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

Tue Feb 5 17:14:04 CST 2008

PS Obama is on record as saying he opposed the war in IRAQ from the first which, I believe we now all agree, he in fact did. So yr accusation that in 2004 he advocating bombing IRAN is a brand new accusation which doesn't make him a liar about the former. I've never heard him advocate bombing Iran... and I've also never heard him claim he hasn't said it, so you can hardly accuse him of lying about it if it's never even come up. I'd still be interested in the documentation on that.
   --Jenifer  

Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com> wrote: 
  Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:26:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Peace-discuss] Repeating a lie doesn't make it true
To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
CC: Peace-discuss List <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>

  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._______________________________________________
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/20080205/6e3f6064/attachment.htm