by Dreams End » Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:35 pm
Yes, on Counterpunch and Common Dreams...well, I'm not as familiar with Common Dreams.<br><br>I want to be clear on what gatekeeping means. Counterpunch is allegedly a leftist site...so the gatekeeping is about determing what "legitimate" debate and information should be allowed in left discourse. So it doesn't mean all that is on the site is bunk (though there is a surprising amount of overt bunk, there) it simply means that what is NOT there is very important.<br><br>But actually, Counterpunch goes further than gatekeeping. Cockburn, for example, is a big fan of both Scientology and "falsely accused" pedophile priests. they also not only provide "air time" for the whole Ray McGovern network of "former intelligence professionals for social responsibility"( like the CIA started doing bad stuff only a few years ago....) or whatever ironic name they've given themselves, Counterpunch.com is, in fact, the email address given for McGovern.<br><br>They also feature, or at least used to, Madsen. This in itself is interesting because Madsen is rather conspiratorial, but I they don't print everything he says.<br><br>What they HAVE printed however, is Madsen's call for leftists to support a possible military coup in the event of more malfeasance on the part of Bush. Specifically, he suggested certain generals in the military were planning a military coup in the event that the 2004 elections were postponed or canceled by Bush.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>It is now time for the U.S. military to act against a dangerous regime that is in material breach of one of the most important legal instruments in the world--the U.S. Constitution. And it is not Sadaam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, or Fidel Castro who threaten the Constitution.<br><br>George Bush, Dick Cheney, and every Cabinet member swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. But what happens when the domestic threat is from the very people who swore to defend the Constitution?<br><br>The U.S. military, including a large number of Reserves and National Guard are being deployed to the desert sands of Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan and other countries. Their absence from the United States permits the Bush regime to seize more and more constitutional rights of the American people without the possibility of substantial resistance. The only people who are currently defenseless in the world today are the American people--they are vulnerable to the machinations of their own illegal regime.<br><br>That leaves only law enforcement as our only real defense. And while most police--Federal, state, and local--seem to be in lockstep with Bush's march towards totalitarianism in the United States, there are now even rumblings from these ranks. Said one local law enforcement officer in the Washington, DC area, "our military reserve personnel are being sent to the Middle East and our ability as first responders is weakened." And this from one Federal law enforcement official, "I can tell you that Bush is heartless."<br><br>Hollywood has long pondered, through movies like Seven Days in May, what might happen to America if an extra-constitutional situation were to arise. While most of these cinematic presentations focused on power-hungry generals seizing control from democratically-elected presidents, no one in Hollywood ever really considered the possibility of generals imbued with democratic values ousting a President who was bent on seizing unconstitutional powers. However, this is exactly the nightmarish scenario that is beginning to arise in Washington.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen02112003.html">www.counterpunch.org/madsen02112003.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>What is this doing in Counterpunch. The history of the US military, especially post WW2 is that every military intervention has left a country in far worse shape democracy-wise than they found it in. <br><br>And what does this REALLY say? Well, it says that nothing in modern US history is the fault of the military/industrial/intelligence complex. All the bad stuff is a result of the usurpation of our normally democratic and fairminded government by a small group of neocons. The neocons are such an abberration of normal U.S. dedication to truth, justice and democracy, that we should consider a military coup to rid ourselves of them. <br><br>This says that the military is democracy minded. That the military is not part of the problem, as currently constituted.<br><br>So whether or not he was serious about promoting a military coup, he was definitely serious about deflecting blame AWAY from a longstanding national security state, (of which Madsen was most definitely a part) and onto a particular group that may have either fallen out of favor of the MIC or simply been set up to do some particular dirty work and be discarded at the end.<br><br>Now, what has this to do with this thread. Well, dbd suggested Counterpunch were gatekeepers. Yes, they are...but it's worse than that. I can see libertarians or other such folks making the arguments above, but Counterpunch caters to the left, and left analysis is very clear about the MIC and it's role in modern history. the neocons and Bushistas may be more distasteful and less subtle (domestically) than those who came before, but it's the same system that brought you Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Granada not to mention dozens of covert wars, assassinations and coups -d'etat. Many on this site don't buy that the US was pretty rotten before the neocons came, but nevermind that, it's standard left analysis. So the fact that Madsen's drivel is promoted by Counterpunch is disturbing. <br><br>The other thing that is disturbing is that Cockburn is pretty tight with Scientologists. Mostly, Scientology stays out of taking overt political positions, except relating to psychiatry and pharmaceuticals. This suggests, however, that they do have a political agenda...or at least there's some sort of overlap there. It may simply be that they've got some kinda goods on Cockburn and want him to provide occasional defenses of Scientology...allowing him to say whatever he wants about anything else. But I do wonder if there's not more...as Scientology is clearly some MKUltra-style operation (and ole L. ron started out in Naval Intelligence.)<br><br>Back to McGovern, who also doesn't write about complicity in 9/11. Again, Counterpunchers should be well aware that CIA evil (and there's no other word that fits) did not begin in the 21st century. And he's not whistleblowing on the whole ball of wax as folks like Agee purport to do. Nope, it's just the current "misuse" of intel to support the "neocon" agenda that is of concern to him. <br><br>If you accept that the U.S. was the good guy until Bush and the neocons came along, then you'll have no problems with this line of thought. But if you do not, especially if you consider yourself "leftist", this should be quite disturbing. It's not about "plurality of views" or nontraditional left-libertarian alliances, though this is what Cockburn would have us think. It's about the seemingly deliberate obfuscation of a core left concept, the idea that the military industrial complex, not only exists to serve the capitalist agenda but has grown so powerful it has an agenda unto itself...but an agenda still compatible with that original role of keeping the world safe for U.S economic hegemony.<br><br>going all the way back to Smedly Butler's speech in which he bemoans the use of the military for it's use to "soften up" countries to accept U.S corporate interests (that speech actually being given before the imposition of the national security state as we currently see it), it is simply a left truism that the military, as presently operated, is an extension of corporate power. Again, you may not agree with that, but the point is that the core audience of Counterpunch WOULD agree with that....so why Madsen? Why McGovern?<br><br><speculation><br><br>I think it's quite possible that the Military/industrial/intel complex had some plans they needed carried out. Distasteful plans involving the destruction of Iraq, and the creation of a "fertile chaos" in the "fertile crescent". Democracy in Iraq, of course, was never the agenda, and those who bemoan the "incompetence" of Bush in implementing that agenda have so completely missed the point that they aren't even wrong.<br><br>Enter Bush Jr. and the neocons. Maybe the Neocons are sincere...maybe not. Personally, when Rumsfeld (not, by definition, a neocon) refused to send more troops to fully "pacify" Iraq, the agenda was quite clear to me. But either way, they served their purpose. Any fool with internet could predict that what is happening in Iraq now would happen..in fact I thought it would be worse as I assumed there'd be some resistance right from the beginning. So let's let some assholes do the dirty work and then cut them loose. Hence Madsen and McGovern and this whole effort to make the CIA look like good guys (oh how their intel was MISUSED by those evil neocons.) <br><br>Well, if you aren't paying attention, let's review. The CIA are NOT good guys and they never have been. They aren't the only bad guys...in fact the work for the real bad guys, but they are bad enough on their own. This attempt to promote the CIA and elements of the military as saviors of democracy is a cynical and frightening ploy to rope what's left of a left into siding with exactly the wrong people. <br><br>This is why "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic is quite dangerous right now. I'm not saying we can't forge nontraditional alliances...but this is pure manipulation. <br><br>So, I'd copy and paste this also to the Sheen thread and others. While I applaud revelations about 9/11 and while I will be sitting eagerly in front of my television with champagne and popcorn should Bush actualy get impeached, I think that much of this is about misdirection. <br><br>I could be wrong, of course. There could ACTUALLY be factionalism within our national security state. The CIA and the neocons + Rumsfeld/Cheney really could be a separate faction that is battling elements of the military and intel community. That said, it does not logically follow that the CIA faction are good guys. Maybe Bushco had their own agenda that was allowed to continue but got out of hand and now the CIA wants them out. <br><br>Either way, the removal of Bush from office, by impeachment or, especially by coup, does little to address the real powers that be. There's always the chance, of course, that limited hangouts could fuel a popular revolt that won't stop until ALL the bastards are tossed out, the CIA disbanded, control of the military truly placed in civilian hands, etc. So I'm all for these revelations coming out. <br><br>Just know that , at fairly deep levels, there are games being played.<br><br></speculation><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
