This is like the right wing "Arkansas Project" which gathered gripers and hired liars against Bill Clinton in Arkansas trying to show the people who knew him best - and kept re-electing him - were somehow too stupid to know any better. CounterPunch should be above such Richard M. Scaife / Ted Olson tactics. Sadly, based on this and other articles, they're not.

CounterPunch claimed all Internet articles dismiss Dean as a Bush Clone - a statement so astonishing it raised grave doubts about their accuracy if not their integrity: "[A]rticles have appeared on the net examining [Dean's] history and current stance on important national and international issues. They all point to a Clintonesque Republicrat whose stances are not far from that of the current administration."

That's some assertion! CounterPunch insists all the articles which have "appeared on the net" call Howard Dean a "Republicat" with "stances" like George W. Bush's. CounterPunch insists we take their word for this. Based on their established record for factually wrong reporting - and their claim that Bush essentially follows Clinton's policies - I didn't.

So I did what CounterPunch should have done. I ran a Google search on "Howard Dean" and "current administration". This yielded "about 3,990 articles" and took "0.16 seconds." Did "all" the articles call Dean a "Republicrat" and / or report that his record and views are "not far from that of the current administration?" No.

I ran a search on "Howard Dean" and "Republicrat" only one of the articles I found said that. One article which quoted this CounterPunch attack job. The rest I read praised Dean's Democratic stances and disdained other candidates the writers called Republicrats. Clearly the CounterPunch crew couldn't spare 0.16 seconds to do their homework.

One of the top Google hits, SelectSmart.com quotes Dean: "I have serious concerns about the increasingly unilateralist approach to foreign policy we have seen from the current Administration, particularly in the President's posture toward Iraq." SelectSmart adds, "The Washington Post reported ... Howard Dean has taken a consistently hard line against Bush's policy, telling Democratic audiences around the country that, unlike his rivals for the nomination, he would have opposed the congressional resolution authorizing Bush to go to war."

So much for "Republicrat" Dean's "stances" CounterPunch claims are "not far from that of the current administration." The accuracy and probity of this CounterPunch smear against Dean declined from there. It's tough to deal with the "have you stopped beating your wife yet" approach these "leftists" prefer without dignifying their unethical techniques. I'll try, however, since it's hazardous to leave unanswered the hyperventilating attacks, out-of-context quotes, clever conjecture and outright lies CounterPunch employs.

When reading CounterPunch consider the source and their lack of reliable sources. CounterPunch routinely uses snipped half-comments mixed with rough paraphrases (at best) and vicious, unfounded attacks upon from unreliable and reckless critics grinding axes and spewing unfounded trash talk. CounterPunch calls the resulting inaccurate character assassination "investigative journalism."

CounterPunch ran relentless hatchet jobs attacking Al Gore and helping Bush in 2000. They gave Sen. Paul Wellstone the same treatment in 2002, helping the right wing Republicans keep the Senate. Now it's Dean's turn. They've punched at Dean a few times before, see: I Feel Like Fisking Tonight and CounterPunch.

CounterPunch gets it wrong again and again. In this attack, they claim most web articles about Dean attacked him for acting and thinking too much like W. Bush. Wrong. Many articles supported Dean for his courageous opposition to Bush and his record in Vermont. Those that didn't (such as If you like Canada, you'll love Howard Dean) attacked his stances as too far to the left - too unlike Bush's on key issues.

I admit I didn't read all 3,990 articles, but I didn't see any calling Dean a "Republicrat" even after searching for that specific charge. If they exist, I may have missed them. But remember CounterPunch's "investigative reporters" claimed all of the articles on the net said Dean's positions and record are too similar to Bush's. The truth is the polar opposite of CounterPunch's accusations.

The CounterPunch bunch are better punchers than counters because my search of "Howard Dean" plus "Republicrat" yielded statements like:

"Howard Dean is the candidate Progressive Living endorses... We emphatically do not endorse Republicrat Lieberman," and this endorsement: "[T]he DLC-types have pushed the Democrats more and more into Republicrat territory. ... Then, a year from November, Howard Dean goes to Washington."

Any real survey of the web shows the opposite of CounterPunch's claim. Almost all support or oppose Dean because his positions and record are so different from Bush's. The "number of articles" I found calling Dean a "Republicrat" totaled zero.

Maybe CounterPunch just made up this claim to slam Dean. It would hardly be the first time they lied to their readers. Even so, all the web articles could all be wrong, so let's review Dean's and Bush's positions and do a compare / contrast:

1. Huge Tax cuts for the elite? Bush for, Dean against.
2. Iraq War? Bush for, Dean against.
3. Huge Deficits? Bush for, Dean against.
4. Patriot Act? Bush for, Dean against.
5. Universal Medical Coverage? Bush against, Dean for.
6. Funding Education? Bush against, Dean for.
7. Kyoto Treaty? Bush against, Dean for.
8. Affirmative Action? Bush against, Dean for.
9. Choice? Bush against, Dean for.
10. Equal rights for women and GLBT? Bush against, Dean for.
11. Alternative Energy Research? Bush against, Dean for.
12. Separation of Church and State? Bush against, Dean for.
13. Fair trade (vs. so-called "Free trade")? Bush against, Dean for.
14. Strong protections for environment, workers and the public? Bush against, Dean for.

And so on. How could CounterPunch be so wrong? It's hard to imagine this was an accident because CounterPunch attacked Dean in past articles, and this piece presents other misleading commentary like, "[Dean] now feels we must stay [in Iraq] as a matter of national security, and not allow another anti-American regime to develop...."

Oh really? If that's what Dean "feels" why won't CounterPunch provide a direct quote showing that? Because they can't. Because Dean does not "feel" anything of the kind. Actually, Dean wants Americans out of Iraq and the UN in. Dean demands an international effort to restore Iraq. If they had any concern for accuracy, CounterPunch would visit Dean's website and report his actual comments rather than dishonestly misrepresenting them.

Astonishingly, CounterPunch diminishes Dean's maverick anti-war stance thus: "[H]e publicly opposed attacking Iraq - a smart political move." This ignores all the facts. When Dean took that position, the war was widely popular. Anyone questioning Bush's rush to war endured condemnation for undermining national security, even treason!

CounterPunch may not care to admit this, but at that early date no one considered Dean's leadership against the war "smart" or "political." Most pundits considered it political suicide. Many still do. Some Democrats and nearly all Republicans still ridicule Dean's boldness on this issue. It overshadows the rest of his platform, and influential opinion-makers say it might even disqualify Dean from becoming Commander in Chief.

Months later, with events proving Dean's predictions, he may breathe a sigh of relief. This only after taking a courageous stand on principle and withstanding harsh criticism which persists daily. If opposing the war really is a ticket to political success, why isn't the equally anti-war Dennis Kucinich benefiting equally? No, calling Dean's strong, principles over politics anti-war stance a "smart political move" is dumb (or dishonest) political analysis. Unfortunately that's just the beginning.

Adding insincerity to inaccuracy, CounterPunch reduces Dean's opposition to the war to a single factor: "Dean's basic objection to the war was to the Bush administrations unilateral approach." To mislead this way, CounterPunch has to ignore Dean's real position as explained five months ago in: Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong. In that article (published at Common Dreams April 17, 2003) Dean responded to misrepresentations about his position:

When Congress approved the President’s authorization to go to war in Iraq – no matter how well-intentioned – it was giving the green light to the President to set his Doctrine of preemptive war in motion. It now appears that Iraq was just the first step. Already, the Bush Administration is apparently eyeing Syria and Iran as the next countries on its target list. The Bush Doctrine must be stopped here.

Many in Congress who voted for this resolution should have known better. On September 23, 2002, Al Gore cautioned in his speech in San Francisco that “if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.” And that is why it was such a big mistake for Congress to allow the president to set this dangerous precedent.

Too much is at stake. We have taken decades of consensus on the conduct of foreign policy – bipartisan consensus in the United States and consensus among our allies in the world community – and turned it on its head. It could well take decades to repair the damage this President and his cohort of right-wing ideological advisors have done to our standing in the international community.

