Web Letters | The Nation

{Empty title}

While the article makes some very good points and is revealing, I had to read the following sentence twice to make sure I got it right: Obama did not support the Micheletti coup perpetrators. If he does not support the coup, directly or indirectly, how come the Micheletti regime is still in power and has no intention of giving in to the basic democratic and constitutional demands of the international community, not to mention of the Honduran people themselves? While the entire article seems to be designed to put people on guard with regards to illusions about Obama, this sentence does the opposite. It creates illusions about the Obama administration on one of the most important international issues since he became president. As far as South America is concerned, Honduras, along with the simultaneous establishment of seven miliary bases in Columbia, which is an Obama Administration deal, indicates that the old US policy of military domination and interference in this region has taken on another facade in order to attempt to push it through. To create illusions about the Obama administration's Honduran policy (I hope that Naomi Klein does not mind me saying so) is itself an example of the bad influence of Obama.

Web Letter

Among the problems with this attempt at analysis is that both Kyoto and the Goldstone document were, in plain fact, severely flawed. The most severe flaw in Kyoto is the boldly stupid idea that human activity is responsible for the climate change.

It isn't getting as warm as it was 800 years ago, when the sun last warmed up.

Web Letter

What tripe! From the Nobel Committee and from Sarkozy! BHO's multilateralism has brought us back into the hearts of the Europeans, Ms. Klein writes. Certainly, words mean something, but not when contradicted by behavior. BHO's success with the EU came from making easier the tasks of Europe's politicians, including President Sarkozy. Together, hand in hand, the US and the European elites have backed away from any significantly different behavior than was advocated by guess whom? Yes, the unilateralist, George W. Bush. As for the Nobel Peace Prize, Ms. Klein misses the point. On the basis of substantive behavior, BHO and GWB should have shared the prize.

Ms. Klein and Sarkozy elevate unreasonably, in this case, the importance of Obama's hype--now popular in Europe though it may be. It will be short-lived, when literate Europeans realize the substantive damage Obama has done in so many global domains: climate security, financial regulation and international law, to name three.

My view is that Obama's thread of hope among the US left is turning to despair and will so turn in Europe, too. About time!

Web Letter

Naomi Klein has once again carefully and skillfully documented the neoliberalism that masquerades as "Change You Can Believe In."

Barack Obama has fully adopted Bush foreign policy, just not the ham-handed implementation. We now have more troops on the battlefield than at any time during the Bush years.

Glenn Greenwald has meticulously documented Obama's domestic surveillance, human rights and torture policies, and finds little or no difference from the Bush years.

Obama's financial team has given Wall Street even more trillions than the Bush Team.

When will the left see the Obama administration for what it is--that is, a much better run Bush administration?

The Nobel Prize was an award for the great acting performance that Bush's replacement has given. And it has been masterful.

Naomi has given us another look behind the curtain.

Web Letter

Ms. Klein and President Sarkozy are right. In fact, if people would carefully read what the Nobel committee said, you would get the same message. Obama's contribution is that he has fundamentally changed the global political environment, something that may not be important to Americans, though it is critically important to the rest of the world. Nobel prizes are often given for such general contributions. Unfortunately, only an American president could do that, and thank goodness, Obama did it. I cannot tell you how many people from outside the US have asked me personally how to get hold of the Bush Doctrine (the New American Century Doctrine of the neofascist thugs some call neoconservatives; it used to be on the White House website) during the Bush rule. Again, may be Americans do not care about such things, but the people in the rest of the world did worry about the implications of Bush’s claim that the US has the right to take military action anywhere, anytime if it so chooses. The demise of Bush was welcomed with a sigh of relief; Obama’s overtures to the world have given the assurance that civility has returned in international relations.