home / subscribe / donate / tower / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events / faq
What You're Missing in Our Subscriber-only CounterPunch Newsletter How They Do Ethnic Cleansing in America Read Forrest Hylton's amazing account of the brutal creation of 21st century New York. How the Rockefellers, the New York Times, a Neocon and the RAND Corporation made Brooklyn safe for latte. Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation towards the cost of this online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now
Get CounterPunch By Email for Only $35 a Year
|
Today's Stories January 31, 2007 Patrick Cockburn Jean Bricmont
Werther Kathy Kelly Uri Avnery Franklin Spinney William S. Lind Pariah Mike Whitney Rev. William
E. Alberts Fran Shor Anthony Arnove Website of the Day
Nurit Peled-Elhanan Patrick Cockburn JoAnn Wypijewski Ron Jacobs Dave Lindorff Kevin Zeese Reza Fiyouzat Pat Williams Website of the Day
January 27 / 28, 2007 Diana Johnstone Eliza Ernshire Patrick Cockburn David Rosen Greg Moses Bernard Chazelle Tao Ruspoli Hermán
Uribe Ralph Nader Paul Craig
Roberts Fred Gardner Brian Cloughley James Abourezk John V. Whitbeck Seth Sandronsky Alan Cabal Pam Martens Website of
the Weekend
Charlotte Laws Mike Ely /
Linda Flores Joe DeRaymond Phil Donahue Zia Mian Jeb Sprague Evelyn Pringle Missy Beattie Martha Rosenberg Website of
the Day
Patrick Cockburn John Ross Jeremy Scahill Frida Berrigan Paul Craig Roberts Jason Yossef
Ben-Meir Christopher Brauchli Holger W. Henke Dave Lindorff Julia Landau Website of the Day
January 24, 2007 Tao Ruspoli Paul Craig
Roberts Lt. Gen. William Odom Sharon Smith Brian M. Downing Heather Gray Ron Jacobs James Brooks Robert Day Website of
the Day
Trish Schuh Robert Bryce
Stephen Soldz John Blair Gloria La Riva Joshua Frank Patrick Cockburn Ralph Nader Dave Lindorff Uri Avnery Website of the Day
January 22, 2007 Manuel Garcia,
Jr. Jen Marlowe George McGovern Paul Craig
Roberts Norman Solomon Amira Hass Mike Whitney Ramzy Baroud John Walsh Website of
the Day
January 20/21 2007 Alexander Cockburn
Gail Dines
Newton Garver
Gilad Atzmon
Seth Sandronksy
Raphaelle Bail
Jim Goodman Larry Portis
Website of
the Weekend
Jonathan Cook
Glen Ford Dave Lindorff
Larry Portis
Website of
the Day
William Peace
Virginia Tilley
Michael Donnelly
B.R. Gowani
Larry Portis
Jason Hribal
Website of
the Day
Franklin Spinney John Ross Susan George Paul Craig
Roberts Joshua Frank David Lindorff
Col. Sam Gardiner
Marjorie Cohn
Saul Landau
Ron Jacobs
Susan Block Ken Couesbouck Website of
the Day
Roger Morris Paul Craig
Roberts Kathy Kelly William Blum Ralph Nader Saul Landau January 12 / 14, 2007 Patrick Cockburn David Rosen William S.
Lind Laith al-Saud Paul Craig
Roberts John Ross George Ciccariello-Maher Christopher Brauchli Robert Buzzanco Evelyn Pringle Peter Rost,
MD. Mike Whitney Yifat Susskind Saul Cohen Missy Beattie Stephen Lendman Website of
the Weekend
January 11, 2007 Ismael Hossein-Zadeh Paul Craig
Roberts Kathy Kelly Dave Lindorff Jeff Leys Richard W.
Behan Col. Douglas MacGregor Website of
the Day Speech of the Day
Peter Linebaugh Robert Fantina Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Col. Dan Smith Ben Tripp Evelyn Pringle Ron Jacobs Mike Ferner Dave Zirin Website of
the Day Bootleg of the Day
R. T. Naylor Jonathan Cook Mike Ely and Linda Flores Joshua Frank Norman Solomon Sen. Russell
Feingold Joe Allen James T. Phillips Brian Concannon Leonard Peltier Website of the Day
January 8, 2007 Werther Jeff Leys Paul Craig Roberts Shulamit Aloni Dave Lindorff Sunsara Taylor Seth Sandronsky Dr. Susan Block Website of the Day
Alexander Cockburn Franklin C.
Spinney Paul Craig
Roberts Ralph Nader Walden Bello Marleen Martin Brian Cloughley Uri Avnery Saul Landau Ron Jacobs Joseph Nevins William S. Lind Gary Leupp Elisa Salasin George Ciccariello-Maher Beyond Chavistas and Anti-Chavistas: Deepening the Bolivarian Revolution Stefan Wray Michael Leonardi Richard Rhames Jeffrey St. Clair Barbara LaMorticella Website of the Weekend Song of the
Weekend
Jorge Mariscal John Walsh Christopher Brauchli Travis Sharpe Tom Barry Linda Schade
/ Kevin Zeese Tiffany Ten Eyck Mahmoud El-Yousseph Lucinda Marshall Website of
the Day
Patrick Cockburn Winslow T.
Wheeler M. Shahid Alam Raed Jarrar Bert Sacks Kathy Rentenbach Stephen Fleischman George Bisharat Peter Rost, MD Evelyn Pringle Website of the Day
January 3, 2007 Kathy Kelly Paul Craig
Roberts William Johnson Stan Cox Trita Parsi Declan McKenna Joe Bageant Nicola Nasser Missy Beattie Website of
the Day
Michael Watts Amina Mire James Brooks Alevtina Rea Al Krebs Peter Rost Niranjan Ramakrishnan John Stanton Website of the Day
January 1, 2007 Patrick Cockburn Uri Avnery Joshua Frank
December 30
/ 31, 2006 Alexander Cockburn Patrick Cockburn Manuel Garcia,
Jr. Tariq Ali Paul Craig Roberts Douglas Valentine Brian M. Downing Michael Donnelly Stephen Lendman Fred Gardner Bailly / Caudron / Lambert Ralph Nader Nick Dearden Elizabeth Weill-Greenberg Missy Beattie Ron Jacobs Dan La Botz Andrew Wimmer Dr. Carol Wolman, MD Martha Rosenberg Dick J. Reavis Jeffrey St.
Clair Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend Music Video of the Weekend
Norman Finkelstein John Borowski Abid Mustafa Greg Moses Uri Cohen Bailly / Caudron
/ Lambert Website of
the Day
December 28, 2006 Norman Finkelstein Anthony Cowell John Ross Hilaria Cruz Greg Moses Brittany Bond Website of
the Day
December 27, 2006 Alexander Cockburn Faruq Ziada Christopher Brauchli Michael Ortiz
Hill Nikolas Kozloff Mark Schneider
Peter Stone
Brown Tito Tricot Gary Leupp John V. Walsh Reza Fiyouzat Ron Jacobs Website of
the Day
Saul Landau Lang / McGovern Michael Dickinson Website of
the Day
Marjorie Cohn Jeffrey L.
Gould Diane Christian William Loren
Katz Greg Moses M. Shahid Alam Fred Gardner Dave Lindorff Azmi Bishara Ralph Nader Seth Sandronsky William Hughes Ron Jacobs Jeffrey St.
Clair
December 22, 2006 David Rosen Christopher
Brauchli John Ross J.L. Chestnut,
Jr. Rahul Mahajan Arthur Neslen Peter Rost, MD Website of
the Day
Rosa Mariam
Elizalde Arundhati Roy Brian Cloughley Daniel White John V. Whitbeck Sam Smith Paris Reidhead Kevin Wehr Website of the Day
Gabriel Kolko Winslow T.
Wheeler Tariq Ali Saree Makdisi Bruce Jackson Dave Lindorff Leslie Radford Dave Jansson Johnny Barber Website of
the Day
Alexander Cockburn Jonathan Cook Greg Moses Sean Penn Dave Lindorff Ralph Nader Laura Carlsen Carlos Villarreal Website of
the Day
Luis J. Rodriguez Norman Solomon Uri Avnery Ron Jacobs Phil Gasper Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi William Blum Jim Goodman James Brooks Maria C. Khoury Website of the Day
Vijay Prashad Saul Landau Anthony Arnove Paul Cantor Annie Nocenti Nicole Colson Stephen Gowans Jordan Flaherty Fred Gardner P. Sainath Seth Sandronsky Nadia Hijab Deb Reich Susie Day Albert Wan Missy Beattie Martha Rosenberg Lee Ballinger Michael Dickinson Jeffrey St.
Clair Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
December 15, 2006 Eliza Ernshire Virginia Tilley Mike Ferner John Ross Fred Wilhelms Kevin Zeese David Severn Dave Lindorff Sunsara Taylor Website of
the Day
December 14, 2006 Jonathan Cook Riz Khan Jason Hribal Pennick / Gray Richard Levins Pat Williams Peter Rost, MD Website of
the Day
December 13, 2006 Patrick Cockburn Greg Moses Elizabeth Schulte Joshua Frank Debra Eschmeyer Leon Hadar Peter Rost, MD Margaret Knapke Reza Fiyouzat Fred Wilhelms Website of
the Day
Fernando A.
Torres Paul Craig
Roberts Stephen Soldz Uri Avnery William S. Lind Missy Beattie Dave Lindorff George Pyle Norman Solomon Website of
the Day
December 11, 2006 Virginia Tilley Roger Burbach Col. Douglas MacGregor Fawwas Traboulsi Ron Jacobs Gideon Levy Mary McGrane Bernardo Ruiz Website of the Day Video of the
Day
December 9
/ 10, 2006 Alexander Cockburn Sen. Gordon Smith Greg Grandin
Paul Craig Roberts Col. Dan Smith Ralph Nader Behrooz Ghamari Rev. Willliam Alberts James T. Phillips Bennis / Leaver Dave Lindorff Nikolas Kozloff Seth Sandronsky Lucinda Marshall Mike Whitney John V. Whitbeck Faisal Kutty Hugh Sansom Robert Gold Boots Riley Jeffrey St.
Clair Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
Patrick Cockburn Leutisha Stills Norman Finkelstein Will Youmans Peter Rost, MD Jonathan Demme Ray McGovern Lucinda Marshall Tariq Ali / Robin Blackburn Website of
the Day
December 7, 2006 Alex Friedman Maureen Webb Paul Craig Roberts Dave Lindorff Matt Vidal Yifat Susskind Rodriguez / Jones Website of
the Day
Robert Bryce
William S. Lind Zoe Blunt Corporate Crime Reporter Amira Hass Richard W. Behan Sophie McNeill
Virginia Tilley Sharon Smith Joe Bageant Ron Jacobs Norman Solomon Mike Whitney Derrick O'Keefe Julian Assange Missy Beattie Website of
the Day
December 4, 2006 Alexander Cockburn George Ciccariello-Maher Ray McGovern John Ross Walden Bello Peter Rost,
MD Stephen Lendman Gideon Levy Website of the Day
December 2
/ 3, 2006 Barucha Calamity
Peller Paul Craig
Roberts Ralph Nader Winslow T.
Wheeler Amira Hass Maymanah Farhat Dave Lindorff Fred Gardner Col. Dan Smith Raed Jarrar Seth Sandronsky K.-Y. Taylor Yifat Susskind David Rosen Ron Jacobs Nikolas Kozloff Talli Nauman Alan Gregory Joe Allen St. Clair /
D'Antoni Poets' Basement Website of
the Day
December 1, 2006 Greg Grandin Linn Washington,
Jr. George Ciccariello-Maher Brian J. Foley Dave Zirin Joshua Frank Chris Floyd Ingmar Lee Manuel Garcia,
Jr. Website of the Day Video of the
Day
Subscribe Online
|
January 31, 2007 A Hawk in DragDershowitz and the Iraq WarBy TIM WILKINSON Not so long ago, the prospect of the US and UK taking military action against Iran was inconceivable. In September 2005, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw explicitly said as much in an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Prime Minister Tony Blair, obedient as ever to the Bush administration, demoted Straw at the next opportunity the May 2006 Cabinet reshuffle. Around that time, Alan Dershowitz published an article in right-wing British political weekly The Spectator, entitled 'We can't attack Iran'. The article seems to put Dershowitz on the side of the Doves on the issue. But appearances can be deceptive. Dershowitz is no stranger to the pages of The Spectator. In September last year Alan Dershowitz's short essay 'How to protect civil liberties' appeared as its cover-article. A week later, Counterpunch published my response: 'Paradigm? What Paradigm?'. In the article I exposed Dershowitz's use of a dishonest 'camouflage' strategy: sending one message under cover of a quite different--and to the intended audience, much more acceptable--one. News of Dershowitz's reaction to this criticism recently arrived in my pigeonhole. According to my sources, Dershowitz's talent (it is for litigation) was, as ever, on display as he dismissed my criticisms at a stroke. By alleging two inessential--but telling--falsehoods in the very first sentence of my modest article, he attempted to discredit the entire case. The falsehoods in question? First, that Dershowitz is a Neo-con. I very evidently did not make that claim. Second, that he is a Hawk. I did make that claim. The evidence adduced in rebuttal? The accused testified that he had been opposed to the invasion of Iraq. This is a claim Dershowitz
makes frequently and with an air of pride. It is rarely if ever
challenged. He uses the claim to repel all kinds of apparently
unrelated accusations for example, in his response to a
much-discussed paper by Walt and Meirsheimer, he writes: "my
own colleague accused me of being part of this anti-American
conspiracy [the Zionist lobby]--they call me an 'apologist' for
Israel (p.11)--despite my frequent criticisms of specific Israeli
policies and my opposition to the war in Iraq." Yet there
appears to be a distinct shortage of evidence for this claimed
Doveish attitude to Iraq. 2. The first element of camouflage is the pretence that the bulk of the article--the section entitled 'The right of preemptive self-defence'--is a moral or legal argument concerned with justification of that rather Hawkish-sounding doctrine. But the first half of the section is not a theoretical argument--instead it consists of a story about the supposed rise of an unprecedented danger in the form of terrorism. The tale culminates in this terrifying assessment of the situation:
Because these outlandish claims are camouflaged as part of the background to the issue of justification, the claim that Iraq is a 'rogue state' with a 'chemical and biological arsenal' which is 'desperately seeking to develop the capacity to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons' might well slip under the radar, unthinkingly accepted by the reader impatient to progress the argument. The argument which follows is short and takes the form of arguing a case. The conclusion is couched in an admonitory tone, giving the impression that Dershowitz is placing strict conditions on his reluctant acceptance of a doctrine that some Hawk has put forward. But the doctrine is his own brainchild, and his none-too stringent conditions on the legitimacy of pre-emption match, with suspicious exactitude, his initial fevered assessment of the situation. "The right to take preemptive military action," he warns, "should require a high level of hard evidence that a rogue state, which has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, is on the verge of developing them." The first part of this formula--a 'high level of hard evidence'--sounds a suitably exacting test. It is yet to be seen how much evidence, of what strength, will actually be demanded once this fine-sounding sentiment has faded somewhat from the reader's memory. Dershowitz does immediately address the question whether Iraq fits the second part of the formula, and concludes without argument that it is indeed a 'rogue state'. Exactly what a rogue state is supposed to be is not made clear. The category appears to be ad hoc, stipulated to exclude countries such as India and Pakistan while including Iraq. Predictably enough, we are told that Iraq fits the third condition too: it "has used illegal weapons of mass destruction in the past". This seems to refer to the use of poison gas during a local conflict or--possibly--internal repression. This is not obviously a sign of the desire to use nuclear weapons. But that, apparently, is not important. Dershowitz, under cover of his investigation into moral or legal theory, is in full advocacy mode. The only remaining question, he states, is whether Iraq is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons "which", he adds, taking the opportunity to throw in a couple more unsubstantiated claims camouflaged as argument, "would make it far more difficult to deter it from using the chemical weapons and biological weapons it currently has in its secret arsenal". This arsenal could not, apparently, be kept secret from Alan Dershowitz. 