During a mid-September interview on The Real News Network, Norman Solomon discussed the challenges for progressives in the current electoral arena. To watch, click here.

(more…)

Norman Solomon appeared on The Morning Show on KPFA Radio to discuss what's up with the Democratic Party as the fall election campaign gets underway. To listen to the 10-minute interview (which happened on Sept. 7), click here and start at 9:50 into the program.

By Norman Solomon 

On the last night of August, the president used an Oval Office speech to boost a policy of perpetual war. 

Hours later, the New York Times front page offered a credulous gloss for the end of “the seven-year American combat mission in Iraq.” The first sentence of the coverage described the speech as saying “that it is now time to turn to pressing problems at home.” The story went on to assert that Obama “used the moment to emphasize that he sees his primary job as addressing the weak economy and other domestic issues — and to make clear that he intends to begin disengaging from the war in Afghanistan next summer.” 

But the speech gave no real indication of a shift in priorities from making war to creating jobs. And the oratory “made clear” only the repetition of vague vows to “begin” disengaging from the Afghanistan war next summer. In fact, top administration officials have been signaling that only token military withdrawals are apt to occur in mid-2011, and Obama said nothing to the contrary. 

While now trumpeting the nobility of an Iraq war effort that he’d initially disparaged as “dumb,” Barack Obama is polishing a halo over the Afghanistan war, which he touts as very smart. In the process, the Oval Office speech declared that every U.S. war — no matter how mendacious or horrific — is worthy of veneration.

Obama closed the speech with a tribute to “an unbroken line of heroes” stretching “from Khe Sanh to Kandahar — Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own.” His reference to the famous U.S. military outpost in South Vietnam was a chilling expression of affinity for another march of folly. 

With his commitment to war in Afghanistan, President Obama is not only on the wrong side of history. He is also now propagating an exculpatory view of any and all U.S. war efforts — as if the immoral can become the magnificent by virtue of patriotic alchemy.

(more…)

[Letter and reply printed in current edition of CJR:]

Whose Supplement?

The Columbia Journalism Review deserves a notable Dart for ambiguity and nondisclosure in the magazine’s twelve-page supplement from The Commonwealth Fund titled “What Will Happen Under Health Reform — and What’s Next?” (CJR, May/June)

A reference to CJR was in smallish type at the top of the first page: “Supplement to the May/June 2010 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review.” Are we to understand that “supplement” is a euphemism for “advertisement”? I can see why an advertiser would prefer to avoid the less lofty word, especially in pages filled with editorial content. But shouldn’t we expect better of a magazine devoted to raising journalistic standards?

I’d suggest that CJR let readers in on the information they had a right to know in the first place. Did CJR’s editors have any role in putting together those twelve pages? If so, what was that role? If not, why the avoidance of truth-in-labeling words like “paid” and “advertisement”?

(more…)

To listen to the new interview with Norman Solomon on FAIR's national radio program CounterSpin – about the current media blitz from Gen. David Petraeus – click here.

By Norman Solomon

It’s already history. In mid-August 2010, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan launched a huge media campaign to prevent any substantial withdrawal of military forces the next summer.

The morning after Gen. David Petraeus appeared in a Sunday interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” to promote the war effort, the New York Times front-paged news of its own interview with him — reporting that the general “suggested that he would resist any large-scale or rapid withdrawal of American forces.”

In fact, the general signaled that he might oppose any reduction of U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan a year from now. During the NBC interview, the Times noted, “Petraeus even appeared to leave open the possibility that he would recommend against any withdrawal of American forces next summer.”

On Monday, the Washington Post also published the twisty line of the suddenly interview-hungry Petraeus, reporting that “he remains supportive of President Obama’s decision to begin withdrawing troops next July, but he said it is far too soon to determine the size of the drawdown.” The newspaper observed that “the general’s presence in Kabul, as opposed to the U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa, could make him a far more forceful voice for attenuating the drawdown if he chooses to make that case.”

“Attenuating the drawdown” means keeping the war machinery at full throttle.

Let’s be clear about what’s happening here. The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, with the evident approval of the White House, has launched a fierce media blitz to cripple the policy option of any significant military withdrawal a year from now. Riding high in what is supposed to be a civilian-run military, Petraeus is engaging in strategic media operations to manipulate what should be a democratic process on matters of war and peace.

(more…)

It scarcely seems to matter whether the Gibbs statements this week were a calculated new version of triangulation or an uncalculated declaration of attitude. Either way, the Obama White House is proving itself to be tone deaf — and self-destructive — in its approach to major sectors of the Democratic Party base that are to the left of this centrist president and willing to express opinions forthrightly. Are Gibbs and Obama so stuck inside their Pennsylvania Avenue bubble that they don't realize how they're helping to depress the Democratic turnout for the November election? At this point, Gibbs — and, it must be assumed, Obama — are choosing to show contempt for people who comprise a margin of victory in congressional and other races across the country. The White House has now riled people and organizations that have defended them from progressive critics for most of the last 18 months. If the White House is on a triangulation jag in hopes of proving how non-left the administration is, that's a dumb move that will be lost on all but a few centrist voters and certainly meaningless to Republican voters — while damaging the prospects of some Democratic candidates who can ill afford more fracturing of the Democratic base. If the White House is merely venting its genuine ideological attitudes, the arrogance is breathtaking. Without strong support from progressives in 2008, Barack Obama would be a senator today. And if President Obama had taken progressive insights more seriously on a range of issues — including Afghanistan, unemployment, kindness to Wall Street and off-shore oil drilling — his presidency could have avoided some terrible historic blunders, and the Democratic Party's poll numbers would be appreciably better than the current grim figures.

— Norman Solomon

(more…)

Friday, Aug. 20 at 7 p.m. — Point Reyes Station — Dance Palace Community Center, 503 B St.

Norman will be a speaker at the “Versus not Versus” evening of “poetry in support of West Marin community unity.” The event will include a screening of the new documentary “Every War Has Two Losers” (based on journals of poet William Stafford) and a conversation with filmmaker Haydn Reiss.

Thursday, Aug. 26 at 7:30 p.m. — Walnut Creek — Rossmoor Community, Fireside Room, 1001 Golden Rain Rd.

The Rossmoor Democratic Club is hosting Norman’s speech about media and politics.  More info

Sunday, Aug. 29 at 7 p.m. — Oakland — Humanist Hall, 390 27th St.

Norman is speaking about healthcare and public policy at this event.  More info