[Peace-discuss] Liberal opinion

[unionyes]

" No matter the
mission, we must maintain America's military dominance." ....President 
Barack Obama

That statement by Obama is VERY revealing !


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
To: <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>
Cc: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Liberal opinion


>I think the administration is actually quite pleased with all the sound and 
>fury
> about what's essentially a non-issue.  (It's been obvious for a generation 
> that
> the US should have a healthcare system like the other industrialized 
> nations;
> it's equally obvious why we don't.)
>
> What the health care argument does is crowd out much consideration of the
> administration's frenzied attempt to expand (i.e., win) the war in Afpak. 
> Polls
> show a majority of Americans now disapprove of the war, but you wouldn't 
> know
> that from the media, where what we hear is puerile boilerplate like what 
> Obama
> gave the VFW this week, e.g.,
>
> "Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left
> unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from 
> which
> Al Qaida would plot to kill more Americans.  So this is not only a war 
> worth
> fighting; this is fundamental to the defense of our people ... No matter 
> the
> mission, we must maintain America's military dominance."
>
> "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit 
> the
> spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that
> spectrum -- even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That 
> gives
> people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time 
> the
> presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on 
> the
> range of the debate" [Noam Chomsky].  --CGE
>
>
> Robert Naiman wrote:
>> I think this analysis is misleading. It takes as a barometer of whether a
>> group of progressive activists care about the wars, whether they say it 
>> is
>> their top issue, at a time when, understandably, there is a lot of focus
>> among progressive activists on the health care issue. Not only is it
>> misleading, I think it could be unnecessarily divisive. In order to 
>> reform
>> U.S. foreign policy, we need the support of people for whom reforming 
>> U.S.
>> foreign policy is not likely to be their top issue. Why piss on them
>> unnecessarily?
>>
>> It should be noted that Greenberg is not a neutral observer.
>>
>> There was a lot of progressive activism around the McGovern bill. Now 
>> people
>> are trying to figure out what the next hook is...
>>
>> ...it would help significantly I think, if there were a hook in the 
>> Senate.
>> Could we generate some pressure on Mr. Durbin...?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM, C. G. Estabrook<galliher at illinois.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> The netroots agenda: War? What war? By: Byron York 08/15/09 11:22 AM EDT
>>>
>>> It's not getting much attention, but the Netroots Nation conference 
>>> (formerly known as YearlyKos, a spinoff from the left-wing website
>>> DailyKos) is going on in Pittsburgh this weekend.  Democratic pollster
>>> Stanley Greenberg has conducted a straw poll of the participants and 
>>> found
>>> that a majority of those surveyed, 53 percent, say they "cannot support 
>>> a
>>> health care reform bill that does not include a public option."  Other
>>> results include word that most of the attendees are willing to 
>>> compromise a
>>> bit on environmental legislation, even though it gives a lot of benefits 
>>> to
>>> big corporations, and the finding that, amazingly enough, attendees 
>>> voice near-unanimous approval, 95 percent, of the job Barack Obama is 
>>> doing as president.
>>>
>>> What's truly striking in Greenberg's poll is the degree to which the 
>>> wars
>>> in Iraq and Afghanistan have fallen off the progressive radar.  I 
>>> attended
>>> the first YearlyKos convention, in 2006, and have kept up with later 
>>> ones,
>>> and it's safe to say that while people who attended those gatherings
>>> couldn't stand George W. Bush in general, their feelings were 
>>> particularly
>>> intense when it came to opposing the war in Iraq.  It animated their
>>> activism; they hated the war, and they hated Bush for starting it.  They
>>> weren't that fond of the fighting in Afghanistan, either.
>>>
>>> Now, with Obama in the White House, all that has changed.  Greenberg 
>>> presented respondents with a list of policy priorities and asked, 
>>> "Please indicate which two you think progressive activists should be 
>>> focusing their
>>>  attention and efforts on the most."  The winner was passing 
>>> comprehensive health care reform, with 60 percent, and number two was 
>>> passing "green energy policies that address environmental concerns," 
>>> with 22 percent.
>>> Tied for eighth place, named by just eight percent of respondents, was
>>> "working to end our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan."
>>>
>>> Then Greenberg asked which one of those issues "do you, personally, 
>>> spend the most time advancing currently?"  The winner was health care 
>>> reform,
>>> with 23 percent, and second place was "working to elect progressive
>>> candidates in the 2010 elections," with 16 percent.  In 11th place -- at
>>> the very bottom of the list -- was "working to end our military 
>>> involvement
>>> in Iraq and Afghanistan." Just one percent of Netroots Nations attendees
>>> listed that as their most important personal priority.
>>>
>>> Many observers have remarked that Obama's decision to escalate the war 
>>> in Afghanistan, and also to escalate the campaign of targeted 
>>> assassinations using drone aircraft, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, 
>>> will cause him trouble on the political left.  Indeed, some members of 
>>> Congress have suggested that the president has just a year to show 
>>> significant results in
>>>  Afghanistan before lawmakers begin to pressure him to pull back.  But 
>>> if
>>> the Netroots Nation results are any indication, Obama may have more room
>>> than previously thought on the war.  Not too long ago, with a different
>>> president in the White House, the left was obsessed with America's wars.
>>> Now, they're not even watching.
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/The-netroots-agenda-War-What-war-53296592.html
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss