Fwd: Re: [Peace-discuss] Repeating a lie ...
Marti Wilkinson
martiwilki at gmail.com
Wed Feb 6 01:21:18 CST 2008
Making any knowledge claim with only one reference is piss-poor research. I
wasn't at the rally in Champaign and have not read any affirmations or
denials on Obama's part. The factcheck.org site is hosted by the Annenberg
Public Policy Center which is part of the Annenberg School for
Communication.
http://www.asc.upenn.edu/about/
David Mendall has also written a book about Obama which is on sale through
Amazon.Com
http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Promise-Power-David-Mendell/dp/006085820
I myself have not read this book, but it might be a good resource.
Marti
On Feb 6, 2008 12:56 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080206/844f0b2a/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list