Is F.A.I.R. Inappropriately Named?
John A. Quayle
blueoval at SGI.NET
Thu May 9 23:17:14 MDT 2002
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY!
AN OPEN LETTER TO STEVE RENDALL
May 8, 2002
Dear Mr. Rendall:
I have monitored sporadically your immature rantings regarding my
writings. Inasmuch as I gather that you have now distilled your critiques
of my work to their four most salient points and that your hysteria has
diminished somewhat, I will now respond to each of those four points so
that you can get some much needed rest. Frankly, I am somewhat disappointed
that these critiques are the best that you can muster for either yourself
or your colleague Norman Solomon. However, in advance of a much needed and
anticipated KPFA radio appearance scheduled for May 15th featuring Mr.
Solomon and Delmart Mike Vreeland, wherein Mr. Solomon will be held
accountable in his own right for some horrendous accusations and
assumptions, I think it best now to put your feeble attacks off to one side
so that when the broadcast airs, Pacifica listeners can at last have
unfettered access to the direct-source information that you and Mr. Solomon
have been so assiduously attempting to prevent.
I turn now to a quote from one of your most recent email attacks.
I will also address your position that these items are central to my case a
blatant distortion and falsehood. The misspellings therein are yours and
have been left in place:
As for evidence of Ruppert's fraudulent argument I have listed at
least 4 items that are absolutely central to Ruppert's "case" that Ruppert
has utterly misrepresented.
The Le Figaro piece, the Toronto Star piece, his baseless claim
that military intelligence officers are working inside at CNN (video on
Ruppert's cite), and his claim that the nonsensical Vreeland scribbles are
a "detailed warning" and an "accurate warning" about the September 11
attacks. As for the scribbles, Mark: Does the date September 11, 2002
appear anywhere on this "accurate warning"? the dates 96-97 appear (if
those numbers indicate dates) and the dates 2007 and 2009 appear. And
that's just the one major problem with the dopcument that you Mark,
apparently accept as an accurate warning.
I have asked Ruppert's friends here to get him to defend these
points. I get no response. Neither you, nor any of your co-Ruppertites have
offered a single defense of his on these substantive issues.
Point 1 Le Figaro:
You state that I have misrepresented the Le Figaro piece. I assume
here that you are parroting the argument made by Bill Weinberg a freelance
writer. Please note that Weinberg corrected his accusations and agreed that
I had not misrepresented the Le Figaro piece. This issue at that point was
whether or not Le Figaro had confirmed a statement by a hospital
administrator that bin Laden had been there.
The first thing I received regarding the Le Figaro was a
translated version of the story from a researcher which contained the
following quote, A member of the administration of the American Hospital of
Dubai confirms that the public enemy number one stayed in the hospital from
July 4th to July 14th.
I then looked at the original French version which stated, Un
homme, partenaire professionnel de la direction administrative de l'hôpital
américain de Dubaï, affirme que l'ennemi public numéro un a séjourné dans
cet établissement hospitalier du 4 au 14 juillet."
The verb in question here is affirmer.
A French speaking reader rose to the challenge by writing, With
respect to the correct translation of the French word "affirmer," je
suggère que vous vous trompez. Your mistake is to rely on a French-English
dictionary, the effect of which is to take a word out-of-context and give
it the nearest English equivalent. You would have been better advised to
consult a French dictionary. For example, here's the primary definition for
affirmer as provided by Dictionnaire Universel Francophone
(Hachette/Edicef, 1997): Soutenir qu'une chose est vraie. [State that a
thing is true.]
When the definition is translated into English, it sounds a lot
like confirm, doesn't it?
Weinberg wrote back to a fellow journalist on March 12, There is
no way I am publishing a letter which is far longer than most of the blurbs
I run in my newsletter. Yeah, to an extent the affirm-confirm debate is a
Webster's Dictionary defines misrepresent as: to represent
incorrectly: to give a false, imperfect or misleading representation of.
Therefore you have utterly failed on this assertion. And I can
guarantee you that, had you published this assertion on anything other than
an e-mail list you might well feel the same legal response that will be
coming soon for others.
The rest of your points are as feeble as this one. Nonetheless,
for the benefit of those who are slow to see, I will go through the
exercise of addressing them.
Point Two: The Toronto Star story on Vreeland
In my Oh Lucy Timeline I wrote: August 11 or 12  - US Navy
Lt. Delmart "Mike" Vreeland, jailed in Toronto on U.S. fraud charges and
claiming to be an officer in U.S. Naval intelligence, writes details of the
pending WTC attacks and seals them in an envelope which he gives to
As a source for the story I used a Toronto Start article by Nick
Prom, dated, October 23 which stated, The 35-year-old American claims to be
a lieutenant in a U.S. Navy intelligence unit a spy who says he knew in
advance about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
In his affidavit, he says he tried to warn Canadian intelligence
about possible terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon, along with
targets in Ottawa and Toronto, but was written off as a petty criminal.
So he wrote the warning on a piece of paper, sealed it in an
envelope, and handed it to jail guards a month before the attacks. They
opened the letter Sept. 14 and immediately forwarded the information to
So where is the misrepresentation?
Here, you appear to be following the unfounded logic of David
Corn, Editor of The Nation which was easily refuted in my response to his
March 1 attack which took place on the same day that your colleague Norman
Solomon was part of an unannounced (attempted but unsuccessful) ambush of
me at KPFK. Corn s position was that I had not discussed all of the other
negative stories about Vreeland in the timeline.
It's a TIMELINE stupid!
When people list events in a timeline, (e.g. Dec 7, 1941 - The
Japanese attack Pearl Harbor) they do not go into lengthy dissertations as
to whether it was the Japanese Navy or Army, whether the Americans had
foreknowledge, or whether there were economic provocations for the attack.
The Toronto Star confirmed that Vreeland wrote the warning BEFORE the
attacks and that it was opened AFTER the attacks and sent to Ottawa. That
was my point.
Just for a moment, I will digress and remind you that: -- From The
Wilderness has published six stories specifically on the Vreeland case; I
have hired a Canadian Correspondent who has been in court hearings three
times; I have traveled to Toronto twice, been to the Court, obtained court
records, interviewed Vreeland, his mother and BOTH of his attorneys,
printed a significant amount of derogatory material about him; and that I
also uncovered material like a 1986 L.A. Times story in which he is
described as a friendly-witness in a major cocaine seizure that links him
to known intelligence operatives in LAPD.
Point 3 Military Intelligence Officers Working in CNN s Newsroom
In 2000 a French intelligence newsletter revealed that U.S. Army
"Psych-ops" personnel had been placed as interns in CNN's newsroom. I don't
think this fact is in dispute.
I was unaware that they had been removed. As much as I try, I just
cannot read every press story printed everywhere in the world. Does the
fact that I was unaware of the removal prove me guilty of
misrepresentation? Gee, I apologize for not knowing everything.
But does this change the fact that, according to author and Emmy
winning former CNN News producer, Kristina Borjesson (who has a great new
book out about the work that people like you do), CNN uses military
satellites (to this day) for their live feeds? Does it change the fact that
military intelligence personnel WERE placed in an American newsroom.
Even you and Mr. Solomon have written heavily how the mainstream
media serves the interests of the military, intelligence services and big
business. Are you now telling me that you no longer believe that to be the
case and are retracting your own writings?
And please tell me how my failure to be aware of the removal of
the interns is central to my positions on 9-11. I don't think even YOU can
bend a pretzel that far.
Point 4 Nonsensical Scribblings on Vreeland s 9/11 Warning Note
I could go into a refutation of your and Mr. Solomon's assertions
that all of the entries on his letter are a nonsensical mishmash of
unrelated data that have nothing to do with September 11th. That is not the
case and we have done a significant amount of research showing that many of
those entries are related to 9-11. Only a portion of it has been published
as yet. Both Vreeland's mother and his attorneys, former Canadian federal
prosecutors of impeccable reputation, have all said consistently that, as
Sept 11th approached, Vreeland's sense of urgency increased dramatically
and that he kept warning his mother, who was scheduled to go to New York in
early September to, stay out of tall buildings. Previous stories FTW has
published leave no doubt that both Vreeland and his attorneys knew that he
was referring to the events that ultimately occurred on September 11th. He
has never said and I have never said that he knew the exact date in
advance. Read my interview with him!
The warning letter has a context which you have deliberately
chosen to ignore. That context has been established in several FTW stories
including interviews with Vreeland and his attorneys as well as a court
record documenting numerous rebuffed attempts to reach Canadian and U.S.
intelligence officials which increased in both frequency and urgency before
the attacks. To take the letter out of that context and to refuse to
examine our reporting is worse than disingenuous. It is dishonest and
I could go on here and break down the items in Vreeland's letter
which are 9-11 specific. Research is something that is apparently beyond
your capacity or that of Messrs. Solomon and Corn. However, I prefer at
this point to see if Mr. Solomon shows up for his agreed-to radio
appearance with Mike Vreeland and his lawyer on May 15th [7 PM on What's
The Verdict <http://www.kpfa.org>www.kpfa.org hosted by Wendell Harper]. I
am offering 2:1 odds in my office that he won t. Mike Vreeland has earned
the right to speak for himself about all the things that are specific to
9-11 in that letter and he deserves the satisfaction of putting Mr. Solomon
in his justly-earned place at that time. Of course, if you won't read or
address the previous research I have done on that issue it's a moot point
here. Your refusal to read FTW's research does not make me inaccurate.
For the record: I have written or published 53 stories pertaining
to 9-11 and the events since. Only six of those have been about Vreeland.
There is much more that needs to be investigated and documented in the case
and I have continually called for other authentic journalists to jump into
the case and do real journalism. There's a lot of work remaining and much
more to be learned.
Absolutely none, zero, zilch of your four points are central to my
9-11 position, nor are they even substantive as you allege. With the
exception of the fact that I was unaware that the interns had been pulled
from the CNN newsroom, (which is not a misrepresentation) all of your
points fail to hold any more water than a colander.
And on the basis of these grand arguments, you and your colleague
Norman Solomon wish to argue that I should not be allowed on Pacifica
airwaves and that Pacifica listeners should be deprived of the right to
hear direct evidence and make judgments for themselves?
You should really be ashamed of yourself.
I am going to make it a point to not distract myself from further
correspondence with you unless and or until your childish and hysterical
rantings develop into something more credible. I think that means I'll have
a lot of time to write and publish the stories that provide FTW's growing
readership with what they are so hungry for solid food.
Michael C. Ruppert
"From The Wilderness"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 4/19/2002
More information about the Rushtalk