Theirs is a radical view of our role in the world. The President who campaigned on a platform of a humble foreign policy has instead begun implementing a foreign policy characterized by dominance, arrogance and intimidation. The tidal wave of support and goodwill that engulfed us after the tragedy of 9/11 has dried up and been replaced by undercurrents of distrust, skepticism and hostility by many who had been among our closest allies.

This unilateral approach to foreign policy is a disaster. All of the challenges facing the United States – from winning the war on terror and containing weapons of mass destruction to building an open world economy and protecting the global environment – can only be met by working with our allies. A renegade, go-it-alone approach will be doomed to failure, because these challenges know no boundaries.

True, Dean explains Bush was wrong to wage a pre-emptive war, but he goes into much greater depth exposing the fatal flaws in Bush's Iraq policies. Dean criticizes Bush for abandoing centuries of sound, moral US traditions, violating international law and antagonizing our allies. Alone among the major candidates, Dean attacks Bush for lying about the basis for his attack, and explains in great detail how the "Bush Doctrine" violates American values and betrays our national interest.

CounterPunch's contradictions of fact amount to reckless disregard for the truth and don't even make sense chronologically. Dean's "basic objections" - note the plural - date back before Bush's invasion happened, before we knew it would be unilateral. Here is a basic summary of Dean's actual, comprehensive views on the topic:

"It only becomes more and more clear every day what a mistake this administration made in launching a pre-emptive war in Iraq. The evidence mounts that not only did the Administration mislead the American people and the world in making its case for war but that it failed to plan adequately for the peace."

Dean not only criticizes every aspect of Bush's war policies, he also stresses Bush failed to plan for peace. The Joint Chiefs of Staff report verifies everything Dean says in this regard. There's even more to Dean's nuanced views on this issue. So much for the one-note tune CounterPunch dishonestly claims Dean plays.

CounterPunch also misleads by cleverly twisting facts and statements, relying on this illogical construction like: "Dean has endorsed the Bush doctrine of preventive war, saying that he would not rule out...." We already know Dean denounces the Bush Doctrine, and saying someone would not "rule out" something then claiming he "endorses" it is manipulative to the point of lying. This is vintage CounterPunch.

"'Sounding very much like Bush, Dean has charged that Iran (along with Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Libya) are 'funding Palestinian terrorists and fueling terrorism throughout the world.'"

As shown above, Dean criticized the Bush Administration "[E]yeing Syria and Iran as the next countries on its target list." Also, while Bush shrinks from connecting the dots between Al Qaeda and the Saudis, Dean is factually correct. Those nations are funding terrorists. Why would CounterPunch side against Dean and with Bush on coddling the Saudis, then claim Dean is too much like Bush?

If Bush says it's Tuesday on Tuesday, is Dean wrong to say the same? CounterPunch agrees with Bush when he's wrong, then demands that Dean deny facts because Bush occasionally tells a half-truth. Speaking of half truths, CounterPunch keeps insisting Dean is a Bush Clone by linking Dean's policies to moderate Republican Governor Snelling's in Vermont. This would be fair only if Yankee Republicans were as right wing as Bush's and Tom DeLay's Texas extremists. Talk about "The laughter rings most loudly in Vermont!"

"Domestic Policy Dean the Democrat continued to pursue much of the economic agenda established by his Republican predecessor, Richard Snelling In short, this meant a tepid pro-business policy under the guise of fiscal conservatism, often at the expense of social programs serving disadvantaged populations."

In reality, Dean expanded health care to nearly universal, improved education, upgraded services, and helped create 10,000s of jobs, all while balancing the budget. Again, CounterPunch is just wrong on the facts, but note their clever use of terms like "much of " and "under the guise of." Was Dean too fiscally conservative or was he just pretending? In its over-eagerness to attack Dean and mislead its readers, CounterPunch hammers Dean two opposite ways at once.

As for "Michael Colby's excellent review of Dean's environmental misbehavior," CounterPunch is using the term "excellent" in a new and highly unusual way. Colby's screed against Dean - the most anti-Bush and most viable anti-war Democrat - appeared in "Counter Punch."

