[Peace-discuss] Obama and the anti-war movement

[C. G. Estabrook]

An important story, Ricky, illustrating how this war is indeed
racist ("civilized" being of course a euphemism). It also
illustrates the shamefulness, perhaps particularly, of Obama's
position (in that he's supposed to be a model for progressive
people of color in government).  And I agree (and said at the
time) that we made a serious mistake in not doing at Johnson's
dog and pony show what we did at Obama's -- and more besides.
Cindy Sheehan would have expected us to do more.  --CGE


---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>  
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Obama and the anti-war movement  
>To: peace discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
>OK, so that subject line's a little ambitious, but it
>is the topic of the following comment I added to Jan's
>article on our presence at Obama's visit.  
>
>Jan thought my interaction with Obama's aide (below)
>might be interesting for some folks because of
>tonight's discussion, which I'm sorry I missed (I
>think).  It sounds like the question of AWARE's
>anti-racism work came up tonite - and I think part of
>this conversation touches on that.
>
>Also, I want to say that when I walked in (late as
>usual) to AWARE's ongoing discussion last week, I had
>mixed feelings.  On the one hand, I thought, why does
>Tim Johnson (of all people) get off easier than Obama,
>who was after all very critical of the war when it was
>a plan that Johnson was supporting?  On the other
>hand, everything in Carl's leaflet was true and needed
>exposing if we are to stand on the principle that we
>claim defines us: we oppose the war and think it
>should stop now.  
>
>But after seeing, hearing, talking to Obama and to his
>aide, I was convinced that we had done the right thing
>by being there.  I don't know if my reasons come
>across...
>
>Comment on Jan's article at www.ucimc.org:
>
>This was a very educational event. Our senator has
>obviously been at great pains to agree with the
>growing anti-war sentiment in the country, even
>identify with it, while backing away from the one
>thing that we ask for: troops out now.
>
>He has met with anti-war protesters at a few stops
>now, including his recent birthday bash, and he seems
>willing to spend quite a bit of time talking with us.
>In public and in private. He says the invasion was
>'stupid', he uses the word 'torture', and then he says
>it's actually elements in the Democratic Party holding
>him back -- which I don't doubt at all -- but he
>opposes immediate withdrawal. And yes, even one of the
>country's most famous peaceniks Tom Hayden, agrees.
>
>Maybe electing these guys is tantamount to easing them
>out of the peace movement.
>
>But I also had a very enlightening conversation with
>one of Obama's aides, who stayed after the senator had
>to go in and give his speech.
>
>I told the aide we have to get out of Iraq now, which
>he said was "impossible." Of course it isn't
>impossible - we just pack up and go. But then he asked
>me if I would like to be "one of the last 100 guys
>[sic]" in Iraq.
>
>Of course I would not - but neither would I like to be
>one of the dozen or more who may get blown up tomorrow
>(or the next day, or the next, ...), or one of the
>thousands who have already been killed there, or the
>thousands more who are likely to die there, nor would
>I like to be a poor truck driver from Mississippi
>getting my head sawn off on the Internet... but what I
>asked Obama's aide was, "Then how can we ever leave?
>Someone would always be last."
>
>And here is the crux of the whole dispute between the
>out-nows and the wait-and-sees. The aide assured me
>that we could leave once we have "stabilized" the
>country. Yeah, the way we've "stabilized" it so far?
>Man, if this is stabilizing, what the hell would
>instability look like?
>
>But here comes another good one. I argued that the
>longer we stay, the more fire we draw. We can't set up
>a "democratic" government, because everything we touch
>in Iraq will have the taint of collaboration with
>foreign occupation. (Even the Iraqis who were glad to
>see us topple Saddam overwhelmingly reject the
>occupation.) That's why they're blowing up Iraqi cops
>-- because WE trained them... So the aide says,
>somebody's got to train the police. I say, let the
>Iraqis train them, they have facilities, they're a
>civilized country.
>
>"No they're not," he says.
>
>I asked him again, just to be clear. "They are not a
>civilized country," he said.
>
>So this is the whole problem, the basic common ground
>with the Bush Administration: they are not civilized,
>that is, barbarians, and our job -- our CRUSADE -- is
>to civilize them. Kipling called it "the white man's
>burden". I don't what we call it now. The American
>burden, I guess.
>
>Would I rather have Obama in the Senate than that
>nutcase they flew in to test the Illinois waters for
>the GOP pollsters? Sure. And I have no doubt he'll do
>a lot of good things there. But he won't stop this
>idiotic war. He won't even speak up for calling it
>off. Why?
>
>"We have to win elections," he said. Which elections?
>He won his hands down. He must be referring to a
>higher calling...
>
>But what's the point of winning elections? I kept
>asking, as the aide walked away. If you choose your
>positions in order to win elections, instead of the
>other way around -- [instead of] running for office in
>order to push for what's right and sane and important
>as life and death -- then what is the point?
>