read it twice, and the book completely omits the entire,
extremely well-documented history of Shackley's involvement
in the drug trade, and that is a glaring omission.
DC: You know what? You say that I'm his chosen biographer, and
you say that's your basis for saying I'm a CIA/FBI operative.
Do you still stand by those words? Or did you make a mistake
when you said that.
MR: I did not make a mistake. That is my opinion to
this...[interrupting]
DC: Ho...no, no, no, no...it's not an opinion whether
someone is a chosen biographer. That's a statement of
fact...that's...an...an opinion is whether someone is happy in
their work...[with about 2 syllables, Mike interrupts and then
lets him finish] whether someone did a good job or a bad job.
Whether someone is a chosen biographer is a statement of fact
that can be supported or disproved. What is your evidence
for saying I'm a chosen biographer of Ted Shackley? ["I have
had..." Mike begins, then stops for Sonali]
SK: Let me ask Michael Ruppert. If you can address the
question and also just separate for us what you know as fact,
and what you will claim as your opinion.
MR: I have had two sources, both of whom were former CIA case
officers, tell me that the...
SK: And do you have any ah...[interrupting Mike]
DC: [interrupting Sonali] ...tell you what? tell you what? tell
you what?
SK: [interrupting DC] Hold on, hold on, hold on, let's....
DC: [interrupting Sonali] ...be very specific here. Don't let
him pull this crap.
SK: Could you, could you tell us any, I mean, do you have any
serious evidence? Do you have anything on paper, because when
you, of course, make serious statements such as this, it can,
of course, be damaging to people's reputations. What kind of
evidence, when you say you [inaudible]...[interrupted by MR]
MR: [calmly] As if his statements aren't damaging to mine,
as unfounded as they are?
SK: Oh, sure, sure, but in terms of calling somebody, or
asserting that they are a CIA or FBI agent or plant, do you
have evidence from your sources on tape or paper or any kind
of serious hard-core evidence apart from your word?
MR: Well, I just answered that previously, but I will answer
it again. I have statements from two former CIA case officers,
one of whom I believe is on the record, and if this becomes
an issue, I'll go look him up.
SK: And his name is?
MR: [without pause] David MacMichael.
DC: DAVID MACMICHAEL?!?! Are you f....are you nuts? David's a
friend of mine. I've worked with him for many years. He would
never say that I'm a CIA case off...a plant.
MR: I didn't say that.
DC: wh...wh...what are you saying?
MR: That was not my statement...[interrupted]
DC: What's your statement, Michael?
MR: My statement was, was that, among others, that the...the
information that I received was that Shackley had approved
you to be his biographer.
DC: [begins screaming, obviously agitated] OK, FINE. YOU KNOW
WHAT I'LL BET YOU A THOUSAND BUCKS THAT WE CAN BRING DAVID
MACMICHAEL ON THE AIR ANYTIME YOU WANT IN THE NEXT WEEK AND HE
WILL NOT SAY THAT! ["...and The Morning Show..." Sonali tries
to interrupt] A THOUSAND BUCKS RIGHT NOW, WHAT DO YOU SAY?
MR: I would say I want to go talk to David MacMichael,
see if he's... [speaking under DC interruption]... changed
his position.
DC: ...WELL YOU JUST SAID HE TOLD YOU THAT...[Sonali tries
to break in, "We will try to get, ah...]...DID HE TELL YOU
THAT OR DID HE NOT TELL YOU THAT. A THOUSAND BUCKS, RIGHT
NOW...[Sonali giggles]...PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS
WHEN YOU'RE LIBELING SOMEONE.
SK: Sounds good. Now, I want to just stop and remind our
listeners...[interrupted]
DC: Hey...let..let's point out to the audience that he's
not accepting this offer! He says that David MacMichael told
him...[interrupted]
SK: ...Let me ask, actually...[interrupted]
DC: ...that I was Ted Shackley's approved
biographer...[interrupted]
SK: ...Let me ask you guys... [interrupted]
DC: ....well, now he's not, now he's not...taking the
challenge.
SK: Let me ask you guys, if you agree, can we get
Mr. MacMichael on the air right now? Are you willing
to...er...both of you willing to have him on the air at all...
