[Peace-discuss] Foreign press slightly more honest

Wed Dec 2 15:33:23 CST 2009

Typical Obama straddle.  Having presented himself as the anti-war candidate when 
he never differed from the ongoing US policy in the Middle East, he could safely 
suggest a tactical adjustment (AfPak rather than Iraq).

The deception was the Democratic party position since 2006, when they were given 
control of the Congress to end the war.  They had to pretend that they were 
against the war, when they supported the long-term US control of the ME.

In his more candid moments, he's admitted that Iraq and Afpak are different 
"theaters" of the same war.

John Fettig wrote:
> He certainly sold the "I was against the Iraq war from the beginning" 
> line, and continues to use it (he even mentioned it last night).  But I 
> thought he was pretty clear about Af/Pak.  From the first presidential 
> debate:
> 
>> We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops 
>> there. We need more resources there. Senator McCain, in the rush to go 
>> into Iraq, said, you know what? We've been successful in Afghanistan. 
>> There is nobody who can pose a threat to us there.
>>
>> This is a time when bin Laden was still out, and now they've 
>> reconstituted themselves. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates himself 
>> acknowledges the war on terrorism started in Afghanistan and it needs 
>> to end there.
>>
>> But we can't do it if we are not willing to give Iraq back its 
>> country. Now, what I've said is we should end this war responsibly. We 
>> should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce 
>> our combat troops, put -- provide some relief to military families and 
>> our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can 
>> capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.
>>
>> And right now, the commanders in Afghanistan, as well as Admiral 
>> Mullen, have acknowledged that we don't have enough troops to deal 
>> with Afghanistan because we still have more troops in Iraq than we did 
>> before the surge.
>>
> The second debate:
> 
>> As Secretary Gates, the defense secretary, said, the war against 
>> terrorism began in that region and that's where it will end. So part 
>> of the reason I think it's so important for us to end the war in Iraq 
>> is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan, put more pressure 
>> on the Afghan government to do what it needs to do, eliminate some of 
>> the drug trafficking that's funding terrorism.  
> 
> How is this bullshit?
> 
> John
> 
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:59 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> Bullshit. He dined out as the "peace candidate," against that madman 
>> McCain, who would've expanded the war in the Middle East.  Obama's was 
>> a particularly devious and unprincipled bit of deception, as some 
>> pointed out at the time.
>>
>>
>> John Fettig wrote:
>>> Except there was no deception involved;  this is precisely what Obama 
>>> promised during his campaign.  See for example 
>>> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/07/06/obama_mccain_split_over_afghan_strategy/
>>>> If elected, Obama says, he would immediately withdraw thousands of 
>>>> ground troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan to help 
>>>> undermanned US forces defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
>>>>
>>>> "It's time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in 
>>>> Afghanistan," Obama said in a speech last week. "It is time to go 
>>>> after the Al Qaeda leadership where it actually exists."
>>>>
>>>> The Illinois senator, whose opposition to the Iraq war is a campaign 
>>>> centerpiece, has concluded that the US presence there has fanned 
>>>> Islamic terrorism and diverted scarce military resources from taking 
>>>> on new terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Al Qaeda 
>>>> operatives trained for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
>>>>
>>>> Obama believes that the United States has relied too heavily on 
>>>> forces from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a Europe-based 
>>>> military alliance which has little experience in guerrilla warfare.
>>>>
>>>> "Afghanistan should have been our fight," said retired Air Force 
>>>> General Merrill "Tony" McPeak, national cochairman of Obama's 
>>>> campaign. McPeak blamed the Iraq war, where the United States has 
>>>> about 140,000 troops, for diverting the Pentagon's focus on 
>>>> Afghanistan, where only 32,000 American troops are stationed.
>>>>
>>> On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:50 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>> "Ah, ha!" he says. "Fooled you! I had my fingers crossed: I meant 
>>>> Iraq, not AfPak! Now I get to kill as many people as I want there!"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
>>>>> The NYT writers surely must have a bad taste in their mouths.
>>>>> *
>>>>> Was anyone supposed to believe this--?
>>>>> /"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops 
>>>>> out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I 
>>>>> will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can 
>>>>> take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 
>>>>> 27, 2007/
>>>>> ...
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>>>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> 
>>>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss