Fwd: Re: [Peace-discuss] Repeating a lie ...
Marti Wilkinson
martiwilki at gmail.com
Wed Feb 6 00:42:16 CST 2008
David Mendall makes the claim that Obama said these things during a private
meeting with the Chicago Tribune. I've tried to find other resources which
quote Obama as advocating bombing Iran including www.factcheck.org and I
managed to come up empty handed. That strikes me as being really strange.
Usually when politicians manage to say something stupid it gets picked up
all over the place. As such I'm not inclined to be fully supportive of these
allegations.
On Feb 5, 2008 9:51 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080206/d125ea55/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list