Counterpunch.org; Nihlist Zionist Crap For Liberetards

The title of this post represents my read on Cockburn's nonsense. You may of course have a different read on it, and i would love to hear about it in the comments....

Change You Can See

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

It looks as though the game is almost over for John McCain. Though the two are physically dissimilar I’ve taken to thinking of him  as a latterday Flashman. Harry Flashman was the bully in Thomas Hughes’ Victorian novel of school life, Tom Brown’s Schooldays. In 1969 George MacDonald Fraser brought him back to vibrant life in his novel Flashman as a coward and bounder who, by a series of accidents, became falsely honored as a national hero, awarded the Victoria Cross for supposedly heroic conduct in the first Afghan War.

Fraser wrote a dozen Flashman novels, all of them worth reading for their rich historical detail. They are indeed the sole basis for most Britons’ knowledge of their imperial history, much as my own generation of schoolchildren got their learning from the sagas of G.A.Henty, inherited from their grandparents. For insight into the emotions we relied on the profound works of Enid Blyton, the Marcel Proust of the nursery set.

When he was at Annapolis Naval Academy McCain had enough emotional scars of his own to earn the Flashmanesque nickname of McNasty. By the time he was flying his A-4 off the Forrestal he’d already acquired a somewhat unsavory reputation as a rash flier (three planes damaged or destroyed) and  as a relentless party boy.

On July 29, 1967 there was a terrible fire on the flight deck of the Forrestal in which 134 servicemen died. If you believe Mary Hershberger’s unsparing account on the truthdig website – to be fair, there are vigorous and detailed denunciations of her report by McCain’s defenders – imprudent actions by McCain may have started the fire. What seems undisputed is his extremely Flashmanesque behavior in the immediate aftermath of the lethal inferno. McCain promptly quit the stricken ship with the late R.W. “Johny” Apple Jr., of the New York Times, who wrote him up in handsome terms a few weeks later.

Thee flames still smouldering and the body bags barely zipped, McCain bounded into a helicopter and flew to Saigon for, in his own breezy words, “some welcome R&R”, even as somber memorials for his dead shipmates were held aboard the Forrestal. Flashman to the life.

He then raced to London for an important private session with the man who would preside over the  inquiry into the Forrestal disaster, the officer in question being his own father, Admiral John McCain, at that time the Navy’s top man in Europe, soon to become overall commander of all forces in Vietnam. Having squared accounts with the pater, he took himself off for a session in the casinos in the French Riviera. Under Admiral McCain’s supervision the investigation into the Forrestal disaster contained no revelations inconvenient to McCain Jr’s reputation. Admiral McCain had a banner year in 1967 supervising cover-ups since he  played a central role in the cover-up of Israel’s deliberate attack on the US Liberty, which had occurred a month earlier than the fire on the Forrestal, killing 34  and wounding 174.

Redeployed aboard the Oriskany, he was shot down over Hanoi. Numerous accounts cited by Douglas Valentine  on this site attest to his less than heroic conduct as a POW, ingratiating himself with his captors just as Harry Flashman would have done. Flashman, gazing down cynically at his own V.C. would certainly have laughed uproariously at the resplendent rows of decorations on McCain’s chest, a medal an hour, for the total of 10 hours and 30 minutes he spent dropping high explosive on civilians in North Vietnam.

McCain returned home to wife Carol who had kept the home fires burning all those years, undergoing the torture of 23 operations after a car accident that left her semi-crippled.

After brisk inspection of his worn bride, he judiciously abandoned Carol for the much younger and extremely rich beer heiress, Cindy Hensley and embarked on his political career as maverick and war hero.

Pure Flashman throughout.

The disadvantages of the McCain-Pailin ticket don't need much explication. McCain has never risen to the challenge of the world financial crisis and this failure has shrivelled his chances to near invisibility. Though Sarah  Pailin has enough horse sense to attack Wall Street greed, it's a brave and foolish soul who would argue that she will ever be ready to run the country, which in the unlikely event  of Republican victory she might well have to do. So we're left with Obama-Biden. 

Biden need not detain us. In his single person is  combined everything that is loathsome about the Democratic Party. He’s a phony through and through, serf of the credit companies and virtually incapable of opening his mouth without unleashing a falsehood, a plagiarism or an absurdity. On his criminal record are the bankruptcy bill, many horrible statutes prosecuting the war on drugs, the crime bill.

And Obama? Here are some excerpts from what I wrote about him recently in The Nation.

“In these last days I’ve been scraping around, trying to muster a single positive reason to encourage a vote for Obama. Please note my accent on the positive, since the candidate himself has couched his appeal in this idiom. Why vote for Obama-Biden, as opposed to against the McCain-Palin ticket?

“Obama invokes change. Yet never has the dead hand of the past had a “reform” candidate so firmly by the windpipe.

“Is it possible to confront America’s problems without talking about the arms budget, now entirely out of control? The Pentagon is spending more than at any point since the end of World War II. In “real dollars” – admittedly an optimistic concept these days -- the $635 billion appropriated in fiscal 2007 is 5 percent above the previous all-time high, reached in 1952. Depending on how you count them, the Empire has somewhere between 700 and 1,000 overseas bases.

“Obama wants to enlarge the armed services by 92,000. He pledges to escalate the US war in Afghanistan; to attack Pakistan’s sovereign territory if it obstructs any unilateral US mission to kill Osama bin Laden; and to wage a war against terror in a hundred countries, creating for this purpose a new international intelligence and law enforcement “infrastructure” to take down terrorist networks. A fresh start? Where does this differ from Bush’s commitment to Congress on September 20, 2001, to an ongoing “war on terror” against “every terrorist group of global reach” and “any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism”? 

“If elected he will be prisoner of his promise that on his watch Afghanistan will not be lost, nor the white man’s burden shirked.

“In the event of Obama’s victory, the most immediate consequence overseas will most likely be brusque imperial reassertion.

“In February, seeking a liberal profile in the primaries, Obama stood against warrantless wiretapping. His support for liberty did not survive its second trimester; he aborted it with a vote for warrantless wiretapping. The man who voted to reaffirm the awful Patriot Act declared that ‘the ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counterterrorism tool.’

“As a political organizer of his own advancement, Obama is a wonder. But I have yet to identify a single uplifting intention to which he has remained constant if it has presented the slightest risk to his advancement. Summoning all the optimism at my disposal, I suppose we could say he has not yet had occasion to offend two important constituencies and adjust his relatively decent stances on immigration and labor-law reform. Public funding of his campaign? A commitment made becomes a commitment betrayed, just as on warrantless eavesdropping. His campaign treasury is now a vast hogswallow that, if it had been amassed by a Republican, would be the topic of thunderous liberal complaint.

“In substantive terms Obama’s run has been the negation of almost every decent progressive principle, a negation achieved with scarcely a bleat of protest from the progressives seeking to hold him to account. The Michael Moores stay silent. Abroad, Obama stands for imperial renaissance. He has groveled before the Israel lobby and pandered to the sourest reflexes of the cold war era. At home he has crooked the knee to bankers and Wall Street, to the oil companies, the coal companies, the nuclear lobby, the big agricultural combines. He is even more popular with Pentagon contractors than McCain, and has been the most popular of the candidates with K Street lobbyists. He has been fearless in offending progressives, constant in appeasing the powerful.”
I suggested that for a souvenir of what a progressive platform might look like people might consult Ralph’s website, or – at least for those portions about foreign policy and constitutional rights, Bob Barr.

Listening to my complaints about Obama, a friend of mine in New York asked what alternative I had to recommend her. Since in New York  the split for Obama-Biden  is roughly 65-29 I told her it didn't matter. She could write in the straight Wiccan ticket if she felt so inclined. (Not a bad platform either, as she duly reminded me: “Do as you will, as long as it harms none.”) It wouldn't make any difference, any more than it would in California, where you can vote for Nader or Barr or McKinney and Obama is going to win regardless. In most states in the Union you can write in the Bertie Wooster/Jeeves ticket, and even without your vote Obama-Biden will canter home. So get out there and have fun and don’t feel excessively  burdened by responsibility to History – always a left-wing failing.

And wouldn't Barr be the first mustachioed occupant of the White House since Teddy Roosevelt?   Even if you don’t like the man, vote the mustache! This would be change we can see. Does that phrase have a vaguely familiar ring? It was what LBJ used to advise his staff during the Great Society build-up: "You've gotta give them change they can see." Meaning bridges, roads, new parks. Apparently the Obama pre-transition team is studying the early days of the New Deal and Great Society programs as thematic precursors for their initial two years -- before they lose one house of Congress, I suppose. I like freshman Montana Senator John Tester’s notion of change we’d like to see. Tester said people "want to see the executives that drove Wall Street into the ground in orange suits picking up cans along the side of the road." He’s got a hugely popular reception for that thought.

