Scott Horton Interviews James Ridgeway

Scott Horton, April 19, 2010

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

James Ridgeway, Senior Washington Correspondent for Mother Jones, discusses his 2007 article “In Search of John Doe No. 2: The Story the Feds Never Told About the Oklahoma City Bombing,” the neo-Nazi movement’s 1983 plot to blow up the Murrah Federal Building, frivolous criminal charges made against ATF agent Carol Howe that prevented her from testifying for the defense at McVeigh’s trial, how the OKC bombing continues to be used as a political club against anti-government groups and how the mainstream media dismisses skeptics of conventional wisdom as “conspiracy theorists.”

MP3 here. (41:46)

James Ridgeway is Senior Washington Correspondent for Mother Jones, where he writes both articles for the magazine and a weekly web column on MotherJones.com. He also writes pieces for the Guardian and CounterPunch, and collaborates on original short videos.

Ridgeway served as Washington Correspondent for the Village Voice for more than thirty years, where he wrote the weekly “Mondo Washington” column, as well as features on national and international politics. As part of his broad-based national reporting, he became known for his writing on the American right wing, from the mainstream conservative movement to the racist far-right. He also reported on international stories, from the coup in Haiti to the democratic revolution in Eastern Europe.

Scott’s collection of OKC audio clips here.

Scott’s collection of Jesse Trentadue’s court files here.

(Host was mistaken in the interview.) Mother Jones‘ full collection of Jesse Trentadue court files here.

A previous interviews of James Ridgeway as well as the late J.D. Cash, Roger Charles, Frederic Whitehurst, Charles Key, Rick Ojeda and others on the Oklahoma City Bombing available here.

15 Responses to “James Ridgeway”

  1. Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by RonPaulNews: Antiwar Radio: James Ridgeway http://bit.ly/9Q6VYX @AntiwarScott…

  2. Again, how can you call people who dont believe the 911 story Kooks? Its clear where we are at today is a very long road of deception. Have an open mind please.

  3. Whether or not the official story is true is irrelevant. What's relevant, and true, is that the government capitalized on it.

  4. The truth is irrelevant? Tell that to the government which continues to conceal records from the public in both cases. They sure seem to think it matters. They sure seem to think the public doesn't have a right to know the truth about government conduct.

  5. It is time for more people to question their government without the fear of being called names. An increasing number of people are getting to know the truth about Oklahoma City Bombing, 9/11 and other atrocious crimes like the Israeli bombing of USS Liberty, the Lavon Affair because of alternative news outlets like the anti-war radio, RBN, The Ugly Truth, Real Zionist News, David Duke.com etc.

    Scott Horton as always has doen an excellent job himself while also bringing fantastic hosts who are truthtellers with experience and knowledge–and most importantly people who cannot be bribed by those who wish to suppress the truth.

  6. Now I'm not saying that DavidDuke.com or Real Zionist News might not contain some newsworthy information, but this guy seems like some sort provocateur trying to link Scott to those other sites and what they represent. Just saying.

  7. But the point is valid as Paul Craig Roberts said why does antiwar.com censor discussion on 9/11?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDNLDXQdlBQ#t=3m35

    It seems that all these news website never even acknowledge the possibility that the government would be involved in a conspiracy of mass murder of its own civilians or supporting Islamic terrorism abroad like Nord Ost and Beslan massacre in Russia which I have provided links before.

    What the US says there mission in Afghanistan is true and that Al Qaeda is actually real enemy who want to target the US with criticism limited to military operations without actually challenging the premise of why we fight these wars which is the 9/11 hoax.

    Except we get the same crap from the likes of Eric Margolis.

  8. "never even acknowledge the possibility that the government would be involved in a conspiracy of mass murder of its own civilians"

    Why acknowledge that for which there is no proof but the "expert" opinions of non-experts?

    The 9/11 conspirabunk is simply a repackaging of the bogus conspirabunk the was flung at OKC, but which didn't "take" with the broader range of gullibles. The far-right lunatic fringe is desperate to distract away from itself when it comes to violence, even though at the same time it is "locked and loaded" and ready to "restore" the Constitution — which Constitution prohibits the means they declared intend to use.

    "patrick":

    The Founders/Framers were quintessentially "statist" — the "Libertarian" boogeyman: gov't/rule of law.

    So invoking the Founders/Framers in support of the "Libertarian"/Anarchist view is a falsehood of the most extreme.

  9. http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/03/israel-did-911-conversations-withabout.html

    Maybe a few of these antiwar radio fans might want to surf over to Kevin Barrett's website and listen to his interview of Dr. Alan Sabrosky, who spent over 5 years at the prestigious Army War College, and who spills the beans (or lentils) on who really did engineer 9-11. Sabrosky originally appeared on the Mark Glenn radio show at The Ugly Truth website back a few weeks ago, and revealed the same truth.

    Put your thinking caps on, friends. Apply the Cui Bono Principle. One and only one nation on this planet benefits from the US of A going to war against all of the enemies of that same nation. This isn't rocket science. I have feeling that Scott is trying to help cover some tracks, for reasons that only he can explain.

  10. Why did Ridgeway say that he probably doesn't agree with Scott's political views? What is he? A statist?

  11. guest: yes, that's why i didn't invoke it. Some of the "founders" were liberals and others were conservatives. None of them were consistent libertarians in my books.

  12. And how, pray tell, do you personally vet who is considered an expert? Is it because they hold up a piece of paper that's stamped expert by a university or some other "respectable" organization? And if someone starts to talk about something that they aren't considered an expert in, do you propose that we should ignore, if not run quickly away from them? And what happens in your brain when you have two "experts" who hold counter ideas? Is it okay to use your own rationality at that point? Or are we supposed to let the experts battle it out on some academic Mt. Olympus, and then the victor comes down the mountain to declare what the correct way of thinking is? And if so, what the fuck are you doing trying to poke holes in anyone's argument, because I sure as hell don't see a Dr. after your name. And to hold forth on the intentions of the founders without first declaring yourself a constitutional expert seems pretty asinine as well. Sorry, but I'm going to follow your advice and not acknowledge your bunk that is simply a repackaging of the bogus bunk that's flung around by "respectable" opinion, who are desperate to distract away from itself when it comes to violence.

  13. The terms, "terrorist", "conspiracy theory", and so on are plain and simple – they dodge the subject matter and aim at the speaker. In Logic this is understood as an admission of the truth of the statement. If the statement were untrue, critics would assault that fault. Because they actually agree with, but do not like, the statement, they shift the topic to the speaker and some imaginary fault in him, not in his position. What it come down to is this: if powerful people assault a speaker rather than his claim, well, the claim is probably valid.

  14. I have a question regarding the Michelle Madcow's msnbc presentation: "The McVeigh Tapes". We are intended to believe that the voice that we hear is the actual voice of McVeigh as recorded by the authors of "American Terrorist". But nowhere in the presentation of the video is that unambiguously asserted. This leads me to believe that it is not the case.

    Anyone else have any thoughts on this.

  15. @Guest

    But there is proof and I am not talking about junk like bombs in towers or "the zionist did it" garbage we know how financed the 9/11 hijackers who trained at least some of them and why they were in the US all through official police investigations and court cases in Bosnia, Turkey, Germany and the US.

    @Truth Fan

    I listened to the Mark Glenn interview with AS and he said it as his opinion and does not reveal any new evidence in fact he mentions that he shows his WC friends that he showed them a video of a Danish expert talking about thermite particles found at WTC.

Leave a Reply