Now
Available from
CounterPunch for Only $11.50 (S/H Included)
Today's
Stories
February 20 / 22, 2004
Ghada Karmi
Sharon is not the Problem
February 19, 2004
Cecilie Surasky
Anti-Semitism
at the World Social Forum? That's Not What I Saw
Ray McGovern
Iraq
Hawks and Deceptive Intelligence: Did They Really Think They'd
Get Away With It?
Tariq Ali
How Far
Will Bush Go in Iraq?
Ralph Nader
Whither
the Nation?
Wayne Madsen
Would Kerry Purge the Neo-Cons?
Norman Solomon
The Collapse of Dean's Cyber-Bubble
Christopher Brauchli
Cheney, Halliburton and the NYT
Mike Whitney
Bush's Iraq Strategy: "I Hope They Kill Each Other"
Lewis Carroll
Bush the Mighty Helmsman from Yale
Website of the Day
Sex Toy Horoscope
February 18, 2004
William Wilgus
Bush:
AWOL and Dereliction of Duty
William Blum
Mush-Minded
Liberals
Dave Lindorff
Bush's China Syndrome
Greg Weiher
Why
is Kerry Getting a Pass?
Mike Griffin
Killing the Messenger: the AFL-CIO's Attack on Harry Kelber
Mark Hand
Kerry Tells Peace Movement to "Move On"
February 17, 2004
Mike Ferner
The
Countryside Murders in Iraq
Mokhiber / Weissman
Corporation
as Psychopath
Marjorie Cohn
DrakeGate:
a Victory for Free Speech
Kurt Nimmo
Bush's
Endgame: a Review of Chalmers Johnson's "Sorrows of Empire"
Greg Bates
Nader Ambush: a New Low for The
Nation
Ximena Ortiz
A Bush
Doctrine, of Sorts
Gary Leupp
Whatever Happened to Gen. Khazraji?
Sen. John Kerry
"The Cause of Israel is the Cause of America"
Steve Perry
Kerry
1, Drudge 0
February 16, 2004
James Johnston
Huddling
with the Cheeseheads in a NASCAR World
Sara Eltantawi
To
Wear the Hijab or Not
Bruce Anderson
Kevin
Cooper and the Midnight Needle
Elaine Cassel
Feds
on Campus: the Drake Subpoenas
Rahul Mahajan
Bush,
Is the Tide Finally Turning?
Kevin Cooper
The Ritual of Death
Stan Cox
Goodbye, Howard Dean
Larry David
My War
Steve Perry
Bush and the Guard: the Cover-Up's the Thing
Website of the Day
Prison Patriots: Help This Vital Film Get Made
February 14/15, 2004
Alexander Cockburn
Milk Bars, Hollywood and the
March of Empires
Jeffrey St. Clair
Oil Grab in the Arctic
William A. Cook
Faith-Based Fanatics
Stan Goff
Beloved
Haiti
Dave Marsh / Lee Ballinger
Rock, Rap & the Election
Hughes / Weiher
Tupac, the Patriot Act and Me
Michael Colby
Bush v. Kerry: the Power Elite's Dream Ballot
Mickey Z.
Michael Moore's Lesser Party: the General and the Lieutenant
Josh Frank
Dean's Demise No Big Loss for the Left
Peter Wolson
The Politics of Narcissism
William James Martin
Clean Break with the Road Map
Daniel Estulin
Religious Extremism in Africa
Standard Schaefer
The Privatization of Culture: an Interview with Michael Hudson
Dave Zirin
Maurice Clarett Gets Off the Plantation
Tracy McLellan
Oprah's Birthday Greedfest
Poets' Basement
Holt, LaMorticella, Guthrie, Subiet and Albert
Website of the Weekend
Progressives Scorecard: Where Do the Dems Rank on the Issues
That Matter?