3. Dershowitz's second main camouflage tactic is embodied in the second part of the article, entitled: 'The evidence against Iraq'. The factual and casuistic argumentation in this section has the appearance of being impartial investigation. The effect Dershowitz seeks to convey is of issues judiciously weighed, countervailing viewpoints adduced and assimilated, some progress made in clarifying the issues, but no firm recommendation made. Even if the article did have this character, it is far from an expression of opposition to the war. But it is only at first glance that Dershowitz appears even-handed. This appearance is belied both by the section's title--this defence lawyer makes no mention of evidence in Iraq's favour--and by the fact that Dershowitz has already in the previous section stated flatly that Iraq is 'desperate to develop nuclear weapons'. The section begins with a paragraph dealing with the difficulty of assessing the accuracy of the administration's claims. "The world is rightly suspicious of the 'trust me' argument. That argument has often proved to be flimsy", he tells us. As though making a concession to the most conspiracy-minded of dissidents, he adds: "or even false"! But this sceptical banner-headline is sandwiched between more Bush-friendly sentiments. By alluding to the difficulties faced by a government which cannot reveal sensitive intelligence data--"by its nature the best evidence is likely to be classified", "an administrationwill have to strike a balance between protecting its intelligence sources and making its case to the public", Dershowitz hints darkly at the existence of a 'smoking gun' which unfortunately has to remain secret. In any case, as we proceed to the 'evidence' itself, any concern about its reliability seems to evaporate:
Dershowitz seems to assume the truth of these claims. The last of them is 'frightening'--it tells us that Iraq is 'expanding its efforts to enlist terrorists'. By this point, the reader may be forgiven for forgetting that this is supposedly only a report of 'what we are being told' (told by the advocates of the war, that is, not by Hans Blix). Furthermore, the phrasing suggests that the existence of such efforts is known, and that the only new claim we need appraise is that they are being 'expanded'. But of course there was never an attempt to enlist terrorists, and it is quite ludicrous to have imagined that there was. Dershowitz then adds some mild and eminently forgettable caveats which provide more camouflage, before proceeding to the conclusion that Iraq will have, but does not yet have, nuclear weapons. He then poses the question (or 'conclusion' as he revealingly misterms it): is there time to carry out further inspections?
For a start, we may observe that Dershowitz misrepresents the issue as a choice between 'diplomacy' and military action. Weapons inspections and monitoring are not a form of diplomacy, any more than police searches and surveillance are a form of negotiation. No doubt the inspections were complied with only grudgingly and with much foot-dragging--one wonders how the US would react if Hans Blix turned up at their top secret military installations brandishing a search warrant. Nonetheless, the monitoring program would certainly make it very difficult--if not impossible--for Iraq to operate a nuclear programme. Dershowitz gives the impression that the only alternative to war was some sort of ineffectual talking shop. In fact inspections and monitoring were quite sufficient to see off any danger of Iraq becoming a nuclear aggressor. Leaving that aside, let's look at the considerations Dershowitz adduces for and against military action. The only argument offered against attack is the baffling: "In the age of conventional warfare, the presumption might well favor waiting." As an outline statement of a case for pursuing a peaceful course this is notably deficient, since it is clear that Dershowitz means to imply that 'the age of conventional warfare' is over. This is the mere appearance of an argument--included merely as camouflage for the real agenda. The corresponding statement concerning the possibility of taking "immediate preventive action"--a camouflage term for a military assault--is of a very different character. Dershowitz says that we should favour war "if waiting realistically increases the riskofattack by Iraq". This condition seems an odd one--unless you are expecting Dershowitz's duplicitous tactics--because 'realistically' is such a feeble word. What is the alternative--that waiting unrealistically increases the risk? So, as Dershowitz says, "the presumption may well favor immediate preventive action." The addition of "especially if it can be taken so as to minimize civilian casualties" is a splendid bit of camouflage. First, the term 'especially' signifies something desirable but not necessary. So it may be preferable to minimise casualties, but we needn't insist on it. Furthermore, to minimise casualties is to kill and injure no more than necessary to achieve one's goal. So, unless Dershowitz is suggesting that we somehow include in our calculations the imaginary casualties which might have been incurred by an Iraqi attack of unknown type, scope and likelihood, the proviso is meaningless, since it is always possible in this sense to 'minimise' casualties. So long as one kills only to further one's aims, and avoids utterly gratuitous murder, one has minimised casualties. Realising this on some level, the reader may be tempted to interpret the term as meaning 'keep casualties within acceptable limits'. But that is not what it means, and it is not what Dershowitz is saying. In any case this whole passage with its superficial appearance of reasoned argument is mere camouflage, since it becomes largely irrelevant once we get to the point of the article, which lies in the final sentence:
Camouflaged as a question (albeit a near-rhetorical one), this final statement of the problem offers us a choice between two risks: the risk of finding our action to have been unnecessary, and the risk of devastation. Unnecessary action, or devastation. Devastation, or unnecessary action. You choose. But hurry! It hardly seems worth pointing out that the article is not an expression of opposition to the invasion. This fact alone entails that Dershowitz did not oppose the war in Iraq. Moreover, he did not even present a neutral position. The article--question marks notwithstanding--has the effect of calling for the invasion to go ahead, and soon. On my analysis, Dershowitz actually supported the war on Iraq, by minimising the case against war, hugely exaggerating--even inventing--the case for war, and finally, under the guise of a balanced assessment, reducing the issue to a choice between unnecessary effort and near-certain devastation. 4. But Dershowitz's chameleon-like approach to argument, and the accompanying lack of concern for consistency means he has a quote for every occasion. Accused of supporting one view, he can always point to some text in which he has seemingly adopted the opposing view. For example, in the preface to the paperback edition of his popular-history book The Case for Israel (Sep 2004), Dershowitz provides a revised account of his earlier position:
The earlier article--written while the debate about whether to have a war was still worth having--contains absolutely no mention of anything resembling the so-called 'law of unintended consequences'. The only allusion to possible untoward consequences is of the civilian deaths he meaninglessly hopes be 'minimised'. Again note that he only says that military action may be presumed best especially if--not only if--civilian casualties can be minimised. Perhaps Dershowitz would now claim that he opposed the war later, once it became evident that civilian deaths were not being minimised by any standard. But opposing the tactics used in fighting the war is not the same as opposing the war. So this revised account appears to be neatly contrived to suit Dershowitz's purposes. Dershowitz must continue to claim that he was against the war. He can hardly change that story now--and he wouldn't want to, given the way the war has gone, and given his carefully maintained public image. But he evidently realises that his contemporaneous publications make it very clear that he thought the war justified. So he has invented a cover story: that he was wise and insightful enough to recognise that there was a high likelihood that the war would not go as planned, or would have undesirable side effects. He even has the audacity to sound rather smug about having supposedly predicted the chaos that now reigns in Iraq. There is, though, no sign of embarrassment at his Hawkish eagerness to believe that Saddam posed a military threat to the USA. 5. The conclusion of our investigation must be that--contrary to his current claims and to superficial appearances at the time--the Hawkish Alan Dershowitz did not oppose the war in Iraq. Trading on his past as a civil rights lawyer and critic of the 2000 presidential election scandal, Dershowitz used a thin veneer of caution and balance to provide camouflage, allowing his Hawkish views to blend in against the background of liberal opinion. This tactic enabled him to reach and influence an audience that was resistant to standard gung-ho war rhetoric. His article about the looming war in Iran, and any other comments he may publish on the topic, should be read with this in mind. Tim Wilkinson is a writer and political philosopher.
He can be contacted at otisblue@googlemail.com. |
CounterPunch Books / AK Press The Gang's All Here: Judy Miller, Bob Woodward, Jeffrey Goldberg, Rupert Murdoch, Bill O'Reilly...End Times Leaves No Reputation Unstained! ![]() Buy End Times Now! ![]() Michael Neumann's Devastating Rebuttal of Alan Dershowitz Grand Theft Pentagon: Tales of Greed and Profiteering in the War on Terror by Jeffrey St. Clair ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid? CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues, as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org. ![]() The Occupation by Patrick Cockburn ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Bruce Springsteen On Tour By Dave Marsh ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |