Gracing the pages of the LA Times

Ed Lasky
The Los Angeles Times runs a column today by Andrew Cockburn, conspiracy theorist and anti-Semite. In the column, Andrew Cockburn attempts to refute charges that Iran is arming insurgents in Iraq. While ignoring evidence that specialized Austrian guns that were sold to Iran have been found in Iraq, that Iran is the number one state sponsor of terror in the world, has armed Hezbollah, declares its aim to see the world without America he wants us to believe that Iran has nothing to do with turmoil in Iran. He attempts to do this by  revealing how supposedly easy it would be for Iraqis to assemble roadside bombs on their own (while blithely ignoring all other evidence of Iran's meddling). Perhaps, Cockburn just has always wanted to see extreme Islam emerge triumphant. He certainly is motivated by an anti-Israeli bias and has also manifested anti-Semitism, in my opinion.

For example, predating Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, he wrote a book attacking American supporters of the American-Israel alliance,  "Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship HarperCollins Publishers ISBN 0-06-016444-1." He is the head of Counterpunch magazine-known for carrying articles that are certainly anti-Semitic in effect.  Counterpunch has been roundly criticized. For example, Wikipedia lists the following


Franklin Foer of The New Republic and right-wing commentator Steven Plaut have written articles alleging that CounterPunch is biased against Israel and the USA, charging it with publishing anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic views.[3][4]

Counterpunch has also been criticised by socialist activists Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance of Jews Against Zionism, for its practice of publishing articles by writers such as Gilad Atzmon, which deliberately blur the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, while refusing to publish responses by activists attacked in these articles. [5] [6]

In May 2006, James Taranto, editor of the Wall Street Journal's online Opinionjournal.com website, referred to Counterpunch as a "moonbat site."[7]
Can't the Los Angeles Times find someone of better to write for them or do they just not care?

The Los Angeles Times runs a column today by Andrew Cockburn, conspiracy theorist and anti-Semite. In the column, Andrew Cockburn attempts to refute charges that Iran is arming insurgents in Iraq. While ignoring evidence that specialized Austrian guns that were sold to Iran have been found in Iraq, that Iran is the number one state sponsor of terror in the world, has armed Hezbollah, declares its aim to see the world without America he wants us to believe that Iran has nothing to do with turmoil in Iran. He attempts to do this by  revealing how supposedly easy it would be for Iraqis to assemble roadside bombs on their own (while blithely ignoring all other evidence of Iran's meddling). Perhaps, Cockburn just has always wanted to see extreme Islam emerge triumphant. He certainly is motivated by an anti-Israeli bias and has also manifested anti-Semitism, in my opinion.

For example, predating Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, he wrote a book attacking American supporters of the American-Israel alliance,  "Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship HarperCollins Publishers ISBN 0-06-016444-1." He is the head of Counterpunch magazine-known for carrying articles that are certainly anti-Semitic in effect.  Counterpunch has been roundly criticized. For example, Wikipedia lists the following


Franklin Foer of The New Republic and right-wing commentator Steven Plaut have written articles alleging that CounterPunch is biased against Israel and the USA, charging it with publishing anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic views.[3][4]

Counterpunch has also been criticised by socialist activists Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance of Jews Against Zionism, for its practice of publishing articles by writers such as Gilad Atzmon, which deliberately blur the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, while refusing to publish responses by activists attacked in these articles. [5] [6]

In May 2006, James Taranto, editor of the Wall Street Journal's online Opinionjournal.com website, referred to Counterpunch as a "moonbat site."[7]
Can't the Los Angeles Times find someone of better to write for them or do they just not care?