Fwd: Re: [Peace-discuss] Repeating a lie ...
Marti Wilkinson
martiwilki at gmail.com
Wed Feb 6 01:40:28 CST 2008
Here is another link
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/blog/?p=304
This is from November 2007
Peace, Marti
On Feb 6, 2008 1:21 AM, Marti Wilkinson <martiwilki at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/20080206/6fdde03f/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list