|
Today's
Stories
October 13,
2005
Werther
The
Two-Headed Monster
October 12,
2005
Omar Waraich
Britain
and the Quake: Mean and Stingy
William Cook
Voices
Behind the Entombment Wall
Phil Gasper
Countdown
to a Legal Lynching
Dave Lindorff
Impeachment Now and Then: Clinton, Bush and the Polls
Matt Vidal
Capital, Power and Class
John Gautreaux
New Orleans will Never be the Same
Diana Johnstone
Srebrenica
Revisited: Using War as an Excuse for War
Mark Weisbrot
The IMF Has Lost Its Influence
Brian J. Foley
Gitmo Tribunals Endanger Public Safety
Website of
the Day
Columbus Day Lies
October 11,
2005
Roger Morris
/ Steve Schmidt
Strategic
Demands of the 21st Century
Lila Rajiva
Live from New Orleans: Abu Ghraib
Bill Quigley
New
Orleans: Leaving the Poor Behind Again
Paul Craig Roberts
Natural Born Liars
Dave Lindorff
Recruiters in Schools: No Lie Left Untried
Dr. Teresa Whitehurst
Suspect Thy Neighbor
Mitchel Cohen
Showdown at Chuck E. Cheese
Tariq Ali
Pakistan will Never Forget This Horror
Website of
the Day
L'Heure Americaine
October 10,
2005
Cindy and Craig
Corrie
Rachel's
Words Live
Joshua Frank
Washington's War Dems
Gideon Levy
The Beautiful Life Without Arafat
Alan Wallis
The Fight for Free Speech at Union Square
Mickey Z.
In Defense of Liars
CounterPunch News Service
Vermont Independence Convention
Paul Craig
Roberts
The
Police State is Closer Than You Think
Website of the Day
Dylan's Chronicles
October 8 /
9, 2005
Alexander Cockburn
Rhetoric
and Reality in the Business of Getting Rid of Black People
Ralph Nader
Katrina
and the Growls of Greed
Jennifer Van Bergen
New American Law: Legal Strategies in the Dharfir Case
Saul Landau
An Oily Religious Dream
Jeff Halper
Setting Up Abbas
Lenni Brenner
The Millions More Movement and Zionism
Nikolas Kozloff
Bird Flu and Bush
Brian Cloughley
Training Soldiers in Iraq
Alice Slater
A Nobel Prize for Chernobyl?
John Gautreaux
A View from Cajun Country
Fred Gardner
Does the Controlled Substances Act Mean What It Says?
Niranjan Ramakrishnan
The Leveethan Approach
M.G. Piety
Rot in the Ivory Tower: Collusion, Cover-Up and Kierkegaard
Tom Gorman
The Hitchens Doctrine
Mike Whitney
Bunker Days with George
Aseem Shrivastava
Beyond the Wasteland: Lessons from Afghanistan
Ben Tripp
Religion, an Epistle
Poets' Basement
Albert, Engel and Ford
October 7,
2005
Larry Johnson
The
Plame Case: the Real Issues
Will Youmans
Why
Do We Hate Our Freedom? Recruiters and Thugs on Campus
Dave Lindorff
Bird Flu: Evolution or Intelligent Design?
Judith Scherr
Haiti's Children's Prison
Russell D. Hoffman
Nukes for Peace, Revisited?: Nobel Prize Debacle
Jared Bernstein
Katrina and Jobs
Jennifer Van
Bergen
New
American Law: the Case of Dr. Dhafir
Website of
the Day
FBI Witchhunt
October 6, 2005
P. Sainath
"Take
That, Tom Friedman": Indian Masses Reject NYT's Neoliberal
Idol Again
Scott Parkin
When Antiwar Activists Get Mugged
Paul Craig
Roberts
Blundering
into Syria
Andréa Schmidt
Haiti's Biometric Elections: a High-Tech Experiment in Exclusion
Dave Lindorff
Easy
Money in the Big Easy
Joshua Frank
In Defense of Lew Rockwell
M. Junaid Alam
Jackboots at George Mason
Matthew Koehler
Cock and Bull on the Bitterroot
Robert Pollin
Is
the Dollar Still Falling?