February 13, 2004
Alan Maass
Kevin
Cooper's Fight to Live
Karyn Strickler
McCarthyism in the Sierra Club
Annie Higgins
On
a Street in America
Adam Federman
Democratic Snipers Target Nader
Mike Whitney
George W. Faces the Nation
Brian Cloughley
Our Imperial Leader Has Spoken
Website of the Day
Lying Action Figure Doll
February 12, 2004
Ray McGovern
George
Tenet's Spin Cycle
Robert Jensen
Bush's
Nuclear Hypocrisy
Saul Landau
Elegy to the Salton Sea
February
11, 2004
Cockburn
/ St. Clair
Hail, Kerry: Senator Facing-Both-Ways
Steve Perry
Bush
v. Bush?
February
10, 2004
Kurt
Nimmo
Inquisition in Iowa
Ron Jacobs
Politics and the Beatles: Don't
You Know You Can Count Me Out (In)
Elizabeth
Schulte
The Many Faces of John Kerry
Mickey
Z
Meet the Oxmans: "The Rich
Shouldn't Sleep at Night Either"
February
9, 2004
Michael
Donnelly
Will Skull and Bones Really Change
CEOs? Inside John Kerry's Closet
Chris Floyd
Smells Like Team Spirit: the Bush
B-Boys Replay Their Greatest Hits
Bill
Christison
What's Wrong with the CIA?
Dr. Susan
Block
Janet Jackson's Mammary Moment:
Boob Tube Super Bowl
February
7/8, 2004
Kathleen
Christison
Offending Valerie: Dealing with
Jewish Self-Absorption
Jeff Ballinger
No Sweat Shopping
Dave
Lindorff
Spray and Pray in Iraq: a Marine
in Transit
Alexander
Cockburn
McNamara: the Sequel
February
6, 2004
Ron
Jacobs
Are the Kurds in the Way?
Joanne
Mariner
Anita Bryant's Legacy
Saul
Landau
Happiness and Botox
Kurt Nimmo
Horror Non-fiction: A How-To Guide
from Perle and Frum
Niranjan
Ramakrishnan
The Real Intelligence Failure:
Our Own
February
5, 2004
Benjamin
Shepard
Turning NYC into a Patriot Act Free
Zone
Khury
Petersen-Smith
A Report from Occupied Iraq: "We Don't Want Army USA"
Mokhiber
/ Weissman
The 10 Worst Corporations of 2003
Teresa
Josette
The Exeuctioner's Pslam? Christian Nation? Yeah, Right
David Krieger
Why Dr. King's Message on Vietnam is Relevant to Iraq
Christopher
Brauchli
Monkey Business: Of Recess and Evolution in Georgia Schools
Norman
Solomon
The Deadly Lies of Reliable Sources
Cockburn
/ St. Clair
Presenting President Edwards!
February
4, 2004
Brian
McKinlay
Bush's Australian Deputy: Howard's
Last Round Up?
Mark
Gaffney
Ariel Sharon's Favorite Senator: Ron Wyden and Israel
Judith
Brown
Palestine and the Media
Frederick
B. Hudson
Moseley-Braun and the Butcher: Campaign for Justice or Big Oil's
Junta?
Kurt Nimmo
Bush's Independent Commission: Exonerating
the Spooks
M.
Junaid Alam
Philly School Workers Fight for Fair Contract
Fran Shor
Whose Boob Tube?
Kevin
Cooper
This is Not My Execution and I Will Not Claim It
February
3, 2004
Alan
Maass
The
Dems' New Mantra: What They Really Mean by "Electability"
Nick
Halfinger
How the Other Half Lives: Embedded
in Iraq
Rahul
Mahajan
Our True Intelligence Failure
Neve Gordon
The Only Democracy in the Middle East?
Laura
Carlsen
Mexico: Two Anniversaries; Two Futures
Terry
Lodge
An Open Letter to Michael Powell from the Boobs & Body Parts
Fairness Campaign
Hammond
Guthrie
Investigating the Meaningless
Website
of the Day
Waging Peace
February
2, 2004
Gary
Leupp
The Buddhist Nun in Tom Ridge's Jail
Justin
E.H. Smith
The Manners of Their Deaths: Capital Punishment in a Smoke-Free
Environment
Tom
Wright
The Prosecution of Captain Yee
Winslow
Wheeler
Inside the Bush Defense Budget
Lee Ballinger
Janet Jackson's Naked Truth
Leonard
Pitts, Jr
For Blacks, the Game of Justice is
Rigged
Jeffrey
St. Clair
The Hollow Candidate:
The Trouble with Howard Dean
Website
of the Day
Resistance:
In the Eye of the American Hegemon
Jan. 31 / Feb 1, 2004
Paul
de Rooij
For Whom the Death Tolls: Deliberate
Undercounting of Coalition Fatalities
Bernard
Chazelle
Bush's Desolate Imperium
Jack
Heyman
Bushfires on the Docks
Christopher
Reed
Broken Ballots
Michael
Donnelly
An Urgent Plea to Progressives: Don't Give in to Fear
Rob Eshelman
The Subtle War
Lee
Sustar
Palestine and the Anti-War Movement
George
Bisharat
Right of Return
Ray
McGovern
Nothing to Preempt
Brian Cloughley
Enron's Beady-Eyed Sharks
Conn
Hallinan
Nepal, Bush & Real WMDs
Kurt Nimmo
The Murderous Lies of the Neo-Cons
Phillip
Cryan
Media at the Monterrey Summit
Christopher
Brauchli
A Speech for Those Who Don't Read
John
Holt
War in the Great White North
Mickey
Z.
Clueless in America: When Mikey Met Wesley
Mark
Scaramella
The High Cost of Throwing Away the Key
Tariq Ali
Farewell, Munif
Ben
Tripp
Waiter! The Reality Check, Please
Poets'
Basement
LaMorticella, Guthrie, Thomas and Albert
January 30, 2004
Saul
Landau
Cuba High on Neo-Con Hit List
Michael
Donnelly
Bush's Second Front: The War in
the Woods
Elaine
Cassel
Worse Than Jacko: Child Abuse at Gitmo
David Vest
More Halliburton News, Brought to You by Halliburton
Mike
Whitney
The Kay Report: Still Defending Aggression
David
Miller
The Hutton Whitewash
Sam
Husseini
How Many People Must Die Because of This "Mistake",
Senator Kerry?
January 29, 2004
Patricia
Nelson Limerick
John Ehrlichman, Environmentalist
Ron
Jacobs
Homeland Security and "Legalized"
Immigration
Rahul Mahajan
New Hampshire v. Iraq
Greg
Weiher
Bush Calls for Preemptive Strike on
Moon and Mars
Norman
Solomon
The State of the Media Union
Cockburn
/ St. Clair
Does NH Mean Anything?
January
28, 2004
Kathy
Kelly
Bearing Witness Against Teachers of
Torture and Assassination
Hot Stories
Alexander Cockburn
Behold,
the Head of a Neo-Con!
Subcomandante Marcos
The
Death Train of the WTO
Norman Finkelstein
Hitchens
as Model Apostate
Steve Niva
Israel's
Assassination Policy: the Trigger for Suicide Bombings?
Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams
CounterPunch Exclusive:
20,000 Wounded Iraqi Civilians
Steve
J.B.
Prison Bitch
Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber
True Lies: the Use of Propaganda
in the Iraq War
Wendell
Berry
Small Destructions Add Up
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click Here
for More Stories.
|
Weekend
Edition
February 20 / 22, 2004
Watch Her Run!
Chasing
Judith Miller Off the Stage
By DEREK SEIDMAN
When I heard that the New York Times correspondent
Judith Miller was going to be speaking at a local campus last
week, I was eager to check her out. Ever since I read Pulitzer
Prize winner Samantha Power's atrocious review of Noam Chomksy's
"Hegemony or Survival" in the Times book review last
month, I've been increasingly on the lookout for these intellectual-defenders
of an "enlightened" imperialism . Moreover, seeing
Judith Miller (also a Pulitzer winner) was especially enticing,
as she has been embroiled in controversy for her role in the
Iraq war.
Supposedly Miller, an expert on national
security issues who has a hearty relationship with Iraqi National
Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi, was allowed to accompany an Army
unit searching for Iraqi weapons. In fact, she acted as a middleman
between the unit and Chalabi, sitting in on an interrogation
of Iraqi prisoners at Chalabi's headquarters which the unit was
not assigned to do and which caused some to label it the "Judith
Miller Unit". Further, when the Army commander threatened
to withdraw the unit, Miller told him not to, suggesting that
she'd write about it unflatteringly in the New York Times. The
order to withdraw was dropped. All this led one officer to call
the unit that Miller was embedded with a "rogue operation".
Another officer commented: "this woman came in with a plan.
She was leading them. . . . She ended up almost hijacking the
mission." Another senior officer added: "It's impossible
to exaggerate the impact she had on the mission of this unit,
and not for the better."
As several hundred people piled into
the campus auditorium, I was hoping some in the audience would
have a chance to confront Miller about her defense of US Empire
and her involvement in the Iraq war. Luckily, I wouldn't be disappointed.
Miller began her talk by describing the
political situation in which we in the US today find ourselves,
with the country the most polarized since, she said, the days
of Vietnam. Sounding implicitly liberal enough with some sarcastic
criticism of the Bush administration, she ended her opening remarks
with a surprisingly (or not) glorifying description of president
Bush and a surprising ultimatum for the audience. In short, she
declared that we must take Bush very seriously as a man determined
to wage a war against terrorism, and further, that we need to
decide whether we are with him or not.
After issuing a necessary disclaimer
about her "love" for the "Arab people, Miller
proceeded to address the advertised subject of her talk: the
threat of biological warfare. Whereas 9/11 is the day that most
of us associate with domestic catastrophe and potential dangers,
people in the biological weapons know-how are perhaps more irked
by the ominous "5/11". According to Miller, this refers
to the anthrax scare shortly after 9/11, where 5 out 11 people
who were afflicted with the chemical died- and that was lucky.
For Miller, this preview of biological warfare was perhaps the
most harrowing thing of all, with its disastrous implications
if extended or used in acts of terror.
"There are three factors that make
biological weapons an increasing threat", she told us. The
first is globalization. Miller gave a very cheery picture of
globalization ("we can travel almost anywhere in the world
in a few hours"), without any criticism of its ominous aspects.
But, she said, this freer flow of people and things means greater
potential for the movement of biological weaponry.
Her second factor was the most loaded
of the three: Islamic fundamentalism, whose rise means that biological
warfare has become a palpable threat. That much is not too controversial,
though Miller mysteriously leaves out past and present US complicity
in supplying biological and/or chemical weapons to brutal regimes.
What really got my teeth grinding was her historical explanation
for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. In short: the nationalist
revolutions and regimes of the post-WWII era were essentially
self-serving, repressive, and stagnant. They sought only to keep
a narrow clique in power, and abused the inherent wealth of the
region. (Miller even had the date when the Middle East started
to go in the wrong direction-the date Nasser came to power in
Egypt). These corrupt leaders "have all the oil, but haven't
done anything for the people." With the post-colonial hopes
of the people squashed, they were naturally frustrated and angry.
But they couldn't fight back against their leaders for fear of
repression against them and their families. Thus-and this is
the killer- the United States became the target of the "deflected
anger" of the Arab people. No mention from this distinguished
thinker of why the US might be the target of such anger. None.
All we are left with is the specter of "400 million Arabs
by 2020 with no future due to their failed states."
To the uninformed observer, Miller's
thesis might seem odd: why would the Arab people "deflect"
their anger onto the US? Why not somewhere closer-maybe Iceland,
or perhaps Bulgaria? In fact, Miller outright denied that colonialism,
US foreign policy, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict had anything
to do with Arab anger at the US.
I doubt Noam Chomsky had Judith Miller
in mind when he wrote these words, but he might as well have:
"Rogue states that are internally free-and the United States
is at the outer limits in this respect-must rely on the willingness
of the educated classes to produce accolades and to tolerate
or deny crimes." I had heard about these types of intellectuals,
the "New Mandarins" that Chomsky so derided, but I
had never seen one with so much influence up close. This woman
knew damn well the history of US involvement in the region, and
the devastation and anger this had caused. She was just lying.
Once the question and answer session came along, she would regret
this.
After telling us the third factor that
makes biological weapons an increasing threat (via their growth
in technology industries, medicine, etc.), she wrapped up her
talk. "I have many disagreements with Reagan, but one thing
I agree passionately with him about is that the Soviet Union
was the evil empire and I am so grateful that it is gone forever."
Further (and discreetly carrying over the "evil empire"
notion), the main fight right now is to stop Islamic fundamentalism.
The way to do that is to persuade governments to crack down on
Islamic fundamentalists in their countries by destroying their
camps, training grounds, schools, etc. In the meantime, what
can we do about biological weapons? Miller has the answer: give
more credit and respect to all our brave doctors, nurses, and
researchers, the would-be defenders against the bad chemicals
that may reach our bodies.
Obviously this feel-good pap left much
to be desired. Now that Judith Miller was done spelling out simple
ideas to the stupid liberal masses, the question and answer session
could begin.
The first speaker from the audience was
a polite, radical professor at the campus where the event took
place. His comments fell into two questions: (1) What about the
United States' complicity with some of the "evil" regimes
mentioned by Miller, and (2) what about her own complicity in
the Iraq war and occupation (described above)?
Miller took the question kindly, probably
hoping that it would be the only one of its kind. It's true,
she admitted, that the United States has had a "quiet indifference"
to repressive regimes in the past, but that has nothing to do
with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, she saw nothing
much wrong with past US foreign conduct; the tide has only turned
recently with the new doctrine of preemptive war.
From no mention of US complicity in fueling
the discontent in the Middle East, to "quiet indifference".
It was a start.
As for her own involvement in the war,
she gave a response that was laughable at best: she just reports
what she's told, so don't blame her or the press for things happening
you don't like. The media is neutral-they simply report, and
it is up to you to make decisions based on that reporting. If
what the press is told happens to be wrong, it is not their fault.
With words like these, it was surely a "neutral" coincidence
that almost everything Miller said about the Middle East and
US involvement in her talk was either a complete fabrication
or excluded essential facts. This "neutrality" was
the same kind she applied with heavy-handedness while embedded
with the "Judith Miller Unit", not only involving the
unit with Ahmed Chalabi, but using her journalistic clout to
reverse army operations.
With the next speaker from the audience,
our distinguished guest could not be so peachy-keen. Miller had
denounced the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt in her presentation,
said the young audience member, but she had failed to mention
that they are client regimes for the United States (of course,
a "neutral" omission). Further, he said, we supported
some of the very people who would become the Taliban.
Miller, now noticeably irritated and
on the defensive, interrupted to declare that "we have never
supported the Taliban-that is just not true". With such
prestige and deference to her name, Miller must have not thought
it presumptuous to interrupt the audience member, distort his
argument, and proceed dismissively. Fortunately, he wasn't so
awed by her presence.
"I didn't say we supported the Taliban",
he retorted, interrupting her this time. "I said we supported
some of the people who became the Taliban, the Muhajadeen."
Miller attempted to rebound, and with
flustering words reiterated her previous mantra that the US had
never had any involvement with the Taliban.
Once again our heroic college student
intervened: "Excuse me excuse me. I need to interrupt you.
Because YOU'RE LYING."
Judith Miller, offended that such a rabble-rouser
could so publicly assault her stature, assured everyone that
she wasn't lying. Upon hearing this, the young speaker stolidly
asked: "What about the $43 million dollars given to the
Taliban in 1994?"
A moment of silence. The young man was
pulled away by the moderator, and Miller stumbled along. "We
did the right thing in Afghanistan", she said, referring
to US support for the Mujahadeen. The USSR was the greatest evil,
and by supporting the Islamicists we helped in the fall of the
Soviets. It was justified. Again she referred to "our "quiet
indifference" at times", but held that US foreign policy
has all together been noble and correct.
Miller's demeanor was now notably prickly,
but her cover-ups and concessionary euphemisms had opened up
a can of worms. She was prodded further by the next speaker from
the audience: "How can you say", paraphrasing his words,
"that the US hasn't been a major cause for the anger and
resentment in the Middle East? While it's true many leaders have
been repressive and self-serving, we've intervened there continuously
for economic and political reasons-we've overthrown governments
for Christ's sake! After world war two many of these countries
we're trying to break from their history of colonialism, and
we really thwarted that effort. If it's just "deflected
anger" that's coming at us, why isn't being "deflected"
to New Zealand? How can you say the history of US intervention
in the Middle East doesn't factor into things?"
