As long as we've known one another - practically a quarter century - I've apparently consistently failed to make myself clear to you.
For openers, I'm not young, campus (I'm retired), nor a Trotskyist (you know I'm a yellow-dog Chomskyan - a position I'll describe to a UIUC class next week).
Your red-baiting caricature applies to nothing I've said in our conversation, ancient or modern.
(The "Planet Earth" line I think I last heard from Alan Dershowitz, deriding Chomsky in a debate: it suggests the desperate level at which Dershowitz was working...)
Given the war crimes and mass murder of which the Democrats in office have been guilty, the principal objection I can see to the Republicans' taking the Senate is that they are *more* likely than the present Senate leadership to give Obama fast-track authority for his neoliberal trade pacts, Pacific and Atlantic. OTOH the Republicans still have an anti-war wing (altho' Rand Paul seems to be working hard to destroy his father's work in that area), while Obama destroyed the Democrats' anti-war wing.
The duplicity of the support Democratic front groups like MoveOn give to Obama's vicious military and economic policies suggests that they know how unpopular those policies are - because it's generally recognized, however obscurely, that those policies serve the interests of the 1%, not the 99%.
It will be Better, not Worse, when Obama's war and austerity are decisively rejected.
Regards, CGE
On Oct 22, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote:
> You seem to have the worldview common among young campus Trotskyists: the masses are poised for revolution, if only the opportunist labor lieutenants of capital could be stopped from diverting them into reformism.
>
> Back on Planet Earth, the handicappers give the Republicans better than even odds of retaking the Senate.
>
> But maybe you would see that as a positive development. After all, as every young Trotskyist knows, Worse Is Better.
>
>
>
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> (202) 448-2898 x1
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
> Bob--
>
> This appears to be another dodgy MoveOn petition in support of the administration's murderous Mideast policies.
>
> Those policies are in the interest of the American 1% (and no one else), who wish to continue their control of the world economy by dominating Mideast energy flows.
>
> It is simply false to say that the US is trying "to provide assurance to the international community that Iran will never try to build a nuclear weapon." That is the made-up reason for US attempts to exert control over the Iranian economy, particularly its production and distribution of gas and oil.
>
> Since Iran rejected US control in 1979, every US administration up to and including the current one has sought to reassert it.
>
> "In 2010, Iran accepted a proposal by Turkey and Brazil to ship its enriched uranium to Turkey for storage. In return, the West would provide isotopes for Iran's medical research reactors. President Obama furiously denounced Brazil and Turkey for breaking ranks, and quickly imposed harsher sanctions. Irritated, Brazil released a letter from Obama in which he had proposed this arrangement, presumably assuming that Iran would reject it. The incident quickly disappeared from view.
>
> "Also in 2010, the NPT members called for an international conference to carry forward a long-standing Arab initiative to establish a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the region, to be held in Helsinki in December 2012. Israel refused to attend. Iran agreed to do so, unconditionally.
>
> "The U.S. then announced that the conference was canceled, reiterating Israel's objections. The Arab states, the European Parliament and Russia called for a rapid reconvening of the conference, while the U.N. General Assembly voted 174-6 to call on Israel to join the NPT and open its facilities to inspection. Voting "no" were the United States, Israel, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau" - apparently the "international community" to whom you say "U.S. negotiators [wish] to provide assurance..."
>
> Obama, in his usual mendacity, has been quite consistent in his hostility to Iran, even though his threats violate the UN Charter: during his campaign for a Senate seat a decade ago, Obama supported the possibility of a pre-emptive attack on Iran. On 25 September 2004, the Chicago Tribune wrote, "…the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said … ‘having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse [than] us launching some missile strikes into Iran…’ he said."
>
> Instead of this dishonest MoveOn petition, we should demand Obama lift the sanctions on Iran, stop the bombing and the continuing threats (he's now bombed eight predominately Muslim countries - two more than George Bush), and remove US troops from the Middle East. That alone will "de-escalate tensions in the Middle East, helping us prevent war in the future.”
>
> Regards, CGE
>
> On Oct 22, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Robert Naiman <noreply at list.moveon.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear C. G. Estabrook,
>>
>> U.S. negotiators are facing a November 24 deadline to try to conclude a comprehensive agreement with Iran on constraining its nuclear program to provide assurance to the international community that Iran will never try to build a nuclear weapon. The New York Times recently reported [1] that the White House has decided to try to avoid in the near future a Congressional vote on any agreement reached with Iran, using the President’s power – granted by Congress – to suspend U.S. sanctions on Iran, rather than seeking legislation to repeal them. The U.S. Treasury Department has concluded that President Obama has the legal authority to suspend the vast majority of U.S. sanctions on Iran without seeking a vote by Congress. It is widely accepted by experts that suspending U.S. sanctions on Iran will be a necessary ingredient of a diplomatic agreement that constrains Iran's nuclear program sufficiently to provide assurance that Iran will never build a nuclear weapon.
>>
>> But some Members of Congress, like Republican Senator Mark Kirk and Republican Senator John Cornyn, want to derail President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry’s efforts to achieve a diplomatic agreement. [2]
>>
>> If key Democratic leaders don’t support President Obama’s diplomacy, an agreement with Iran will be much less likely. Urge key Democratic leaders to support President Obama’s diplomacy with Iran by signing our petition at MoveOn:
>>
>> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/key-Dems-Iran-diplomacy
>>
>> Here’s the text of our petition:
>> “Democratic leaders Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should strongly back President Obama's efforts to negotiate a comprehensive agreement with Iran on constraining its nuclear program by the November 24 deadline, thereby ensuring that Iran will not build a nuclear weapon and de-escalating tensions in the Middle East, helping us prevent war in the future.”
>>
>> President Obama will have a brief window of opportunity after the U.S. election in November to negotiate an agreement – a window of opportunity that may not come again. [3] When President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry negotiated the interim nuclear deal with Iran, Senator Warren [4] and Senator Sanders [5] were early supporters. Former Secretary of State Clinton attacked the deal through surrogates [6], only finally embracing the deal [7] when opponents of the deal were about to concede. [8]
>>
>> Support from key Democratic leaders will help thwart efforts by Republicans to sabotage President Obama’s diplomatic efforts. Urge key Democratic leaders to support President Obama’s diplomacy with Iran by signing and sharing our petition:
>>
>> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/key-Dems-Iran-diplomacy
>>
>> Thanks for all you do to support diplomacy and help prevent war,
>>
>> Robert Naiman
>> Just Foreign Policy