Saturday, December 27, 2008


Crimes of the State Blog

"Conspiracism is raising its Medusa’s head again, her lethal visage wreathed with hissing absurdities, immobilizing judgement, melting intellect to pumice." --Alexander Cockburn (ignoring all evidence that is contrary to his irrational biases)

Blather at new heights of cognitive dissonance over at CounterPunch this weekend. Cockburn uses the term "conspiracism", as if that were a real thing, to mock any and all comers, even in a piece about the minutiae of some Wall Street fraud (Bernie Madoff).

But how can he get away with this childish mocking about the JFK assassination, without having to address even one piece of evidence at all?

Here is the entirety of what Cockburn says about "conspiracism" and the JFK assassination in that piece:

"Journalist Russ Baker suggests in a new book, Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It In The White House, And What Their Influence Means for America, “the strong possibility” (I quote from a respectful resume of his conclusions) that the 41st president, G.H.W.Bush, father of the present resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, “was involved in assassinating President Kennedy, and that Bush was involved in staging the Watergate break-in (and the break-in at Dan Ellsberg's psychiatrist's) with the purpose of having these break-ins exposed and the blame placed on President Nixon.”

We’re back with the old notion of a secret, all-powerful permanent government, engendered in the WASP-nest of Skull and Bones, headquartered in Langley and locked in alternate collusion and combat with another permanent secret all-powerful government, headquartered in Zion and, if we are to believe the conspiracists, exultant at this hour at the tremendous coup of Bernie Madoff’s supposed victims."

No, idiot. We're "back" at looking at shady cia-connected characters and what they were doing in the 1960s and 70s. Cockburn uses Bush's status as former president as some kind of legal defense which automatically places him on the right side of the law. Quite odd for a left wing, revolutionary rag like CounterPunch. No?

You would think, from Cockburn's tone, that there was no controversy surrounding the JFK assassination. Is that the audience he's preaching to? Because Noam Chomsky accepts the Warren Commission, that makes it an honest investigation, magic bullet and all? Is that what Cockburn is shoveling?

This is beyond ridiculous. Cockburn feels no need to back up anything he says, and like Bill O'Reilly, or Rush Limbaugh, can simply sneer and mock with impunity.

The US Congress, by the way, also came to the conclusion that there was most likely a conspiracy to kill Kennedy (while continuing to white-wash and protect the guilty). This was 30 years ago, and yet still to this day, the term "conspiracism" is wielded like a rubber chicken.

Cockburn is a dishonest propagandist, apparently shilling for the criminal deep state. He makes no attempt to get at the truth of the matters, yet takes fevered sides, and attempts with hystrionics and ridicule to paint the opposition as insane. This is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.

Recall that Cockburn investigated CIA connected drug smuggling that actually happened (conspiracy) during the Iran Contra period. That's a very dangerous road to take. Did he go too far? Was he warned off? Is he in fear for his life, and is he now in the position of taking orders when they arrive regarding certain no-touch subjects?

Cockburn's book Whiteout: CIA, Drugs and the Press is available at Amazon -- but is conspicuously removed and absent from CounterPunch and their books section...

Where is the CounterPunch equivalent to Daniel Hopsicker's explosive series on CIA connected planes dropping out of the sky in Mexico full of cocaine?

Nothing of the sort appears in CounterPunch these days.

Have I solved it?

This does not absolve Cockburn for his dishonest propaganda. He doesn't have to be so accomodating at demonizing "conspiracy theories" for his handlers. But, perhaps, he does it so ineptly and blatantly that one could easily see through the charade if one wanted to research a few basic facts?

I'm going to have a drink and toast Alexander Cockburn, for at least making it entertaining.