Miller, no longer feigning to sound so
innocent, blurted out that colonialism has absolutely nothing
to do with the problems we face today in the Middle East. She
even went so far as to aver that colonialism can be a good thing,
pointing to the example of British imperialism in India. (Touting
the virtues of classical British imperialism has become somewhat
of a fad these days in elite academic circles. Perhaps it is
only coincidental that this trend is occurring amidst a heightened
surge of US-British imperialism). Besides, look at all the good
that we do, all the aid we give, for instance, to Egypt for signing
a peace treaty with Israel (something, she assured us, Iran
will never do).
Miller gained a brief respite when the
next two audience members lobbed softballs at her, asking what
it was like to be an embedded reporter and what she thought about
Scott Ritter. The answer to the first question was that it was
an amazing experience being an embedded reporter, even if the
government tells you what you can and can't report back-after
all, reporters need to take what they can get, and we can be
thankful that they let us do this much (whether Miller actually
realizes that "embedding" reporters was a maneuver
by the government to create a sanitized, acceptable version of
Operation Iraqi Freedom is uncertain, but hardly doubtful).
The answer to the Scott Ritter question
revealed more about Miller's desperation at that point in the
night. After telling us how much of a nice guy "Scott"
was, she proceeded to repeat the vicious slander that the recent
documentary he'd made on Iraq-exposing some US lies in regards
to Iraq-was somehow funded by Saddam Hussein. She said this with
such smugness and well-I-don't-know-if-it's-really-true innocence
that it made my blood boil. Luckily, I was next in line to speak.
Before I made my comments, the moderator announced, with Miller's
agreement, that there would be three more questions, whereupon
we'd end the event and talk informally.
Approaching the microphone, I told Ms.
Miller, that, like herself, I was from New York City, and that
I share with her an interest in preventing more terrorist attacks
from occurring. With this goal in mind, I let her know that I
found it very misleading and dangerous that she refers to US
support for repressive regimes in the Middle East as "quiet
indifference", as if we just silently tolerated them. I
cited a January 20th article in Reuters entitled "Iraqis
want Saddam's American Allies put on Trial", pointing out
that this reveals much more than she is willing to admit about
the real reasons for Arab anger towards the United States. Further,
it isn't "quiet indifference" when Egypt is a leading
recipient of US military aid, right behind other beacons of human
rights such as Turkey, Colombia, and Israel. Refusing her interruption,
I also pointed out that our support of the Saudi regime, of the
Mujahadeen, of Pakistan's repressive rule, of both Saddam's Iraq
and the Ayatollah's Iran in the 1980s (the list goes on), was
hardly "quiet indifference", but rather systematic
and aggressive involvement. To think the way she does is to lead
oneself into a blind alley when trying to figure out how to prevent
terrorism. If we wish to eliminate Arab resentment towards us,
we need to stop causing it.
So far we had nudged Judith Miller ever
so slowly out of her comfortable the-USA-can-do-no-wrong shell.
At first she maintained that US foreign policy has been all together
correct, only to concede, in the face of obvious evidence brought
to the audience's attention, that there has-perhaps-been a quiet
indifference to repressive regimes. Now, seeing that we were
not going to let her off easy on this one, she stopped posturing.
Yes, she at last admitted, the US has
supported repressive regimes, and we did so in the context of
a Cold War we had to win. Foreign policy is not fun, she angrily
informed us, and sometimes one needs to choose between two evils.
If we didn't do what we had done in the Middle East, it could
now be "a whole region of Irans", and how would we
like that? Our support for the Shah was a good thing; he was
far less worse than Khomeni. Of course, "most Iranians love
the US", and it's just their leaders who are preventing
our friendship. Besides, changes in our foreign policy would
be meaningless with regards to terrorism, because "they
hate us. They hate our existence, our way of life, our free press,
our MTV."
Miller began her talk sounding like an
enlightened liberal and ended it sounding like a desperate fanatic
clinging for anything to justify the actions of United States.
She claims Arab anger at the US is simply deflected from the
anger at their own leaders, yet she grudgingly admits that we
have supported these very regimes-and defends doing so. These
regimes could hardly exist without our support, and several have
come into existence on our initiative. Surely the Arab people
are not aloof to this history. Further, she tells us of the virtues
of the Shah as opposed to the Ayatollah. Whatever truth there
may or may not be to this, the US was supporting the Shah for
decades before the threat of Islamic fundamentalism was even
a possibility, let alone embodied in Iran's theocracy.
According to Miller's Cold War justification,
one would think that our need to support repressive regimes just
happened to fall upon us. The reality is that we aggressively
pursued this policy, and not just in the Middle East. The idea
that the region was going to become communist, and that we were
compelled to save it from the Soviets, is highly doubtful. More
clear and present reasons for our support for repressive regimes
could be found, among numerous documents like it, in a state
department analysis of Saudi Arabia written in 1945: "a
stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest
material prizes in the world", obviously referring to its
oil resources .
With all this, Miller's proposed method
to stop terrorism (to persuade repressive regimes, many whom
we support, to crack down on terrorist camps) is absurd. First,
some of these regimes (e.g. Pakistan) risk a civil war if they
seriously attempt to crack down. Second, getting rid of terrorist
schools or camps does nothing to stop terrorism, and more importantly,
does nothing to lessen the huge reservoir of resentment from
which Islamic fundamentalism grows. Because of her blind attachment
to the humanist narrative of US foreign policy, Miller can't
begin to comprehend a way out of the problem of terrorism. She
can only resort to the "deflecting" of blame which
she accuses the Arab people of: deflecting it onto the USSR,
repressive Arab regimes, whatever- anything and anyone except
the US. In the process of doing so, she goes out of her way to
justify and rationalize all the deplorable actions of the United
States, only to make quiet concessions when repeatedly assaulted
with the facts.
After reaching the heights of hysteria
in her response to me, Judith Miller ended the question and answer
session prematurely and walked briskly off the stage. Afterwards,
I talked to some of the other audience members who spoke up,
and we naturally took some pride in chasing Miller off the stage.
If there's one lesson I wish to get across in this article, it
is this: we can't be intimidated by these high profile, glamour
and glitz intellectual-lackeys. Our arguments are stronger than
theirs, and if we stand up to them with confidence and tenacity,
their posturing will be exposed. They might run away, like Judith
Miller did, or they might stay for the fight, but either way
people will begin to see what they really are: liars. The moral
victories we gain from these public clashes provide important
force and impetus for our movement.
Derek Seidman, 23, is a co-editor of
the radical youth journal Left
Hook. He looks forward to your feedback at derekseidman@yahoo.com
Weekend
Edition Features for February 14 / 15, 2004
Alexander Cockburn
Milk Bars, Hollywood and the
March of Empires
Jeffrey St. Clair
Oil Grab in the Arctic
William A. Cook
Faith-Based Fanatics
Stan Goff
Beloved
Haiti
Dave Marsh / Lee Ballinger
Rock, Rap & the Election
Hughes / Weiher
Tupac, the Patriot Act and Me
Michael Colby
Bush v. Kerry: the Power Elite's Dream Ballot
Mickey Z.
Michael Moore's Lesser Party: the General and the Lieutenant
Josh Frank
Dean's Demise No Big Loss for the Left
Peter Wolson
The Politics of Narcissism
William James Martin
Clean Break with the Road Map
Daniel Estulin
Religious Extremism in Africa
Standard Schaefer
The Privatization of Culture: an Interview with Michael Hudson
Dave Zirin
Maurice Clarett Gets Off the Plantation
Tracy McLellan
Oprah's Birthday Greedfest
Poets' Basement
Holt, LaMorticella, Guthrie, Subiet and Albert
Website of the Weekend
Progressives Scorecard: Where Do the Dems Rank on the Issues
That Matter?
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|