We're streaming live worldwide on the internet every day from 11 to 1 Texas time at chaosradioaustin.org and at antiwar.com slash radio.
Our first guest today is Katrina Vanden Heuvel.
She is the part owner and the editor and publisher of The Nation magazine.
Welcome to the show.
Thank you.
It's very good to have you here and let me mention your books, Taking Back America and Taking Down the Radical Right and the Dictionary of Republicanisms.
That sounds fun.
We're in a new era.
I think the Republicans are in the wilderness, somewhere where they should be because they have no sense of the demographic future or reality of this country at the moment.
Well, let's hope their compass stays broken and they just stay lost there.
Okay, now here's the thing.
I'm a big believer.
I want to be a big believer, Katrina, in a new realignment, basically, with the very best of the liberals and the left.
And I know there are few, but there are good people on the right and with libertarians as the real moderate center with our top priorities, peace and the end of the American empire and the restoration of the Bill of Rights and the supremacy of the first, the fourth, the fifth, and I dare even say the ninth and tenth amendments and the rule of law in this society.
Can we agree on those things?
We can agree on much of that.
I mean, I certainly believe that there is enormous power in a new libertarianism, which is why I assigned a piece on that very subject.
I do think that the key question facing this country, and it's under the radar as we meet Obama's new foreign policy national security team, which certainly doesn't push the envelope or challenge the debate in fundamental ways, is are we an empire or are we a republic?
The two are not compatible, as we know, in history.
And I think that there is an accord, a compatibility between progressives who understand we need to realign our priorities, which are so skewed, close down these hundreds of bases around the world and find a new sane security posture, which is not about military invasion, occupation bases, but is really about a new kind of real security.
So I think they're real points of contact.
I think on the crisis facing this country right now, Scott, on the financial economic crisis, I think we'd probably part ways because I think there is an important role for government to play in public investment in rebuilding this nation.
And I would bet many of you libertarians do not want government involved in that arena.
I'm not sure who would be if government isn't going to play a role.
Well, I think that even on the economic crisis, I bet we can agree on a lot of it, such as it's really not right for the American people to have to shell out $8 trillion, if we count the loan guarantees, for a bunch of people who are billionaires.
Why should Citigroup be saved on the backs of the poor people of this country?
I couldn't agree more.
On the other hand, and I will admit I'm not a close student of modern day libertarianism, I'm not sure where you'd come down in terms of regulation, government regulation.
The frenzy of deregulation over this last decade is one of the core reasons why the greed and corruption on Wall Street was allowed to fester, and certainly the willingness of those in Washington to avert their eyes as these new, exotic, toxic instruments were created and peddled to the most vulnerable in our society.
I think part of that's right, except that when there's a billion regulations and you repeal a million of them, that still leaves a lot, and I would say that all these financial instruments basically are the billionaires coming up with the most sophisticated ways of taking what ultimately is the result, is the giant bubble from government intervention in the first place.
Yeah, no, I agree.
I mean, listen, I think what we're seeing is the damage to our democracy, which is already fragile, from both the reckless wars, unnecessary war in Iraq, the danger of escalation in Afghanistan.
We are seeing collateral damage to our democracy from that, as well as the use of this, quote, war on terror as justification for almost anything, and you referred to some of that at the top, unlawful spying on Americans, illegal detention policies, hyper-secrecy, donning torture.
So I think there is certainly core agreement that we need to take back our democracy from those who would tamper with it in the name of a false sense of national security.
It's always the ongoing struggle over the last decades in this country, not only here, but around the world, and the, quote, global war on terror has given license to other nations to clamp down, and they point to America, sadly, which has had over the years a better reputation than it has now, and may again.
I do think Barack Obama is not the messiah.
It's going to take popular movements and pressure to push for fundamental reforms, but certainly the end of condoning torture as a tool of U.S. foreign policy is on the horizon.
Well, I certainly hope that's true, and, you know, when you talk about the many decades, I mean, it's really since World War II, and we have this, and I think here's where we can also agree about economics, too.
We have this state capitalist structure, this corporatist structure, the military-industrial complex, as Eisenhower called it, where you have so many businessmen, well, just when you look at the last eight years, the businessmen who are politically connected to the Republican Party just absolutely having a field day with our United States Treasury.
Absolutely.
That war, especially.
But I think the other point of agreement, and, you know, it's such a powerful movement, Scott, as you know.
