…”Yikes!” not the most illuminating assessment from probably the leading liberal war-hawk public intellectual.

Two things:

1. I’m surprised that Bromwich never used the word “pragmatist” to describe Obama. That’s the one that always comes to mind first for me–he’s by nature a moderate pragmatist, one who tries to find not the best policy, but the best policy he thinks has a good chance of being implemented. From the campaign on, we’ve seen this, and thus far I think it’s worked, with a few real hiccups (probably lowballed the stimulus, may have boxed himself in a bit on healthcare by suggesting a too-small dollar amount). Part of what makes Afghanistan so tough is that pragmatism is a harder fit there: the best policy also looks like the toughest sell. Pragmatism has its limits, clearly, and in the wrong hands it can be dangerous, but I think it’s served Obama pretty well thus far.

2. Bromwich said Obama hadn’t made a major speech on the economy, but he did, at Georgetown back in April. The transcript is here: ; some praise and criticism (specifically focused on rhetoric) by James Fallows is here:

I read the Lawrence Wright article on Gaza and felt that it was very fair- very even handed and quite good. I have no problem with that report. Still, Israel, came out looking very bad, and would have anyway this story is told. So I thought the point that Bromwich made was insignificant. I read past or through such language gymnastics or don’t notice. I don’t say that is good that I do that and I recognize Bromwich’s focus and that others may be persuaded by the way language is used. In this case it was to ostensibly or supposedly or inadvertently “deny agency”. The criticism may not end there either (blaming the agent of this particular spectacular self-defeating crime) in the blame game. So I thought, using this example, that Bromwich has a very definite point of view and is criticizing based on his own feelings, that his view is the one that should prevail. ( I agree with his POV).

The problem we had with Judy Miller taking stenography ( for me anyway) was that she was pushing one point of view, that of the administration, through the NYT ( with little editorial oversight it turned out right?). But quite prior to 9/11 I thought her reporting on Al Qaeda was good and we needed to be informed and alerted at a time when few were focussing on them.

Ethan Bronner ( NYT Jerusalem bureau chief) has come into much criticism from certain quarters on the Jewish progressive left for “taking dictation” from the “powers-that-be” in Israel. I listened closely to his interview with Terri Gross months ago. He is trying very hard to be fair- ie not take a position or rather to give both sides. This may in fact be what the NYT wants I don’t know. I know the NYT gets reader criticism from at least two sides of the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict and therefore the public editor has on more than one occasion wound up saying that this means they are doing their job.

I am okay with the reporting. The editorials are usually spot on- they were against the invasion of Iraw if I remember correctly. I go elsewhere and on the internet now for more detail and even better criticism/opinion. We don’t rely on the NYTimes that much anymore for complete nourishment ( if we ever did) even though it is still essential and we read the tree form of the paper ( expensive and probably wasteful).

——–

I hope that the UK sending 500 additional troops would not be indicative of Obama’s need to send many thousands more.

As well I am in denial that we have actually accepted the culture of permanent war or torture. If we have accepted war all the time then we should be bringing in the draft- as Bill Moyers has recently called for ( again).

———————-

I agree fully that Obama’s acquiescence, his need to placate and reassure at the expense of his principles is very ( very) troubling. Political animals across the board in every issue sense this and take advantage and will take advantage and so I am afraid that he will end up one great appeaser- a big disappointment, not the decider we long for to turn this ship around, but failing all around and maybe even a one term president. Failures because of weakness in one area are signals to others in other areas and the notion that if you push Obama, or even if you don’t, he is ready to give in.

———

One good speech on the economy was prior to Obama’s election in March of 2008, if I am not mistaken about the exact date.

————

Jim Lehrer had some good questions for Sheila Baer the other night- unusual for him, I agree he usually is very boring but Margaret Warner is quite good.

———————-

Finally- what a horrible thought if it were true or of it IS true that the generals run this country. I’d like to see Obama challenge that.

—————-

Thank you for this provocative enlightening interview.

.

The day our political leaders decide to give more than lip service to the idea of energy independence is the day our relationship with the middle east will change for the better.

I have long felt uneasy about Afghanistan – something about it just didn’t add up. And now even more so. I think the approach of Greg Mortenson’s book “Three Cups of Tea”, building schools for girls in remote areas of Pakistan, would do more for Afghan culture and hope than all the military operations we can envision.

Much more needed is an enormous transformation of OUR OWN ECONOMY. Al Gore was right. Our global common enemy is climate change. Our common solution is ENERGY – clean, renewable energy. Clean skies that we may capture pure sunlight, and no longer poison our atmosphere with our waste.

Enormous transformations are needed, and every budding scientist and engineer can be put to work. Cars that do not run on gas – every car in America converted. New kinds of batteries to capture the sunlight, wind, and wave power. Every home in America properly insulated – imagine the building boom from that! And this is just the beginning – no telling how far the transformations can go.

Obama needs our prayers.

And, Bromwich seems sometimes too in the center of his own readings. At times I got the feeling that he doesn’t want us to be in Afghanistan, that he likes Obama on some level, and thus Bromwich is sure that Obama doesn’t really want to be in Afghanistan, either. Therefore when Obama talks about needing to be in Afghanistan, Obama’s language is problematic. Maybe, but I’m not entirely convinced.

Finally, almost nobody (I won’t say nobody) likes the idea of eternal war, however much Bromwich seems to think most people do, but what does he really think would happen if we left Afghanistan? That’s the question language mavens don’t have to answer.

Thanks for the conversation.

Gosh, I am blown away by how you find these people. It is so wonderful to hear someone articulating the truth. I’m even going to listen again.

I never posted anything regarding the Chris Hedges interview you did recently but I’m still worried about everything he said about the fall of our culture and his observation that revolution can happen suddenly.

I could go on (and have proven as much in the past) but just have to tell how much I appreciate the work you do. I’m doing my best to spread the word. These are some of the best conversations I’ve ever heard.