[Peace-discuss] Repeating a lie doesn't make it true

[Morton K. Brussel]

So, where's his backbone? Is it possible he took an anti-war stance  
in 2004 simply because he deemed it was a profitable electoral position?
In other words, we don't know what we're getting, do we, except that  
he may be less war-prone than Hillary.
Looking at his advisors, one cannot be very confident that he would  
assume an anti-imperialist, anti-militarist politics.
However, if one had to vote for one or the other, I suppose one would  
go for Obama rather than Hillary. We are give little choice and no  
voice, it seems.
--mkb

On Feb 4, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:

> Yo, I agree Obama was waffling big time on his stance by 2005, as  
> you all have said over and over and over again. But his claim that  
> he was "against the war from the first" is true... He WAS against  
> the war "from the first," certainly so in 2004 running for US  
> Senate. "From the first" implies that he never waivered or changed  
> or softened his stance, which we all know he did in the face of all  
> that hawkish DC rhetoric... But it's NOT a lie to say he was smart  
> enuff to know it was a mistake at the time, and was on record as  
> saying so. Credit where credit is due.
>  --Jenifer
>
> "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> The problem is, he wasn't against the war from the first. And when he
> was called on it, as he was in Champaign in 2005, he straddled the  
> issue
> some more.
>
> He was perfectly aware of what he was doing. He responded to his
> critics by sheltering behind with Durbin (!) and insisting that their
> joint position in favor of the continuation of the war was not pro- 
> war.
>
> Here's what Obama wrote in September of 2005:
>
> "My colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin, spoke out forcefully - and
> voted against - the Iraqi invasion. He isn't somehow transformed  
> into a
> 'war supporter' - as I've heard some anti-war activists suggest - just
> because he hasn't called for an immediate withdrawal of American  
> troops.
> He may be simply trying to figure out, as I am, how to ensure that  
> U.S.
> troop withdrawals occur in such a way that we avoid all-out Iraqi  
> civil
> war, chaos in the Middle East, and much more costly and deadly
> interventions down the road."
>
> Uh-huh. And as far as his being "the best chance we've got" in our
> undemocratic presidential election, I've heard that phrase used to
> defend war criminals running for office from the Kennedy brothers on.
>
> The best chance we've got is to bring as much popular pressure as
> possible on whoever is in office. Anti-war movements helped end the
> Vietnam War and the Reagan wars in LA, not by changing office-holders
> (they didn't), but by agitating against those who were there.
>
> It's not easy. Both parties continue to support murder and  
> exploitation
> in the Middle East ("fighting terrorism") in spite of the fact that a
> majority of Americans have opposed the war for some time now. But  
> we're
> not going to get anywhere supporting trimmers like Obama and  
> Clinton. --CGE
>
>
> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> > Carl, To set the record straight so that nobody is repeating a  
> lie to
> > try to make it true: Obama has said/continures to say he was against
> > the war in Iraq "from the first" which predates 2005. I heard him a
> > number of times in 2004 when he was running for U S senate  
> (including
> > in person at a house fund-raiser and at Greg Hall) and he was
> > unequivocally and outspokenly against the war in Iraq at that time.
> > When he got to Wash, he softened his stance on a number of issues,
> > which Nation mag said was necessary and pragmatic for a junior
> > senator, but which I tho't was unnecessary and disappointing. And he
> > hasn't improved since then -- every time I'm willing to cut him a
> > little slack, he says something even more dreadful than he said the
> > week before. That being said, I think Obama's the best chance we've
> > got, so I think we have to hope he chooses a decent running mate and
> > then help him get elected... and then help him get back to the  
> way he
> > was "from the first." --Jenifer
> >
> > */"C. G. Estabrook" /* wrote:
> >
> > Both Clinton and Obama seems to find it necessary to lie about the
> > war, given the majority anti-war sentiment in the country. Clinton
> > lies about the circumstances of her husband's murderous actions, and
> > Obama lies about the positions he's taken.
> >
> > Obama's been dining out on the line that he "opposed the war from  
> the
> > beginning." But those of us who heard him speak at his rally in
> > Champaign in August 2005 know that that's not true. An acute Daily
> > Illini reporter described the typical Obama straddle: "Obama
> > attempted to align himself with the [anti-war] protesters'  
> sentiments
> > while defending his cautiousness toward a pullout."
> >
> > He said that he hoped US troops "could begin to leave Iraq next year
> > [2006]; [but] removing the troops now would result in a massive
> > bloodbath for both countries [sic]." That was, of course, almost
> > identical with the administration's position, and it contrasted
> > sharply with the view expressed that summer by Cindy Sheehan, who
> > pointed out that one was either for the ending of the war and the
> > withdrawal of the U.S. from Iraq, or for its continuance.
> >
> > The day before his 2004 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."
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > In 2005 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 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."
> >
> > A further example of Obama's support for a general Middle Eastern  
> war
> > policy, of which the invasion of Iraq was a part, (while he  
> attempted
> > to reap electoral advantage from the difficulties of that invasion)
> > was his comments about bombing Pakistan. Reuters reported last  
> August
> > that "Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to
> > attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani
> > government."
> >
> > Obama's much-advertised "opposition to the war" didn't include
> > support for withdrawal, but rather -- like Clinton -- support for  
> the
> > ongoing war policy in the Middle East. --CGE
> >
> > David Green wrote:
> >> http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1750
> >>
> >> I hope that somebody will write a letter to the N-G incorporating
> > this
> >> information, challenging this lie, and flatly stating that we are
> >> in Iraq just as much because of the first Clinton as because of the
> >>
> > second
> >> Bush. If BC had ended the sanctions, this could not have happened.
> >> Instead, he raised the volume. Folks need to be reminded that
> >> nobody opposed to this war can vote for HC in good conscience,
> > regardless of
> >> the alternatives.
> >>
> >> DG
> >>
> >> Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public
> > Accuracy,
> >> is the author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep
> > Spinning
> >> Us to Death. He said today:
> >>
> >> "If facts matter, then it should matter that Hillary Clinton
> > chose to
> >> rely on such a basic falsehood during the debate when she flatly
> > stated:
> >> 'We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out
> >> inspectors.' In fact, just prior to the Clinton administration' s
> >> several days of bombing Iraq in December 1998, the U.N.'s UNSCOM
> > weapons
> >> inspectors left Iraq when UNSCOM head Richard Butler withdrew them
> >> - because the Clinton administration made it clear that the U.S.
> >> government was about to start bombing."
> >>
> >> Solomon added: "That false statement by Hillary Clinton during the
> >> debate Thursday evening came as she was trying to verbally
> > navigate what
> >> were her most difficult moments of the night: about her vote for
> >> the October 2002 congressional resolution that authorized an
> >> invasion of Iraq. At that point in the debate, she was arguing that
> >> she had made what she called a 'reasoned judgment' which assumed
> >> that Saddam
> > Hussein
> >> had a record of blocking inspectors so they couldn't find his
> > weapons of
> >> mass destruction. In the process, her extreme distortion of
> > history -
> >> asserting that the four-year absence of U.N. inspectors from Iraq
> > was
> >> because Saddam 'threw out inspectors' in December 1998 - goes to
> >> the core of her candor about the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq
> >> and her rationale for voting to authorize it.
> >>
> >> "Any journalists interested in fact-checking Senator Clinton's
> >> claim that 'We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein
> > threw out
> >> inspectors' would be well-advised to stick to relying on the
> > original
> >> reportage of what occurred in December 1998. Since then, a
> >> self-referential myth has developed in retrospective news
> > coverage of
> >> those events, with journalists and politicians alike frequently
> >> recycling the false assertion that the four-year absence of U.N.
> >> inspectors from Iraq began when Saddam kicked them out of the
> > country."
>
>
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080204/de9fcd0f/attachment.htm