Is F.A.I.R. Inappropriately Named?

John A. Quayle blueoval at SGI.NET
Thu May 9 23:17:14 MDT 2002

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 
semantical one.

         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 [2001] - 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 
Canadian authorities.

         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 <> 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 (
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 4/19/2002

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list