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

Tue Feb 5 14:26:08 CST 2008

Got the link to prove that???
   -- Jenifer

"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
  It never was. In 2004, he proposed bombing *Iran.* --CGE

Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> 
> Carl, In 2004, Obama's opposition was clearly of the first, not the
> second variety. Surely his speeches from that year would be available
> for you to read so we could put this particular issue to rest, once
> and for all? --Jenifer
> 
> */"C. G. Estabrook" /* wrote:
> 
> 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" /* 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
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! 
> Search. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080205/bdadf1db/attachment.htm