[Peace-discuss] Norman Solomon's thoughts

[C. G. Estabrook]

Solomon was characterizing the parties to the discredit of the Republicans, but
to do so he had to omit the most interesting faction of the Republicans.

Everyone knows that the Republican establishment is belligerent and imperialist.
Not everyone (particularly in the anti-war movement) admits that the Democratic
establishment is belligerent and imperialist, in part because the Democrats are
disingenuous about it.

Were it my choice, and the only possibilities McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden, I'd
choose the latter -- and then hope we could put together a serious movement
against their murderous policies.  --CGE


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> The admirable Paul, at least on the war issues, will not win in November, and
> so it was not illogical that he was ignored in his article. Most know that
> Solomon is vigorously anti-war, anti imperialist. Again, we get remonstrances
> against ineffectual or disingenuous Democrats and their supporting
> establishment but /nothing/ about a much more belligerent/imperial Republican
> establishment. Typical.
> 
> One would not be wrong to infer that despite occasional weak disclaimers,
> Carl would not be discontent to see a McLain-Palin presidency.
> 
> Solomon continues to be "insightful and persuasive":, and, I would add, 
> thoughtful.  With (a scintilla of) hope, and no axe to grind.
> 
> --mkb
> 
> On Sep 4, 2008, at 4:47 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> In order to give a conventional account of the parties, Solomon has to 
>> ignore entirely the largest insurgent group within either one, the Ron Paul
>> faction. (As do the US media, as some on this list have just pointed out.)
>> 
>> 
>> And we hear a new version of the disingenuous (thanks, Ron!) Democratic
>> party bleat, "We can't do anything about the war -- our majority isn't
>> large enough!" -- "the potential for achieving progressive changes in
>> government policies is severely limited while the right wing is entrenched
>> in the White House."
>> 
>> In fact, if "the right wing" = the neocons, they seem to been have rather 
>> roundly repulsed in the last year, for whatever reason (Bush's conversion? 
>> incapacity?), and the foreign policy establishment is back in charge -- the
>> very people who'll be in charge in an Obama administration.
>> 
>> E.g., Obama has already let it be known that he'd like to retain Mr. Gates
>> (avid to kill people in Pakistan) at the Pentagon.  Within Bush's war 
>> council Gates has been advocating for months a secret plan for a much
>> broader campaign by Special Operations forces inside Pakistan, and a new
>> step seems to have been taken that way yesterday: American soldiers landed
>> from helicopters inside Pakistan and killed children, the US military
>> admits. (We forget that My Lai was not an aberration but the way that that
>> war was fought; the FPE seems to lack imagination.)
>> 
>> I've often found Solomon insightful and persuasive, but this fatuity ranks
>> right up there with, "He has to say that in order to get elected, but he'll
>> change when he's in office."  Perhaps. --CGE
>> 
>> 
>> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>> I believe this piece comes close to describing our present situation, not
>>> as some have distorted it...