[Peace-discuss] Sunday NYT: What to think

[David Green]

I looked on Common Dreams to see if they featured Rich's Sunday dose, as they usually do. Instead, they have a relevant article by Robert Parry:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/28-4

But left-liberal outlets like this show no sign of unmasking liberal fulminators like Rich. They're still somewhat beholden to MoveOn.

DG




________________________________
From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
To: David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
Cc: Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Sun, February 28, 2010 1:27:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Sunday NYT: What to think

This is scary mainstream stuff indeed, and certainly should be taken seriously.

It does show how worried the liberal establishment is about the popular discontent represented by the Tea Party movement. (Don't these people know enough to leave politics to their betters?)

Worse, the liberal paper of record continues on its campaign in support of Mideast war - nothing new there, it's been down with the program for many a day - but also I think sees it as a cover for Obama's elite-favoring domestic policies ("Don't you know there's a war on?"), both directly and via deficit-hawkery.

Of course even the imminent disappearance of the NYT won't do much god.  The cure for the Times' bad speech is more speech, not less. We should be attacking directly the Times liberal prevarications and misrepresentations, as you do here.  --CGE

David Green wrote:
> Many elite Americans--mostly liberals--read the Sunday NYT in order to be told what to think. Today Frank Rich told them that the Tea Party movement has no basis in genuine dissatisfaction, including antiwar sentiment (foreign policy is not mentioned in the article). Liberal Rich throws in his lot with the "mainstream" GOP perspective:
>  "No less an establishment conservative observer than the Wall Street Journal editorialist Dorothy Rabinowitz describes Paul’s followers <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071330757893248.html> as “conspiracy theorists, anti-government zealots, 9/11 truthers, and assorted other cadres of the obsessed and deranged.”"
>  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28rich.html?ref=opinion
>  From Israeli Ephraim Karsh, we get a racist view of the Islamic world, and the case for an attack on Iran:
>  
> "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s two-track plan — discussion with Tehran while at the same time lining up meaningful sanctions — is fine as far as it goes. But a military strike must remain a serious option: there is no peaceful way to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, stemming as they do from its imperialist brand of national-Islamism."
> 
>  
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28karsh.html?ref=opinion
> 
>  
> This is scary "mainstream" stuff, and should be taken seriously.
> 
>  
> DG
> 
> 
> 
> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss



      
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100228/d4737874/attachment.html>