Particularly 98-99, the anti-globalization Seattle movement, anti-WTO, anti-NAFTA, anti-fake corporate trade agreements – not fake, but pro-corporate.
I think there is a powerful feeling in this country among a mass of people who – and they may not articulate it, but it's a fear that corporate power has become so huge, unaccountable, unfettered.
And that is an opening now with this crisis, where people – you know, the New York Post I buy every day, our tabloid in New York City – it's really interesting, because they are looking, for example, at the bailout of Citigroup and going, what the hell's going on here?
And that is a paper that's read by, you know, people who – inchoate feelings about corporate power in their lives.
And if that anger can be channeled into ways to regulate and diminish, decentralize, democratize economic power in this country, I think we'd be in agreement that that's a fundamentally good course.
Today is the day, as you mentioned, that Barack Obama is rolling out officially his national security team.
And I noticed you'd written about this at The Nation magazine, and boy, I don't really know too much reason to have hope for this, other than, I guess, if I really try hard to believe that he's only using Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton as cover, so that he can put a tough-guy face on what's, you know, probably ultimately considered a wimpy policy of withdrawal and admitting defeat.
And so – but I don't really believe that.
It seems like he's hired the War Party because he means to stay at war.
Well, I think that Robert Gates' appointment, as I write at TheNation.com, has a real disparity in state of course feel to it.
I do think that what is key is that Barack Obama reaffirm, as he did at his press conference, that he is committed to the timetable he laid out for withdrawal from Iraq.
I think the fight ahead of us is the danger that he may – his vision.
And it is his policy, though he's made it tougher to push forward a truly different policy with these people, I agree, but it is still his policy.
The danger is that he has committed in this campaign to escalating militarily in Afghanistan.
And I think that is a disaster, that to extricate the U.S. from one dangerous occupation to head into another is going to drain the resources needed to fulfill Obama's hopes and promises for growth at home, for rebuilding this country, and for reengaging the world.
So I think it's a mixed message.
I do think that we will see some quick movement.
And how difficult can it be after these eight ruinous years of Bush administration policies to reengage the world, to repudiate Bush's policies, and to, for example, engage with a whole set of treaties, whether on global warming or the rights of women or nuclear proliferation.
Those are important.
No one has said that Barack Obama is challenging the fundamental tenets of our U.S. foreign policy.
He is not talking about U.S. empire.
But there is the possibility of undoing the damage and doing some good.
It's going to, again, require pushing from movements, not only in this country, but peace and justice movements around the world, which do exist.
For example, one of the dangerous policies, which I think Barack Obama will backtrack on, not in a bold way, but just say this technology doesn't work, is this insanity of missile defense in Eastern Europe and the Czech Republic and Poland.
That is an opening to rebuild a set of treaties toward nuclear reduction.
And Obama has been clear and smart about it.
He makes his job tougher by bringing on a Robert Gates who talks about building a new generation of nuclear weapons.
But I do think we will see some positive signals.
And then it requires pushing and moving.
As I said in an editor's cut, a weekly column I write at thenation.com, in a different context I wrote last week, it's going to take large-scale organized movements across the board to win transformative change.
No leader, whether it was Lincoln or Roosevelt, was moved to adopt bold policies.
It came from pressure and organizing from without.
And that's part of our work.
Right.
Well, and ours, too.
And, of course, what it really takes in order to accomplish those things is keeping our priorities straight so that, you know, hopefully we don't get too mired in arguing about the new New Deal that we forget to form strong alliances on, for example, the issue of torture.
Absolutely.
Which he's got, if Barack Obama truly means to end the torture regime, he's got a lot of work to do, not just closing Guantanamo Bay.
He's got black sites all around the world, torture dungeons in Thailand and Morocco, ships at sea.
Nobody even knows.
That's right.
And I think that's where there will be, and the value of a kind of libertarian, liberal, progressive, common-sense human rights alliance around not only the argument that morally we need to close those sites, but practically we are alienating millions around the world and making ourselves less secure if we do not take those steps.
So if he is a pragmatist, as he says repeatedly, Barack Obama will understand the merits of doing these things.
Now, in that context, it may well be, for example, that he has brought people on like Robert Gates and General Jones to provide cover for doing and taking steps that may alarm and arouse intense opposition from elements in this country.
So I think there may be some value, but we'll have to see if Obama stays strong in holding to some of what he said.
I do hope he will break his campaign promise, however, to escalate militarily in Afghanistan, as I said earlier, because I think this idea that Afghanistan is the right war is folly, particularly, I have to say, after the tragedy of these last days with the Mumbai terrorist attacks.
I think to escalate in Afghanistan as opposed to trying very hard now to diffuse the crisis in the region and bring about regional diplomacy between India and Pakistan will only destabilize Pakistan if we escalate militarily in Afghanistan.
Well, I'm so happy to hear you say that, because I actually have seen in a few places where some liberals are now saying, oh, yeah, I always was for the Afghan war and everything, now that Barack Obama's for it.
And that's really kind of my worry, that people will start to water down, forget some of their previous stances because their hero is in charge now and that kind of thing.
I know you're better than that, and I'm just glad to see that example of it.
I don't know if I'm better than that.
What I am is someone who's trying to look and learn about the region and also at the nation.
Our next issue is about the region.
In fact, we had a plan before the Mumbai attacks, but it's looking at the possibilities of regional diplomacy as opposed to military escalation to find a way to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan.
And what's interesting is we also have a piece about who are the Taliban, and I think the possibility of engagement and negotiation with moderate elements of the Taliban is something that even mainstream people are now discussing.
And the Europeans are ahead of us on this, and I think, again, if Obama wants to reengage with the world in a smart way, he may find that escalating in Afghanistan will cause rifts with NATO allies, including Germany and France and, in addition, the British government.
So there are other possibilities.
So it's important to find a way out.
And the larger point here is to find a way out of what even the conservative Rand Corporation has called counterproductive, this notion of the, quote, war on terror.
We're not at war, and that paradigm needs to be shifted.
We are in a struggle, but terrorism is not one that is going to be vanquished with conventional means.
It poses a threat, yes, to national and international security, but there are more effective and ethical ways to advance U.S. security than a military heavy-handed strategy and intrusion into the Islamic world, which, as we have seen with the failed Iraq war, should have shown to us very clearly the limits of American military power.
Well, and it's interesting you bring up negotiating with the Taliban.
Nir Rosen's recent article about going and traveling around Afghanistan with the Taliban, he emphasized in there numerous times various splits within the Taliban movement and whole groups of them who are no longer loyal to Mullah Omar.
And, of course, in the last couple of weeks, or I guess it was just last week, Hamid Karzai talked about, hey, enough of this war.
It's time for us to negotiate.
We can negotiate with the Taliban and work something out.
Yes, absolutely.
Now, some of that, of course, is for his own internal political – to deal with his own internal political problems.
He knows how unpopular the U.S. occupation is in his country, and the collateral damage, the brutality of our airstrikes and the killing of civilians at wedding parties and others has aroused enormous resentment of the U.S. presence.
So he is moving because of the pressures in his own country, and that is hopeful because, again, I come back to the fact that not only is escalating militarily not the way to go, but if one has a sense of history, which I think we began with, Scott, discussing what has happened to large countries' major powers when they make the wrong choice between empire and republic.
We have seen the British, and most recently the Soviet Union, ensnared in occupations in Afghanistan, forced to withdraw, and in the case of the Soviet Union, with nearly twice as many troops as NATO and the U.S. now have in that country.
So I think just coming home for a second, what so worries me is Barack Obama moving in a direction to escalate in Afghanistan, as I said earlier, might well mean the end of the hopes and promises of his administration.
I hate to draw, again, a historical analogy, but I think of Lyndon Johnson, and he came in and really fulfilled the second wave of the New Deal with the Voting Rights Act and Medicare and other measures.
But he's best known, and I'm not predicting that this is going to happen, but the danger looms of known for this quagmire of Vietnam.
So we need to do all we can as we extricate from Iraq, which now becomes more hopeful with the Status of Forces Agreement signed or passed by the parliament in these last days, to make sure we do not extricate from one occupation and move into another.
Well, and also, you know, when you talked about how to defeat terrorism and other ways to go about it, Robert A. Pape wrote that book Dying to Win, and I know that he was somewhat of an advisor to the Obama campaign, I guess, about whether he got a chance to brief Obama particularly.
But he warned on this show that, oh, no, escalating in Afghanistan is exactly the wrong policy.
If you want to protect American civilians from terrorism, you have to stop occupying countries.
Yeah, no, he has done, right, it's Robert Pape, is that how you pronounce his name?
Right, yeah.
He has done some, you know, in analyzing, I went back and looked at his work, he studied every suicide terrorist bombing and attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004.
Right, and actually, he's updated since then through 2006, I believe.
Is that right?
Yeah.
And, you know, instead of religion, what more than 95% of all the suicide terrorist attacks around the world have in common is a specific political goal to compel a democratic state to withdraw heavy combat forces from territory that, you know, the terrorists consider to be their homeland, that is occupation.
And I think that is something that many find too linear, too schematic, and very provocative, but it is an argument, and it's based on data review that is very important to look at because it puts in perspective the dangers of the heavy U.S. footprint occupation in the Middle East.
Well, and his data really shows it, too, and not just looking at the September 11th hijackers and other terrorists, but, you know, involved in our fight, but he compares Sri Lanka and Sudan, and he says, here in Sri Lanka, there's no Islam anywhere around.
It's, I think, the Hindus are the secular Marxists, and they're versus the Buddhists.
I might have that confused.
And then in Sudan, you have hundreds of thousands of people killed, massive, you know, warfare, and pretty much everybody fighting in the Darfur region is a Sunni Arab Muslim.
Yeah, yeah.
And you have no suicide attacks whatsoever, yet.
Yeah, no, I mean, I think, you know, and I think what PAP, is it PAP?
I'm sorry.
It's PAP.
PAP.
What he concludes, of course, is that suicide terrorism is the murder of innocents and remains an unacceptable tactic of war, but knowing more about the logic and circumstances of suicide terrorism can provide a strong foundation for new policies that can achieve foreign policy interests without provoking a new generation of suicide attackers.
Unfortunately, lessons do not appear to have been learned in Washington, though, if he is indeed an advisor of sorts to the Obama administration, one hopes that his thinking and argument and wisdom will be in play.
I certainly hope so, especially when I saw, well, actually, I read the transcript of Obama's speech that he gave in Berlin where he invoked the Holocaust and the promise of never again in terms of Darfur, in terms of the Sudan.
And, of course, if American combat forces are ever deployed in Sudan, that will simply be seen from the other end as an extension of the war on terrorism, more American occupation of Muslim land.
I do think, however, and again, in the announcements today, it was very good to hear that Susan Rice, one of the long-time advisors to Barack Obama, foreign policy advisors, has been made ambassador to the United Nations, and more important, that that position has been re-elevated to cabinet status because under Bush it was demoted.
And the UN remains an important, though flawed, institution, and I think if there is more goodwill there, and there's also more regional understanding, that you could in Darfur see regional intervention to stop killing.
So that the U.S. footprint isn't heavy, isn't an occupying one, but in fact there is an attempt to halt human rights abuses.
It's very difficult, and I know that you libertarians, and of course there's agreement on our end of the political spectrum that often humanitarian intervention has been a gloss or a cover for just raw intervention.
But grappling with how to halt human rights abuses at a moment when nation-states both seem weak and strong, and the porous borders and the issues of resource scarcity and trafficking and other kinds of human rights violations, it seems important to think hard about how we handle that.
Yeah, well, and I guess when you talk about local solutions, if people can come up with them by way of agreement at the United Nations or whatever, I guess I'm not outright opposed to that since we're talking about other people's countries and things like that.
But then the most recent example in Africa is America hiring the Ethiopian government to invade Somalia, and that's become as horrible a disaster as Iraq.
Yeah, but part of that – think about what a strange world we live in.
When was the last time you or your listeners thought about pirates as part of the dangers of our new world order?
I mean, it sounds like a joke because of Pirates of the Caribbean, but pirates and hijacking of ships by pirates has become an almost everyday article in the newspaper.
Well, and they even got that one giant oil tanker.
I know, and I think some of that does emerge from the intervention in Somalia, the shutdown of Islamist courts, the meddling.
But it's a very interesting development, and it goes back to the fact that as this recent CIA report – we reported on it in the magazine last week, Global Trends 2025 – that conventional methods of warfare are increasingly less valuable, if that's the right word, or less important and useful in a world where asymmetrical warfare, where, again, resource scarcity… …especially oil, looms and climate crisis.
So the problem is we are living at a time when the crises of our world, the challenges, are outpacing or are very different than the ones our foreign policy security institutions and mindset are able to deal with.
And that gap is one that needs some tough and hard work to catch up with.
Sadly, we've lost the last eight years with some minor exceptions.
I personally can't think of one exception at this moment.
Not to absolve Democrats of complicity in some of the dangers.
But the Bush administration has really damaged so much that at least half of Barack Obama's work will be to repair that damage before, or in part, with restoring and rebuilding of smarter security.
Have you ever heard of a conservative writer by the name of William S. Lind, Katrina?
Absolutely.
He's published… William Lind, I'm thinking of… Michael Lind.
Michael Lind.
I've heard of William Lind.
I don't know enough about him.
Well, you just hit on his major theme there when you talk about how the old standards of the ways nation states fight wars no longer apply.
His whole thing is about what he calls fourth generation warfare, which he says is the same as really generation negative one.
It's going back to before the Treaty of Westphalia and the foundation of the modern nation state and saying that wars are basically… will be fought by… in the future will be fought by religious groups with undying loyalty.
And it's the kind of thing that nation states just are not prepared at all.
He says we're fighting right now second generation war, which is basically the same tactics as the French in World War I against groups that, well, like Al-Qaeda is one example, that are stateless and basically formless and can't really be stamped out with Marine Corps, for example.
I think, you know, that sounds like an important argument I'd like to learn more about.
I'm interested that I kind of echoed it without having read his work.
But I do think one danger moving ahead is that one lesson drawn from the surge in Iraq, which too many call a success, quote a success, when in fact it had many elements to it.
And to call it a success when thousands still die every year in Iraq is wrong.
And for all the reasons I'm sure you know, but counterinsurgency, counterinsurgency has been with us for decades.
And the concern is that now becomes a central element of a warfighting defense strategy.
That is not conventional warfare, but it does have its roots in certainly conflicts going back decades.
So that's to be watched because that too is not productive in terms of a more stable world, more peaceful world, certainly.
Well, and that goes back to Robert Gates, too, and his controversial speech to the Air Force where he said, listen, you guys are spending all your time and energy preparing to fight a war with China that's never going to come.
You need to focus on bombing civilians in their own countries that we occupy.
I mean, the concern with Gates is a serious one.
I mean, the other piece of what I, you know, one thing that is truly outmoded in this period are nuclear weapons.
So we are at a moment where we face a potential conflict triggered by terrorist asymmetrical actions with two nuclear armed countries facing off, and that needs to be diffused.
But the danger of building new nuclear weapons at a point when their futility has been exposed is mind-boggling.
And in terms of the expense put aside to morality, one thing that is hopeful is that even retrogrades like Henry Kissinger along with people like former Secretary of State George Shultz, William Perry, and Sam Nunn have called for the abolition of nuclear weapons, the position the nation through Jonathan Schell advocated over a decade ago.
But Obama has also advocated that position in a strong speech in Chicago more than a year ago.
So I think anything we can do to move in that direction is crucial.
It was interesting that the Pakistani Prime Minister, in an effort to rebuild relations with India just a few days or weeks ago, spoke of building a Southeast Asian nuclear-free zone.
And it seems, you know, increasingly clear, though we still certainly don't know enough, that these terrorist actions in Mumbai were designed to destabilize that growing rapprochement between the two countries which have been such enemies over these last years to such peril in that part of the world and that region.
Well, and it is interesting about Barack Obama that, as you say, he mentioned that in a speech that he's also for that.
I also read something in the New York Times that talked about, as a senator, his relationship with Dick Lugar and how they actually went to Russia and worked on, you know, because it was the Nunn-Lugar Act from back in the early 1990s that was all about buying up all the loose Russian nuclear material.
And apparently he's taking quite an interest in that.
So that's good news.
Yeah, and much more needs to be done because one thing that's happened in these last years, and this goes back to the Clinton administration and my husband, Stephen Cohen, who writes for The Nation and has a book coming out on this, the danger of a new Cold War is real.
Russia is resurgent despite the falling oil prices at this moment, but over these last years between the expansion of NATO, which even a great diplomat like George Kennan called one of the great post-Cold War follies, the expansion of NATO, the sighting of these anti-missile defense interceptors and radars in Eastern Europe, and the way the Georgia-Russia conflict was handled with just craziness about Russia's launching a war, which evidence now by European monitors show was not the case, all very dangerous.
And the key is not simply to rebuild a system of nuclear nonproliferation, but to really move hard in a bipartisan way, move hard on arms control agreements, building down something that the Bush administration by walking out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, bipartisan treaty, set back arms control for decades.
Now, some of this seems old-fashioned because the Cold War, that was in the past, but again, we're at a point where it should be in the past, but we are pushing, certainly the Bush administration in the last day or so, pushing for NATO to take in Georgia and Ukraine, which would be a disaster, and NATO is not a tea party.
NATO is a remnant of Cold War global architecture, which really should play no role at this moment, and its function should be folded into non-militarized institutions, and NATO dismantled, but that's not on anyone's radar inside the Beltway.
Right, well, and that's the real danger, that countries like Ukraine, which they're having a big scandal now, because basically half the country leans pro-Russia and half the country leans pro-West, and as you say, it's not a tea party, it's a war guarantee.
Well, yeah, I mean, think about it this way.
During August, when John McCain, who was truly Cold War militaristic, came out and said, we are all Georgians now, I mean, let us feel for the civilians who were injured in Georgia and Russia overreached in certain ways, but the civilians in southern Ossetia and Abkhazia were also harmed, but the idea that if we had brought Georgia into NATO, if it had been a NATO during that time, under part of NATO's charter, the United States would have had to retaliate against Russia.
That was a proxy war.
People look at it as Russia-Georgia, but the United States has advisors, this is another issue we haven't talked about, Scott, we talk about bases.
The United States had scores, hundreds of advisors in Georgia training the military.
We still don't know if U.S. military advisors were involved in the conflict.
Then you had U.S. warships off the coast of Georgia.
That could, without being hyperbolic, have been as close a conflict as the United States and Russia has been in since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
We need to diffuse these crises and wiser leadership, which would understand that we need a strategic partnership in Russia, not only for the issues I've talked about, but because of resolving perhaps Afghanistan, Iran, there are a whole slew of issues that would be useful in combating terrorism wisely if there was a strategic partnership, not a friendship, partnership with Russia, but it's tough.
And the media is as bad as it was during the first Cold War.
There are fewer, smarter people speaking out for a, quote, detente than during the first Cold War, and so we are at a point where there's one hand clapping in our country.
Now, that's not surprising on a lot of issues, but we need to think hard about where that leads us if we want to have smart, secure policy.
Right.
Yeah, I love this.
You sound just like Pat Buchanan.
Well, that reminds me, I have to email Pat Buchanan because I've been trying to organize an event in Washington between Pat Buchanan of the American Conservative, Stephen F. Cohen of The Nation and NYU, and Demetri Symes of the Nixon Center.
Now, there's an alliance, right?
Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, I think Obama wants to be bipartisan and put Republicans in his administration.
How about Pat Buchanan as ambassador to Moscow?
Yeah.
Wouldn't that be great?
I don't know.
I'm not sure.
I don't think Pat, nor is my husband by nature a diplomat.
That is a different diplomat.
Well, okay, that's probably true.
But I like the idea of having Nixon's former speechwriter, an ardent Cold Warrior, who's now saying, hey, Cold War's over.
The Soviet Army is back on the other side of the Ural Mountains.
Everything is cool now.
We need to not have this fight.
I think that's right.
I mean, you know, Pat, what Pat has in The Nation's written about this, Scott, and you might do a program on it, you know, the anti-imperialist alliance, which goes back, I think, there was one in the middle of the 1800s, but certainly around the Spanish-American Civil War.
Right.
Spanish-American War.
That alliance ranged across a broad political spectrum, and that is where Pat comes in, because he is an anti-imperialist at heart.
We disagree on fundamental principles, perhaps, and certainly on issues like immigration and the clash of cultural civilization.
But he understands the danger of empire and the threats posed to nations over centuries.
Absolutely.
All right.
Well, I sure look forward to keeping my eye on The Nation.
Thank you.
Throughout these Obama years.
We're off to a good start already, and I want to let you know that we often enjoy your articles.
Also, at Antiwar.com, we're big fans of Tom Englehart, John Nichols, Robert Dreyfuss, and others.
So I want to thank you very much for your magazine and for your time on the show today, Katrina.
Thank you, and I hope your listeners will come to TheNation.com and read what we're saying, some of what we talked about today.
Thanks so much.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
In fact, we're spotlighting an article by Robert Dreyfuss in our Viewpoint section on Antiwar.com today, everybody.
That's TheNation.com.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel, she writes The Editor's Cut.
She is the editor and publisher of The Nation magazine, and we'll be right back after this.
