I just stumbled across their website looking for a bio of Paul Wolfowitz, and I was absolutely astounded. This garbage passes for legitimate journalism? I have never seen a more vitriolic anti-conservative publication anywhere. I have heard of The Nation before, and I had this inkling that it was a biased source of information. However, I never expected this level of tilt, which doesn't even come close to any semblance of neutrality. I also thought that it was somewhat of a respected source of information.
Here are some quotes:
"In 1951, American social philosopher Eric Hoffer published The True Believer, his first and most influential book. In it he portrayed political fanatics as people who embrace a cause to compensate for their own feelings of guilt and inadequacy.
I can't help but think of Hoffer's book as I watch George W. Bush in the first weeks of war."
"A victorious (so far) Bush should assist Iraqi civilians who paid the highest price for a war that was supposed to help them."
"Bush's motives have more to do with empire and profit than with liberating Iraq."
"The antiwar movement lost the first skirmish but can still win the larger struggle to put aggressive unilateralism back in the trash bin of history."
"Iraqi freedom may come pre-shackled with economic decisions made in boardrooms while the bombs were still falling."
Keep in mind that except for the first one, those were all from the first page. I didn't even bother moving more deeply into the text. Please tell me that this rag has a solid reputation for being a bastion of radical leftists.
Here are some quotes:
"In 1951, American social philosopher Eric Hoffer published The True Believer, his first and most influential book. In it he portrayed political fanatics as people who embrace a cause to compensate for their own feelings of guilt and inadequacy.
I can't help but think of Hoffer's book as I watch George W. Bush in the first weeks of war."
"A victorious (so far) Bush should assist Iraqi civilians who paid the highest price for a war that was supposed to help them."
"Bush's motives have more to do with empire and profit than with liberating Iraq."
"The antiwar movement lost the first skirmish but can still win the larger struggle to put aggressive unilateralism back in the trash bin of history."
"Iraqi freedom may come pre-shackled with economic decisions made in boardrooms while the bombs were still falling."
Keep in mind that except for the first one, those were all from the first page. I didn't even bother moving more deeply into the text. Please tell me that this rag has a solid reputation for being a bastion of radical leftists.
Facebook
Twitter