Alexander Cockburn: "Leftgatekeeping for Dummies!"

Have you ever wanted to write a 9/11 hit piece, but you just weren't quite sure HOW? Well, put that lack of confidence in the DUSTBIN, because with this handy list of catch-phrases, YOU TOO can can keep your head firmly tucked up your rectum, and STILL smear people that have VALID 9/11 questions for fun and profit!

"You trip over one fundamental idiocy of the 9/11 conspiracy nuts in the first paragraph of the book by one of their high priests, David Ray Griffin ... One central characteristic of the nuts is that they have a devout, albeit preposterous, belief in American efficiency, and hence many of them start with the racist premise that "Arabs in caves" weren't capable of the mission ... My in-box overflows each day with fresh "proofs" of how the towers were demolished. I meet people who start quietly, asking me what I think about 9/11. What they are actually trying to find out is whether I'm part of the coven ... It's the same pattern with the 9/11 nuts. There are photos of the impact of the "object" that hit the Pentagon ... People inside who survived the collapse didn't hear a series of explosions ... Instead, the conspiracy nuts have combined to produce a ludicrous distraction." - Alex Cockburn, " The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts" - The Nation, 9/7/206.

Wow! Thanks, Alex! Drop Noam a line, would you? He's still using "9/11Smear 1.5" - - time to upgrade to the new template.

"Cockburn" hahahaha,

Alexander “STD” Cockburn, aka the “Gonorrhea Gatekeeper!”

This is the funniest

thing I've seen in a while. Thanks Reprehensor!

Beautiful!!!! I want this on

Beautiful!!!! I want this on printed on my shirt when I attend the Amy Goodman's 911 Fundraiser at Cooper Union. Radical Pragmatist

Please pick up the white courtesy phone...

"Mike Hunt, paging Mr. Cockburn. Mike Hunt, paging Mr. Cockburn."

Hehehehehehe...

Well, then.

Here's a higher-res version. Not much higher, but it's still better.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v491/reprehensor/911/left-gate-high-re...

Thanks , I am actually going

Thanks , I am actually going to try and this on a shirt before i leave for NY tonight.Radical Pragmatist

What is foundation funding?

What is foundation funding?

I think it's

I think it's government/corporate grants for things like academic institutions. E.g. Cockburn is in the pocket of the corporations/Rockefeller etc.

Paying the bills.

The foundations picking up the cost of ink and drive space for gatekeepers.

foundation funding explained

The Nation's 9/11 Issue

The Nation's issue dated September 11, 2006 says on the cover "Wake up, America! Pay Attention To What You Eat!" Can you believe that! It's their "Food Issue"!!! The only mention of 9/11 is a review of the Oliver Stone movie at the back of the magazine.

"As regards the hole, my

"As regards the hole, my brother Andrew--writing a book about Rumsfeld--has seen photos taken within thirty minutes of impact clearly showing the outline of an entire plane, including wings. This was visible as soon as the smoke blew away."

My brother Andrew has seen photos? He would be the only person in the known world to have seen these photos of the plane's outline on the Pentagon.

This passes for journalism? Sad.

When Cockburn WAS a

When Cockburn WAS a 'conspiracy theorist' (june 2001)

http://www.antiwar.com/cockburn/c060801.html

"Things You Can't Say in America
FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor

It doesn't matter how many times you prove it. Wait five years and you have to prove it all over again. Take Pearl Harbor. The fact that FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack is something that should by now be as solidly established in American historiography as William Randolph Hearst's famous order to his photographer, "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war," (the conflict under discussion being the Spanish American war).

John Flynn made a sound case for Roosevelt's foreknowledge in 1946. Relying on public documents, the historian Charles Beard did it magisterially in 1948, with his FDR and the Coming of the War 1941. John Toland wrapped it with Infamy in the early 1980s. Robert Stinnett made the case all over again a year ago with Day of Deceit. I can guarantee to you that about five years down the road, after the National Archives have released another truckload of documents, someone will be triumphantly writing that the case has "finally been made," and someone else will be whining that "once again the conspiracy mongers are at work."

