|
Al
Gore:
A User's Manual
by Cockburn
and St. Clair
Buy
This Explosive
New Book at an
Amazing Discount!
The Latest News
on Power and Evil
in Washington
(and Elsewhere)
Published on Oct. 25
The Final
Stretch:
Will the NYT
Nail Bush as
a Coke Dealer?
Caught in
the
Headlights:
Gore Freezes as
Doubletalk Catches
Up With Him
NOW's Sad
Descent From
Feminist Rallying
Point to
Democratic Shill
The Nation,
In These Times
Rally Round
the Flag
CounterPunch
Exclusive on
Amazon Horror:
Filmmaker's
First
Hand Account of
How Anthro-
pologists Devastated a
Yanomami Village
PUBLISHED
ON SEPTEMBER 25
Good News:
You Think
the
New York Times'
Tom Friedman is
Arrogant, Vulgar, Conceited, Boring, Servile to Power, and, Bottom
Line,
Truly Stupid?
You Are
Not Alone!
Fresno Calling:
Fuck Berkeley!
Search CounterPunch
Cockburn & St. Clair
On Tour
October Schedule
of Dates and Locales
Read All About Al Gore:
a User's Manual, the explosive new book by CounterPunch editors
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Reviews of Gore: a User's Manual
Whiteout:
CIA, drugs & the press
by Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Finally Back in Print!
The book the CIA Didn't Want You to Read
|
October 19, 2000
Bush and Cocaine
Six months ago a CounterPuncher in whom we have
absolute confidence relayed to us a conversation he had just
had with someone who had attended Yale at the same time as George
W. Bush. The Yale man told our CounterPuncher of his direct knowledge
of young Bush selling cocaine in his college years. The Yale
man adamantly refused to go on the record, on the grounds that
he had no desire to authenticate a story that could only damage
Bush's chances in the race for the presidency this year.
We relay the story
now to our readers because we have been reliably informed that
a New York Times investigative team digging into George W. Bush's
relationship to cocaine has unearthed a similar story of young
George W. using cocaine in bars and dealing cocaine out of a
house in New Haven. But, as yet, the Times's investigators have
been unable to get anyone to go on the record.
As the presidential
campaign heads into its final stretch CounterPunch has been disgusted,
though not particularly surprised, by the gentle handling the
press has given both Bush and Al Gore on the matter of drug use.
Bush's refusal to give any direct answer on his relationship
to cocaine before 1974 is a matter of record. This can only mean
that he has something to hide; that he fears that a categorical
denial could be refuted by someone with knowledge of his activities
relating to cocaine.
The attitude of the
press is that "nothing new" has emerged to justify
any reprise of the Bush/cocaine stories. Nothing new? Not a day
passes in the nation's courts but that a non-violent drug offender
is put behind bars for cocaine possession, either for use or
for sale or both. Yet here is the governor of Texas, seeking
to lead a nation cursed by a "war on drugs", refusing
to address questions about cocaine use in his own past.
Al Gore has grudgingly
conceded use of marijuana in the 1970s. The prime source for
the drug habits both of Gore and his wife Tipper is John Warnecke,
their supplier at the time, who has stated that at that time
in Nashville Gore smoked as much marijuana as anyone he knew,
including opium-coated Thai sticks. We have heard stories, though
devoid of the same categorical eye-witness certainty of the Yale
informant, of Gore's continued enjoyment of marijuana in later
years after he entered Congress. Today Gore reiterates his support
for the war on drugs and declares that imprisoned offenders should
not be released until they test clean.
There have been many
destructive campaigns by US governments, both Republican and
Democrat, but only a few with more terrible consequences than
the war on drugs. At home this war has been aimed primarily at
the poor and most of all against black people. It is a war that
has kicked aside constitutional protections and crammed our prisons.
Abroad the war is a rationale for counter-insurgency.
Today the Taliban,
installed with CIA backing, now rule Afghanistan as the world's
leading supplier of heroin and morphine to the west. The Colombian
military, flush with a billion in aid from the Clinton administration,
make war on desperate peasants with nothing but coca and opium
cultivation between them and starvation.
No inconvenient questions
about the drug war or any personal relationship with drugs by
either candidate have perturbed the decorum of the debates. Jim
Lehrer didn't ask George W. Bush about cocaine or Al Gore about
marijuana. Yet Bush has been posturing about a crusade to restore
moral honor to the Oval Office and Gore about "personal
responsibility". We await with interest the ultimate editorial
decision of the New York Times. CP
When Joe Loved Clarence
What about the Supreme Court? With that question
liberal backers of Gore have been attempting to scare progressives,
abandoned on nearly every other issue, from jumping on board
the Nader bandwagon. Look, they say, at what George W. Bush has
said about the kind of person he would put on the court: someone
with the judicial philosophy of Antonin Scalia, the court's most
malign intellect, or Clarence Thomas, the worst justice draped
over the high bench since Rehnquist.
But when asked what
kind of judge Gore and Lieberman might hoist onto the court,
there's no response, as if the question was unfair. But it doesn't
take a tiring trip through the Congressional Record to disclose
what kinds of justices Gore and Lieberman thought fit for the
bench: namely Scalia and Thomas.
Antonin Scalia was
approved by the Senate on Sept 17, 1986 by a vote of 98-0. There
were two senators absent: Barry Goldwater and Jake Garn. "I
announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Garn] and the Senator
from Arizona [Mr. Goldwater] are necessairly absent", Sen.
Alan Simpson, explained at the time. "I further announce
that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah [Mr. Garn]
would each vote "yea". Senator Al Gore voted to confirm
Scalia.
Although Gore opposed
Clarence Thomas, he did so late and could not resist lavishing
praise on someone who has proved to be one of the Court's most
incompetent jurists. "Clarence Thomas is an impressive man
with an astounding background," Gore told his fellow senators
on October 8, 1992. "Even before his nomination to the Supreme
Court, he was an inspiration to those who struggled against poverty
and racism. His life shows that adversity need not lead to a
life of quiet desperation, but can produce a strength of character
that is a beacon for all who will follow I believe there is no
question of Judge Thomas' competence... He possesses a quick
and incisive intellect. He speaks and writes with precision,
power, and persuasiveness. The term `hard-working' cannot begin
to describe the habits that have taken him so far in so short
a time."
Gore ultimately voted against Thomas, citing his reference to
members of congress as "petty despots", his fixation
on the principles of "natural law" and his reluctance
to answer a direct question on his attitude toward the constitutionality
of Roe versus Wade.
Lieberman was less conflicted. On October
4, 1991, the senator from Connecticut strode to the well of the
senate and gave a pious speech announcing his esteem and support
for Thomas. Lieberman confessed to his colleagues that his decision
to back Thomas' nomination had been consummated at an intimate
one-on-one session with the federal judge in the senator's office.
"When I met with Judge Clarence Thomas in my office this
past summer, I was impressed by his strength of character, independence
of mind, and intellect generally. I found him to be an engaging,
thoughtful man who clearly enjoys grappling with complex legal
issues and delights in the special challenges and responsibilities
of being a judge," Lieberman carolled. "His academic
and professional achievements are testimony to his appreciation
for the value of hard work and determination-qualities that,
in my mind, are too often overlooked in evaluating judicial nominees,
but the importance of which cannot be overstated because being
a good judge requires the willingness to do hard work. Indeed,
his entire life is an inspiring example of what an individual
who has faith, ability, and a desire to work can achieve in this
country, even in the face of the worst kinds of prejudice and
adversity. As he himself has said, `Only in America.'"
Lieberman, the former
attorney general of Connecticut, claimed to have given Thomas
a private grilling on the finer points of his judicial philosophy,
his understanding of precedent and the intent of the framers
of the Constitution. Thomas passed the Lieberman exam with flying
colors. "I was reassured by his answers", Lieberman
said. "He did not and does not strike me as a rigid ideologue.
In fact, his life story demonstrates that he does not find easy
comfort in convention, but challenges settled truths with vigor
and intelligence."
While many Democrats,
including Gore, were unnerved by some of Thomas' writings and
speeches, Lieberman said that it was unfair to evaluate the judge
on such arcana. Instead, Lieberman scrutinized Thomas' court
opinions and again found no cause for concern. "Judge Thomas'
judicial opinionshave a distinctly different cast. They are,
on the whole, solid, thoughtful and balanced."
For most liberals
and constitutional scholars, Thomas' fanatical adherence to the
crack-pot religio-legal theory of "Natural Law" was
enough to send him packing. Lieberman, however, not only dismissed
this as an issue, he actually made a quasi-endorsement of its
legal validity. "The uproar over Judge Thomas' exploration
in his writings of principles of natural law is curious and,
I fear, on the part of some of should know better, disingenuous.
"Jurists of all persuasions have looked to higher principles
in interpreting the Constitution and have found emanations and
penumbras and original intent. Indeed, natural law as applied
to debate over equal rights-which is how Judge Thomas limited
it in his conversation with me and in his testimony-has a distinquished
history in our nation and, in fact, I am proud to say found its
origins in my state of Connecticut."
Despite Lieberman's
averrals, Thomas had embraced the Natural Law creed in two other
areas, abortion and separation of powers. He extolled a Heritage
Foundation white paper by Lewis Lehrman which used a natural
law approach to conclude that at the moment of conception fetuses
are entitled to the full protection of the constitution. Thomas
said he found the Lehrman essay "a splendid example of applying
natural law." (Both Lieberman and Gore expressed similar
views on the sanctity of the fetus.)
Lieberman also passed
over Thomas' hysterical excoriation of William Rehnquist for
his betrayal of the principles of Natural Law in a 1990 Supreme
Court case on the independent counsel law. The ruled on a 7-1
vote that Congress could legally appoint an independent counsel
to investigate wrongdoing by high-ranking Federal officials.
Typically, Scalia was the lone dissenter. Scalia fulminated that
the theory of natural law prohibited the Congress from appointing
special prosecutors, no matter how serious the criminal allegations
against the executive official. Ridiculously, Thomas was so overwrought
that he pronounced the case the most important since Brown verses
Board of Education and angrily chided Rehnquist for his cowardice
in siding with the "judicial interventionists".
At the time of the pre-Anita Hill hearings
for Clarence Thomas, there was much debate over the "litmus
test" questions. Pro-choice Democrats wanted to know if
Thomas had given the Bush team assurances that he would join
with Scalia in attempting overturning Roe v. Wade. (David Souter,
nominated by George H. Bush, had apparently kept his views on
the matter to himself during his vetting by C. Boyden Gray, only
to emerge later as one of the strongest pro-choice voices on
the bench and, overall, the most reliable liberal, aside from
the Ford-nominated Justice Stevens.)
Lieberman, however,
denounced such inquiries of Thomas as evidence of impolite nosiness.
On controversial issues, Lieberman prefers a don't ask, don't
tell approach for federal judges. "I take Judge Thomas at
his word, given under oath, that he has not reached a conclusion
on the legal issues underpinning Roe versus Wade", Lieberman
said. "Those who doubt that and assume he has passed a White
House litmus test on the issue also have to assume that the next
nominee would face the same testingI find myself in the minority
in suggesting that Judge Thomas and other nominees should express
fewer, rather than more, opinions on controversial constitutional
cases that have been heard by the Court, or are likely to be
heard by the Court."
Lieberman expressed
his outrage about "the politicization of the judicial nominations
process.and the tendencyto treat the Supreme Court appointments
as just one more campaign promise". Ever the DLC Democrat,
Lieberman then went on to attack his liberal senate colleagues
(mainly Patrick Leahy) for their tough questioning of Thomas
during the initial round of hearings. "I have concluded
that the dissatisfaction I felt after the Thomas hearings is
more a reflection ofthe shortcomings of the process, of which
I see Judge Thomas as a victim rather than an indictment of his
abilities or character...We must not deny him entrance because
we are disturbed by how political the nomination process has
become, or because we are concerned about the direction that
previous nominees, already confirmed by the Senate and sitting
on the Court, may take. In my opinion, it would be unfair and
unjust to this man, Clarence Thomas."
Even after NPR's Nina
Tottenberg unearthed Anita Hill, Lieberman remained steadfast
in his loyalty to Thomas. In a speech on the Senate floor on
October 8, he announced that while he supported an internal investigation
of the charges he still supported the nomination. Indeed, Lieberman
claimed that he and his staff had conducted their own inquiry
into to Hill's charges and had found nothing to back them up.
"I have contacted associates, women who worked with Judge
Thomas during his time at the Department of EEOC", Lieberman
declared. "And in the calls that I and my staff made, there
has been universal support for Judge Thomas, and a clear indication
by all of the women we spoke to that there was never, certainly
not, a case of sexual harassment, and not even a hint of impropriety."
After the Hill hearings, Lieberman backed down.
Ralph Nader has told us that he played a role in convincing Lieberman
to shift his vote. But his initial support of Thomas makes clear
that Lieberman was more than willing to back a bumbling jurist
who clings to outlandish legal theories based on the "divine
inspiration" of the Constitution. Of course, Lieberman is
believes that the First Amendment means "freedom of religion,
not freedom from religion."
But it is Gore himself
who sinks the argument now advanced by his adherents that a vote
for Gore/Lieberman is a vote to save the Supreme Court from falling
into the hands of Visigoths. In his torturous rumination on the
Thomas vote Gore said: "In reviewing Judge Thomas' judicial
philosophy, I have not considered whether he is a conservative
or a liberal. In the history of the Supreme Court, choices made
on such a basis have had a way of backfiring." CP
|