Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Foreign Affairs
Related: About this forumNYT Reverses on Merits of "Perpetual War"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/NYT-Reverses-on-Merits-of-by-Norman-Solomon-Military_New-York-Times_Orwellian_Perpetual-War-140911-447.htmlNYT Reverses on Merits of "Perpetual War"
By Norman Solomon
OpEdNews Op Eds 9/11/2014 at 13:29:53
The editorial board of the New York Times has an Orwellian knack for war. Sixteen months ago, when President Barack Obama gave oratorical lip service to ending "perpetual war," the newspaper quickly touted that end as a democratic necessity. But now -- in response to Obama's speech Wednesday night announcing escalation of war without plausible end -- the Times editorial voice is with the endless war program.
Under the headline "The End of the Perpetual War," published on May 23, 2013, the Times was vehement, calling a new Obama speech "the most important statement on counter-terrorism policy since the 2001 attacks, a momentous turning point in post-9/11 America." The editorial added: "For the first time, a president stated clearly and unequivocally that the state of perpetual warfare that began nearly 12 years ago is unsustainable for a democracy and must come to an end in the not-too-distant future."
The Times editorial board was sweeping in its conclusion: "Mr. Obama told the world that the United States must return to a state in which counterterrorism is handled, as it always was before 2001, primarily by law enforcement and the intelligence agencies. That shift is essential to preserving the democratic system and rule of law for which the United States is fighting, and for repairing its badly damaged global image."
But the "essential" shift is now dispensable and forgettable, judging from the New York Times editorial that appeared hours after Obama's pivotal speech Wednesday night. The newspaper's editorial board has ditched the concept that the state of perpetual war is unsustainable for democracy.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 529 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYT Reverses on Merits of "Perpetual War" (Original Post)
unhappycamper
Sep 2014
OP
CanonRay
(14,101 posts)1. As long as we try to maintain our "influence" (read Empire)
in the world, we're going to be in a state of perpetual war. I used to have a dog that stuck her nose in every hole in the ground, until she got her nose bit enough to cure her of the habit.
I thought we had a chance to terminate this impossible idea under Obama, but the forces arrayed to maintain it are far too strong, and control too much of the government and media. We stuck in an endless loop.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)2. Disturbing to imagine a pro-MIC faction might do something so awful
as personally affecting the media by having journalists killed so atrociously and publicly so that the media then manipulate public opinion for war. No, that just couldn't work, could it?