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

Tue Feb 5 03:49:20 CST 2008

"Morton K. Brussel" <brussel4 at insightbb.com> wrote:    >So, where's his backbone? 
  Politicians who expect to get elected to higher office must (unfortunately) have VERY, uh, flexible backbones.

  >Is it possible he took an anti-war stance in 2004 simply because he deemed it >was a profitable electoral position?
  No, I think he was sincere and taking a risk (which gives me hope that he's not a hawk deep down, ergo better than Hillary, who seems to be, esp w/ Madeleine Albrecht standing at her side). In 2003-04 the MSM was beating the war drums pretty loudly, and tho' there were the largest anti-war protests ever, the majority of voters were convinced that Sadaam had attacked us on 9/11 and we had to show him who was boss... so a strong anti-war position was courageous on Obama's part. 

  >In other words, we don't know what we're getting, do we, except that he may be >less war-prone than Hillary.
  Not any more... and let's hope so. 

  >Looking at his advisors, one cannot be very confident that he would assume an >anti-imperialist, anti-militarist politics.
  I have concerns about a number of his issues actually. Plus his advisers are either encouraging a shift to the right to first get elected and then to make nice so that some decent legislation is passed -- Congress is full of these heartless shits... or he's really less progressive than he claims, and we're no better off than w/ Hillary. Meanwhile, I'm so sick of hearing about "leadership" and "bipartanship" I could scream (like the lack of those are the REAL and only problems to be fixed).  

  >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.
  I think Obama is a better bet than Hillary, I think Hillary is a better bet than McCain (think: Supreme court, if nothing else)... I wouldn't say we have no choice and no voice, we just don't and always won't have our first choice... but I do think we have the ability to put a Democrat back into office, which by far beats the alternative, especially for people we all claim to care about, tho' not all the people we claim to care about.
   --Jenifer 

  --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

---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080205/2cb7dd8e/attachment.html