There's no mystery as to why this should be. As Flynn and Beard both understood, FDR's manipulation of the attack on Pearl Harbor goes to the very heart of executive abuse of the warmaking power. Not matter how mountainous the evidence, the case will always officially be "non proven," "a conspiracy theory." For the same reason, despite a hundred proofs, it remains officially "non proven," time and time, that US leaders order the assassination of foreign leaders. By now, it should be as soundly based in American historiography as…as…Johnson's manipulation of Tonkin Gulf in the Vietnam War that the White House requisitioned (with only partial success) the deaths of Trujillo, Lumumba, Castro, the Diem brothers, Chou En Lai, Qaddafi, and perhaps even the Swedish leftish prime minister, Olof Palme, though this one has never been properly settled or even mooted."

Continues at link

Loose Change gets a plug on 'The View'

Just watched a segment on 'The View' where author of 'Debunking 9/11 Myths' refers to 'Loose Change' It was cast in a negative light of course, but I never thought I'd hear those two words strung together on 'The View', whew. This movement is mainstream now, isn't it.

E-mail ABC to complain about "The View" and "The Path to 9/11"

Go to:

http://abc.go.com/site/contactus.html

to complain about "The View" showing only a one-sided view of 9/11 and "The Path to 9/11" for encouraging people to vote Republican so that the Republicans will remain in power and won't properly investigate 9/11 or any other Bush and cabal crimes.

Threaten to boycott their advertisers and to tell their advertisers why they are being boycotted, and tell everyone you know to do the same.

Motivation?

I read articles on Cockburn's "Counterpunch" site almost every day, and agree with him about 75% of the time, as I do with other left gatekeepers like Chomsky, but I still think this is funny as hell.

As a non-believer in the neocon-scripted nationalist fairy tale about 9/11 myself, it drives me nuts that these people can make careers out of exposing policies and military/intelligence operations that are kept out of the public eye through classification, compartmentalization, privatization, intimidation, and media manipulation--like East Timor, Amy Goodman's pet cause--and still claim that the military-intelligence complex and its useful idiots in the media and big business wouldn't or couldn't pull off domestic terrorism and blame it on dead or fictional "crazy Ayrabs."

I've heard Barrie Zwicker speak on the topic in several different interviews, and I've heard the spiel about how they don't want to lose foundation funding, but I still don't understand the motivation. The foundation funding argument also doesn't explain the hostility toward 911 Truth of right-wingers like Limbaugh or Liddy, or of lefties who don't suckle at the foundation teat.

Democrats and mainstream liberals (Al Franken, for example), I can understand, since they don't want to impugn the reputation of institutions like the CIA, and want only to pretend that all problems begin and end with George Bush. Conservatives I can understand, since they're happy for a chance to advance American military dominance over the rest of the world and to demonize Muslims, as suggested by Leo Strauss and the PNAC thugs. But I am at a loss to understand the motivation of self-described left-radicals in dismissing any real investigation into 9/11.

the motivation of self-described left-radicals

I've struggled with those same questions. I believe a great many of them believe they actually have an important or even influencial seat in the 'official' political discourse in this country. 911 throws the whole political game on the floor, and that means they lose their seat at the game and thus lose any chance of winning 'the game'. They can't see beyond the contrived left-right game in which they comfortably feel themselves the intellectual and moral superiors. This is coming from a self-described left radical.......who values truth and love for my world and country over personal righteousness and insignifigent political victories.

Well said, Radical

Well said, Radical Pragmatist (from a fellow left radical).

very well put.

very well put.

cockburn doesn't want us

cockburn doesn't want us asking questions or thinking for ourselves because it makes HIM uncomfortable. fuck him. that is the opposite of journalism. he actually used the "racist" argument--what a fucking shmuck.

International Truth Movement
http://www.truthmove.org

Dear Mr. Cockburn:

Sibel Edmonds is just some crazy broad, right? And Willie Rodriguez just some crazy spic? And wargames were miraculously going on at the time of the attacks? And the head of Pakistani intelligence wired 100 grand to Atta and just happened to be meeting with Congreesional intelligence leaders on 9/11? And the Omission Commission published a report based on NORAD testimony that they now admit was mostly lies? You, sir, are a douche.

I know a lot of people think

I know a lot of people think it's a matter of "funding" etc., personally I don't buy that. You could make that argument with Goodman, perhaps. But a lot of these left radicals either have no funding or are already living comfortably. I think we're deaing here with good ol fashioned ego: fear of losing prestige and fear of looking stupid for arguing blowback so passionately for so many years. And it's not just left-radicals either. Take a look at Anti-war.com and see how many "respectable" libertarian voices are speaking 911 truht. It's sad. Human nature in a hierarchical society I guess. But it can be overcome with courage. Parenti, Chussodovsky, Peter Dale Scott and DRG (to name a few) are left-libertarians with real courage, even if they don't enjoy the same stature as Chomsky and Cockburn (who are good friends, btw). Anyway, from what I've read of the article Cockburn has just discredited himself in spectacular fashion. I hope David Ray Griffin responds. No doubt he would do so with considerably more class.

Can someone post the full article?

How the mighty have fallen.

How the mighty have fallen.

Cockburn used to expose this kind of stuff, not attack it. In fact he once wrote an article (strongly supported) suggesting that the famous black radical Paul Robeson was a victim of MKULTRA. He also helped expose CIA drug running. His newsletter, Counterpunch, is a ceaseless critic of Zionist policy. Now look at him: he's reduced himself to a neocon shill just like his arch-enemey Christopher Hitchens. And for what? Pride before the fall...

Beat the devil by Alexander

Beat the devil by Alexander Cockburn
The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts

[from the September 25, 2006 issue]

You trip over one fundamental idiocy of the 9/11 conspiracy nuts in the
first paragraph of the book by one of their high priests, David Ray
Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor. "In many respects," Griffin writes, "the
strongest evidence provided by critics of the official account involves the
events of 9/11 itself.... In light of standard procedures for dealing with
hijacked airplanes...not one of these planes should have reached its
target, let alone all three of them."

The operative word here is "should." One central characteristic of the nuts
is that they have a devout, albeit preposterous, belief in American
efficiency, and hence many of them start with the racist premise that
"Arabs in caves" weren't capable of the mission. They believe that military
systems work the way Pentagon press flacks and aerospace salesmen say they
should work. They believe that at 8:14 am, when AA Flight 11 switched off
its radio and transponder, an FAA flight controller should have called the
National Military Command center and NORAD. They believe, citing reverently
(this from high priest Griffin) "the US Air Force's own website," that an
F-15 could have intercepted AA Flight 11 "by 8:24, and certainly no later
than 8:30."

They appear to have read no military history, which is too bad because if
they had they'd know that minutely planned operations--let alone responses
to an unprecedented emergency--screw up with monotonous regularity, by
reason of stupidity, cowardice, venality and other whims of Providence.

According to the minutely prepared plans of the Strategic Air Command, an
impending Soviet attack would have prompted the missile silos in North
Dakota to open and the ICBMs to arc toward Moscow and kindred targets. The
tiny number of test launches actually attempted all failed, whereupon SAC
gave up testing. Was it badly designed equipment, human incompetence,
defense contractor venality or... conspiracy? Did the April 24, 1980,
effort to rescue the hostages in the US Embassy in Tehran fail because a
sandstorm disabled three of the eight helicopters, or because agents of
William Casey poured sugar into their gas tanks in yet another conspiracy?

Do the military's varying attempts to explain why F-15s didn't intercept
and shoot down the hijacked planes stem from predictable attempts to cover
up the usual screw-ups, or because of conspiracy? Is Mr. Cohen in his
little store at the end of the block hiking his prices because he wants to
make a buck, or because his rent just went up, or because the Jews want to
take over the world? Bebel said anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools.
These days the 9/11 conspiracy fever is fast becoming the "socialism" of
the left.

