[Peace-discuss] Street on Obama on the war

[C. G. Estabrook]

Read the papers, Mark.  The phrases in quotes come from today's articles 
in the Tribune and the Sun-Times.  --CGE


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 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. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss