[Peace-discuss] Bush's War Widens Dangerously

[C. G. Estabrook]

When that's true, the reason's not far to seek: its failure to live up to its name.  And the most egregious example is the championing of Obama by many people  of good will who consider themselves anti-war.  It was clear from early on that he wasn't -- Paul Street and others pointed that out -- but the 'sclerotic US anti-war movement' continued to grasp at straws. (Sclerosis makes even grasping difficult.)

After his scenery-chewing insistence on attacking Afghanistan and Pakistan, no one can now seriously contend that Obama's anti-war. 

What's primarily necessary for the US anti-war movement to become what it's called, is for it to fend off the extended and sophisticated campaign of co-option by the Democratic party.  If the campaign succeeds, the war goes on under the direction of a party that says it has the approval of the anti-war movement...  --CGE

---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:16:26 -0500
>From: "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel at illinois.edu>  
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bush's War Widens Dangerously   
>To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
>Cc: Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
>
>   Sometimes I think that Carl doesn't like the
>   anti-war movement, for reasons on which I would
>   hesitate to speculate. But then again he would
>   define the movement in such a way as to be a total
>   misrepresentation.  --mkb
>   
>   On Sep 18, 2008, at 8:13 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>     in part because of a sclerotic US anti-war
>     movement.
>________________