[Peace-discuss] Making his bones

[C. G. Estabrook]

It makes a difference whether we've got an accurate account of what's going on
-- on the basis of which we can communicate to others and encourage some
serious demands -- or whether we ignore or deny that in favor of pious hopes.

John W. wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 8:23 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu 
> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>> wrote:
> 
> The thoughtful man of integrity and compassion has killed dozens of men,
> women and children this week.  He will kill more next week, and the week 
> after.  It can be little comfort to them or those who feel for them to know 
> that you and others are confident that Obama "will not pursue a failed policy
> as long and as tenaciously as Bush did."
> 
> Especially since the evidence is all the other way. Obama has said, clearly, 
> that he will pursue Bush's war policy even more vigorously, because the "war
> on terrorism" (the lie that Obama has adopted) must be won in Afghanistan.
> --CGE
> 
> 
> Well, I'm hoping that he'll be convinced to change his mind.  That's all I
> got, man.  Which is as much as you seem to have.
> 
> 
> 
> John W. wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 5:55 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu
> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu
> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>>> wrote:
> 
> [Obama killed people this week, as he said he would.  With the acts described
>  below he begins to fulfill his campaign promise and make the Bush 
> administration's killings -- in countries with which we're not as war -- look
>  like "baby steps."  I don't know why people don't listen to this guy and 
> believe what he says.  (We got out of the habit with Bush, perhaps.)  Obama 
> seems to trust his rhetorical skills enough to tell the truth -- e.g., he's 
> going to widen the war -- in such a way that people believe something else. 
> And he, like Clinton, can avoid giving any but the most puerile explanation 
> for the killings -- the "war on terror"! --CGE]
> 
> 
> That's not what it is, Carl.  Most of the Obama supporters I hear express 
> their opinions - and that includes African-Americans I know personally, and 
> it includes Professors Patricia Smith and Melissa Harris-Lacewell, both of 
> whom were on Bill Moyers last night - aren't terribly enamored of Obama's 
> foreign policy, particularly his view of the "war on terror" and his 
> relatively unqualified support of Israel. But they see signs, as do I, that 
> Obama is a thoughtful man of integrity and compassion who will not pursue a 
> failed policy as long and as tenaciously as Bush did.  As evidence they point
>  to his announcement of the closing of Guantanamo, of the end of torture, of 
> greater transparency and accountability in the executive branch, etc.  Obama 
> DOES seem to still adhere to the notion of Islamic extremists threatening our
> safety and security, and that of Israel.  And for all I know he does not 
> question our need to control the "terms of engagement", if you will, in the 
> Middle East.  Those of us who have SOME faith in Obama hope that he will 
> begin to employ other methods of engagement with the middle east in addition 
> to military ones, and we hope that as he does so, his more peaceful and 
> conciliatory efforts will bear some fruit.
> 
> In other words, Obama still has some evolving and maturing to do.  He isn't 
> as old as you, he hasn't gorged himself on the ruminations of Noam Chomsky 
> for years and years as you have, and therefore he can't be expected to have 
> your degree of wisdom right out of the starting gate. It shall be your 
> opportunity and privilege to play a small but vital role in Obama's 
> seasoning, by holding his feet to the fire as you and the journalists whose 
> works you read so faithfully do.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> Two US Airstrikes Offer a Concrete Sign of Obama's Pakistan Policy Saturday 
> 24 January 2009 by: R. Jeffrey Smith, Candace Rondeaux and Joby Warrick,
> Washington Post Staff Writers ...
> 
> 
>