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

[C. G. Estabrook]

Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Got the link to prove that???
>  -- Jenifer

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story?ctrack=3&cset=true

	Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran
	By David Mendell | Tribune staff reporter
	September 25, 2004

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.

Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made 
the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board. 
Obama's Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was invited to attend the same 
session but declined.

Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium 
into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a 
nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran 
to suspend all such activities.

Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain 
nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council 
and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran 
to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of 
economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out 
military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these 
pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if 
they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we 
going to take military action?" Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position 
to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. 
Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between 
the U.S. and the Arab world.

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in 
terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching 
some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be 
in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of 
nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not 
having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. 
... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I 
watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at 
this point."

As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to 
lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider 
military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already 
possesses. Musharraf's troops are battling hundreds of well-armed 
foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent 
confrontations.

Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand 
of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be 
treated differently.

"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating 
on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be 
blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and 
calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain 
elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same 
calculations.

"... I think there are elements within Pakistan right now--if Musharraf 
is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider 
going in and taking those bombs out, because I don't think we can make 
the same assumptions about how they calculate risks."

A last resort

Obama's willingness to consider additional military action in the Middle 
East comes despite his early and vocal opposition to the Iraq war. 
Obama, however, also has stressed that he is not averse to using 
military action as a last resort, although he believes that President 
Bush did not make that case for the Iraq invasion...

> */"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