ALEXANDER COCKBURN: "OSWALD SHOT HIM"

[Sid Walker]

There's a classic discussion about this - and many other topics related to the JFK assassination - in this record of correspondence between Vincent Salandria, Michael Morrissey amd others in the 1990s.

In 1993, Morrissey believed that Chomsky was innocently mistaken about the assassination.

He was more scathing about Ccckburn:

In the case of Alexander Cockburn, who is by the way a good friend of Chomsky's, I cannot be so generous. As I try to show in the book, he fights dirty. Cockburn is much too talented a writer to resort to the sordid treatment he gave the Stone film without being aware of it. Why would he stoop so low in this instance? According to Deborah Davis (Katherine the Great), he was one of the flunkies sicced on her by Graham to destroy the first edition of her book, and at the time he was living with Graham's daughter. Doesn't sound like the behavior of a radical leftist to me.

More importantly, and as I have tried, as diplomatically as possible but to no avail, to point out to Chomsky, the simple cui bono fact is that he and Cockburn, leading the rest of the anti-conspiracy faction of the left, are aiding the Establishment press immeasurably by helping to discredit the notion that the assassination had anything to do with anything--specifically with the policy change in Vietnam. No one could be happier than the boys at Langley, I imagine, about Cockburn and Chomsky deflating the Garrison/Stone thesis with what I will call, in Cockburn's case, bullxxxx, and in Chomsky's case, sophistry, though I guess there's no difference.

I don't usually go for tittle-tattle, but in this case I'll make an exception.

Did Cockburn catch Washington Post Disease from his former girlfriend??

WPD, a rare but dangerous STD, is believed to have been lethal on at least one occasion.

Edited April 8, 2007 by Sid Walker

[John Simkin]

I disagree that Cockburn and Chomsky are "intellectual whores". Some writers on the left believe their arguments are undermined if they associate themselves with conspiracy theories. They even go as far as to describe conspiracy theorists as extremists in order to portray themselves as moderates. This is not about money but about tactics. The fact that they do this is evidence of what a great job Operation Mockingbird has done in presenting conspiracy theorists as "nutters". When I met Norman Baker recently (the MP campaigning for a full investigation of David Kelly) he told me that a major problem had been to deal with this new image he has of being a "conspiracy theorist" (it is brought up in every interview he gives to the press). The problem is, that once you are labelled a "conspiracy theorist" you are also seen as someone who believes in UFOs, that the US never went to the moon and that 9/11 was a government plot.

[Sid Walker]

I disagree that Cockburn and Chomsky are "intellectual whores". Some writers on the left believe their arguments are undermined if they associate themselves with conspiracy theories. They even go as far as to describe conspiracy theorists as extremists in order to portray themselves as moderates. This is not about money but about tactics. The fact that they do this is evidence of what a great job Operation Mockingbird has done in presenting conspiracy theorists as "nutters". When I met Norman Baker recently (the MP campaigning for a full investigation of David Kelly) he told me that a major problem had been to deal with this new image he has of being a "conspiracy theorist" (it is brought up in every interview he gives to the press). The problem is, that once you are labelled a "conspiracy theorist" you are also seen as someone who believes in UFOs, that the US never went to the moon and that 9/11 was a government plot.

There is a world of difference between Norman Baker on the one hand - and Cockburn and Chomsky on the other.

The former is a victim of the "anti-conspiracy" propaganda which the latter (among many others) have actively and consciously purveyed.

I also find the notion that Cockburn and Chomsky might like to go further on topics such as JFK and 9-11, but hang back to protect their credibility, quite unbelievable. The poverty of their arguments on these issues stands in stark contrast to their usual sharp analysis and erudition. IMO, they quite clearly dissemble on these two topics.

It was the same story with I.F. Stone, as I pointed out on another thread. Stone - the man famous for the remark "all governments lie" made a special point of rubbishing Bertrand Russell's early and potentially influential critique of the Warren Commission, claiming to be shocked at the very idea the Warren Commission was corrupt.

