The 9/11 Story That Got Away

[Paul Mackin]

On May 18, 2006, at 4:51 PM, K. Michael Babcock wrote:

> The Alternet story isn't really that far-fetched, largely because  
> there are no revelations other than Judy Miller saying she tried to  
> get a scoop but couldn't. I don't know why she'd talk to Alternet,  
> but she might have her reasons. If they were going to make  
> something up, it's a pretty dull fabrication: Reporters hear some  
> vague stuff about a terrorist attack on the US, but don't find out  
> enough information to run a story. It sounds more like she's  
> bragging then anything else. "I predicted it." If only we had  
> listened to Judy...
\

Yeah, there is nothing particularly implausible about the substance  
of her story--or as you emphasize the lack of substance, but giving  
it to Alternet is what I tend to balk at. Maybe she is so pissed at  
the straight press she'll stoop to anything. Or maybe no real  
newspaper will take her new bait. Dunno. Anyway, reliving the whole  
sordid aluminum tube deception of the Bush Administration is pretty  
ghastly.

Maybe I just happen to have a mild revulsion for online journalism.  
Perhaps I'm being too harsh. A lot of fairly smart people engage in  
it. But they have no incentive to weigh their words judiciously. They  
have nothing but their time invested and maybe once every decade they  
will happen upon something of some value.  Who  knows?



>
> On 5/18/06, Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net> wrote:
> Prompted by a private conversation (off list) with another p-lister I
> decided to look at the original September 9, 2002, Judith Miller/
> Michel Gordon aluminum tube story. It was the first of a hundred
> Times stories on the subject. Anyway, the funny thing is, the article
> wouldn't come up. Too many people were trying to look at it I guess.
> The Alternet interview much be getting a lot of  reading.
>
> I guess everyone remembers the aluminum tubes. They are what Iraq was
> supposed to be using to produce nuclear weapons and a central pin in
> the justification for war.
>
> The Pentagon had leaked the bogus information to Miller and  she
> reported it.
>
> To the best of the knowledge of my off list correspondent she never
> publicly acknowledged being  so gullible.
>
> P.
>
>
>
> On May 18, 2006, at 1:27 PM, Paul Mackin wrote:
>
> >
> > On May 18, 2006, at 10:29 AM, jd wrote:
> >
> >> What, exactly, is Alternet?
> >
> > About as reliable as Fox News but without  Murdoch financing.
> >
> >> Why would Miller talk to them?
> >
> > That is the big question. She's (now since leaving  the Times)  an
> > independent journalist who writes for mainstream publications (Wall
> > Street Journal for one) and must get big bucks for what she turns
> > out. Out of Alternet's league.
> >
> > The believability of her allowing an unedited interview go forth
> > like this reminds me of the Pynchon Japanese Playboy story, but
> > what do know.
> >
> > There certainly isn't anything the least bit implausible about
> > information on  impending  WTC-type attacks on U.S. soil having
> > been obtained by her.  The government had received such
> > information, as is documented in the 9/11 commission report.
> >
> >> And isn't
> >> Miller, essentially, a shill for the current administration for the
> >> most part?
> >
> > Think all's she accused of is gullibility on Iraq's  WMD.
> >
> >> I find this hard to believe...
> >>
> >> I'm skeptical of all news sources but especially those home-brew  
> ones
> >> when no other source... not even blogs... seem to corroborate.
> >
> > Your skepticism is well-advised IMHO.
> >
> >> Are
> >> any other sources talking about this?
> >
> > Well, there's that Columbia  Journalism Review article the
> > interview refers to.
> >>
> >
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20060518/4af5525a/attachment.html>