<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
No, Gill's specifically attacking Johnson for voting against
H.R.5822 ("Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011") - as Johnson is pledged to do.
Gill says that by his vote Johnson is not supporting the troops, in
the vacuous Bush phrase - and asserts that he (Gill) would vote for
such a bill. <br>
<br>
So it's Johnson who's "rejecting any funding except to bring all our
troops safely home" - and it's Gill who's saying he wouldn't do
that, contrary to what he said on Swanson's list. it's pretty clear
who's being consistent. --CGE<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/12/10 5:53 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:570F16F5-2DA5-4813-A88C-B6E78AC5C1E4@illinois.edu"
type="cite">I don't believe that Gill is attacking Johnson for his
votes against further war funding; it's on other issues—such as
health care.
<div>--mkb</div>
<div><br>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 12, 2010, at 5:44 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Gill's name appears
on this list as agreeing that "It's time for Congress to
reject any funding except to bring all our troops safely
home" - but he's trying to run with the hares and hunt
with the hounds <font class="Apple-style-span"
color="#f81e1c">by attacking Johnson for actually
voting that way</font>! <br>
<br>
He's obscured his position to the point that we in fact
have a real choice on the war in Illinois’ 15th
Congressional District.<br>
<br>
Incumbent Congressman Johnson voted for the invasions of
Afghanistan and Iraq – and now says that he was wrong to
do so. He has pledged to vote against any more money
for war in the Mideast – and is voting that way.<br>
<br>
But Democrat Gill has been nowhere near so forthcoming.
His website contains no statement on the war, while
Johnson's anti-war votes are of course public. Gill has
at different times supported and opposed the occupation
of Afghanistan – but refuses to admit that he’s changed
his position. <br>
<br>
I have no brief for Tim Johnson’s politics in general –
I ran against him as the Green party candidate for
Congress in 2002 – but his votes against war in the
Mideast contrast sharply with David Gill’s studied
ambiguity (to put no finer point upon it).<br>
<br>
Killing people is the most important thing that the
federal government does, and they’re doing a lot of it
these days in the Mideast – in our name. As Obama and
the Democrats expand the war – in Afghanistan, in
Pakistan, in Yemen, in Somalia, perhaps into Iran – the
only way to stop it is for Congress to cut off the
funding.<br>
<br>
Tim Johnson is voting to de-fund the war, but it’s not
at all clear that David Gill would. Those of us who
want to end the war should vote for the incumbent.<br>
<br>
--CGE<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>