[Peace-discuss] DN! acquiesces to belligerent Obama foreignpolicy?

Sun Feb 26 11:32:45 CST 2012

I think you're right, David. There needs to be more Democracy, Now! from the listeners themselves.

Nevertheless, after all the crowing about not being embedded in Iraq, their correspondent was basically embedded in Libya. And sometimes the personal aspect of a story overwhelms any analysis of the larger issue that the story might address. And the occasional indulgence in identity politics. In other words, all of the occupational hazards of "progressivism."

For starters, they need to have a vigorous and honest debate about Ron Paul, pro and con regarding various aspects, and the libertarian movement itself, including charges of racism. They haven't touched it, I don't think, which is pretty symptomatic. Kind of like the mainstream media.

DG

>________________________________
> From: David Johnson <dlj725 at hughes.net>
>To: Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> 
>Cc: Peace-discuss List <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> 
>Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 11:14 AM
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] DN! acquiesces to belligerent Obama foreignpolicy?
>  
>We probably shouldn't " throw the baby out with the bath water " in regards to Democray Now just yet.
>I had concerns with their coverage of the NATO led and supported " resistence " in Libya months ago with their on the ground correspondent who seemed semi-embedded with the so called " resistence " to Khadafi. Later however there were critical guests.
>
>pseudo debates are a disturbing development with D,N., but nevertheless at this point in time, compared to the rest of the corporate media and D.N.'s increasing availability to the public, maybe we viewers should complain in mass instead of switching off.
>
>David J.
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
>To: "Ricky Baldwin" <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
>Cc: <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 9:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] DN! acquiesces to belligerent Obama foreignpolicy?
>
>
>It's certainly correct to see the Obama administration's behavior as
>no departure from liberal imperialism ("over 100 years old now"), in
>spite of the lies of his presidential campaign(s).
>
>But (without checking) I don't recall DN! ever hosting false debates
>on, "Shall we attack Kosovo now, or later?"  My memory is that Goodman
>treated Clinton with the contempt he deserved.
>
>(My contribution to those dear, dead days: "Japan Bombs New Mexico" <https://files.nyu.edu/emf202/public/bd/newswriting.html
>>.)
>
>Obama became president in 2008 in part by co-opting (and effectively
>lying to) the antiwar movement. ("McCain would expand the war!")
>
>He's working hard to be re-elected by doing the same to the Occupy
>movement - while continuing with "liberal imperialism."
>
>We can hope that he'll be driven from office, as Vietnam-era
>presidents were, in spite of covert support from the likes of DN!
>
>Walsh may be right: "It looks like it’s time to abandon Goodman and
>switch to Alyona" <http://rt.com/programs/alyona-show/>.
>
>
>On Feb 25, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
>
>> This is a lot like the split among the "progressives" over Kosovo. I think it's ridiculously broad to say that there is some "movement"  that has "abandoned" an anti-war position, though. This kind of  liberal imperialism is over 100 years old now and very resilient.  "Progressives" are a big enough tent to hide them in plain sight  decade after decade. They are to be criticized, but never confused  with the antiwar left.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>> 
>> 
>> From: Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>;
>> To: Peace Discuss <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>;
>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] DN! acquiesces to belligerent Obama foreign policy?
>> Sent: Sat, Feb 25, 2012 8:35:59 PM
>> 
>> Progressives Embrace Humanitarian Imperialism – Again
>> 
>> DemocracyNow! Hosts a Non-debate on Syria
>> 
>> by John V. Walsh, February 25, 2012
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> "Foreign Intervention in Syria? A Debate with Joshua Landis and  Karam Nachar." promised the headline on DemocracyNow! of 2/22.   Eagerly I tuned in, hoping to hear a thorough exposé of the  machinations of the US Empire in Syria on its march to Iran.
>> 
>> But this was neither exposé nor debate.  Both sides, Landis and  Nachar, were pro-intervention for "humanitarian" reasons.  Nor did  the host Amy Goodman or her co-host take these worthies to task for  their retrograde views on imperial military action against a  sovereign nation that had made no attack on the US.  It was yet one  more sign that the "progressive" movement in the West has largely  abandoned its antiwar, anti-intervention stance.
>> 
>> The segment began with a clip of John McCain advocating yet another  war, for the good of the Syrians of course, bombing them to save  them.  The first guest was Joshua Landis, a prof in Oklahoma whose  bio tells us that he "regularly travels to Washington DC to consult  with the State Department and other government agencies."   The  other agencies are not specified, but he speaks at the Council on  Foreign Relations and similar venues. Professor Landis represents  the anti-intervention voice in the universe of Amy Goodman, but his  opening words manifested the limits of that universe: "Well, I’m not  opposed to helping the (Syrian) opposition." He continued, "The  problem right now, the dangers right now with arming the opposition,  is that we’re not sure who to arm."
>> 
>> Confused, I thought surely the next guest would be the anti- interventionist.  He was Karam Nachar "cyber-activist" and Princeton Ph.D. candidate, working with Syrian "protesters" via "social media platforms." That means he is safely ensconced in New Jersey far from where U.S. bombs would fall.  Perhaps this fellow would say loud and clear the Syrians did not need the interference of the West, did not  need sanctions to starve them nor bombs to pulverize their cities.   Perhaps he would laud the Chinese/Russian proposal for both sides to  stop firing and to negotiate a solution.
>> 
>> But he did not.  He also was for intervention by the West.  And he  did not think the disorganization of the opposition, cited by  Landis, justified hesitation or delay in arming that opposition.   That and not any principled anti-interventionism  distinguished the  two sides in this "debate."   Said the cyber-activist: "Well, to  start with, I disagree with Professor Landis’s portrayal of the  situation with the Syrian opposition. It is true that, for instance,  in the Syrian National Council, there are a lot of disagreements.  But (the opposition is) still frustrated with the leadership of the  Syrian National Council because of its inability to solicit more  international support…. And I believe that the State Department,  Secretary Clinton and the American administration is heading towards  that. … It’s going to require a lot of money and a lot of courage  and a lot of involvement on the part of the international
 community.  (Emphasis, JW)
>> 
>> And then the boy cyber-activist got nasty:  "I am just a little wary  that this overemphasis on how leaderless the Syrian opposition is  actually a tactic being used of people who actually do not want the  regime to be overthrown and who have always actually defended the  legitimacy of the Syrian regime, and especially of Bashar al- Assad."  There it is.  Even if one is for intervention in principle,  no delay is to be countenanced. Such people are surely on the side  of Bashar Al-Assad.
>> 
>> This is the kind of "debate" we get on "progressive" media outlets.   It is not even a debate about whether there should be imperial  intervention, once completely verboten on the Left, but when and  under what circumstances military intervention should occur.  This  phony debate should simply be ignored whether it appears on  DemocracyNow! or on NPR, increasingly indistinguishable in content  and outlook or anywhere else. For a principled explanation of anti- interventionism one can look to Jean Bricmont on the Left or Ron  Paul and Justin Raimondo on the libertarian side.
>> 
>> In fairness to Amy Goodman, just a few weeks back on February 7, she hosted the British writer and long time student of Syria, Patrick  Seale. Said Seale: "I believe dialogue is the only way out of this.  And indeed, the Russians have suggested to both sides to come to  Moscow and start a dialogue. But the opposition says, ‘No, we can’t  dialogue with Bashar al-Assad. He must be toppled first.’ Well,  that’s a dangerous — a dangerous position to adopt." That interview  is well worth reading.  And Goodman would do well to stick with that  instead of shifting over to empty debates between interventionism  now versus interventionism later. After repeatedly hosting the CIA  consultant Juan Cole to cheer the cruel war on Libya, Goodman now  seems to be going down the same path with Syria.  It is a sad  spectacle and one more indication of how little the "progressives"  in the West understand the nature of Humanitarian Imperialism
 which  uses human rights to sell war.  It looks like it’s time to abandon  Goodman and switch to Alyona.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Obama Commits to US Intervention in Syria US Can't Be Bystander, President Insists
>> by Jason Ditz, February 24, 2012
>> In a White House speech today, President Obama committed to  continued US intervention in Syria, saying that the US would “beef  up its role” and would not allow itself to be “bystanders during  these extraordinary events.”
>> 
>> The “how” for US intervention remains an open question, but the administration seems to be doing anything and everything it can to  make sure the US is insinuated into every conceivable part of the  ongoing civil war.
>> 
>> Publicly, it has meant endorsing a UN invasion of Syria as well as joining the “Friends of Syria” group that is talking openly about  the prospect of funneling arms to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) faction  of defectors.
>> 
>> The much scarier question is the unanswerable one of what is going  on behind the scenes. While the administration is continuing to  reject the notion that there will be an overt US invasion, it has  also shown more-than-usual interest in interfering in this  particular Arab Spring uprising. It is difficult, when intervention  is being endorsed so openly, to rule anything out.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ###
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss 
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120226/30694dde/attachment-0001.html>