<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Mort--<br>
<br>
Naturally I appreciate your tender concern for my absence from
AOTA's interview with David Gill. In fact at the time I was
literally up in the air, flying Missoula-Denver-Dallas-CU and
arriving home just in time to see the program. In fact, I would
love to have asked Gill some questions about the war - and to quote
back to him his evasions from the past.<br>
<br>
Linda got Gill to agree to be on the show - and asked me not to be
"confrontational." But Gill said he couldn't make the regular
recording time. So I asked the accommodating people at UPTV to
provide us with other possible times: Gill eventually chose 5-6pm on
10/26. As it happened, I was out of town Friday-Tuesday.<br>
<br>
I've been corresponding with Gill since he announced for the seat in
the fall of 2009 - trying to get him to come clean on his stance on
the war. (From the News-Gazette, October, 2009: "Gill said he would
not support a total withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan...")<br>
<br>
Gill's statement read at the top of program managed to evade any
mention of (a) the administration's motive for the AfPak war and its
lies ("stopping terrorism") about those motives; (b) any principled
- as opposed to "pragmatic" ("we might not be winning") - reason to
oppose the war (as found, e.g., among <br>
Ron Paulists, Libertarians and paleo-conservatives); and/or (c) a
pledge like Tim Johnson's to vote against any more money for war.
(And Johnson is in fact voting that way.) What the statement does
contain are self-serving errors in fact about the history of the
AfPak war.<br>
<br>
As for the no-hope comment, did you note that the NYT gave Gill a
0.2% (that's two-tenths of one percent) chance of winning?<br>
<br>
And I'm sorry you don't see the difference between Gill's campaign
and the "presumed futile" Green party campaign for the same seat in
2002. The Greens took advantage of a quirk in the repressive
election laws to run a campaign - which they knew they would loose
- in order to raise issues that would not be raised by the
Republicans or Democrats. Gill evaded issues - especially the war -
in order to try to be elected.<br>
<br>
It's not a smear to point out those evasions. --CGE<br>
<br>
On 10/26/10 11:45 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> Most telling of all is the
absence of Carl Estabrook on the panel. If<br>
> he were able to participate (Did he require an invitation
[for a<br>
> program he initiated]? Did Gill object to his possible
presence on<br>
> the panel with him?), his absence indicates rank cowardice.
Evidently<br>
> Estabrook feels he can mouth off accusations better if there
is no<br>
> face-to face rebuttal.<br>
> <br>
> As for the sly "no-hope" comment, Estabrook should know what
it means<br>
> to run a campaign presumed futile. His attempt to smear the
program<br>
> is appalling.<br>
> <br>
> I thought Gill expressed himself admirably, and Karen, Ron
and Linda<br>
> deserve our thanks for carrying on and preparing well.<br>
> <br>
> --mkb<br>
> <br>
> On Oct 26, 2010, at 11:06 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:<br>
> <br>
>> The program tonight as broadcast showed a remarkable
development to<br>
>> David Gill's views on the US war in the Middle East.
(Gill is the<br>
>> no-hope Democratic candidate running against the
Republican<br>
>> incumbent, Tim Johnson, for the local congressional
seat.) He even<br>
>> struggled to modify the statement - his statement - read
by a<br>
>> member of the panel at the beginning of the program!<br>
>> <br>
>> One can see why - that statement is a tissue of lies.
What he said<br>
>> tonight - together with that statement - is a painful
exercise in<br>
>> misrepresentation - both of his own views and those of
his<br>
>> opponent. That has of course been the practice of the
Democrats<br>
>> since the beginning of this phase of the Long War.<br>
>> <br>
>> See the statement here:<br>
>>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.gill2010.com/issues/foreign-policy/afghanistan/"><http://www.gill2010.com/issues/foreign-policy/afghanistan/></a>.<br>
>> <br>
>> We might actually get a debate on the war if people have
a chance<br>
>> to see how disingenuous Gill's statement is - even with
his<br>
>> "evolutions" on tonight's program.<br>
>> <br>
>> Gill's major charge against Johnson is that he "doesn't
support the<br>
>> troops" - a made-up Bushism. But Gill's prevarications
and<br>
>> misrepresentations have deprived the local voters of a
real debate<br>
>> on the war - which looked liked happening, when Johnson
said he<br>
>> was wrong to vote for the invasions of Afghanistan and
Iraq, and<br>
>> pledged to vote against any more money for war in the
Mideast - and<br>
>> he is voting that way. Gill still won't make that pledge,
as a<br>
>> close examination of his statement shows.<br>
>> <br>
>> Both parties have worked hard to make sure that next
week's<br>
>> election is meaningless - and have largely succeeded. It
will not,<br>
>> most importantly, be a vote on the war. We should
therefore be<br>
>> working to stir up people across the political spectrum
on the<br>
>> military and economic betrayals of the current president
and<br>
>> Congress.<br>
>> <br>
>> The question is, Whom are we going to allow Barack Obama
to kill<br>
>> going forward, and why?<br>
>> <br>
>> Some people are talking about what Obama and the
Democratas are<br>
>> actually doing. Contrast Chris Floyd's remarks, as
follows, with<br>
>> Gill's evasions, above:<br>
>> <br>
>> "...Friends, it's very simple: if you support Barack
Obama and the<br>
>> Democrats -- even if reluctantly, even if you're just
being all<br>
>> sophisticatedly super-savvy and blogospherically
strategic about<br>
>> it, playing the "long game" or eleven-dimensional chess
or what<br>
>> have you -- you are supporting the outright murder of
innocent<br>
>> people who have never done anything against you or yours.
You have<br>
>> walked into a house, battered down the bedroom door, put
the barrel<br>
>> of a gun against the temple of a sleeping child, and
pulled the<br>
>> trigger. That is what you are supporting, that is what
you are<br>
>> complicit in, that is what you yourself are doing."<br>
>> <br>
>> Full article at<br>
>>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://chris-floyd.com/articles/1-latest-news/2035-obamas-finest-hour-killing-innocent-people-for-qmade-up-crapq.html"><http://chris-floyd.com/articles/1-latest-news/2035-obamas-finest-hour-killing-innocent-people-for-qmade-up-crapq.html></a>.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> </span><br>
On 10/25/10 12:05 PM, Karen Medina wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">>>> Dr. Gill is coming to
talk with<br>
>> AWARE (the local anti-war,<br>
>> <br>
>>> anti-racism effort of Champaign-Urbana). Would you
like to<br>
>> come and<br>
>> <br>
>>> share your reasons for being against this war with
Dr. Gill?<br>
>> We would<br>
>> <br>
>>> greatly appreciate it.<br>
>> <br>
>>> <br>
>> <br>
>>> Tuesday, October 26, 2010 5pm-6pm UPTV (in the Urbana
City<br>
>> Council<br>
>> <br>
>>> Chambers) 400 South Vine Street, Urbana, IL A taping
of AWARE<br>
>> on the<br>
>> <br>
>>> Air for Channel 6 that will air at 10pm Tuesday
evening.<br>
</span><br>
</body>
</html>