[Peace-discuss] Street on Obama on the war

[Chas. 'Mark' Bee]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
To: "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1 at itg.uiuc.edu>
Cc: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Street on Obama on the war


> The text of the speech doesn't seem to have been posted yet, but the Trib 
> headline unspins the article a bit: "Obama urges gradual withdrawal from 
> Iraq."  In fact, he doesn't propose withdrawal at all in the sense of giving 
> up control of Iraq and its resources

  Cite?

, but "redeployment" that
> might begin in "four to six months."
>
> Obama doesn't doubt that "it remains possible to salvage an acceptable 
> outcome" -- acceptable in terms of traditional US policy.  He actually wants 
> to *increase* the number of Special Forces troops: otherwise Iraq could 
> become "another Afghanistan or a staging area" for attacks on Israel.
>
> The Sun-Times' article

  Uh, what Sun-Times article?

 makes clear that Obama did *not* call for
> "bringing the troops home, instead saying some would be redeployed to 
> northern Iraq, others to other parts of the Mideast and still others to 
> Afghanistan."
>
> "Obama conceded 'there's going to be overlap' in the proposals being 
> advanced."  That is, the problem is finding a form of words that will sell 
> the common war policy of Republicans and Democrats

  Cite?

 to an American
> public that's turned against it.
>
> Obama's repackaging the snake-oil because the present labels aren't working, 
> as he says: "'cut and run,' 'stay the course' -- the American people have 
> determined that all these phrases have become meaningless in the face of a 
> conflict that grows more deadly and chaotic with each passing day -- a 
> conflict that has only increased the terrorist threat it was supposed to help 
> contain."
>
> That is, he wants to make the real popular demand to get out "meaningless."

  Cite?

 That way we can continue the policy under the cover of
> responding to the "increased threat of terrorism." --CGE


  Now you need a lot more cites.  Instead of showing that you are correct in 
your earlier descriptions, you appear to be digging yourself in deeper, 
apparently using the excuse that the positions you assign to Obama aren't 
available yet (in which case, one wonders how you arrived at your conclusions).

  You still need quotes of him saying that he thinks the US should retain 
control of the region and its oil, as you claimed in your previous response. 
Then you can back up your latest overblown characterizations above, if you can.


>
>
> Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>> To: "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1 at itg.uiuc.edu>
>> Cc: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 11:30 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Street on Obama on the war
>>
>>
>>> Look what Obama actually says, not how his charm gets the media to spin it. 
>>> People look at the headlines and say, "Oh, Obama has changed his mind and 
>>> is now for getting out of Iraq, as 61% of Americans are."  But in fact his 
>>> position hasn't changed from what he said when he last held a PR-style town 
>>> meeting in C-U.  Far from getting out of Iraq -- lock, stock and 
>>> mercenaries -- he thinks that the US must retain control of the region with 
>>> its forces and those of others, e.g., an Iraqi government that will do what 
>>> we want.
>>
>>  You left off his quote saying so.  This makes it tough to "look at what he 
>> actually says" on that matter.
>>
>>>
>>> That's what he calls a "realistic" strategy.  We have to find Iraqis "to 
>>> form a viable government that can effectively run and secure Iraq" --  
>>> primarily, secure control of the oil for the US. US Middle east policy will 
>>> continue to be what it's been for generations -- control ME energy 
>>> resources, now under the cover of the "war on terror."
>>
>>  Again, you need a cite for that.