If the new Obama administration has got any sense at all, it’ll start planning a series of show trials of the ci-devant Masters of the Universe, now delightedly fingering the billions handed them by Hank Paulson and the US Congress. If they get a veto proof majority the ground work could start in the Senate, in a committee armed with subpoena power. If not, in some Partisan Commission, taking testimony around the country. Or both. This is the moment to fix in the popular mind for the next couple of generations exactly who are the malefactors of great wealth along with their intellectual courtiers. Stake out the battlefield, otherwise the enemy will stake it out for you.  For sure, it would be divisive. Division and unity go arm in arm.

A Matter of Life or Death

You may have noticed. We running our annual fundraiser. You scrolled right past it? Please don’t. Week after week we give you the best: take the incomparable Uri Avnery. Uri – in his mid-80s – makes me wince, because he’s so penetrating, so knowledgeable, so funny and he makes it look so, so easy.

To single out Uri is not to belittle our other regular writers. And if you’re a regular you’ll know them and you’ll also know all the surprising new voices you meet on our site. They come from every quarter, because they’re aware, like you, that this is where interesting radical and independent minds meet and where they combine in the true spirit of resistance to the dead grip of conventional thought and politics-as-usual.

We need your donation, whatever you can afford. If we don’t make our target, we’ll have to cut back our operations. You want that to happen, just on the edge of a new era?

So, if you like what we do, donate now.

(i like the begging for cash part)

Submitted by Shootingsparks on Sun, 2008-11-02 19:18

#ff0000">Well everybody knows that the bird is the word

joe2 | Sun, 2008-11-02 19:51

then they went on to do a super limited hangout version of the 5 dancing Israelis story with the reports of explosives being in their van edited out. So I agree it's a lot of bullshit, but from time to time there does seem to be some factual info there as well so I see no harm in linking to it if it's something relevant.

Infinite | Sun, 2008-11-02 20:00

Infinite, I'd link only if it is something very important not available elsewhere. Otherwise, marginalize the phony bastard. "Debunking" my ass. Here's a lazy list with many missing specimens:

Outed Zionist Media Plant Life:

Garden Gnome Chomsky
Alex Counterpunch Cockscab
Alex Germanic Death Cult Jones
Mike No Explosives-No Israelis Ruppert

Fester | Sun, 2008-11-02 20:09
Shootingsparks | Sun, 2008-11-02 09:12

counterpunch is a lame joke...

Shootingsparks | Sun, 2008-11-02 09:18

Emmanuel is the son of Jewish terrorist who volunteered for military service with the IDF during the Gulf War. He emulated his daddy and fought for Israel in 1991, and he's fighting for Israel now. He was brought up as a Jew, in a Jewish school. He's an Israeli, he carries an Israeli passport, and he's a dual citizen. He's tight as fuck with AIPAC. His record on Israel reflects his love of it.

What do you think that means for America and Iran and Iraq and the rest of the world? What do you think it says about his loyalty to America? He's never served in the U.S. military, only the IDF. If Rahm Emmanuel is acceptable to you as a representative, so would be Bibi Netanyahu.

You just don't want to see it.

Crimes of Zion | Sun, 2008-11-02 09:38

the senile garbage from Uri Avnery it continues to print with so much complacency. Consider this:

I am a very secular person. I have always advocated a complete separation between state and religion, even in the days when that sounded like a crazy idea. But it has never entered my mind to drive on Yom Kippur. There is no law forbidding it, no law is necessary. For a traditional Jew, Yom Kippur is a day like no other. Even if one does not really believe that on this day God makes the final decision about the life or death of every human being for the next year and writes it all down in a large book, one senses that one has to respect the feelings of those who do believe. I would not drive on Yom Kippur in a Jewish neighborhood, just as I would not eat in public during Ramadan in an Arab neighborhood. It is difficult to know what the Arab driver Tawfiq Jamal was thinking of when he entered a predominantly Jewish neighborhood in his car on Yom Kippur. It is reasonable to assume that he did not do it out of malice, as a provocation, but rather out of stupidity or carelessness ... In the Arab community, there are probably some who dream about the good old days, before the Jews came to this country and took it by force ... There is reasonable hope that at some future time we shall end the national conflict and reach a peaceful solution that both peoples will accept (if only because there is no alternative.) A Palestinian state will come into being side by side with Israel, and both peoples will understand that this is the best possible solution. (The Akko events should give rise to second thoughts in the mind of anyone who believes in the "One-State solution"' where Jews and Arabs would live in brotherhood and equality. Such a "solution" would turn the entire country into one big Akko.) ...

http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery10202008.html

CounterPunch is really just the voice of the old Second Socialist International, the one that failed to prevent WW1.

RowanBerkeley | Sun, 2008-11-02 10:42

That's a bit of a stretch. Former Knesset member Avnery's commentary sucks, but it doesn't accurately reflect the general philosophy of Counterpunch.

Counterpunch defends the free speech rights of holocaust revisionists, heavily criticizes AIPAC and the Lobby, opposes aid to Israel, opposes supporting war for Israel, opposes Israeli war crimes and atrocities, and opposes Zionism in general. It promotes books like The Case Against Israel and The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Counterpunch is pretty weak on Israel and 9/11, but I don't think you can rightly say that it's pro-Zionist.

I would provide examples, but the 'CPU quota exceeded' message is coming up in the little mini-window when I try to create hyperlinks.

Crimes of Zion | Sun, 2008-11-02 11:12

CoZ, things aren't completely black-and-white in the relationship between zionism and the left (or between zionism and the right, for that matter). Leftists who are theoretically anti-zionist but are so only because they are anti-fascist in general terms, still accepting that 'the Jews' have been the unique targets of fascist genocide, and that 'the Jews' have also been unique sources of anti-fascist thought and struggle, end up defending Israel as a nachtassyl (an overnight shelter).

This is a good introduction to the complex relationship between zionism and the left:

http://mailstar.net/zioncom.html

For some reason it doesn't discuss Fabianism here, but on another page on the same site there is some mention of it:

http://mailstar.net/red-symphony.html

RowanBerkeley | Sun, 2008-11-02 12:29

And great columns by Paul Craig Roberts, who's been running blogs warning of another 9/11.

Greg Bacon | Sun, 2008-11-02 18:37

I would very much like to put my finger on it. I said above in this thread that they were typical of the Second International, the one that failed to prevent WW1, but I don't really know : what can you make of people who use a mish-mash of marxian, green, feminist, anarchist and queer theory to support a series of third party candidates like Nader -- who they claim takes more votes from McCain than he does from Obama, but we know damn well that isn't true.  

RowanBerkeley | Sun, 2008-11-02 20:58

I would very much like to put my finger on it.

It's has a moderate vibe, that's all. Maybe a bit too moderate.

I like how Dr Steven Sniegoski sums up the quandary of the left-leaning, progressive, anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-fascist, anti-corporate scene.

The antiwar Left would prefer that old-style American imperialism and the quest for oil had caused the Iraq War. They are the preferred enemies of the Left. They are the traditional villains. And they are safe villains. Mentioning Israel as a culprit would cause problems: it would lose support for the Left among activist Jews, and it would lead to hostility from the Israel lobby and mainstream Jewish groups.

By way of contrast, no one ever got in trouble berating oil magnates or Arab sheiks — witness Michael Moore's blockbuster 2004 documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," which focuses on those alleged villains while ignoring the neocon/Israel connection to the war. [1] Also important is the fact that Jews, categorically, are considered to be victims; and it is hard for the Left to criticize an officially recognized victim group. In terms of left-wing psychology the ideal is to strike a radical, nonconformist pose without really alienating the powerful, thus avoiding any negative consequences as well as the cognitive dissonance that results from chiding designated victims. The process can go so far as to turn a man into an unintentional apologist for Israel.

Crimes of Zion | Sun, 2008-11-02 21:40

I had the chance to meet Alex Cockburn at a lecture he did 3-4 years ago.

At the end of his spiel, he took the trouble to comment on my Impeach the Terrorists sign saying he didn't believe that "George Bush masterminded 911." After pointing out that nobody had ever suggested some a notion, I took a few minutes to run through some of the obvious problems with the official story. Finally, the Cockscab muttered that maybe there were some questions to be answered. Naturally he has done nothing on the topic.

He's Garden Gnome Chomsky lite. Don't know much about his background except he's been battling empire since the beginning of time or some such twaddle.

Fester | Mon, 2008-11-03 01:02

"Counterpunch defends the free speech rights of holocaust revisionists." - Crimes of Zion | Sun, 2008-11-02 07:12

Can you give me an example of this, please?

I can't remember, and I haven't found much after a quick search.

Does this article by Stephen Gowans defend holocaust revisionism? I can't even tell. The entire article is about the Tehran conference, but he dances around a lot without clearly sticking up for free speech rights. Make up your own mind.

But there's The Prosecution of Zundel, by Alan Cabal. I can't find it on Counterpunch, but there's a reference to it at ihr.org:

A two-page article by American writer Alan Cabal in the widely read US periodical CounterPunch (Feb. 1-15) laid out the Zundel case with clarity and compassion. "The persecution of Ernst Zundel," concluded Cabal, "has been and continues to be both relentless and utterly ruthless. This most recent and ongoing episode flies in the face of a thousand years of Anglo-Saxon law. The man may hold provocative views, but he is a committed pacifist. He is guilty only of expressing an unpopular viewpoint. For him to be held in solitary confinement without having even been charged with a crime and without bail for a year while the court proceeds against him ... is an affront to justice and public decency that goes far beyond anything that Mr. Zundel has to say."

It's referenced by Counterpunch at the top of this page, but the article has been removed from the site.

Counterpunch has published articles by Prof. Daniel McGowan, who also defends Zundel, but I don't see him defending Zundel on Counterpunch.

Has Gilad Atzmon stuck up for holocaust revisionism on Counterpunch? I don't know.

So we can take defending the free speech rights of holocaust revisionists off the list of Counterpunch's graces. This is a good example of Counterpunch's over-moderate mediocrity and cowardice, holding back to appease the pro-Jewish left and play it safe for the sake of populism. There's no reason at all why Counterpunch should feel pressured to remove articles that defend free speech.

Crimes of Zion | Mon, 2008-11-03 07:14
new

Finally, the Cockscab muttered that maybe there were some questions to be answered.

Cockburn is very clear here that there are no questions in his mind when it comes to the events surrounding 9/11. He also believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman and the Warren Commission was a perfectly legitimate investigation.

This is another example of Counterpunch dipping out and letting down the left, or the truth movement, whatever.

Crimes of Zion | Mon, 2008-11-03 07:31
Shootingsparks | Mon, 2008-11-03 02:51

The title of this post represents my read on Cockburn's nonsense. You may of course have a different read on it, and i would love to hear about it in the comments....

I'll say again that I don't believe anyone can rightly claim that Counterpunch is Zionist, or pro-Zionist. Calling them out on being softcocks is one thing, but attributing a philosophy to them that is diametrically opposite to the kind of content they put out is another.

Technically, Rowan's Uri Avnery example is not pro-Zionist, it's pro-Judaic. Former Irgun terrorist and Knesset member Avnery is a worry, though. He's definitely pro-Israel, albeit a left-wing, anti-war strain.

But unless there's some sort of conspiracy going on and Counterpunch is covertly Zionist, you have to put them squarely in the category of anti-Zionist.

Crimes of Zion | Mon, 2008-11-03 03:41

I already explained this: their 'anti-zionism' is just one expression, on the same plane as many others, of their 'anti-fascism'. If zionism itself had developed in a 'leftish' way (whatever that would have meant, in an objectively colonial setting) they would have been able to support it as an "ism", but since it has not done this, they oppose it as an "ism".

However, they still believe that 'fascism' is uniquely hostile to 'Jews', and that 'Jews' are uniquely insightful and resourceful in fighting 'fascism'. Therefore, 'the international left,' according to this concept, has to wait until cadres of ideologically 'anti-zionist Jews' have emerged from WITHIN zionism, to dismantle it in the approved 'leftist' way -- NOT to surrender it and its subjects to a non-Jewish regional Arab resistance, which is very far from being culturally 'leftish' or even 'progressive' in their eyes.

RowanBerkeley | Mon, 2008-11-03 07:17

I can't find any copies of his CounterPunch article defending Zundel -- it has obviously been systematically erased. Anyway, I really love this by Alan Cabal -- best thing on pop occultism I have ever read, bar none -- I think he only wrote it with such frankness because he was bereaved:

http://www.nypress.com/16/23/news&columns/feature.cfm

RowanBerkeley | Mon, 2008-11-03 07:30

i didnt mention it before, but i really dug your input on this topic.

Shootingsparks | Sun, 2009-01-25 16:35

Tag Cloud

Popular content