Fwd: Re: [Peace-discuss] Repeating a lie ...
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Wed Feb 6 00:56:31 CST 2008
Obama has never denied saying what the Tribune reported. He was asked about it
directly after his August 2005 rally in Champaign, with David Mendell standing
by. --CGE
Marti Wilkinson wrote:
> 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 <http://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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <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
> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list