October 5,
2005
Heather Gray
Militarization is Not an Answer for
Reconstruction: the Case of the Philippines
Robert Jensen
Is
Bush a Racist?
Ramzy Baroud
Bush's Final Choice: America or
the Empire
Col. Dan Smith
Keeping Promises to Iraq: "Everything
is Bad"
Dave Zirin
Barry
Bonds Laughs Last
Paul Craig Roberts
Liberal Guilt? How the Neocons
Took Over
Alan Maass
Doing
the Right Wing's Dirty Work
October 4, 2005
Nikolas Kozloff
Shocking the Two Party System:
a Political Opportunity for Sheehan and the Antiwar Mvt.
Mike Roselle
Houston,
You've Got a Problem
Joshua Frank
The Scoop on Harriet Miers
John Chuckman
War
Porn: What the Gruesome Images Say
Alan Farago
Storm Warning for Jeb: Developers,
Hurricanes and the Keys
Mickey Z.
An
Interview with Thaddeus Rutkowski
Christine & Ethan Rose
Home Depot Exploits Hurricane Victims
Gary Leupp
An
Earlier Empire's War on Iraq: a Lesson from Roman History
Website of the Day
Rodney
Crowell on Bob Dylan
October 3,
2005
Vijay Prashad
Desperation at Holyoke
Paul Craig
Roberts
Condi
Rice: Gunslinger
Joshua Frank
An Interview with Cindy Sheehan
Seth Sandronsky
The
Hiring Crisis for Black Teens
Jeffrey St. Clair
The Great Green Scare
October
1 / 2, 2005
Cockburn
/ St. Clair
Democrats Sink Deeper into the Ooze
Dave
Marsh
A Direction Home: a Message from Bob Dylan
Ralph
Nader
Gutless, Spineless and Clueless
Flavia
Alaya
Showdown at Sheriff's Plaza
Uri
Avnery
The Gladiators: Sharon's Victory
Chris
Kutalik
The Battle at Northwest Airlines
Greg
Moses
Bill Bennett's Book of Cracker Virtues
Brian
J. Foley
I Gave My Copy of the Constitution to a Pro-War Vet
Nicole
Colson
Hunger Strike at Gitmo
Ray
McGovern
Abu Ghraib is a Command Responsibility
Fred
Gardner
Ricky Williams Takes a Late Hit
Justin
Felux
Save America from Crime: Abort Every White Baby!
Will
Youmans
"Free the P": Hip-Hop for Palestine
Mike
Ferner
What Else Shall We Do?
David
Krieger
The War in Iraq: a Broken Covenant
Agustin
Velloso
Samson Returns to Gaza
Saul
Landau
The Constant Gardener: Serious Cinema
Ben
Tripp
Right Down the Middle
Poets
Basement
Peddibone, Crowell, Engel and Albert
Website
of the Weekend
Holler If Ya Hear Me
September
30, 2005
Mary
Geddry
Why I Marched: They Made My Son Kill
Paul
Craig Roberts
Bush is Cooking Up Two New Wars
Dave
Lindorff
Judith Miller's Strange Voluntary
Jail Time
Gregory
Wilpert
"The Osama Bin Laden of Latin America"
Benjamin
Dangl
"Gringo, Go Home:" an Interview with Orlando Castillo
James
McMurtry
We Can't Make It Here Anymore
T.R.
Johnson
Return to the Ninth Ward
September
29, 2005
Sen.
Russ Feingold
Bush's Iraq War is Weakening America
Carl
G. Estabrook
Obama the Enabler
Ramzy
Baroud
Rhetoric and Reality of War
Dave
Lindorff
What Opposition Party?
Mike
Whitney
Brownie's Comic Opera
Jozef
Hand-Boniakowski
What Noble Cause?
Gary
Handschumacher
Getting Arrested with Cindy Sheehan
Winslow
T. Wheeler
No Leaders in Congress Against This
War: Lame Democrat and Tame Republicans
September
28, 2005
Dr.
Eyad Serraj
Letter from Gaza: What Disengagement
Sounds Like
William
A. Cook
Bush's Security Barrier
Liaquat
Ali Khan
The Invention of Porno Torture
Mike
Whitney
Apartheid Justice in America
Joshua
Frank
Sheehan and the Democrats: Anybody Home?
CounterPunch
Wire
New Orleans Prisoners Abandoned to Floodwaters
Chris
Genovali
Cutting the Bears Out of the Great Bear Rainforest
Linn
Washington, Jr.
White Affirmative Action: How
John Roberts Got to the Top
September
27, 2005
Forrest
Hylton
Political Murder in Puerto Rico: a
Matter for Our Movement
Jason
Leopold
The Decline and Fall of Bill Frist
Jennifer
K. Harbury
Torture is US Policy, Not an Aberration
Ray
McGovern
Torture and Cowardice: Why are American Religious Leaders Silent?
Mike
Ferner
Bringing the War Home: Arrested at the Pentagon
Antony
Loewenstein
When the Truth Comes to Town: What You Can't Say About Israel
in Australia
Harry
Browne
Live from Hollywood: the IRA Disarms
September
26, 2005
Rafael
Rodriguez Cruz
Assassination in Puerto Rico: the FBI
Murders a Legend
Joshua
Frank
Democrats Flee Peace Protests
Lamis
Andoni
The Railroading of Taysir Alony
Mike
Marqusee
Those Pesky "Urban Intellectuals":
Blair, Spiro Agnew and the Antiwar Movement
Rep.
Cynthia McKinney
They Can't Fool Us Anymore
Ron
Jacobs
A Small March for Me, a Giant March
for the Antiwar Movement
Norman
Solomon
The Media and the Antiwar Movement
John
Chuckman
Bush in a Bottle
Paul
Craig Roberts
America is Running Out of Time
September
24 / 25, 2005
Kathy
and Bill Christison
Polluting Palestine: Settlements
& Sewage
Ralph
Nader
Stealing the Moment: How Corporations Cashed in on Katrina
Saul
Landau
The Terrorist Resumé of Luis Posada
Greg
Moses
A Movement Gathers Power on the Sorrow Plateau
Roger
Burbach
Hugo Chavez's Mission
Vijay
Prashad
America's Shame
Laura
Carlsen
After NAFTA
Robert
Fisk
When Man and Nature Conspire to Expose the Lies of the Powerful
Dave
Lindorff
A Gusher Called Katrina: They Fix Oil Prices, Don't They?
Kirkpatrick
Sale / Thomas Naylor
Secession from the Empire: the Middlebury Declaration
Maj.
Anthony Milavic
The US Military and Torture: the View of a Former Interrogator
Brian
Concannon, Jr.
Haiti: the Time for Action is Now
September
23, 2005
CounterPunch
News Service
In Which, Phil Donahue Demolishes
Bill O'Reilly
Diane
Farsetta
Katrina and Right-Wing Think Tanks
Robert
Sandels
Militarizing the Market
Christopher
Brauchli
Bush: the Good Samaritan for Corporations
Alan
Farago
Bird Flu Takes Flight
Dave
Zirin
When Sports & Politics Collided: Redeeming the Olympic Martyrs
of 1968
Maxine
Conant
A Simple Test for Bush
David
Price
Workers Get Hit Twice: Katrina and
Davis-Bacon Profiteering
September
22, 2005
Smith,
Wood, Leas, and Greenfield
Which Way Forward for the Green Party?
a Report from Tulsa
Patrick
Cockburn
Iraqis: This Government has No Authority
Manuel
Garcia, Jr.
Thinking is Religious Freedom
Lucia
Dailey
Trial of the St. Patrick's Four: Day One
Mokhiber
/ Weissman
Are You a Speed Freak?
Russell
D. Hoffman
The Nukes in Rita's Path
Kona
Lowell
God's Hurricane?
Jason
Leopold
GOP Fiscal Policy and Katrina
Website
of the Day
Robert Pollin on the Global Economy
September
21, 2005
Jorge
Mariscal
Military Recruiters: Counselers
or Salesmen?
Linda
S. Heard
Double Standards in Iraq: Basra Brit Jailbreak
Joshua
Frank
NYPD Unplugs Cindy Sheehan
Eric
Ruder
"The Problem in Iraq is the US": an Interview with
Camilo Mejia
Pierre
Tristam
The Struts and Bull Presidency
Dave
Lindorff
The Real Story of the German Elections
Mike
Ferner
Sit Down in DC
Missy
Comley Beattie
Bush's Katrina Bling Bling
Jeffrey
St. Clair
W Marks the Spot
Website
of the Day
New Orleans: Survivor Stories
September
20, 2005
Steve
Breyman
Toxic Gumbo: Katrina and Environmental
Justice
George
Galloway
Et Tu, Greg Palast?
Patrick
Cockburn
What Happened to Iraq's Missing $1 Billion?
M.
Shahid Alam
Gen. Musharraf and Israel: Is Pakistan Selling Out?
Mike
Whitney
The Gitmo Hunger Strikers
Winslow
T. Wheeler
It's Not Rocket Science
Niranjan
Ramakrishnan
Back to the Future: North Korea's Gambit
Paul
Craig Roberts
Will Neocon Fanaticism Destroy America?
|
October 13, 2005
The
Devil is in the Repackaging
The Curious Case of
Russ Feingold
By ANIS MEMON
The recent Senate confirmation hearings
on John Roberts once again, and with perhaps more urgency, brought
attention to Russ Feingold's iconoclastic voting record. Feingold
had previously voted to approve John Ashcroft as Attorney General
in 2001. At that time, Feingold's liberal supporters, though
somewhat perturbed, conceded that this singular manifestation
of his independent spirit had to be accepted if they were going
to praise his defiance of not only the Democratic leadership,
but of the entire somnolent political scene following 9/11: for
Feingold was also, courageously, the only Senator to vote against
the Patriot Act and he is someone who from the beginning has
loudly denounced the war on Iraq.
The same sort of noise is now being made about his Roberts vote;
and again his supporters point to his action as a sign of his
independence from the Democrats, as proof of his sincerity, honesty
and general upstanding character qualities which are woefully
lacking from politics. He is a man with integrity and moral fiber,
an ardent foe of narrow ideology, a consensus-builder who however
does not flinch from holding others to the same standard he holds
himself to. He was the only Democrat not to vote against a bill
that would have dismissed the Clinton impeachment charges; and
he is the co-author in conjunction with that noted lefty
John McCain of a lukewarm campaign finance reform bill.
I quite agree that in today's political situation it would be
hard to overstate the importance of his opposition to the Patriot
Act. Imagine the amount of heat he must have taken from the Democratic
brass, since his lone no-vote not only broke the paranoid unity
of the 9/11 terror machine, but it brought into people's consciousness
the possibility of opposition, and with this possibility, the
notion that perhaps the rest of the Democrats not to speak
of anyone who might claim to have a conscience were frightened
and spineless.
Moreover, Feingold's outspokenness on many other issues is a
refreshing change to the repeated banalities of most politicians,
American or otherwise. What makes the Roberts vote somewhat more
disturbing, however, is the possibility that it was a tactical
move to further his chances at a presidential run in 2008. The
numerous pro-Feingold websites out there are already buzzing
about his potential candidacy, and have been hotly discussing
the meaning of his vote; the bit that draws most attention in
his speech in support of Roberts is this:
"History has shown that control of the White House, and
with it the power to shape the courts, never stays for too long
with one party. When my party retakes the White House, there
may very well be a Democratic John Roberts nominated to the Court,
a man or woman with outstanding qualifications, highly respected
by virtually everyone in the legal community, and perhaps with
a paper trail of political experience or service on the progressive
side of the ideological spectrum. When that day comes, and it
will, that will be the test for this Committee and the Senate.
And, in the end, it is one of the central reasons I will vote
to confirm Judge John Roberts to be perhaps the last Chief Justice
of the United States in my lifetime."
This is taken to be a clear sign that if Feingold were to become
president, with a liberal agenda and Congress behind him, he
would wish his conservative colleagues to remember his back-scratching,
bi-partisan ways.
Feingold has made a career out of being a sort of Regular Joe
Boy Scout in the sinister world of American politics, earnestly
leading us across the moral street, and upholding personal virtue.
His impeachment vote on the Clinton issue displays this moral
uptightness. I have no problem with anyone wanting to impeach
Clinton, or every other president for that matter; in fact, I
think impeachment, prosecution and jail time should be prerequisites
of the job. But it should not be on a trumped up charge of perjury
in a matter of no national or even municipal importance. If you're
going to impeach Clinton for perjury in a ridiculous sex-scandal,
then at least have the courage to impeach every single figure
in every administration for perjury and worse! crimes. Bush could
be tried in an international court for crimes against humanity
that's something worthy of impeachment.
Unfortunately, Americans seem to be terribly literal-minded,
and Feingold is no exception at least in his public rhetoric.
His speeches betray an to me incomprehensible faith
in the stated order of things. His endorsement of Roberts provides
some frightening examples. To wit:
" it will be difficult to overrule Roe or other important
precedents while remaining true to his testimony about stability
and settled law, including his statement that he agrees with
the outcome in Griswold v. Connecticut. I know the American people
will be watching him very closely on that question, and I personally
will consider it a reversal of huge proportions, and a grave
disappointment, if he ultimately does attempt to go down that
road."
I'm glad to know that Feingold would be disappointed with Roberts
should he encourage attempts to overturn or undermine Roe v.
Wade. But 'disappointed'? I'm not sure I see why anyone should
care whether Feingold 'personally' considers such behavior a
reversal. The consequences of a Chief Justice facilitating such
a reversal will be very real for many people and will go well
beyond the sense of personal betrayal a senator might feel on
the issue.
Or again: "Judge Roberts's determination to be a humble
and modest judge should lead him to reject efforts to undermine
Congress's power to address social and economic problems through
national legislation. I view that as a significant commitment
he has made to the Congress and to the country." This is
all fanciful supposition; there is no commitment of any kind
here.
"His answers showed a gut-level understanding of the potential
dangers of a court that operates entirely in secret, with no
adversary process." 'Gut-level understanding'? You're sending
someone to the highest court in the country and you settle for
gut-level understanding? Can we not have a man who's thinking
with his head instead of his intestines?
Senator Feingold is often 'troubled' about reticences on Roberts'
part, and about Roberts' public record of conservatism; and the
extent of what he'll hazard about him is that he 'seems' like
he would do good when Chief Justice. I'm not sure that 'seems'
is quite enough. He calls Roberts 'humble and modest' several
times in his speech; he says that, "I have talked to a number
people who know John Roberts or to people who know people who
know John Roberts. Those I have heard from directly or indirectly
have seen him develop since 1985 into one of the foremost Supreme
Court advocates in the nation, whose skills and judgment are
respected by lawyers from across the ideological spectrum."
He knows people who know people who think Roberts is a tall fellow?
He's putting this man on the Supreme Court because of hearsay?
Well, I don't know John Roberts, nor anyone else who knows him,
and I can't vouch for his moral character as an individual. I
did however see him a bit on television, and 'humble and modest'
is not quite how I would characterize him: he seemed like a clever
enough chap who knows perfectly well that if he doesn't say anything,
it can't be used against him in the court of public opinion;
and moreover, that no one would have the guts to make him say
anything.
If by 'modesty' Feingold means Roberts's refusal ever to utter
an opinion about Supreme Court decisions, usually hiding behind
some formula such as: "I can't comment on the particulars
of the case, as I wasn't there; but I have faith in the integrity
of the Justices who oversaw the case", then Feingold is
either really really dumb, or is forcefully cultivating the
image of a good chap who's happy to see another good chap get
a leg up. If my understanding is correct and Feingold would
know better than me, since he went to law school part of
a lawyer's training is precisely to re-argue old cases, and to
critique their judgements, which is what Roberts steadfastly
refused to do, and what Feingold rightly upbraids his colleagues
for not forcing him to do. (But why didn't Feingold do it then?)
More of Feingold's speech is in fact devoted to criticizing what
he finds 'troubling' in Roberts's answers than to praising his
humility and modesty, a fact which makes his acceptance of him
all the more troubling. "Judge Roberts did not expressly
say how he would rule if asked to overturn Roe v. Wade Many of
my misgivings about this nomination stem from Judge Roberts's
refusal to answer many of our reasonable questions. Not only
that, he refused to acknowledge that many of the positions he
took as a member of the Reagan Administration team were misguided
or in some cases even flat-out wrong. I do not understand why
the one person who cannot express an opinion on virtually anything
the Supreme Court has done is the person whom the American public
most needs to hear from. Judge Roberts did not answer questions
that he could and should have and I think that is disrespectful
of the Senate's constitutional role. Also troubling was Judge
Roberts's approach to the memos he wrote as a young Reagan Administration
lawyer, etc."
What more do you need to know in order to know what type of candidate
Roberts is? Feingold finds him not to be a narrow ideologue
although narrow ideologue is exactly what he is yet he
flays him repeatedly for not distancing himself from his damaging
and excessively conservative opinions under the Reagan administration;
and speaks of a desired transformation of the Roberts of 1985
into a wise one of 2005. This, in my view, is perhaps the only
part of Roberts's testimony that is worthy of some credit: though
he wouldn't answer most issue-oriented questions, he did not
disavow his earlier actions, which allows one to see what type
of a sinister conservative he is; he is not someone about whom
any sane or rational person should have doubts.
Nevertheless, Feingold gives him the benefit of the doubt.
The puritanical sentimentality inherent in putting more importance
on one's personal virtue than on the strength and reason of one's
ideological commitment leads to a dangerous misunderstanding
of the role of a public figure. I do not care, nor should anyone
else, whether Bush is a coke-head, nor whether Clinton is a womanizer,
nor whether either goes to church regularly. It is their statements
and actions as political leaders that matter.
And this is the difference between the moral uprightness of Feingold
and Ralph Nader, both of whom have something unpleasantly saintly
about them. While Feingold cultivates a rhetoric that imputes
great moral virtue to the political process, a moral virtue which
he no doubt personally possesses, and which exposes the lack
of virtue in others, Nader asks people to question their own
motivations, and from this (naturally) to question the motivations
of those who are meant to govern us.
The danger of Feingold's cult
of humility and modesty is not that he will do anything particularly
objectionable himself, but that he may enjoy a bit too much being
thought of as a clean-cut ordinary guy, doing an ordinary job
; and if the Democratic Party latches on to that image as an
antidote to the obviously sham intellectual front they've been
trying to present, then he will become a despicable tool in the
resurrection of a moribund liberalism. Bush's down-hominess was
certainly the Republican antidote to Gore's standoffishness.
I'm all for Feingold and his
iconoclasm as long as those anti-Patriot Act votes come as thick
as the Roberts votes do thicker preferably. I just think
that people should keep an eye on the repackaging process.
Anis Memon can be reached at:
anismemon@yahoo.com
CLARIFICATION
ALEXANDER COCKBURN, JEFFREY
ST CLAIR, BECKY GRANT AND THE INSTITUTE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF
JOURNALISTIC CLARITY, COUNTERPUNCH
We published an article entitled
"A Saudiless Arabia" by Wayne Madsen dated October
22, 2002 (the "Article"), on the website of the Institute
for the Advancement of Journalistic Clarity, CounterPunch, www.counterpunch.org
(the "Website").
Although it was not our intention,
counsel for Mohammed Hussein Al Amoudi has advised us the Article
suggests, or could be read as suggesting, that Mr Al Amoudi has
funded, supported, or is in some way associated with, the terrorist
activities of Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda terrorist network.
We do not have any evidence
connecting Mr Al Amoudi with terrorism.
As a result of an exchange
of communications with Mr Al Amoudi's lawyers, we have removed
the Article from the Website.
We are pleased to clarify the
position.
August 17, 2005
|
Coming in the Fall
from CounterPunch Books!
The Case
Against Israel
By Michael Neumann
Click Here to Advance Order Philosopher
Michael Neumann's Devastating Rebuttal of Alan Dershowitz
WHAT'S
INSIDE
Grand
Theft Pentagon:
Tales of Greed and Profiteering in the War on Terror
by Jeffrey St. Clair
|
