Matching Grant Challenge
alexPureWhen I met Alexander Cockburn, one of his first questions to me was: “Is your hate pure?” It was the question he asked most of the young writers he mentored. Cockburn’s rules on how to write political polemics: write about what you care about, write with passion, go for the throat of your enemies and never back down. His admonitions remain the guiding stylesheet for our writers at CounterPunch. Please help keep the spirit of this kind of fierce journalism alive by taking advantage of  our matching grant challenge which will DOUBLE every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, he will give CounterPunch a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate. –JSC
 Day 19

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

George W's Bind: Between Iraq and a Hard Place

Between Iraq and Hard Place

by BEN TRIPP

Pop quiz. When you hear the expression “regime change”, which of the following best describes what you think it means:

A) bloody coup B) change of government C) leader of regime changes mind

If you said A) or B), you would be in the majority for once. Only one man believes the correct answer is C). Unfortunately that man is George W. Bush, the leider of the world. I was going to say the free world, but at this point Bush couldn’t give it away for free. He’ll have to pay a hauling company to dump it somewhere. Yes, children, our number one statesman has done it again: he has taken reality as everyone understands it and twisted it into a balloon animal, leaving us to determine if it’s a giraffe, a wiener dog, or a pretzel. I quote:

“[I]f he [Saddam Hussein] were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I’ve described very clearly in terms that everybody [even a monkey] can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has changed.” (Italics mine.)

It looks like we’re not going to war with Iraq. The yellow ribbon industry is already sagging in early market reports.

Whenever this Administration starts redefining the English language and the concepts we hold in common, you know there’s a sea change coming. Elsewhere in his remarks, Bush refers to the regime as “he”, meaning Saddam Hussein:

“And that’s why the stated policy of our government. . . . is regime change — because we don’t believe he is going to change.” (Italics Kofi Annan’s.)

So now it’s not a regime in the traditional sense, meaning a government, but a regime in the newspeak sense, meaning one guy, the lone Bad Hat over there, Saddam Hussein. When Bush says ‘regime change’ means a change of heart by the one guy who is the regime, you can expect another seismic change of subject in our immediate future.

Normally I find this kind of thing disturbing, such as when ‘privatization’ became ‘personal accounts’, ‘the terrorists’ became ‘terror’, and Osama bin Laden turned into Saddam Hussein like a butterfly emerging from its Chrysler. But if it means we don’t have to make an oil grab in the middle of a double-dipshit recession, I’m all for it.

The foreign press, which can’t be relied upon because it’s full of foreigners and much of its work is published in some other language, is trying to figure out what this means. This is typical continental word-parsing. I’ll explain what it means. The UN just stood up, one nation after another, including our regional valet Kuwait, and said “ixnay” to the war despite Bush’s best efforts, which to be fair weren’t much. Saddam Hussein, meanwhile, has released every single Man Jack of his prison population. Every rapist, murderer, dissident, horse thief, and opposing candidate has been given a ‘get out of jail free’ card, and the population of Iraq, which already voted unanimously to keep his solo regime, is now leaping about with joy unconfined. At least in his own country, Saddam Hussein is the man. And seeing as he’s not allowed to go anywhere else, that’s good enough for him. Meanwhile Bush looks sillier and sillier, especially on the domestic front, where it might be said that Zero fiddles while Rome burns. And then North Korea stands up, digging its toes in the sand and mumbling with embarrassment, and admits it’s got nukes. This is the political equivalent of pulling Bush’s bathing suit down around his ankles, pointing amidships, and giggling uncontrollably. Strewth! The whole situation is a nightmare. Even Hitler didn’t have it this bad.

So- and I’m now addressing the foreign press again, having reviewed my text and noticing that I was originally going somewhere with this- what you need to understand is that whenever things don’t go Bush’s way, he changes the terms before changing the subject. If called on it, he claims everybody just misunderstood what he meant before. Thus Osama went from “dead or alive” to “I truly am not that concerned about him,” followed by “Oooh, look, there’s that nasty Saddam Hussein!” The tax cut for the rich that sank our economy went from a reward for all their hard work to a tonic which would revitalize the failing economy (because the rich all turned out to be criminals) to a key component of the war against terror; when the economy remained flaccid despite all this diddling, up went the stentorian cry, “Oooh, look, there’s that nasty Saddam Hussein!” You see? He makes it up as he goes along, pushing an ideological ball with his nose over every kind of terrain, regardless of what will come, or what has gone before.

Thus, fellow anti-war types, we can all be proud. Our nation will probably go to war with someone else (not North Korea, but maybe Singapore or Nepal), but if we go to war with Iraq, it will be a fluke. Bush has started changing the subject. And for those of you who argue our nation needs a regime change, if you simply adopt the new definition of the term, you can now claim victory. Because if a regime is one man, and regime change is when he changes his mind, it looks like we’ve got a regime change in Washington.

BEN TRIPP is a screenwriter and cartoonist. He can be reached at: credel@earthlink.net