Wednesday, July 9, 2008 UPDATE: ABC NEWS have now changed their report, without even noting the change in the update time of the article, which remains 9:20. It seems the corporate media are perfectly happy to cover up their own mistakes with no acknowledgement whatsoever.
USA Today has now reported Ventura’s denial, a story which includes ABC News’ original headline, which has now been amended with a question mark, as has the text of the story with no notification of the change.
Why ABC News reported that Ventura was running is a mystery, as nowhere in the NPR interview (screenshot below) does Ventura state that he has decided to run.
Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura has exclusively told Prison Planet that an ABC News report which claims that Ventura will launch a run for the Senate is a “total lie” and a “flat out misrepresentation.”
ABC News’ Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper claims in a story today, “In an interview with NPR’s David Welna that ran today former Gov. Jesse “The Body” Ventura, Ind-Minn., says he will run for Senate, challenging incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., whom Ventura defeated for governor in 1998, as well as Democratic nominee and former Saturday Night Live humorist Al Franken.”
Syndicated radio show host Alex Jones called Ventura this morning and confirmed that the report was completely inaccurate.
Ventura told Jones the report was a “total lie” and a “flat out misrepresentation,” adding that he would announce his decision before the July 15th filing deadline.
Ventura explained that NPR’s Welna asked why he would run for Senate if he ultimately came to that decision. Ventura did not state that he would run for Senate in the interview.
Tapper’s report appeared on the Drudge Report this morning and has not been amended at time of press. Could the fraudulent pre-empting of Ventura’s announcement be a political ploy to deflate his eventual entrance into the race or is it merely a case of shoddy journalism on behalf of the corporate media?
Former Governor Ventura made headlines earlier this year when he appeared on The Alex Jones Show to share his concerns about the official 9/11 story and his contention that WTC 7, the building that was not hit by a plane but collapsed in its own footprint within 7 seconds on 9/11, was intentionally demolished.
Ventura appears in Alex Jones’ new film The 9/11 Chronicles Part One: Truth Rising. His latest book Don’t Start The Revolution Without Me has been a bestseller on the New York Times list.
Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change caught up with President Jimmy Carter today at a Barnes & Noble bookstore located in Manhattan.
After Rudkowski referenced Operation Ajax and the CIA orchestrated overthrow of Mohammed Mosaddeq in Iran in 1953 via staged terror attacks, he asked Carter if he feared a staged-provocation for war with Iran.
Carter responded, “No, I don’t think lately that war is as likely as it was six months ago,” adding, “I hope not.”
“My friends, I will have an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.”
4/30/2008 CFR member contradictory, deceitful about context of term - ex-Senator repeats warning that Neo-Cons looking to stage incident as pretext to attack Iran
Former Senator Gary Hart seems to be having difficulties remembering his last lie because he fouled up again in his latest confrontation with We Are Change by reversing his assertion that he never used the term “new world order,” contradicting his previous falsehood, but still seemed fearful of discussing exactly what the term meant.
In the clip, Luke Rudkowski quotes Hart’s response to 9/11 at a September 12th Council on Foreign Relations in which he called for the disaster to be used to “make lemonade out of lemons” and create a “new world order”.
Hart lies by claiming the term was only used to highlight right-wing hostility to the phrase “new world order” which is completely false as you will see later and he also contradicts his previous response to the question in which he claimed to have never used the phrase “new world order” in his life.
Seemingly wary of the fact that a lot of people know exactly what “new world order” means now (global government, loss of sovereignty and individual liberty), Hart is frightened of admitting to using the phrase and refuses to discuss its meaning.
Watch the clip.
Hart’s exact response to We Are Change Colorado’s assertion that Hart said shortly after 9/11 the attacks could be used to bring about a “new world order” was as follows.
“I did not - I’ve never used that phrase in my life so you’ve got some bad information,” after which he claimed that George H.W. Bush used the term only once, despite the fact that Bush used it profusely during his term in office.
Let’s go back to September 12th, 2001 and remind ourselves exactly of what Hart said during a CFR meeting.
“There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this disaster to carry out what his father, a phrase his father used think only once and hasn’t been used since, and that is a “new world order”.
The clear context of this quote is Hart expressing his desire to see the 9/11 attacks used as a pretext to create a “new world order,” and has no relation to the context in which Hart claimed he used the phrase.
Later in the question and answer session, Hart also initially denies that he wrote a letter to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warning of the possibility of a staged false flag event similar to the Gulf of Tonkin that would be used to justify a military attack, but later claims it was just a “mock letter”.
Hart qualifies the letter by stating it was a warning that the Neo-Cons could stage an incident to precipitate a bombing campaign.
“What I was tongue-in-cheek saying was that we have an administration in Washington that is dying for a reason to bomb Iran and so in a mock blog letter….I just said unless you people wanna be bombed you better be careful about cross-border incursions and I think I explicitly said keep the Revolutionary Guard away from the Iraqi border,” said Hart.
“I was trying to communicate to the American people what our own government was trying to plan and that was to find a reason for bombing Iran - I was simply saying to the American people through this mock letter - be very careful about this administration creating a U.S.S. Maine incident or a Gulf of Tonkin incident that would justify bombing Iran,” he concluded.
“How can two planes knock down three buildings? Jet fuel is four-fifths kerosene, it doesn’t burn hot. How can three buildings fall at the rate of gravity and turn into powder? I’m just simply questioning the fact that it doesn’t add up to me. I have a hard problem accepting the fact that never before in history has a steel structure building fallen at the rate of gravity. Why would the main core beams not bend? And why is it when you ask any question about 9/11 you are immediately attacked?” - Former Governor Jesse Ventura, speaking on Hannity & Colmes,
The Elephant In The Room follows filmmaker Dean Puckett as he examines the cultural impact and paranoia that the events of 9/11 have had on British and American culture. From the 9/11 Truth Movement hoping to disseminate the evidence of the day, through the Muslim psyche in modern Britain, the film culminates in New York on the 6th anniversary, to see a nation torn apart by its Government’s lies and deceit over what exactly happened on the day.
The first documentary I made was called ’26 Miles and Running’, which was about my father running the New York Marathon, 8 weeks after 9/11. I was just 19 years old when I filmed it and have continued to make documentaries and short fiction films ever since.
My documentaries have always dealt with sections of society that are being marginalised or received negative press i.e. the elderly, people living with HIV, and fox hunters in Britain to name a few.
After seeing some of my work on the Internet a ’9/11 Truth’ group from East Anglia in Middle England contacted me asking if I would like to make a documentary about them hanging banners over motorway bridges that read ’Investigate 9/11’. I agreed finding the whole thing slightly amusing at the time that a group of people in England would do something like that.
This day of filming makes up the opening of the film which then spiralled into a feature which took me across Europe and back to New York for the 6th Anniversary of the attacks. Again, the documentary took an unexpected turn in direction when I met several first responders, who are sick and dying from the dust that they breathed in at Ground Zero in the weeks and months after 9/11.
This is not a film about ’conspiracy theories’
The Elephant In The Room is a documentary about the ’9/11 Truth Movement’, or more accurately, my experience of the movement. This whole filming process then lead me into meeting and documenting the plight of the first responders in New York. I don’t try and tell you what to think and it doesn’t matter to me if you think that the people in the film are talking rubbish. My only aim is to document my experience of this movement and related issues.
The first responders especially can at least be a topic of conversation that isn’t just dismissed off hand as conspiracy nonsense. Whatever your political beliefs are, the movement exists and it therefore deserves to be documented. I will no doubt be labelled as a ’conspiracy theorist’ by some, but my only aim was to make an honest and fair portrayal of my year making this film and the characters I met along the way.
The phrase ’the elephant in the room’ is an English idiom for an obvious truth that is being ignored or goes unaddressed. This is certainly true when talking of the ’9/11 Truth Movement’ and its handling by the mainstream media. This is by no means the only elephant in the room where the mainstream media is concerned, which is why it is extremely important for documentary filmmakers to tackle topics like this no matter how controversial they seem.
I hope that the film can be judged on its own merits and not be dismissed as conspiracy nonsense itself.
Ralph Nader, the consumer activist and independent presidential candidate, seems to think that the report of the commission assigned to investigate the events of 9-11 should not be the last word.
“There are unanswered questions in the 9-11 investigation, and they should be answered,” Nader said at a recent address at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. “How do you go from plausibility to evidence? You have a more independent inquiry.”
On the morning of September 11, 2001, airliners collided with each of the twin towers of New York City�s World Trade Center, after which they and a third nearby office building mysteriously collapsed. Other incidents on the same day at the Pentagon and in a field in Pennsylvania were also attributed to aircraft collisions. �All were pitched by the government as the result of a terrorist conspiracy, although it is widely believed that the government may have played a direct role in orchestrating the events.
After public cries for an investigation, President George Bush and Congress deputized the 9-11 Commission, which issued its report in 2004. While the report was praised by some, critics contended that it was not much more than a government whitewash.
On another topic, Nader had kind words to say for presidential candidate, Ron Paul.
“Ron Paul is very good on foreign policy,” he said. “He’s a refreshing voice.”
Nader also praised Paul for his outspoken opposition to the aggressive U.S. stance against Iran and the so-called �war-on-drugs.�
Paul is vying with John McCain for the Republican presidential nomination.
Nader’s remarks were made on April 4, and aired on C-SPAN today.