This is no shock, as CounterPunch is a stalking horse publication known for attacking the most viable liberal and progressive candidates when it matters - including the late Paul Wellstone during his final campaign. They do rant against Republicans - but generally in midterm when it matters least.

Michael Colby joined in publicly endorsing Bush over Gore on July 20, 2000 when he signed on to this proposition:

"[E]ven having George W. Bush in the White House will
lead to better protection for nature and wildlife than we
would expect from Al Gore.'"

Did Colby really publicly endorse that view? Yes he did. Colby, as part of ENVIRONMENTALISTS AGAINST GORE, reassured voters:

"If George W. Bush wins the election, then at least we
could expect the national environmental community to
really fight, at least a bit, for tougher pollution
enforcement and genuine protection of nature...."

If that doesn't explain Colby's views clearly enough, consider his shared statement:

"More than fifty environmental leaders from 18 states
announced today the formation of ENVIRONMENTALISTS
AGAINST GORE, and urged people who care about
protecting Nature in America to listen to their
conscience and vote for anyone for President other
than Democratic candidate Al Gore." [and]

"All the environmental leaders supporting the
organization released this statement: 'Many of our
members support Ralph Nader, and others believe that
even having George W. Bush in the White House will
lead to better protection for nature and wildlife than
we would expect from Al Gore.'"

Colby and friends assured us putting Bush in the White House would "lead to better protection for nature and wildlife than we would expect from Al Gore." So they demanded that people who "care about protecting Nature in America" should vote for Bush, Buchanan, Harry Browne -- "anyone for President other than Democratic candidate Al Gore." Now that we can see just how well this strategy is working out, we should place Colby's current advice and insights into proper perspective.

See: ENVIRONMENTALISTS AGAINST GORE, press release, http://migreens.org/spoiler/gore-env.txt

Does Colby still think the Bush regime is better for the environment than Al Gore would have been? Hard to say. Maybe he's seen the (green) light, by now? However, I see little reason for hope in his "if you put a gun to my head" lukewarm praise for Rep. Kucinich or his past comments attacking the most liberal Democrats even including Paul Wellstone:

Ties to Counter Punch aside, Colby has been defaming liberal Democrats with factually inaccurate attacks for years. In 1997, he blasted all Democrats who he claims "all but" sold their souls. He declared all Democrats "ideologically bankrupt" -- too tainted to support. Why? Because they *gasp* spent money trying to win elections, and *shudder* supported duly elected President Bill Clinton's "shameless presidency." Is this a reference to sexual McCarthyism?

It might be a broadside against all the peace and prosperity of the Clinton / Gore years which compelled Colby to urge voters to support anyone but Al Gore in 2000. Colby even presaged St. Clair and Cockburn when he bashed Paul Wellstone with this misstatement:

"[A]ll of them, yes, even your favorite son Wellstone, had to all but sell their souls to raise millions upon millions of dollars, much of it from corporate sources...." See: Colby's letter to The Progressive Populist: http://www.populist.com/1.97.Letters.html for the complete text of Colby's anti-Wellstone attacks.

Colby has every right to endorse and support Bush and otherwise help the right wing while attacking people like Wellstone and Dean as "ideologically bankrupt" or "not even a liberal." Hypocrisy isn't illegal, and Colby is a master at it.

It's easy to see Colby's hysterical attack against his former governor: Meet Howard Dean, The Man from Vermont is Not Green (He's Not Even a Liberal), is typical overheated, dishonest vituperation from Colby. Of course Democrat Dean never claimed or implied he was a Green, and the same could be said about Colby's dream candidate, Ralph Nader who is also neither a liberal nor a member of the Green Party.

With "sources" like "excellent" Democrat hater Michael Colby, of course this CounterPunch article ends up attacking Dean dishonestly. I could go line by line to expose all the bias and BS, but it's tedious and pointless. I've already exposed the main thrust as rubbish. The rest only follows at least as dismally.

Usually I don't rely on consideration of the person making charges in order to debunk them, but in this case the points are so vague and based on such tenuous but highly charged innuendo, CounterPunch insists we just take their word for their accuracy. So it's important to evaluate the accusers. Are they credible based on their past record?

In this case, I'd have to say no. CounterPunch's "journalism" as practiced by Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn is notable mainly for attacking the most viable progressive in every campaign. These two main CounterPunchers wrote the definitive anti-Gore book right wingers used to hammer Gore in 2000. Right wing website "NewsMax" (run by Richard M. Scaife and Chris Ruddy) touted this book entitled "Al Gore: A User's Manual" and featured quotes from it including:

"Al Gore distills in his single person the disrepair of liberalism in America today, and almost every unalluring feature of the Democratic Party."

"What sort of a man is Al Gore? What's his real political record? Inside these pages, you will find: Al Gore has relentlessly exploited his sister's death and son's accident for personal political advantage. Al Gore became a soul brother of Newt Gingrich. Al Gore race-baited Jesse Jackson and introduced George Bush to Willie Horton. Al Gore shopped his vote in support of the Gulf War to get prime-time coverage for his speech. Al Gore pushed Clinton into destroying the New Deal. Al Gore plotted to stop Democrats from recapturing Congress in 1996 in order to keep his rival Dick Gephard [sic] from becoming Speaker of the House."

All of the above statements are outright lies, intended to damage Al Gore. Let's take the last first. If Gephardt were Speaker of the House in 1997, he would have been LESS likely to run against Al Gore. The charge that Gore would sabotage Democratic efforts in 1996 is insane, especially from people who actually do sabotage Democratic efforts in every election.

Al Gore never "pushed Bill Clinton into destroying the New Deal." It remains undestroyed - for now - no thanks to Cockburn and St. Clair efforts to empower the right wing. Social Security and the rest of it. It's still there. For now.

Despite false accusations from the confirmed liar former Sen. Alan Simpson and other RNC/GOP talking pointers, Senators on both sides of the issue confirm Gore never "shopped his vote" on the Gulf War. This became a fond lie used by right wingers against Gore in 2000 thanks to CounterPunchers Cockburn and St. Clair.

Al Gore never "race baited" Jesse Jackson - who unlike the CounterPunch Bunch enthusiastically supported Al Gore in 2000. Gore never mentioned the name "Willie Horton" in debates against Michael Dukakis and other Democrats in 1998, much less "introduced" him. This accusation is another RNC talking point to provide cover for GHW Bush and Lee Atwater's blatantly racist attack ads. As usual, Cockburn and St. Clair help right wingers escape consequences for their vicious and immoral actions by falsely accusing Democrats of similar outrages.

As a side point, Naderites like Cockburn and St. Clair don't admit Ralph Nader introduced America to the so-called "Whitewater scandal" when he told Jerry Brown to attack Hillary Clinton by bringing it up during the 1992 debates.  (See the documentary "The War Room.) When it comes to dirty politics, Republicans can do nothing too disgusting for the CounterPunch crew to defend.

Al Gore was never Newt Gingrich's "soul brother." The two were bitter rivals long before Gore became Clinton's VP, and their animosity only increased after Gingrich became House Speaker. Gingrich launched a slew of vicious attacks on Al Gore, and led the right wing opposition to Clinton / Gore policies.

Al Gore didn't "relentlessly exploit" personal tragedies for his "personal political advantage." It's disgusting to make such a dishonest, hurtful, and personal attack. But again, nothing is too vile or disgusting for Cockburn and St. Clair if it helps right wing Republicans beat liberals, progressives and Democrats. As usual, the truth is opposite the CounterPunch counter-factual.

Al Gore did mention his sister's death to cancer at the Democratic Convention, but he rarely discussed these matters in public. Al Gore's son's nearly fatal accident in a Baltimore parking lot knocked him out of the 1992 Presidential Race, and made him question his future in politics. This event and soul-searching led him to write his book Earth in the Balance which right wingers attacked as radical environmentalism.

In their vile little book called Al Gore a User's Manual, St. Clair and Cockburn lashed out at Al Gore with dozens of equally unfair and inaccurate slams, including vile personal attacks against Al Gore's elderly mother, his wife, and even his children. That exposes St. Clair and Cockburn as vicious, Lee Atwater / Karl Rove / Rush Limbaugh type liars. Their rabid, reckless attack book didn't contain a single footnote or endnote to permit verification of their accusations. Not one.

I wrote to CounterPunch, demanding explanations, but all I got were several amusingly petulant emails from Jeffrey St. Clair featuring pedestrian vulgarity and threats to sue me. They refused to respond to any of the points I made:

For example, your publication "CounterPunch" and its founders Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair handed the Rush Limbaughs and Bill Bennetts of the world a “guide” to the character assassination of Al Gore. I recently examined the book and was shocked at the childish level of attacks.

The book opened with a stream of accusations and insults unsubstantiated in the book's text. While failing to offer any proof for most of its most important contentions, the authors found time and space to attack Gore repeatedly - and even savaged his wife and kids! I refer specifically to allegations the Gore children are drug addicts and snide insinuations about Tipper Gore's fight against clinical depression.

I searched in vain for any footnotes or sourcing legitimate nonfiction books usually provide. The hysterical vindictiveness in this book was far beneath the muckraking level. So much so that not even Limbaugh et al would touch much of it. Al Gore has warts and flaws, but he was clearly a far more progressive candidate than extreme right winger Bush. Why didn't Cockburn and St. Clair write a book targeting Bush or at least one examining both Gore AND Bush?

As if to dispel any question of their efficacy and intentions, the CounterPunch bunch savaged Paul Wellstone in 2002 before his tragic death. Wellstone deserved defeat according to these “progressives,” and as we all know only Bush’s hand-picked candidate Norman Coleman (who eventually beat Walter Mondale) could beat Wellstone.

What does that say about Cockburn and St. Clair and who these purported progressives hoped would win that seat? What does that say about who they hoped would run the Senate, approve judicial nominees, and all the rest? Certainly not anyone who would even occasionally deny Bush and the right wing anything.

Can you please explain why "CounterPunch" only seems to punch out the more progressive viable candidates in every election if they're supposedly a progressive publication? Where does "CounterPunch" get its funding? Who calls the "CounterPunch" shots which assassinate the character of those who stand up to the right wing?

Of course all this counter punching hurts progressives and empowers right wing candidates. CounterPunch is too busy helping the right wing by attacking Howard Dean and other good candidates to respond to me or rethink the consequences of their nihilistic, cynical campaign of disinformation.

Some claim "Counter Punch" is secretly funded by the CIA. Bob Feldman traced CounterPunch funding to alleged CIA fronts and identified (former) CIA agents who work closely with the publication. When I asked Counter Punch for comment, I was shocked by the authoritarian threats and whiff of paranoia in St. Clair's responses (in email I've saved in case he follows through on his threats to sue me for writing this).

St. Clair's string of bizarre rants and escalating threats of legal action if I broached the subject in public - along with St. Clair's and Cockburn's record for undermining viable candidates hostile to the CIA - make me wonder if the CounterPunch duo really are trying to hide something?

I reserve judgment as to whether they wittingly further the CIA agenda. It's probably much more likely they're unwitting tools of the NeoCons as their rabid radicalism leaves them open to manipulation. Still, the CounterPunch website verifies at least some of Feldman's findings. Some of its regular contributors work[ed] for the CIA.

Do (former) CIA operatives have the right to write for supposedly leftist magazines? Of course. It's a free country, despite best efforts from people CounterPunch helped seize power - like Bush and Ashcroft.

Do so-called leftist publications have every right to accept CIA money and publish CIA counter-intel - even hire (former) CIA officials - possibly in return for such funding? Of course they do. As I mentioned, hypocrisy is not a crime.

CounterPunch's writers and editors were either too lazy to do real research - on candidates like Al Gore, Paul Wellstone, and Howard Dean - or too dishonest to report fairly. Maybe they're just intent on keeping right wingers in power. Those also aren't crimes, however, wise readers consider the source regarding anything from CounterPunch.