Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: stanz
What exactly or inexactly did Eric Altmen do?....
2 posted on 03/18/2003 11:57:02 AM PST by oust the louse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: oust the louse
Learn all about Eric Alterman here

He's an effing moron!

9 posted on 03/18/2003 12:02:25 PM PST by BufordP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: oust the louse
Here's the text. But the thread was just pulled 30 minutes ago. It must have been due to some comments I missed.

I PREFER THE OLD ONE When George Bush took office in January 2001, he did not have majority support of the nation or the legitimacy of a genuine winner, but he did have a nation at relative peace, a budget in surplus, a Dow Jones Industrial Average that was approximately 30 percent higher than it is today, a nation with most of our civil liberties intact and the good opinion of much of the world, particularly our NATO allies. That America is gone forever now. And while much of the changes that ensued can be laid at the feet of Al-Qaeda and the attacks of 9/11, a great many of them are merely the result of the Bush Administration’s unconscionable but successful exploitation of that tragedy.

We are now about to enter a world in which the values we practice are pre-emptive war, fiscal indiscipline, domestic theocracy and the good opinion of human kind be damned. Since 9/11, Bush and company have done almost everything possible to alienate the world and inspire more terrorists to hate us, despite the initial wellspring of sympathy and solidarity the attacks inspired worldwide. Meanwhile, for all its collective bluster, the Bush crowd has done almost nothing to protect the nation from the entirely predictable consequences of their folly and the hatred we have engendered across the Islamic and Arab worlds. (Read this incredible TNR story on homeland security by Jonathan Chait if you doubt my word.)

All I can say at this deeply depressing moment in our history is that may Providence have mercy on our nation and those who are about to become the victims of our misguided crusade, and may its beneficiaries in Iraq make the most of it.

REWRITING THE HEADLINES

Meanwhile, what’s up with newspaper headline writers misportraying poll results to pretend that Bush has somehow managed to convince the country that this war is necessary? Yahoo News, for instance, headlines this Associated Press story, Poll: Bush Has Solid Support for War. That’s total nonsense. Just read the go**dam thing. Bush has “solid support” if and only if he has the support of the United Nations Security Council. He does not. Without the Security Council, support for the war falls to 47 percent. Fewer than 50 percent support that war, which happens to be the one he is launching. A more accurate headline would be, “Bush launches war despite clear opposition of majority of nation, world.” This USA Today story is also a bit misleading in its headline, though nowhere nearly as badly as the AP story on Yahoo.

Here are some important stories from over the weekend. A few of these needed better headlines, too. So I helped out.

New York Times: “Anger on Iraq Seen as New Qaeda Recruiting Tool.”

Washington Post: “Striking Iraq Could Fuel Further Attacks on U.S.”

Washington Post: “U.S. Missteps Led to Failed Diplomacy.”

Washington Post: “U.S. Lacks Specifics on Banned Arms.”

LA Times: “Democracy Domino Theory ‘Not Credible:’ A State Department report disputes Bush’s claim that ousting Hussein will spur reforms in the Mideast, intelligence officials say.”

Washington Post: “US Media Helps to Mislead Public, Sucks Up to Bush Administration,” (Um, I wrote that headline. Theirs was “We Don’t Even Agree On What’s Newsworthy”)

New York Times: My Headline: “Bush Administration Alienates Entire World with War Obsession.” (Their hed: “A Long, Winding Road to a Diplomatic Dead End” ) Same headline as above from The American Prospect.

And here Perry Anderson expertly dissects what he terms “The Casuistries of Peace and War.”

UP-TO-DATE

In a spot of nice news, at least in my house, everything I am pleased to report is still up-to-date in Kansas City. Also in Times Square.

I am still scheduled to be on “The Daily Show” tonight. On Tuesday, The Nation is sponsoring a “What Liberal Media?” panel at 7 pm at City University of New York on Fifth Avenue, moderated by Patricia Williams, featuring Janeane Garafolo, Stanley Crouch, Grover Norquist, Ira Stoll and me. (See even The Nation stacks its panels to the right). It will be crowded, so get there early if you want to go. I’ll be signing books afterward. Also, I’ll also be appearing on BBC 4 on the war on Friday at 7:30 PM

22 posted on 03/18/2003 12:11:52 PM PST by stanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: oust the louse
Who is Eric Neuterdman?
42 posted on 03/18/2003 8:43:44 PM PST by VeniVidiVici
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson