Fwd: Re: [Peace-discuss] Repeating a lie... is tacky. Telling the
truth is better!!
Jenifer Cartwright
jencart13 at yahoo.com
Wed Feb 6 02:52:45 CST 2008
Jeez, Carl, you're the wordsmith of the group... so I KNOW you don't REALLY think "would consider" (especially after a series of conditions) is synonymous w/ "proposed!!!???" I think it dishonors you to pull this kind of stuff, and also -- having lost the argument about Obama and Iraq -- to bring in Iran... and then Pakistan!!
How 'bout we all try to stick to the truth (which is condemning enuff) on these posts. There's enuff BS out there w/o our generating more.
--Jenifer
Marti Wilkinson <martiwilki at gmail.com> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080206/c7dfbbd6/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list