Fwd: Re: [Peace-discuss] Repeating a lie ...
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Tue Feb 5 21:51:00 CST 2008
Ah, he didn't really mean it, eh? The headline -- "Obama would consider missile
strikes on Iran" -- suggests that the newspaper also thought that he was talking
about bombing Iran. We should have realized that, as a good guy, he couldn't
have meant it.
Did he also not mean it when he said that he would bomb Pakistan if Musharraf
didn't do what the US wanted? --CGE
Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Did you READ this, Carl?? And you get from this that "In 2004, Obama
> proposed bombing Iran??? Look at it again. Underline "if", "if", "if",
> and "would consider" and have it back on my desk by morning. Meanwhile,
> your grade is D-
> --Jenifer
>
>
> */"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>/* wrote:
>
> 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" /* 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
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> Search.
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list