[Peace-discuss] The Nation praises Obama's war propaganda

[E.Wayne Johnson]

When Karl Rove and the Nation are saying similar things, the notion of a 
functional choice between the evil party and the stupid party really seems 
to disintegrate into an unbroken stream of stupid and evil imperialism.  I 
really expected better from Nichols for sure.

Re:  "humility and grace."

usage of words like this makes me run for the dictionary to make sure that 
the meaning of the words had not changed while I was away doing something 
and not paying attention.

regarding grace - I must say that I surely disagree...

on humility---
Some wise guy copped out and wrote that humility was the state of being 
humble.  I thought while going to "humble", that "humiliating" might have 
been a good descriptor.  I find that humble is derived from humus.  {hu·mus: 
the dark organic material in soils, produced by the decomposition of 
vegetable or animal matter and essential to the fertility of the earth} 
Here is something that we can agree on.  As Cindy Sheehan exclaimed, "Bull 
Shit!"




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
To: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 3:10 PM
Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Nation praises Obama's war propaganda


> ...Hastening to align itself with the imperialist establishment and 
> declare its support for [Obama's "Peace Prize"] speech was the Nation 
> magazine, the main organ of what passes for “left” liberalism. John 
> Nichols, one of the magazine’s principal commentators, in a blog entry 
> published almost immediately after the speech and featured as the lead 
> item on the magazine’s web site, wrote that it was "an exceptionally 
> well-reasoned and appropriately humble address."
>
> Nichols gushed, "The president's frankness about the controversies and 
> concerns regarding the award of a Peace Prize to a man who just last week 
> ordered 30,000 US new troops into the Afghanistan quagmire, and the 
> humility he displayed ... offered a glimpse of Obama at his best."
>
> "As such," he continued, "the speech was important and, dare we say, 
> hopeful."
>
> In an interview on National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” news 
> program, the Nation’s editor, Katrina vanden Heuvel, praised the speech’s 
> supposed "humility and grace." The host of the show, evidently expecting 
> more criticism, noted that vanden Heuvel "seemed to be resolving the 
> conflict between the wartime president ... and the speech about peace 
> rather easily...”
>
> Vanden Heuvel responded with blather about the "complexity" of American 
> life. It was a "complex speech," she said, and she was "interested in its 
> complexity."
>
> Contrary to vanden Heuvel, there was nothing “humble” or “graceful” about 
> Obama’s speech. Nor was it complex. It was an open brief for unrestrained 
> aggression and colonial oppression.
>
> There should be no confusion as to the position of the Nation and the 
> privileged upper-middle-class layers for which the magazine speaks, 
> including former radicals and one-time critics of US imperialism. They 
> have moved squarely into the camp of American imperialism. They support 
> Obama’s wars in Central Asia and Iraq and, more generally, the efforts of 
> the United States to assert global hegemony.
>
> In the run-up to the 2008 elections, the Nation was among the most 
> enthusiastic supporters of the Obama campaign, presenting his victory as 
> the first stage in a radical reform and revitalization of American 
> democracy. It vouched for Obama’s supposedly antiwar credentials.
>
> One year later, the candidate of “change” and “hope” presides over a 
> right-wing administration that is expanding US military aggression while 
> it bails out Wall Street and attacks the jobs and living standards of the 
> working class.
>
> The unmasking of Obama before the entire world has not in any way lessened 
> the support he receives from the Nation. On the contrary, the coming to 
> power of an African-American president has served as the vehicle for 
> American liberalism, including its supposedly “left” wing, which long ago 
> abandoned any serious reform agenda and rejected class as the basic 
> category of social life in favor of race, gender and other categories of 
> identity politics, to lurch further to the right.
>
> It has provided the means by which the Nation has completed its passage 
> into the camp of American imperialism and political reaction.
>
> Remarking on Obama’s speech, Walter Russell Mead, the Henry Kissinger 
> senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, remarked, “If Bush had 
> said these things the world would be filled with violent denunciations. 
> When Obama says them, people purr.”
>
> The “purring” of the Nation comes at a time of growing popular opposition 
> to the Obama administration and its policies. In his speech, Obama himself 
> made reference to the fact that his expansion of war is deeply unpopular, 
> noting the “disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the 
> ambivalence of the population.” He made clear, however, that this 
> “disconnect” will have absolutely no effect on the policy of his 
> government.
>
> What will happen as the “disconnect” turns into anger and opposition? How 
> will the Nation respond? Its greatest concern is the growth of a political 
> movement that breaks free of the Democratic Party...
>
>
> From <http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_57791.shtml>; the 
> whole article is worth reading.
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>