David Corn (Nation) answers DU'ers and Others who Call him a "Mole"

[KoKo]

from his Blog....and I'm glad to see he answered this...because many of our DU'ers (including myself in the past) have accused David of being a "Mole." Good for HIM!!!!


-----------

February 05, 2005
Mark Crispin Miller and Mud

A couple of weeks ago some person I've never heard of wrote a piece for a website suggesting I might be a "mole" within the progressive movement. A "mole" for whom or what? The article didn't say. But my (many) sins were having expressed skepticism about 9/11 conspiracy theories, having criticized International ANSWER (an antiwar group run by people who support Milosevic and Kim Jong Il), having written that the evidence that the 2004 election was stolen was not convincing, and having criticized the reporting of Gary Webb. (I'm not going to provide a link here, but feel free to Google it yourself.) This website, which promotes 9/11 conspiracies, is run by a fellow whom once told me that Alan Greenspan tried to kill a source of his (a con man who had been imprisoned in Canada on fraud charges) by sending him poisoned wine.

When the article was first posted, a friend or two brought it to my attention. I decided not to pay it any notice. As John Kerry did with the Swift Boat disinformationalists, I ignored the slanderous assault from a source of no merit. I figured it was pointless to get into a pissing match with some unknown person writing for a website without credibility. In fact, the site's main man had previously accused me of being a CIA plant. (Yeah, that's must have been why I spent five years writing a book on one of the CIA's most notorious officers and why I repeatedly wrote about the CIA's internal reports that confirmed the agency had worked with drug dealers during the contra days. Oh, I forgot--that was just to build my cover. As was writing a book accusing the president of being a liar.) Anyone who believes I am a CIA operative is not to be believed on other matters. (But, hey, isn't that exactly what you'd expect a CIA mole to say?) By the way, I run this website with open comments, and many commenters often post 9/11-related remarks that do promote "alternative" views. (Aha! That must be so I can monitor them.)

In any event, I forgot about this mud. But sewage sometimes leaks. And two days ago, several friends of mine informed me that they had been forwarded the "mole" article by Mark Crispin Miller, an NYU professor, writer and Bush critic. I had worked with Miller several years ago when he contributed to a special music issue of The Nation, which I had edited. Miller sent out the offending piece without comment under the title "More on the Alien Corn." (The folks at the website for Reason magazine took note. Click here.)

So here was a well-known anti-Bush advocate disseminating the trash. The piece, thanks to him, was moving from the gutter to the sidewalk. I was mad. I sent Miller a note. First, he claimed that it was not a "personal attack" and that he did not consider me a "mole." Well, thanks. Then why send it out? And when I pressed Miller, he conceded it had been a "personal attack." He said he would send to his mailing list a "caveat" about the source. But he subsequently declared he would write no "mea culpa." He insisted the issue was not his own actions but what I had previously written.
http://www.davidcorn.com/

[Minstrel Boy]

1. If not a mole, then a "useful idiot,"

as understood by the Intelligence community.

About 9/11 "conspiracy theories," Corn said, "to execute the simultaneous destruction of the two towers, a piece of the Pentagon, and four airplanes... is far beyond the skill level of U.S. intelligence. It would require dozens (or scores or hundreds) of individuals to attempt such a scheme."

Wrap your head around what he's saying here: 9/11 was "far beyond the skill level of US intelligence," and yet it wasn't beyond the skill level of a fundamentalist with bad kidneys in an Afghan cave.

Corn also said:

"I recall interviewing one former CIA official who helped manage a division that ran the sort of actions listed above, and I asked him whether the CIA had considered "permanently neutralizing" a former CIA man who had revealed operations and the identities of CIA officers. Kill an American citizen? he replied, as if I were crazy to ask. No, no, he added, we could never do that. Yes, in the spy-world some things were beyond the pale. And, he explained, it would be far too perilous, for getting caught in that type of nasty business could threaten your career."

Corn, here, takes a former CIA official at his word that No, heaven forfend, we would never kill an American citizen. He applies this statement to his case against 9/11 complicity: since the CIA would never kill an American citizen, how much less thousands?

Does the United States government draw the line at committing murder of Americans, regardless of its strategic objectives? Corn says yes.

A mole, or a useful idiot?

[Eloriel]

30. Sums it up beautifully

And tell me he's never heard of Operation Northwoods? Tsk, tsk.

[EFerrari]

2. Hi there, David Corn

With all due respect, if you're not a plant (an idea I never personally entertained) then you're response to the many problems associated with the federal election of 2004 was marked by a striking lack of intellectual curiosity.

And meanwhile, true progressives carried on, working night and day to redress what was wrong. We made some headway. You may be surprised.

Hopefully, rather than simply attacking readers who disagree with you, you'll seek to understand the breach and to bridge it.

[Mojambo]

3. We leftys are so catty sometimes. n/t

[CTyankee]

4. God! How awful this is.

Poor John Keats, who wrote one of the most moving lines of English poetry in "Ode to a Nightingale," about Ruth who "stood in tears among the alien corn."

[Cha]

5. Wow! I always liked David Corn

and still do and I like Mark Crispin Miller..it saddens me that they are in a weird little debate like this when there are so much more important things to care of ..looming from the fascist wing in our country.

[RandomKoolzip]

53. Very true.

I still like Corn, even though he's a bit too moderate for my sensibilities, and Miller's a genius. There was an interview with him in "Stay Free!" a couple years ago that blew me away.

It's a shame that, again (and again) we get mired in petty disputes like this when there's so much important work BOTH of them (and we, too) could be doing right now.

[theresistance]

6. I think he is reinforcing the very argument used against him

in his efforts to argue against it. Where there is smoke, there is fire...

[BlueWolff]

8. Me think Corn protests too much?????

He sounds guilty as a Bushie at a Carlyle retreat!

[Debs]

18. No sometimes

There is only smoke. I like David Corn, no reason to attack someone because they require a high level of evidence to give credibility to an issue. I disagree with him on the Ohio fraud issue, I think there is some good reason to look at the 9/11 conspiricy theories. Corn is a journalist who understands quite well that someone in his profession has to maintains the high level I spoke of earlier, if you run with a theory that doesnt have a high level of documented evidence it can ruin your reputation, unless you are a right wing (sic) journalist in which case all bets are off. I think David was too dismissive of good evidence in Ohio, but overall he is a good progressive and our freind lets disband the circular firing squads and allow for some hardheaded dissent to the things we give credibility too. He is on our side.

[blondeatlast]

38. Pretzel logic; have you heard him on Franken?

He must practice ballet, Pilates, and yoga to get himself in those positions.

With FRANKEN, no less, not exactly a far LWer himself. Even Franken confounds him.

[Helga Scow Stern]

7. I just about cancelled my subscription to The Nation

after reading Corn's highly derisive, dismissive pieces about the election being stolen. He did not do a good job of investigating the issue, but used the usual talking point pieces used to debunk and discredit. I lost a lot of trust both for him and for The Nation. Russ Baker has also done a foolish job of covering election fraud, again taking a belittling tone to anyone who believes the election was stolen. Thank God for John Nichols, who still has a brain and integrity, and uses both. It was highly irresponsible for Corn, in his position, to fashion a "liberal" hitpiece, widely used to discredit election fraud, just because David Corn said so.

[KoKo]

13. Yes...as much as I like David Corn that article and his cave on Iraq

got me worrying about him. But, I realize that I don't have to put up with what they do with hate mail and trashing from their fellow reporters/columnists to make a living.

So I gave Corn a pass sometimes, but also posted like other DU'ers when I was angry with him.

I don't think he's as bad as some of us think...like a "mole," though. I think he has to make a living...and it's slim pickings when we have the Chimp for another four years.. Who knows. I've not walked in his shoes...but have seen many of our so called "liberal" defenders cave over the last few years..... How can we blame them...if we don't know...look at what we here on DU have been through...those of us who've been here since 2001...

It's not easy out there unless you can access some "Soros Funding." :shrug:

[Tinoire]

9. Screw him. Trying to discredit Palast for talking about Election Fraud

Corn, if not a mole, is a willing addlebrained puppet.

He's gone after Mike Ruppert, Gary Webb and now Gregg Palast.

Screw him. Progressive Californians will never forgive him for helping clean Pacifica of Progressives and trying to turn it into another boring, establishment loving, NPR.

temper tantrums against people like Ruppert.

"evidence to date is that the election results were not rigged but were produced by a flawed system" - David Corn

Screw him and anyone else who wants the public to believe that 9-11 happened just as Bush told us, that the elections weren't stolen and that the CIA wasn't running crack into this country. And screw him for trying to discredit & silence the antiwar movement as far back as November 2002.

==

Re: The September 11 X-Files http://www.commondreams.org/
views02/0531-03.htm

To David Corn and Common Dreams:

Your latest missive is surprising for its weakness. It deserves only the briefest of responses because, as an avalanche of information continues to demonstrate, the U.S. government did have foreknowledge of the attacks and there was an orchestrated effort to allow the attacks to occur. FBI Special Agent Robert Wright's recent press conference is but another brick in a wall that grows sturdier by the day. Time is on my side here.

I'll quickly pass over many of the erroneous points in your story to get to just a couple that warrant two or three sentences. Allen Dulles' old quip that "the American people don't read" has changed with the Internet and it will afford you no cover.

It's OK that you misrepresented my LAPD record by taking items completely out of context. My full LAPD record has been on my web site for months at www.fromthewilderness.com for the world to look at and see what you have done. I expect that from you.

It's OK that you misrepresent and state that I have hung the entirety of my credibility on the Delmart "Mike" Vreeland case. I have published 56 stories since 9/11/01 and only six of them have been about Mike Vreeland. I expect that as well.

It's OK that you state that I am not a reporter when you fail to mention stories like my investigative report of horrendous conflicts of interest regarding Attorney General John Ashcroft and two sitting federal grand juries where I conducted many interviews. It's OK also that you ignore all of the other reportage I have done since 9/11. I expect that too.

It's really not OK, however, that you state that I have misrepresented stories like a Feb. 13, 2001 story by UPI correspondent Richard Sale wherein I reported that court records indicated that the NSA had broken Osama bin Laden's secure encrypted communications. You wrote, "But in several instances he misrepresents his source material.

"... (T)he actual story noted not that the U.S. government had gained the capacity to eavesdrop on bin Laden at will but that it had ...gone into foreign bank accounts... and deleted or transferred funds, and jammed or blocked the group's cell or satellite phones.'"

Here is a direct quote from Sale's story which proves that your accusation is false: "The U.S. case unfolding against him in United States District court in Manhattan is based mainly on National Security Agency intercepts of phone calls between bin Laden and his operatives around the world - Afghanistan to London, from Kenya to the United States.

"... Fawwaz also provided satellite phones for other members of the bin Laden group, ...to facilitate communications,' the indictment said...

"On August 11, two days after the bombings were completed, bin Laden's satellite number phone was used to contact network operatives in Yemen, at a number frequently called by perpetrators of the bombing from their safe house in Nairobi.

"Since 1995, bin Laden has tried to protect his communications with ...a full suite of tools,' according to Ben Venzke, director of intelligence, special projects for iDefense...

"Since bin Laden started to encrypt certain calls in 1995, why would they now be part of a court record? ...Codes were broken,' US officials said..."

Is this the best that The Nation can do? With that in mind I'll conclude by saying that it is becoming increasingly clear to news consumers around the world that The Nation is serving and defending the interests of a corrupt and illegitimate government while my publication, "From The Wilderness" is truly concerned with the safety, well-being and empowerment of its growing readership. The marketplace is operating in a healthy capacity. It is also apparent that your actual knowledge of how covert operations work is as limited as your forensic abilities. For more than 20 years I have investigated many intelligence cases and I have dealt directly with principals in cases involving Edwin Wilson, Albert Carone, Dois "Chip" Tatum, William Tyree, "Bo" Gritz, Scott Weekly, Scott Barnes, Al Martin and yes, even your beloved Ted Shackley.

In the fall of 1999 two investigators from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence traveled to Los Angeles and copied 6,000 pages of my records. In the fall of 2000 two members of the RCMP National Security Staff - Sean McDade and Randy Buffam - came to Los Angeles, visited me and copied several hundred pages of files in my possession regarding Promis software.

If, at any time, you would like an instruction on how easy it would have been for the Bush administration and the intelligence community to have allowed the attacks of 9/11 to occur without involving massive numbers of people being consciously aware of it I will make the time. That is of course, if it really is your desire to arm the American people with the truth. As to integrity, let's see if Common Dreams has enough to publish my response. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

Sincerely,

Michael C. Ruppert

Publisher/Editor

"From The Wilderness"

www.copvcia.com

www.fromthewilderness.com

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060402_corn.html

On edit:

COPYRIGHT POLICY

All stories that are not in the "members only" section may be reprinted or redistributed for non-profit, educational purposes only.

Any story, originally published in From The Wilderness, more than thirty days old may be reprinted in its entirety, non-commercially, if, and only if, the author's name remains attached and the following statement appears:

"Reprinted with permission, Michael C. Ruppert and From The Wilderness Publications, www.copvcia.com, P.O. Box 6061-350, Sherman Oaks, CA, 91413. 818-788-8791. FTW is published monthly, annual subscriptions are $50 per year."

THIS WAIVER DOES NOT APPLY TO PUBLICATION OF NEW BOOKS.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/copyright.html

[KoKo]

14. Wow! Lots to read there...thanks ....n/t

[Tinoire]

24. Here's more KoKo. Apologist for Bush on 9-11

He went after the authors of the book "Forbidden Truth" also calling them "conspiracy theorists" :wow: (I posted the author's response to him below). Back in the 80's he attacked Oliver Stone's movie JFK saying that the official line from the government was the truth. Anytime the official line needs defending from the Left, there's David Corn. I'm pretty disgusted. Honestly, because of your thread, I found out some things about him I didn't know and am even more disgusted than I first was. I'm glad you started this thread. Has he gone after Michael Moore yet?

Right after Corn went after Ruppert, the Bush administration dispatched him to oil-producing Trinidad, on an all-expense paid junket, to teach their journalists about "investigative reporting".
Somethings about this guy totally stink.

I had been dispatched to Trinidad by the U.S. State Department to conduct a two-day seminar on investigative reporting for local journalists (your tax dollars at work!)
http://www.alternet.org/story/11893

Corn is an unabashed apologist for the Bush Administration and the intelligence community. You know what his bottom line is about 9-11? Koko, hold on to your chair:

the only alternatives that should matter are those that are demonstrably true. With that kind of reasoning it's no wonder he went after Cynthia Mckinney for peddling "unproven conspiracy theories."

In a March 1 column, Corn detailed the e-mail he has received alleging government involvement in 9/11. “I won’t argue that the U.S. government does not engage in brutal, murderous skullduggery from time to time,” he wrote. “But the notion that the U.S. government either detected the attacks but allowed them to occur, or, worse, conspired to kill thousands of Americans to launch a war for oil in Afghanistan is absurd.”
http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2002/0524oil.htm

===


by David Corn

On March 25, during a Pacifica radio interview, Representative Cynthia McKinney, a Georgia Democrat, said, "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11.... What did this Administration know, and when did it know it about the events of September 11? Who else knew and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?" McKinney was not merely asking if there had been an intelligence failure. She was suggesting--though not asserting--that the US government had foreknowledge of the specific attacks and either did not do enough to prevent them or, much worse, permitted them to occur for some foul reason. Senator Zell Miller, a conservative Democrat from her state, called her comments "loony." House minority leader Dick Gephardt noted that he disagreed with her. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer quipped, "The congresswoman must be running for the Hall of Fame of the Grassy Knoll Society." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution called her a "nut." Two months later, after it was revealed that George W. Bush had received an intelligence briefing a month before September 11 in which he informed told Osama bin Laden was interested in both hijacking airplanes and striking directly at the United States, McKinney claimed vindication. But that new piece of information did not support the explosive notion she had unfurled earlier--that the Bush Administration and/or other unnamed parties had been in a position to warn New Yorkers and had elected not to do so.

(snip)

I learned this after I wrote a column dismissing various 9/11 conspiracy theories. I expressed doubt that the Bush Administration would kill or allow the murder of thousands of American citizens to achieve a political or economic aim. (How could Karl Rove spin that, if a leak ever occurred?) Having covered the national security community for years, I didn't believe any government agency could execute a plot requiring the coordination of the FBI, the CIA, the INS, the FAA, the NTSB, the Pentagon and others. And--no small matter--there was no direct evidence that anything of such a diabolical nature had transpired.

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=66

===

David Corn Defies Logic!

Paris

David Corn alleges that our book makes a "theory" of the events leading up to the September 11 attacks, distorts reality and shows little or no evidence to confirm our assertions.

For the author, the world seems divided between those gallant fellows pursuing the truth (David Corn, I guess) and those running conspiracy theories. This simplistic and Manichean view does not reflect the nature of our work and would usually deserve no comment from me, except when such an irrelevant article emanates from such a well-known organization.

I don't know the author, nor his credentials to write on these issues. The fact is that most of the issues he raises are currently under scrutiny of the Special Investigation Committee of the US Congress and they've been investigated by the United Nations several weeks ago. I have too much respect for the work of these authorities to think they may investigate "conspiracy theories."

Regarding the handling of investigations involving Saudi Arabian individuals and entities, I spent five years working on these networks and tracking Al Qaeda assets. I was the first to write an extensive report on Al Qaeda financial networks for the intelligence community. This study was given by the French President Jacques Chirac to President George W. Bush in September 2001 and has been responsible for the closing of several so-called Islamic charities that happened to financially support Osama bin Laden and his cohorts. My experience and the high level contacts I had with the FBI disqualifies the doubts and snide comments made by a nonprofessional on these issues.

(snip)

As a drunk diplomat makes bad diplomacy, political editors make bad international affairs analysts when they simply ignore the facts and try to view the world through their Manichean eyes.

