Fwd: Re: [Peace-discuss] Repeating a lie ...
Marti Wilkinson
martiwilki at gmail.com
Wed Feb 6 02:03:19 CST 2008
You may want to re-read my emails. I stated a clear preference for more than
one source of information. I did not claim that the Tribune article is
false. If my attempts to strive for more than one resource to educate myself
on a given subject matter is grasping at straws, then I'm guilty as
charged.
Of course I could resign myself to taking everything that is posted as
absolute gospel and avoid making the effort to actually think for myself.
The trouble with that is I would only deny myself the right to be wrong and
the opportunity to actually learn something on occasion. Seems like a pretty
boring way to spend ones time.
Peace, Marti
On Feb 6, 2008 1:41 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> You're grasping at straws. There's no doubt he said it.
>
> ---- Original message ----
> >Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 01:21:18 -0600
> >From: "Marti Wilkinson" <martiwilki at gmail.com>
> >Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Peace-discuss] Repeating a lie ...
> >To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> >Cc: Peace-discuss List <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> >
> > 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
> >________________
> >_______________________________________________
> >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/20080206/53b33de2/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list