[Peace-discuss] Re: Guest Commentary

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Neil-- Here's the piece as I sent it to the N-G -- I haven't
compared it in detail, but I don't think they edited it much.
I'll cc it to the peace-discuss list.  Regards, CGE]

==================

SENATOR OBAMA AND THE WAR

Senator Barack Obama came to Champaign recently for what was
called a town
meeting.  These events, apparently beloved by politicians, are
less
chances for citizens to tell their representatives what they
want --
there's never enough time for that -- than they are celebrity
appearances.
But, perhaps surprisingly, Senator Obama did say something
important at
the event in the Illinois Terminal.

According to WILL-AM, the senator said that "he hopes US
troops could
begin to leave Iraq next year, [but] removing the troops now
would result
in a massive bloodbath for both countries."

What's surprising is that that's almost identical with the Bush
administration's position, and it ignores the fact that a
majority of the
Iraqis want us to leave now, understandably enough, because
the "massive
bloodbath" is already occurring.  It contrasts sharply with
the view
expressed by Cindy Sheehan in her demonstration in Crawford,
Texas.  She
points out that one is either for the ending of the war and
the withdrawal
of the US from Iraq, or for its continuance.

Recent polls show that well over half of Americans think the
invasion of
Iraq was a mistake, and a third say that it should be ended
immediately
and the troops brought home.  But Senator Obama is cooperating
in the
critical support that the Democratic party has given to the
war and to
U.S. government policy in the Greater Middle East -- a policy
that has
killed tens of thousands of people during this administration
and may yet
have even more catastrophic results.  Leading Democrats are
now to the
right of the Bush administration in calling for an expansion
of the U.S.
military.

Obama, featured as the keynote speaker at the Democratic
convention in
2004, was celebrated as a progressive figure when he was
elected to the
Senate, against token Republican opposition.  (He also had an
unfunded
independent opponent who supported both withdrawal from Iraq
and universal
health care, positions that Obama rejected.)  But his
performance belies
that description:

	--The day before his convention speech, Obama told reporters,
"There's not that much difference between my position and
George Bush's
position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's
in a position
to execute."  In the speech Obama criticized Bush for invading
Iraq
"without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and
earn the
respect of the world" -- which remains the general Democratic
party
position.

	--Obama voted twice (once in committee and once on the Senate
floor) to confirm Condoleezza Rice, the National Security
Adviser during
the invasion of Iraq, as Secretary of State.  (His senior
colleague,
Richard Durbin, along with thirteen other Democrats, managed
to vote no.)

	--Like all but six of the Senate Democrats, Obama quite rightly
voted against the confirmation of Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales, the
promoter of the torture policy and the Patriot Act, but he
said he did so
"At a time when we are fighting for freedom in places like
Iraq and
Afghanistan ... the seeds of democracy began to take root in
Iraq ... we
are engaged in a deadly global struggle with those who would
intimidate,
torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic
freedoms..."  In
short, he echoed the administration's account of the war.

	--When Illinois' senior senator, Richard Durbin, timorously
raised
the question of the administration's torture policy on the
floor of the
Senate, Obama failed to support him.  Instead, he rather
timidly observed,
after Durbin's tearful apology for doing such a thing, "...he
should have
said what he said somewhat differently."

	--Just two months ago Obama said, "It is a challenge now to
try to
fix the mess that has been made by this administration.  There
aren't any
easy answers. It would be irresponsible to just spout off
without having
thought through what all the alternatives -- and implications
of those
alternatives -- might be ... I believe the president must take
a realistic
look at our current strategy and reshape it into an
*aggressive and
workable plan that will ensure success in Iraq*" [emphasis added].

	--Perhaps most disturbingly for the future, during his senatorial
campaign Obama supported in principle the Bush
administration's policy on
Iran.  On 25 September 2004, the Chicago Tribune wrote, "U.S.
Senate
candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States
one day
might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and
Pakistan to
keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs ... the
United
States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear
production
sites in Iran, Obama said."

There's a notable hesitation on the part of anti-war liberals
to call
Obama on his support for the war.  A member of the
Champaign-Urbana
anti-war group, AWARE, recently wrote, "...we need to treat black
politicians differently than white politicians..."  With
respect, that's
nonsense -- it's patronizing or hypocritical, if not racist. 
A senator in
favor of continuing the war, as Obama is, has blood on his
hands, whether
he's black or white, from voting for continued appropriations and
confirmation of the executives who make war.  Liberals who
fail to say so
because of the senator's race find themselves supporting the war.

	###

---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 14:27:12 -0500
>From: Neil Parthun <lennybrucefan at gmail.com>  
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Re: Guest Commentary  
>To: "AWARE Discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
>   I was off from my messenging job at the NG so I
>   wasn't able to read the article.  If somebody could
>   e-mail me (or the list) the article in question, it
>   may be easier for some of us to voice our opinions.
>    
>   But all that aside, if the debate is about taking
>   Obama to task for his pro-occupation/liberal warhawk
>   ideology, then I'll throw my .02 into the fracas.
>    
>   While Al's point about not wanting to alienate
>   people is good -- I think it is very condescending
>   to think that people would not be able to
>   differentiate between a legitimate criticism of a
>   political figure and AWARE being a group of
>   racists.  Obama's position is no less objectionable
>   to me because of his race.  Overanalyzing effects of
>   actions gets us nowhere because any action taken is,
>   without a doubt, going to cause somebody to take
>   offense.
>    
>   I think if we increasingly put pressure on Timmy J,
>   (Jerry Weller -- House rep. from my home district),
>   Durbin and Obama to come out with clear positions
>   against the occupation in Iraq, there is nothing
>   that can be construed as racist.  As long as the
>   position taken is clearly articulated, I believe
>   that criticizing Obama for his stance would work.
>    
>   Buy the ticket. Take the ride.
>               Neil
>    
>      When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn pro.
>              [dr. hunter stockton thompson]
>                             
>  We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution.
>                       [bill hicks]
>    
> Government is the Entertainment Division of the military
>                   industrial complex.
>                      [frank zappa]
>                             
>   Neil Parthun || Senior, History Education || e-mail:
>   parthun at uiuc.edu || my writing:
>   http://lennybrucefan.tripod.com
>