I hope, at least, to have repaired this.

JEAN-CHARLES BRISARD
(Author of http://print.google.com/print%3Fq%3DJEAN-CHARLES%2BBRISARD&pg=3&sig=MuBTrncluAd-9Rf363-mFgervZI">Forbidden Truth - by Jean-Charles Brisard, Guillaume Dasquie)

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2002/07/14614.shtml


Here's David Corn defending the "official line once again as he responds to Brisard:



The book sidestepped toward its highly provocative assertion. But here is the essence of their argument about September 11:

"From February 5 to August 2, 2001, the United States engaged in private and risky discussions with the Taliban concerning geostrategic oil interests.... The suicide attacks of September 11 were the outcome of this initiative."

Ponder that statement. The authors are saying that negotiations--which they portray as secret talks between Washington and Kabul--led to the strikes of September 11. That would mean US Administration officials-- mainly from the Bush White House but also, it seems, from the Clinton White House--share blame for the attacks, that the United States, via these talks, needlessly provoked Osama bin Laden and his crew. This is hot stuff: The Bush Administration, driven by its fealty to Big Oil, causing the deaths of thousands of Americans.

(snip)

David Corn

[KoKo]

29. I've mostly read his Nation articles....so all this new info does

make him seem much worse than I thought even from reading the articles I was disappointed in over the past few years. It goes back further with him than I knew. I defended him somewhere in DU Editorials this past week. I'm sorry now I tried to give him the "benefit of the doubt."

The additional info here and the article make him very suspect...

Thanks for the additional info...

[Tinoire]

32. Oh Koko

Please don't ever apologize for that! It is so hard to keep up these days. The only reason I had suspicions about Corn is because I listen to Pacifa and watched the entire drama unfold and then other DUers brought their info. I'd be lost without DU and posters like you who keep asking and looking. I know this is why the MSM and the Dem establishment have such problems with us- they can't tell us what to think because we're too open-minded and compare notes.

[latebloomer]

21. yes ,thanks for mentioning the Pacifica imbroglio

in which he came out decidedly on the side of the hijackers. (WBAI listener here!)

[Tinoire]

25. Are you in the KPFA area?

If so, I really hope we get to meet you at the next antiwar march. We have a hard core DU group that always meets for these things (and then goes partying afterwards ;))

[latebloomer]

45. No, I'm in the WBAI area

But that sure sounds like fun!!

[EFerrari]

48. Well done. : )

[G_j]

10. he gets zero sympathy from me

mole or no

[poe]

11. Corn is not a mole he's a shrew..

and has been thoroughly tamed. to get to the position he is in at The Nation he has had to go through the career hurdles of self-censorship and maintain his "integrity" within the constraints of the 'disciplined mind'. like many high-profile academics he will only go so far on an issue and the internal leash tugs at him bringing him nearer to the peg and sadly further from certain truths.

[marcologico]

12. Alternet ran similar get-over-it election stories by a "technology"

contributor with some cushy tie to MicroSoft.

[KoKo]

15. I still want to have hope for Corn though. He was a good trooper for us

for a long time. Maybe he can be brought back into the fold. Or, maybe it's too late...I don't know.

[G_j]

16. it maybe somewhat unfair on my part

because I don't read his stuff much, but I do remember that right before the first pre-war DC peace demonstration he decided to try to discredit the whole thing because of ANSWER, as if we (those planning to attend) were a bunch of fools who couldn't think for ourselves.

[KoKo]

17. Yes....I remember that...and it's when I started to wonder

about him, too. Maybe he was really believing the "Kool Aid?" Maybe he got a "phone call" threatening. Yet, others like Conason and Alterman have tried to remain true....

He came out after we invaded with some good articles...but by then the "cow was outta the barn."

So, I know exactly what you say. At one time he was good...but he seemed to "turn." Who and what does the REAL David Corn stand for??
:shrug:

[peacetalksforall]

19. We are like the plates of the earth pushing up against each other.

Progressives and an assortment of angry, depressed, very active, or resting patriots who want to protect the progress this country has made - rubbing up against living in the past, mollifying, slow to acknowledge, ultra-diplomatic patriots.

The answer to the Corn debate may be in $$$$ (imo) - if I'm right, he is a paid 'expert-contributor' to one of the CPNs (corporate propaganda networks). At times, his voice has been heroic and I've been thankful that he was speaking. I hope I'm way off base about being 'employed', but, if true, it could be the difference.
I think his statement that our intelligence is not intelligent enough to pull off 9-11 is ridiculous. When 9-11 happened, I remember thinking that it must have been brilliantly orchestrated by these savages who were led to this atrocity by their degree of hate for us.

I now think that 9-11 was brilliantly orchestrated by our own people. I went from believing that it was Team19, to LIHOP, to MIHOP. Others have also been moved according to their own timetables of progression. (And some people still believe the Warren Commission).

Knowing what I've learned about transpoinders, missiles, the measurements of a 757, the capability for remote control, the NORAD exercises of the day, the already in the bunker Cheney, the disregard of warnings, the contempt for the country by the disregard of the warnings, the put options, the inability to release crash information, the hyped heroism, the refusal to investigate, the resistance against an investigation, the limited scope of the investigation finally approved, then combined with the closing of the investigation of the put options with barely a news release, the exquisitely researched circumstantial timetable and technical evidence compiled by citizens, the 52 deck gun pointing at Afghanistan and bin Laden with the subsequent swing of the gun's aim to the west, with the Congress and UN manipulative lies, plus the war mongering, the no bid contracts, the Halliburton windfalls from blowing up Iraq and Hussein instead; then combining all that and much more with a credibility meter that parents, teachers, and scouts instilled and through the revelations in the readings of the PNAC oath and agenda, plus learning of their utter contempt for the citizens of our country by their partnership with the Likud Party and Israeli Intelligence, and the 'peopling' of Israeli operatives in critical intelligence and military positions in the U.S. Government....well, my beliefs evolved. The answers and the questions are all there. AND FINALLY, there is NO PROOF that Team19 did it. No court case. No criminal proceedings. Just the blowing up of a country in the Middle East - the cradle of civilization people.

Corn just may not have studied enough or can't accept citizen research because of the source or can't suffer ridicule or the scientist or court observer in him. There are many like him. I wish he would progress.

We are rubbing up against our own for the sake of survival and the avoidance of a neo-slavery that is being planned for us.

[KoKo]

26. What you say is interesting. And in the absence of any truth about 9/11

the void get's filled in by much speculation. I'm a LIHOP or MIHOP...not into the other stuff except to read the theories and wonder.

Those of us who refuse to accept the Bush Lie...will be pushing for the truth until a truly believable investigation is done.

The plates pushing against each other is interesting. When they colide is what I'm waiting for...some spark that we've reached a point where collision will cause some action...

[DireStrike]

51. What's team19?

I'm definitely OP, but I dunno whether a MIHOP or LIHOP. Mostly because I just really don't want to believe MIHOP. And "never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity."

But the fascism-beast story is rather compelling...

[BeFree]

20. Who the hell is David Corn?

Never read anything of his that I can remember, and, after reading some of the fine DU'ers comments here about this corny fella, I don't think I ever will. It'd be a waste of time.... I'd rather read my fellow DU'ers anyday.

[despairing optimist]

34. David Corn is Christopher Hitchens on a good day

[blondeatlast]

40. LOL! nt

[blondeatlast]

39. Editor of (once great) "The Nation." nt

[John_H]

22. How would Mole David Corn function?

I don't get it. He would, what, get invited to lots of parties at which Dems would discuss their secret strategy of grabbing their ankles for chimp. Then Mole David Corn would call Karl Rove and say, "Guess what? The Democrats are planning to aggressively grabbing their ankles over the next 6-8 months." Is that how it would work? Or would the opinions of Mole David Corn carry so much weight among the masses of swing voters that read The Nation and listen to the Diane Rheem show, that he can singlehandedly swing elections.

More likely, David Corn hasn't spent very much time in the online company of one-percenters. If he did, he'd know that there is only one way to please the far, far left and thus avoid their eighth-grade wrath: Take their position on each of their hobby horse issues 100% of the time.

[geek tragedy]

60. A-freaking-men! eom

[grasswire]

23. anyone who takes money from FAUX

....should expect some level of suspicion. Corn may well be pure of motive and fully faithful to democratic and Democratic ideals, but the taint of the FOX contract just sticks in my mind when I read his stuff or see him.

[Al-CIAda]

27. Informative thread. I had no idea it was this bad with Corn. -eom

[KoKo]

31. Agree....the additional info here, makes it hard to defend him...

I was trying to keep an open mind...but the additional info on this thread is pretty damning of his views. If one is a Dem Progressive and was opposed to invading Iraq, and thinks there are many unanswered questions about 9/ll. It's kind of hard to justify what he's written when there are others who've been more supportive. Plus that he goes back and forth.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tinoire]

33. Why are you frustrated? No one's stopping you from reading him

unlike what he and his cohorts do.

But ok. You win. We're intolerant pansies for exposing charades. 9-11 was a surprise attack and "My Pet Goat" is such a spell-binding book that you can't put it down even after you hear "Mr. President, terrorist have struck the World Trade Center". ;)

[EFerrari]

35. Why the insults?

I stopped subbing to The Nation when they IGNORED the last stolen election, and in specific, when David Corn wrote an incredibly shallow argument against this "conspiracy theory". It was clear he had spent about two minutes looking into it.

That would be the same conspiracy theory that got the Ohio electors challenged in Congress and that is being investigated by the GAO. That has thousands of people all over the country working day and night on their own dime because they give a damn.

Pansies? Pansies are for remembrance. I remember democracy, so sure. Pansie reporting for duty.

[blondeatlast]

37. Proud pansy here as well!

I remeber when "The Nation" was progressive in thinking, and the editor didn't have to fall over himself to prove his LW cred.

Corn's a tool.

[blondeatlast]

36. "The Nation" is no longer LW. Period. I'm surprised the DLC

hasn't bought it themselves.

[RandomKoolzip]

55. I still read "the Nation." I think it's great.

I realize that they didn't get on board with the voter fraud issue until it was way too late, but than again, not all DUers got on board that particular train, either.

The Nation is still a wonderful read and I'm glad there's SOME left-leaning voice out there in the semi-mainstream. If they don't cover the issues YOU want to read about, write a letter and convince all your friends to do the same. Now that there has been a sustained letter-writing and bitch/moan campaign about voter fraud, the Nation is indeed covering it, after a month or two of denying it existed. To me, this is awesome thing. Folks like US can affect their coverage.

To see so many DUers now claim the The Nation has sold out or has become corporate or some such other twaddle is utterly depressing. It's either one of our own is a king or he/she's a "mole" or a traitor. Can there be no inbetween?

[JohnOneillsMemory]

64. Re-examine how close to the truth they go. That is a telling marker.

Some of us have learned that players are not who they appear to be and issues have several layers of cover story which can shift adaptedly in response to events and our stares. Sometimes folks just don't know what's up and that is maddening to add to the possibilities.

I'm reminded of Paul Robeson who fought US imperialism and racism but couldn't see that Stalin was a monster. Robeson loved the idea of a society free from racism in the Soviet Union and this give him a blind spot which made him even more of a target to be neutralized by the Corporate Invisible Army. And they got him with poison in Moscow.

As to Corn, anyone claiming to be a journalist who hasn't raised the alarm over Operation Vigilant Warrior on 9/11/01 and Black Box Voting on 11/2/05 isn't worth their paycheck. Or, even worse, might be!

Like Tinoire, I've saved lots of info and my own posts to put up and add light to the heat here at DU. When 'amatuer journalists' like us have more info than people called 'professionals,' we have a crisis in public discourse.

The Ward Churchill flap produced a 1994 American Indian Movement letter defending him against accusations of being a 'white man mole.'
The accuser was himself accused of 'putting the bad coat' on Churchill as a COINTELPRO tactic to neutralize one of the more affective activists in the movement.

So add 'putting the bad coat' on someone to your glossary of psy-ops techniques that seemingly 'friendly' journalists might use to obscure who's who or steer you away from falling over the edge into the 'truth.'

[CWebster]

41. Completely independently of all this

I always suspected Corn's sneering contempt and sabotage in many areas due to his own culturally indoctinated bias.

[The Sad Little Pony]

42. I believe it.

He's DEFINITELY a CIA operative.
The ONLY reason he would write such condemnations of the alternative 911 theories, would be if he KNEW that they were true.
Only a CIA operative would know such things.

[marcologico]

43. "As John Kerry did with the Swift Boat disinformationalists,

I ignored the slanderous assault from a source of no merit."

Finally, somebody talks sense about Kerry's response to SBVT.

In point of fact, however, Kerry did NOT ignore them, and had a small army of surrogates denouncing them. He just didn't waste his advertising bucks on them. (It was August, and he hadn't gotten his federal funds yet, remember that deal?)

Anyway too bad Corn had to get in a similar pickle himself before admitting the obvious.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

52. that jumped out at me too.

Hey! I'm getting to like you marcologico- you're so... LOGICAL!

[zara]

44. When will democrats get over that independent thinking thing...

and start marching in lockstep like Fox News?

I've always thought the Will Rogers comment invoked a strength in the party: we're not organized, we're riven with rifts. Not always, but that is what the progressive movement is all about. We can't all agree on the desirable future or how to get there. It's a lot harder than agreeing on what was past.

