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

[C. G. Estabrook]

I think it's important to see just what Obama was "waffling" about.  What does 
his opposition to the war consist of, when it occasionally appears?

 From the Vietnam War on, we've talked about two very different ways of opposing 
US imperialist wars.  On the one hand were those who saw the invasion of South 
Vietnam as an international crime -- an illegal and immoral war that was 
obviously in violation of the Nuremberg Principles.  On the other hand were 
those (they eventually included even SecDef Robert McNamara) who had no moral 
objection to the war but thought it was a *mistake* because it would not be 
practically possible for the US to achieve its maximum war aim, viz. a settled 
US client state in S. Vietnam.

Obama's opposition to the Iraq war, when it appears, is of the second sort.  The 
Bush administration's bungling occupation gave him the opportunity to castigate 
the Republicans not for a crime (Obama doesn't think it was a crime) but for a 
blunder in pursuit of a general policy -- US hegemony in the ME -- which he 
supports.  --CGE


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 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