[Peace-discuss] The message of wiki-leaks…

[C. G. Estabrook]

John, when you & I were young and in New England, that was called 
"poor-mouthing," and no one could get away with it.

But you think these Midwesterners are more credulous, eh?

Attention to the political class' newspaper of record and its leading liberal 
columnist is a matter of noting how well the manufacture of consent is working.

The administration thinks that its greatest threat right now comes from home (as 
usual), not abroad - the danger that the US public may cop an attitude on AfPak 
(cf. Vietnam).  That's what really scares Obama & Co. (See the "Audacity of 
Hope," where he indicates how serious he thinks the problem is - and offers 
himself as the solution.)

Ol' Frank's job - as David points out mordantly - is to patrol the limits of 
allowable debate, to tell us how as  well as what to think about "Obama's first 
year," so that more will follow as the night the day.

And you tell us to pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain...


On 8/2/10 12:09 PM, John W. wrote:
> You know I'm not very smart, and sometimes have trouble following these
> arcane threads.  Someone please remind me why Frank Rich's precise turns of
> phrase are the most important thing that y'all have to talk and think about.
> Are you in danger of becoming complacent if ol' Frank finally admits that the
> war in Afghanistan is "morally wrong" and not merely some manner of mistake?
> John
>
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:49 AM, David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com
> <mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> Mort, it's not at all clear that /Rich /thinks we should get out. Although he
> is an editorial columnist, he says nothing throughout of his own views. The
> closest he comes is this: /As the president conducts his scheduled
> reappraisal of his war policy this December, a re-examination of 1971 might
> lead him to question his own certitude of what he is fond of calling “the
> long view.” /That's obtuse, and for a reason. And indeed the lessons of
> "1971" aren't at all clear, if one is serious about making even this argument
> re what "might lead" Obama. Neither the army nor the population is rebelling
> against the war, and the economic downturn that has accompanied it does not
> seem to be bothering the interests of capital, broadly speaking. In fact, it
> has benefitted them greatly--the economic world is very different than it was
> in 1971, and the resource stakes are much higher in the ME than in Southeast
> Asia. There is no certainty at all, as Rich suggests, that we are on the
> downside of this war. So his column is counsel for complacency. With you, it
> has seemed to work. DG
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
*From:* Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu <mailto:brussel at illinois.edu>>
> *To:* David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com <mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com>>
> *Cc:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>>;
> Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> *Sent:* Mon, August 2, 2010
> 10:44:24 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] The message of wiki-leaks…
>
> Again, you beg the question with the statement below. It's clear that Rich
> thinks we should get out of Afghanistan. That's specific, and positive,
> despite all else. I also want the U.S. forces "out". That's the most
> important thing at the moment, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere.
>
> As for Carl, he can twist anything for his purposes, as with use of the word
> "quagmire" as an excuse for hiding criminality.
>
> It is one thing to say that you are not satisfied, or strongly dissatisfied
> with the positions and writings of someone like Rich, but I believe your
> twisting of what can be helpful in stopping the killing is perverse. Get off
> your ideological horse.
>
> --mkb
>
> On Aug 2, 2010, at 8:57 AM, David Green wrote:
>
>> On a broader level, everyone wants peace, albeit on their own terms.