DC: UM, YEAH, but I want Michael to take my bet first because
I could use the money.
SK: [laughs] OK, so maybe the two of you can discuss that
off the air. I want to...I definitely want to thank the both
of you, and I want to also remind you that we do have to cut
this off. We have another segment planned, but it's been very
exciting to have the two of you on. I hope it's not going to
be the last time...[interrupted]
DC: I GUESS IT'S EXCITING TO HAVE SOMEONE WHO LIES [over
Sonali], but I'm sorry that KPFK... [inaudible, interrupted]
MR: [calmly] I'll be back in my office on the 16th.
I'll make... [interrupted]
SK: We would LOVE to have the two of you back on
together... [interrupted]
MR: [calmly] I'll make the contact with Dave, and I'll also
contact the other source, whose name I don't feel free to
mention... [interrupted]
DC: [inaudible]...take my bet...Mc...Mich...Michael, you just
made a statement of fact that MacMichael had told you that.
I want you to back that up...[Sonali tries to break in,
"We have that on tape, don't worry."]...if that sounds too
rich for you, I'll take 500 bucks.
SK: [giggling]...OK. Let me just [laughs]...ah, we have it
on tape right now, and, ah...[interrupted]
DC: Please send me the tape, because I, I, I, I um, I'd like
to have that as well. And I hope the audience doesn't fall
for this crap... [interrupted]
SK: Do we have Mr. MacMichael on the line with us? Ah,
it looks like we are actually trying to get him on the line...
DC: Well, then let's bump the next segment. This is far
more exciting, I'm sure, than what they have...[Sonali is
laughing]...and um, let's continue. Let's wait for David.
SK: Yes, we do have, do we have Mr. MacMichael on the air?
No we don't unfortunately have Mr. MacMichael on the air.
Our producers have been trying, but you know what, we will
try to get him back on the air, and if we do succeed... ["and
I don't..." Corn tries to interrupt again], can I have, the
two of you, verbal agreements that you'll come back on the
air with Mr....
MR: Sure!
SK: ...MacMichael and clear this up?
DC: I'll come back on the air to talk about this point, and I
would then expect an apology from Michael for...to me and to
David MacMichael, and I would expect the audience to realize
that if someone doesn't tell the truth on a matter like that,
that they should not be trusted on other issues as well...
MR: [calmly] I am not being dishonest at all, David.
SK: I want to thank the both of you...[interrupted]
DC: Then you're being delusional [over Sonali]
SK: ...very much for. Okay, we had agreed to keep this civil.
I want to thank the both of you very much for joining us,
for David Corn now unexpectedly calling in, joining us,
and Michael Ruppert for agreeing to be on the air to talk
about some of the research that he's done, and as you can
hear, certainly his work has generated much controversy,
and in the spirit of bringing voices to the air at KPFK,
and the spirit of providing a platform for all voices, we are
bringing Michael Ruppert. We're going to try to bring David
Corn back on with him...clear up this information, but also,
keep bringing you the information about what really happened on
September 11th, why, how it affects us all, and keep, keeping
these airwaves alive and yours and diverse, because we HAVE to
hear from all the voices in order to make our decisions, ah, in
a critical manner. So, you're listening to The Morning Show.
Thank you to both my guests. I'll be right back after this
break, talking about the Cuba Sister City Project. Stay tuned.
[cut to Latino USA commercial]
SK: Again, we had Michael Ruppert on the air, and David Corn
called in and we had an interesting little debate with, ah,
interesting accusations flying forth and wagers made and we're
going to try to follow that back up. Of course, balance that
with truly important information, as well as trying to clear
up a small controversy. Now, in studio with me, if you can
change focus a little bit is Lawrence Shoobs (sp?). He is
with the Cuba Sisters City Project. Welcome to The Morning
Show, Lawrence.
Lawrence: Thank you, Sonali. I feel so anti-climactic at
this moment [laughter by both].
[END OF SEGMENT]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
<FONT COLOR="#000099">Free $5 Love Reading
Risk Free!
</FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/xYTolB/TM";><B>Click
Here!</B></A>
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
New Pacifica Working Group
http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica
'Save Our Stations!'
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- End Message ---
