They may be grammatical and concise English but the statement still makes little sense and no doubt the requirement that Estabrook points to is a significant reason that he must refer to it in this way. However one would think that at least he could rise to being half sensible by mentioning the Taliban who are also regarded as terrorists or conniving with them. The control of resources issues is not always hidden. In fact it seems that great mineral resources in Afghanistan are now brought out as a reason the Taliban cannot be allowed to win.!
Blog: http://kenthink7.blogspot.com/index.html Blog: http://kencan7.blogspot.com/index.html
----- Original Message ---- From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Sent: Thu, June 24, 2010 10:30:29 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Garry Wills does nice short summary of RS article
On Jun 24, 2010, at 11:26 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> Obama is conducting an even more brutal war than Bush did, but he explains it only with Bushisms: "I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal - to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That’s the goal that must be achieved.”
These are not "Bushishms." They're concise, grammatical English. That makes the liberals swoon, even though the meaning is the same brutal nonsense.
Doug ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk