Re: [Peace-discuss] Arianna, Obama, and the Hollywood‘Left’

[Chas. 'Mark' Bee]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
To: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:18 PM
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Arianna, Obama, and the Hollywood‘Left’


> [Justin Raimondo is the quirky Editorial Director of Antiwar.com, a site 
> that describes itself as follows: "This site is devoted to the cause of 
> non-interventionism and is read by libertarians, pacifists, leftists, 
> greens, and independents alike, as well as many on the Right who agree 
> with our opposition to imperialism. Our initial project was to fight for 
> the case of non-intervention in the Balkans under the Clinton presidency 
> and continued with the case against the campaigns in Haiti, Kosovo and the 
> bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan. Our politics are libertarian: our 
> opposition to war is rooted in Randolph Bourne's concept that 'War is the 
> health of the State.' With every war, America has made a 'great leap' into 
> statism, and as Bourne emphasizes: '... it is during war that one best 
> understands the nature of that institution [the State].'  At its core, 
> that nature includes the ever-increasing threat to individual liberty and 
> the centralization of political power." Raimondo, who has been 
> consistently anti-war, seems to me here to get Obama's false anti-war 
> position right. --CGE]
>
> Arianna, Obama, and the Hollywood ‘Left’
> Wednesday, February 14th in Politics by Justin Raimondo |
>
> Is anybody else as sick of Arianna Huffington as I am? She was obnoxious 
> as an ostensibly conservative Republican, predictably bizarre as a 
> California cultist, and now that she’s the doyenne of the Hollywood 
> trendy-wendy Left she’s even more galling than ever. Check out her most 
> recent post on Barack Obama, whose candidacy she’s pushing, in the course 
> of which she manages to indulge both her liberal myopia and her odd 
> fixation on Tim Russert:
>
>     "Picking up the rhetorical shank bone, and accepting Obama’s substance 
> anorexia as a given, Russert asked, 'Is there now a second phase of the 
> coverage of Barack Obama where reporters and voters will start demanding 
> from him real specifics on the real challenges confronting our country and 
> world?'
>
>     "It makes me wonder: don’t these guys own a computer? If they took the 
> time to surf the websites of any of the candidates, they’d see that the 
> presidential campaign is already awash in real specifics on all kinds of 
> real challenges. Indeed, they should go to barackobama.com right now and 
> click on ‘Issues.' They’ll see something called 'Plan to End the War in 
> Iraq,' which is… a plan to end the war in Iraq. But maybe the war isn’t a 
> real enough challenge for Russert."
>
> Really, dah-link, do click on that link promising a “plan to end the war 
> in Iraq,” and what do you find? This:
>
>     "The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq 
> as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue 
> the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in 
> meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush 
> Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the 
> redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met."
>
> So, according to Obama and his Hollywood friends, we have to “redeploy” — 
> never withdraw — starting next year, but only if the Iraqis persist in 
> failing to be “successful” in meeting 13 mysteriously unspecified 
> “benchmarks.” The “redeployment” will end, however, if and when the Iraqis 
> start acting like good colonial subjects and kiss our asses in 13 
> different positions. And, in any case, we aren’t really leaving, you silly 
> goose — that’s what “redeployment” is all about, don’tcha know. We’ll 
> always have a “limited number” of troops garrisoning the Green Zone, just 
> enough for the Democrats to claim that they’re not “cutting and running.” 
> More than enough, in short, to keep the Iraqi government on the American 
> leash — and, perhaps, give the insurgents enough of a target to emulate 
> Beirut, 1983.
>
> With an “antiwar” candidate like Obama, what do we need John McCain for? 
> This “plan” is a recipe for a semi-permanent occupation.
>
> I say send we send Arianna, and a “limited number” of the Hollywood Left, 
> to “train” the Iraqis to jump through hoops and leap over “benchmarks.” 
> That way we’ll be spared having to listen to her cocktail-party smalltalk 
> elevated to the level of serious political discourse.
>
> P.S. Oh, yes, and don’t forget Obama’s refusal to rule out going to war 
> with Iran (and Pakistan!) …


  OK, so he doesn't like the redeployment, but Obama says the redeployment 
could end with Congressional approval.  And, of course, the website also 
says 'phased withdrawal'.

  Seems a bit at odds with Raimondo's 'never withdraw' characterization 
above.