For instance, Stone wrote:

I have criticized Allen W. Dulles constantly over the years. But I would not impute to him or any other member of the Commission conduct so evil as to conspire with the secret services to protect the killers of a President.... This is libellous in the extreme. It implies that Allen Dulles would be a party to killing Kennedy and hushing up the truth because he lost his job after the Bay of Pigs. Such charges, as sloppy as they are wild, are dishonorable and dissolve the fabric of society.

This type of thing is not, IMO, explicable as an innocent mistake or a sign of concern to protect mainstream credibility.

It is clearly an attempt to influence what constitutes mainstream credibility.

Edited April 8, 2007 by Sid Walker

[William Kelly]

I disagree that Cockburn and Chomsky are "intellectual whores". Some writers on the left believe their arguments are undermined if they associate themselves with conspiracy theories. They even go as far as to describe conspiracy theorists as extremists in order to portray themselves as moderates. This is not about money but about tactics. The fact that they do this is evidence of what a great job Operation Mockingbird has done in presenting conspiracy theorists as "nutters". When I met Norman Baker recently (the MP campaigning for a full investigation of David Kelly) he told me that a major problem had been to deal with this new image he has of being a "conspiracy theorist" (it is brought up in every interview he gives to the press). The problem is, that once you are labelled a "conspiracy theorist" you are also seen as someone who believes in UFOs, that the US never went to the moon and that 9/11 was a government plot.

Hi John,

While I only taped Cockburn's answer to the one JFK question, he was also asked about being a freelance journalist, and of course he isn't freelance when he works for the Nation. When Gary Aguliar, then head of COPA, and a group of others made a presentation to a group of Nation editors, they failed to convince them, not only of the conspiracy behind the murder, but of its continued signifiance.

Yet, Cockburn has the audacity to say he believes Oswald was motivated to kill Kennedy by his secret knowledge of the plots to kill Castro, and that anyone who knew Oswald before the assassination would destroy their association with him afterwards.

Those who promote the Castro cover-story are not just afraid of associating themselves with "conspiracy theorists."

Cockburn went on to talk about 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" as if they were dolts, when in fact 9/11 was a conspiracy.

You are correct however, those who are not Mockingbird assets, that is those who are paid to promote a particualr party line - ie "intellectual whores," are afreaid to be associated with "conspiracy theorists." Those who are indeed true freelance, independent journalists, like those associated with the National Security Archive (Steve Aftergood) and Federation of Scientists, who promote freedom of informaiton and deplore censorship, will not work with COPA for that reason.

Those who attended the Sunshine Week FOIA conference in DC last month tried but failed to gain the support of others in getting JFK Act Oversight Hearings or even bringing up the subject of the still withheld, missing and destroyed JFK Assassination records. They won't have anything to do with the JFK assassination.

What must be done to emphasize the seriousness of the JFK assassinaiton is to demonstrate that it is a National Security issue and that our national security will not be secure until the JFK assassination is resolved.

BK

[Don Jeffries]

Alexander Cockburn is all too typical of leftists who, while exhibiting a healthy distrust of government officials, absolutely refuse to question the lone nut explanation to all our political assassinations. As for Vincent Bugliosi, I agree totally with Charles Drago; he isn't stupid, and has studied the subject in depth. He definitely knows that what he is selling is impossible. Why he continues to sell it is a question I can't answer, either. Bugliosi was once a respected researcher into the RFK assassination, who produced some great work back in the mid-late 1970s. How he morphed from that into the JFK assassination lone-nutter we first saw publicly in the Showtime network disinfo piece "The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" in 1988, is anyone's guess. Another great example of a leftist who seems to distrust everything the government says except that the official explanation of JFK's assassination is former attorney general Ramsey Clark. Clark was very vocal about the government's actions at Waco and at Ruby Ridge, and went so far to help defend Saddam Hussein. Sometimes I think that you have to sign an oath to publicly support the Warren Commission before you can achieve fame of any kind.

[John Simkin]

Alexander Cockburn is all too typical of leftists who, while exhibiting a healthy distrust of government officials, absolutely refuse to question the lone nut explanation to all our political assassinations. As for Vincent Bugliosi, I agree totally with Charles Drago; he isn't stupid, and has studied the subject in depth. He definitely knows that what he is selling is impossible. Why he continues to sell it is a question I can't answer, either. Bugliosi was once a respected researcher into the RFK assassination, who produced some great work back in the mid-late 1970s. How he morphed from that into the JFK assassination lone-nutter we first saw publicly in the Showtime network disinfo piece "The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" in 1988, is anyone's guess. Another great example of a leftist who seems to distrust everything the government says except that the official explanation of JFK's assassination is former attorney general Ramsey Clark. Clark was very vocal about the government's actions at Waco and at Ruby Ridge, and went so far to help defend Saddam Hussein. Sometimes I think that you have to sign an oath to publicly support the Warren Commission before you can achieve fame of any kind.

I think another factor in this is the willingness of those on the right to support conspiracy theories in order to intergrate their own view of the world with an attack on the ruling elite. This is enough to frighten off the left from conspiracy theories.

The left of course do believe in a conspiracy theory. However, this is primarily an economic theory about the way capitalism works. Unfortunately, the left tend to buy into the democracy/reformist model of society.

This is why David Talbot's book due out in June is so important. Hopefully this book will have an impact on the "leftists" who fear embracing the ideas of conspiracy theorists.

[Sid Walker]

Alexander Cockburn is all too typical of leftists who, while exhibiting a healthy distrust of government officials, absolutely refuse to question the lone nut explanation to all our political assassinations. As for Vincent Bugliosi, I agree totally with Charles Drago; he isn't stupid, and has studied the subject in depth. He definitely knows that what he is selling is impossible. Why he continues to sell it is a question I can't answer, either. Bugliosi was once a respected researcher into the RFK assassination, who produced some great work back in the mid-late 1970s. How he morphed from that into the JFK assassination lone-nutter we first saw publicly in the Showtime network disinfo piece "The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" in 1988, is anyone's guess. Another great example of a leftist who seems to distrust everything the government says except that the official explanation of JFK's assassination is former attorney general Ramsey Clark. Clark was very vocal about the government's actions at Waco and at Ruby Ridge, and went so far to help defend Saddam Hussein. Sometimes I think that you have to sign an oath to publicly support the Warren Commission before you can achieve fame of any kind.

I think another factor in this is the willingness of those on the right to support conspiracy theories in order to intergrate their own view of the world with an attack on the ruling elite. This is enough to frighten off the left from conspiracy theories.

The left of course do believe in a conspiracy theory. However, this is primarily an economic theory about the way capitalism works. Unfortunately, the left tend to buy into the democracy/reformist model of society.

This is why David Talbot's book due out in June is so important. Hopefully this book will have an impact on the "leftists" who fear embracing the ideas of conspiracy theorists.

Would this be the same David Talbot of whom old buddy David Horowitz wrote approvingly, in November 2002...

Salon's editor, David Talbot, has wisely (and courageously) embraced the war.

??? !!!

[Myra Bronstein]

Why should anyone care about what Cockburn thinks?

He is just another establishment stooge.

Jack

Which is the perfect segue into a quote from a review I found at Amazon. Always good to revive a thread like this periodically so others know who the moles are (suspected to be):

""Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency" is great reading for people who want to move beyond books about the mechanics of the Kennedy assassination. The book helps explain why the "Eastern establishment" and a lot of other influential people, might want to get rid of President Kennedy. Another book, "History Will Not Absolve Us : Orwellian Control, Public Denial, & the Murder of President Kennedy" provides additional pieces of the puzzle by explaining how the American establishment, including leading establishment liberals like Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn, have worked to sell the Warren Commision's 'lone gunman' cover-up. The amazing thing about the Kennedy assassination is that, despite a lot of nonsense coming from the mainstream media, the American people know it wasn't a lone gunman and the killers didn't do us a favor."

http://www.amazon.com/Battling-Wall-Street...9623&sr=8-1

[Don Jeffries]

I've never understood the almost total refusal of any of JFK's political allies (not to mention his silent family members) to look into the true circumstances of his death. From the very beginning, they appeared to blindly accept the official story, and have never seemed to have an interest in all those best-selling books exposing the fact that it was impossible for it to have happened that way. Leftists as a whole have never been sympathetic to the conspiracy viewpoint regarding the JFK assassination. Bertrand Russell is about the only well-known figure on the left who ever publicly expressed his doubts about the Oswald-did-it nonsense. Even when this issue was a hot topic on college campuses, both in 1966-67 and again in 1975-76, no Democratic party candidate ever made it an issue. Why? Even if for nothing else than to capitalize on the political coattails of the dead Kennedys, you'd think some candidate would have spoken out publicly about the flaws in the official story. As John mentioned, many leftists appear to decry all "conspiracy theories" due to their popularity amongst the far right. It would be nice if they'd have the intellectual honesty to individually evaluate the evidence in the assassination of JFK, without connecting it to any other "conspiracy theories," and simply report factually that Oswald couldn't have done it, but apparently none of them have the courage to do that.

[Francesca Akhtar]

My basic premise: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination who does not conclude that the crime was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Well stated.

Which category would you put Vincent Bugliosi in?

Don't tempt me to reply to that one!

What surprises me about him is that he seems more open minded about conspiracy when it comes to the RFK case? Yet he can't seem to see it in the JFK case.

[William O'Neil]

Today (Saturday, April 7), at approximately 11:05 AM Eastern time, on C-SPAN's "In Depth," Alexander Cockburn responded to an E-mail question about his thoughts on "Case Closed" by stating that he accepts the Warren Commission's conclusions, but doesn't really agree with Gerald Posner.

Once again we must ask ourselves two important quesations:

What sort of impact we are having on the quest for justice in the case of the unsolved, conspiratorial murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy when we cannot persuade the boldest, most progressive, liberal of intellectual lions to accept the truth?

Is it appropriate to use a given scholar's "take" on the assassination as a litmus test for his or her work in other areas?

I eagerly await your thoughts.

Charles

While I agree with Jack on this one and that Alx Cock, even though a Brit posing as a freelance radical, is an establishment stooge, I happened to be watching the program and turned my tape recorder on for just the answer to the one question. This is what I got from it:

A.C. : "I have said in the past, more than once, that I tend to believe the Warren Commission, and then people who don't ... raise their ( ? Herculian ....gust... ?).... and slap their lips and say, 'what an idiot.' And I think actually that the subsequent...encourages that...including the famous magic bullet, do ratify that postion,....I would...Did Lee Harvey Oswald have any accomplances? A lot of people say now no, but if you were there on .... the afternoon of November 22nd...and you had Lee Harvey Oswald's name in your rollodex, how long before you took that name out of your rollodex and tore it up and burned the remains and put them in the trash?"

"I tend to think and always thought that Lee Harvey Oswald thought that by killing Jack Kennedy he would take the pressure off Castro, ...ah, you know? And he saw the attempts to kill Castro as something that provoked him to do it. There were a lot of various peculiar things about Lee Harvey Oswald, it's true. But, by and large, I tend to agree, I tend definately to think he shot him. I think he did. I think the way the Warren Commission describes it is correct....."

So A. Cock thinks Oswald knew about the top secret CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro and responded to them by killing JFK.

A. Cock, like N. Chomsky, is an intellectual whore who will think and theorize whatever he is paid to think.

As for Bugliosi, he knows that the correct approach to solving a crime it to keep an open mind and follow the evidence where ever it goes, and to debate the possible scinarios is just jerking everybody around for as long and hard as you can to waste time and kill real evidence.

BK

I think one of the clues to Cockburn's viewpoint, is displayed in his answer regarding Oswald and Castro. What scares alot of "leftists" like Cockburn and Chomsky, is the possibility that the assassination may have been a Marxist Conspiracy, which they would not care to expose. What if the killer of JFK had been determined to be a right winger. Would these people be esposing the same rhetoric as to conspiracy?

[William O'Neil]

Today (Saturday, April 7), at approximately 11:05 AM Eastern time, on C-SPAN's "In Depth," Alexander Cockburn responded to an E-mail question about his thoughts on "Case Closed" by stating that he accepts the Warren Commission's conclusions, but doesn't really agree with Gerald Posner.

Once again we must ask ourselves two important quesations:

What sort of impact we are having on the quest for justice in the case of the unsolved, conspiratorial murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy when we cannot persuade the boldest, most progressive, liberal of intellectual lions to accept the truth?

Is it appropriate to use a given scholar's "take" on the assassination as a litmus test for his or her work in other areas?

I eagerly await your thoughts.

Charles

While I agree with Jack on this one and that Alx Cock, even though a Brit posing as a freelance radical, is an establishment stooge, I happened to be watching the program and turned my tape recorder on for just the answer to the one question. This is what I got from it:

A.C. : "I have said in the past, more than once, that I tend to believe the Warren Commission, and then people who don't ... raise their ( ? Herculian ....gust... ?).... and slap their lips and say, 'what an idiot.' And I think actually that the subsequent...encourages that...including the famous magic bullet, do ratify that postion,....I would...Did Lee Harvey Oswald have any accomplances? A lot of people say now no, but if you were there on .... the afternoon of November 22nd...and you had Lee Harvey Oswald's name in your rollodex, how long before you took that name out of your rollodex and tore it up and burned the remains and put them in the trash?"

"I tend to think and always thought that Lee Harvey Oswald thought that by killing Jack Kennedy he would take the pressure off Castro, ...ah, you know? And he saw the attempts to kill Castro as something that provoked him to do it. There were a lot of various peculiar things about Lee Harvey Oswald, it's true. But, by and large, I tend to agree, I tend definately to think he shot him. I think he did. I think the way the Warren Commission describes it is correct....."

So A. Cock thinks Oswald knew about the top secret CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro and responded to them by killing JFK.

A. Cock, like N. Chomsky, is an intellectual whore who will think and theorize whatever he is paid to think.

As for Bugliosi, he knows that the correct approach to solving a crime it to keep an open mind and follow the evidence where ever it goes, and to debate the possible scinarios is just jerking everybody around for as long and hard as you can to waste time and kill real evidence.

BK

I believe a clue to Cockburns viewpoint lies in his answer regarding Oswald and Castro. What scares many "leftists" is the possibility that the conspiracy may have been one of Marxist origin , which they would not care to expose.

[David McLean]

William Kelly's transcript of the Cockburn interview, does raise another problem for Lone-Nutters, i e Oswald's presumed motive. If someone had induced LHO (the native Russian-speaking LHO) to believe that killing JFK would protect Castro, that person would to my non-legal mind be an accessory before the fact and a conspirator. And if that person and/or others later destroyed evidence of prior contact with LHO, they would surely become accessories after the fact. (That Lee could probably not have been on both the sixth and lower floors of the TSBD within the known timeframe, and had no facial nitrate traces ought not be ignored by objective opinion-makers.)

To explain the psychology of otherwise critical LNers, hope in a future better than the past may well induce one to an quasi-religious belief the in the rationality, integrity and/or perfectability of the Great Experiment in Democracy in our epoch.

PS Cockburn's CounterPunch has an expose on Mossad's pre-knowledge of 9/11 that is compelling but again leaves open the question of CIA or other US agencies' complicity. How odd, but there we are...again.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

My basic premise: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination who does not conclude that the crime was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Well stated.

Which category would you put Vincent Bugliosi in?

Don't tempt me to reply to that one!

What surprises me about him is that he seems more open minded about conspiracy when it comes to the RFK case? Yet he can't seem to see it in the JFK case.

Francesca, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but after years of solid pro conspiracy research the Bug has managed to spin himself through 380d. He finishes his book "The killing of Robert F. Kennedy, An investigation of motive means and opportunity." with this predictable sentance....." Sirhan Bishara Sirhan conciously and knowingly murdered Senator Robert Kennedy, and he acted alone." As the old Queen song goes, "Another one bites the dust."

[William Kelly]

Today (Saturday, April 7), at approximately 11:05 AM Eastern time, on C-SPAN's "In Depth," Alexander Cockburn responded to an E-mail question about his thoughts on "Case Closed" by stating that he accepts the Warren Commission's conclusions, but doesn't really agree with Gerald Posner.

Once again we must ask ourselves two important quesations:

What sort of impact we are having on the quest for justice in the case of the unsolved, conspiratorial murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy when we cannot persuade the boldest, most progressive, liberal of intellectual lions to accept the truth?

Is it appropriate to use a given scholar's "take" on the assassination as a litmus test for his or her work in other areas?

I eagerly await your thoughts.

Charles

While I agree with Jack on this one and that Alx Cock, even though a Brit posing as a freelance radical, is an establishment stooge, I happened to be watching the program and turned my tape recorder on for just the answer to the one question. This is what I got from it:

A.C. : "I have said in the past, more than once, that I tend to believe the Warren Commission, and then people who don't ... raise their ( ? Herculian ....gust... ?).... and slap their lips and say, 'what an idiot.' And I think actually that the subsequent...encourages that...including the famous magic bullet, do ratify that postion,....I would...Did Lee Harvey Oswald have any accomplances? A lot of people say now no, but if you were there on .... the afternoon of November 22nd...and you had Lee Harvey Oswald's name in your rollodex, how long before you took that name out of your rollodex and tore it up and burned the remains and put them in the trash?"

"I tend to think and always thought that Lee Harvey Oswald thought that by killing Jack Kennedy he would take the pressure off Castro, ...ah, you know? And he saw the attempts to kill Castro as something that provoked him to do it. There were a lot of various peculiar things about Lee Harvey Oswald, it's true. But, by and large, I tend to agree, I tend definately to think he shot him. I think he did. I think the way the Warren Commission describes it is correct....."

So A. Cock thinks Oswald knew about the top secret CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro and responded to them by killing JFK.

A. Cock, like N. Chomsky, is an intellectual whore who will think and theorize whatever he is paid to think.

As for Bugliosi, he knows that the correct approach to solving a crime it to keep an open mind and follow the evidence where ever it goes, and to debate the possible scinarios is just jerking everybody around for as long and hard as you can to waste time and kill real evidence.

BK

I believe a clue to Cockburns viewpoint lies in his answer regarding Oswald and Castro. What scares many "leftists" is the possibility that the conspiracy may have been one of Marxist origin , which they would not care to expose.

Yo! Bill,

I don't believe any "leftist" is "scared" of the possiblity the conspiracy was of Marxist origin and one they would not care to expose, especially jerks like Cockburn.

Those who continue to put forth the notion that Oswald was motivated to kill JFK because of his "Marxist" views or his sympathy for Castro fail to review the entire record, or are promoting their own agenda.

Those who have such agendas or are swayed by such opinions or philosophies are unable to approach the assassination from the perspective of someone capable of understanding it and solving it anyway.

If the assassination conspiracy was a foreign communist conspiracy, rather than by a domenstic anti-communist intelligence network, as it was, you can be sure those with the power to do so would have solved it immediately.

Bill Kelly