My in-box overflows each day with fresh "proofs" of how the towers were
demolished. I meet people who start quietly, asking me what I think about
9/11. What they are actually trying to find out is whether I'm part of the
coven. I imagine it is like being a normal Stoic in the second century AD
going for a stroll in the forum and meeting some fellow asking, with
seeming casualness, whether it's possible to feed 5,000 people on five
loaves of bread and a couple of fish.

Indeed, at my school the vicar used to urge on us Frank Morison's book Who
Moved the Stone? It demonstrated, with exhaustive citation from the
Gospels, that since on these accounts no human had moved the stone from in
front of Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, it must have been an angel who rolled
it aside, so Jesus could exit, astonish the mourners and then ascend. Of
course, Morison didn't allow the possibility that angels never existed or
that the Gospel writers were making it up.

It's the same pattern with the 9/11 nuts. There are photos of the impact of
the "object" that hit the Pentagon--i.e., the Boeing 757, Flight 77--that
seem to show the sort of hole a missile might make. Ergo, it was a missile
and a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. As regards the hole, my brother
Andrew--writing a book about Rumsfeld--has seen photos taken within thirty
minutes of impact clearly showing the outline of an entire plane, including
wings. This was visible as soon as the smoke blew away.

And if it was a missile, what happened to the 757? Did the conspirators
shoot it down somewhere else, or force it down and then kill the
passengers? Why plan to demolish the towers with pre-placed explosives if
your conspiracy includes control of the two planes that hit them? Why
bother with the planes at all? Why blame Osama if your fall guy is Saddam
Hussein?

The demolition scenario is classic who-moved-the-stonery. The towers didn't
fall because they were badly built as a consequence of corruption,
incompetence, regulatory evasions by the Port Authority and because they
were struck by huge planes loaded with jet fuel. No, they collapsed because
Dick Cheney's agents methodically planted demolition charges in the
preceding days. It was a conspiracy of thousands, all of whom--party to
mass murder--have held their tongues ever since.

Of course, the buildings didn't suddenly pancake. People inside who
survived the collapse didn't hear a series of explosions. As discussed in
Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins's marvelous Grand Illusion, about Rudy
Giuliani and 9/11, helicopter pilots radioed warnings nine minutes before
the final collapse of the South Tower that it might well go down, and
similar warnings, repeatedly, as much as twenty-five minutes before the
North Tower's fall.

What Barrett and Collins brilliantly show are the actual corrupt
conspiracies on Giuliani's watch (see also their article in this issue);
the favoritism to Motorola, which saddled the firemen with radios that
didn't work; the ability of the Port Authority to scrimp on fire
protection; the mayor's catastrophic failure in the years before 9/11 to
organize an effective emergency command, meaning that many lives could have
been saved, cops and firemen could have communicated and firemen could have
heard the helicopter warnings and the Mayday messages that saved most of
the police. That's the real world, in which Giuliani and others have never
been held accountable. Instead, the conspiracy nuts have combined to
produce a ludicrous distraction.

By the way

"They appear to have read no military history, which is too bad because if
they had they'd know that minutely planned operations--let alone responses
to an unprecedented emergency--screw up with monotonous regularity, by
reason of stupidity, cowardice, venality and other whims of Providence."

If this were true, then wouldn't that mean that the 9/11 hijackers wouldn't have been able to pull the operation off either? Cockburn seems to be implying that while the US intelligence/military apparatus, with over 200 years of training and history, trillions of dollars spent on training and equipment, facilities and systems, could not pull off an operation that 19 relatively poorly trained terrorists executed with near perfection? Sounds like kookery to me.

Hahahaha

"You, sir, are a douche.", Hahahahahaha love it!

"Can it be that a generation

"Can it be that a generation of school children is growing up heedless of the simple truth that the Pentagon's central role for many years has been to buy weapons that don't work, against threats that don't exist?" - Alexander Cockburn

;)

Funny how so many gatekeeper quotes are becoming reflexive, sort of like when the neocons talk about the "fascists who hate our freedom".

Cockburn is now officially

Cockburn is now officially part of the establishment.

Lol. If Cockburn and

Lol. If Cockburn and Chomsky had any street-savy left in their tired old bones they'd realize they are making the strategic error of their careers. At least Chomsky was merely biting and dismissive on the subject. Cockburn, being the little whipper-snapper he is, couldn't resist going at it full throttle. He has immolated himself on the funeral pyre of the official story! What a complete jackass!

Cockburn isnt as rational

Cockburn isnt as rational and smart as Chosmky, he couldnt help himself. Chomsky at least has the good sense to lie and say "its unimportant and i really havent done any research into it", providing himself some slight cover when the shit hits the fan.

What did you expect, Joan of Ark?

Cockburnt is yet another compelling reason not to trust ‘progressive writers,’ ‘investigative journalists,’ ‘university professors,’ ‘ex-marines’ politicians and the clergy to save the world. They all have too much to lose!

Fuck *cock*BURN because he is

another example of a gatekeeper/fraud at work. Here's an idea MSM! Why not debate people you disagree with in a rational manor? That way all ideas can compete equally in the free market place of ideas! WOW!!!

Alex's Malex

Hold on a second here folks, I too am deeply disgusted and disappointed with Alex Cockburn's pooh poohing of us here conspiracy nutcases (I like almonds). But let us not throw out the baby Alex with the dirty bathwater. CounterPunch newsletter does publish many very critical articles, and has been the only Left outlet to seriously and openly question the issue of Jewish Power in the US (albeit some would argue, not vigorously enough). So yes, what a horrible joke that Alex (his brother has the proof of the official 911 story-- so must be true) takes such a shoddy line. I suppose people have their pride (and funding sources) so he will never change his mind on this issue, VERY SAD. Cockburn did publish two articles by Israel Shamir however, and publishes a wide variety of stuff, so kudos to Counterpunch for that, to be sure.

PS: Cockburn raises good issues about government incompetence, it is just a shame that he does not systematically deal with these valid questions within the context of the important body of 911 research (ala DRG).

Counterpunch is like opium

Counterpunch is like opium. It doesn’t cure the disease, it just eases the pain – and I’m told - tickles you around the testicles!

Arabian Lightening

Reluctantly, one must side with Alexander Cockburn for the following reasons:

1. Short of being evil no Prez would sign the death warrant for 3,000 people whose only known crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. [Then again, Short of being evil no Prez would commit 3,000 of his county’s sons and daughters to certain death – and force another 25,000 to a life without a limb, or two – halfway across the world to an orgy of civilian massacre… and keep another 150,000 waiting, possibly for another false flag operation, to give him the excuse he needs to destroy the rest of Middle East.]

2. Contrary to general belief, the most immediate beneficiaries of 9/11 ‘Arabian lightening’ were Bin Letin and his sidekick, NOT Larry (pull it) Silverstein and the Prez.

Admittedly Bin Letin and his sidekick became instant fugitives with a multimillion dollar price [and a hit contract] on their head; however, that’s what they had always wanted, to simply fulfill a childhood dream of crowning FBI Most Wanted List.

As for Larry (pull it) Silverstein [who had completed a new insurance policy only days before the lightening struck] and the Prez, Larry received more money in insurance settlement and Fed rebuilding funds than even he could have imagined, while the Prez managed [only] to steal the election for the second time, and be named “The War Prez” - a title he has cherished so much.

3. Alex Cockburn’s boyfriend is putting the finishing touches to an illustrated book [pictures are provided by Alex’s brother] for mentally challenged children titled ‘Bin Letin the Grand Wizard of NY and the Magic of Arabian Lightening’ in which he reportedly demonstrates how Bin Letin with a mix of magic directs two flying saucers toward the WTC towers, and even though only two of the three buildings are hit, he manages to pull all three buildings down with the power of mind over matter [psycho kinetic powers, not high explosive demolition charges] into their footprints at near freefall speed.

It makes perfect sense, Alex dear, doesn’t it?

If mister Cockburn and his band are best of the contemporary litter of ‘intellectual left,’ or ‘progressive writers’ this country [or Britain] can hope to produce, perhaps the rest of us should join Mike Rupert in Venezuela!