What about all the good things Corn has written over the years?

[durutti]

46. The fact that he cites Reason speaks volumes. n/t

[Cocoa]

47. Corn was the only one that wrote about the Plame leak

in the period between Novak's column and the CIA's request for the Justice Dept. to investigate, maybe a month later, the Plame leak was utterly ignored. It was a major story based merely on the column itself, but it was utterly unreported.

Except for the Nation and David Corn.

[EFerrari]

49. Interesting. Why would he want to promote this story? nt

[RandomKoolzip]

57. Oh, because he's a big ol' sell-out and wants to see us all rounded up

in concentration camps. "The Lies of George W. Bush" was just a convenient cover.

Jeez, people! Just cuz one of our own is more moderate than we are, we immediately suspect he's a "mole?!" This guy's done some great work, and he's nowhere NEAR Hitchens' level. Can we stop forming the circular firing squad, please? That's the kind of shit that makes Karl Rove have orgasms.

[EFerrari]

62. Agree about the circular firing squad but my experience with

Corn is that he took the first shot by dismissing concerns regarding the 2004 election fraud in a cavalier manner.

I think for myself, thanks, and he's wrong on this one and his comments were unhelpful in the extreme to voting rights advocates.

[geek tragedy]

50. Corn is the enemy of rightwingers and crazy leftwingers. He's one of the

good guys.

[Q]

54. 'Crazy leftwingers"?

Are leftwingers crazy for not believing Corn any more than the Bush white house that he defends?

Corn could be one of the few 'left-wingers' on the Bush payroll.

[geek tragedy]

58. Anyone who thinks he's pro-Bush is, by definition, crazy. eom

[cestpaspossible]

56. Corn is sometimes wrong.

But calling him a mole for the right is over the top. This dispute reminds me of an on-line flame war between Kucinich and Nader supporters.

[RandomKoolzip]

59. Exactly.

The right LOVES it when it sees us bicker and take each other down (we do their work for them and we don't even get paid for it!). This sort of infighting can only be destructive.

[KoKo]

63. I'm long past worrying about what folks think about what Progressives

say. I don't go over to Free Repuglic because I don't care what they think since I read to much of it in the MSM. Discussion is good. Lock Step isn't productive. We just went through an "ABB" election hanging together while we were hung out to dry. Time for that crap is over. :shrug:

[cestpaspossible]

70. nt

[EFerrari]

65. So, when did open discussion become "bickering"?

Part of the RW strategy is precisely to shut down our dialog.

So, no. I'm not either with you or against you. Were I willing to have such a reactively coded life, I guess I'd just be voting the straight NeoCon ticket and chanting, "Tom DeLay, wrong or wrong!"

What you resist, you become.

[cestpaspossible]

66. You are answering a point that no one has made.

NO ONE SAID that open discussion is bickering. What the post you responded to did say is: "The right LOVES it when it sees us bicker"

NO ONE SAID that dialogue should be shut down.

NO ONE SAID anything even remotely similar to the points you are disputing.

[EFerrari]

67. Exactly. No one has said it and yet, here we are. nt

[cestpaspossible]

69. Does your post have meaning? What is it?

[sendero]

61. I've heard Corn...

... on various talk shows. I don't think he is a "mole", but he isn't much of a defender of progressivism either.

My take? He's another convictionless media whore who happens to be nominally on our side. The media is covered with folks like this who cannot argue effectively for our side because unlike Reps they are unwilling to lie (a good thing) and are afraid of pissing someone off (a bad thing).

[Redleg]

68. Some of you DUers remind me of Bush and his "with us or against us"

routine. If a person disagrees with you on one or two issues, you call him a fucking freeper, Rethug-Lite, Bush enabler, or whatever and throw the fucker to the wolves. That's not a good way to create solidarity in the Dem party or progressive movement.

I have read Corn's stuff for years. He is no right-winger. He does demand a lot of evidence before he buys into a conspiracy story. He isn't one of the bad guys, or a shill, or DINO or anything else. He is a writer who usually gets it right and sometimes gets it wrong. Big deal.

[KoKo]

71. But..One Person's "Conspiracy Theory" is Another's "Truth?" How

do you explain that? Especially when the so called "Conspiracy Theorists" can provide "links" to back themselves up...but the others only can rely on "lies?"

:shrug: that's what I'm asking, here.

[Redleg]

72. All social theories, conspiracy or otherwise rely on evidence that is

subjectively interpreted by imperfect perceivers. Perceivers have idiosyncratic ways of interpreting information and they do not all have access to the same information or place the same weight on information.