Fwd: Re: [Peace-discuss] Repeating a lie ...
Stuart Levy
slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu
Wed Feb 6 09:19:18 CST 2008
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 01:41:01AM -0600, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> You're grasping at straws. There's no doubt he said it.
Still... Obama has said different and often conflicting things
to different audiences. If he's elected, will he be as eager
to please AIPAC, for example, as he was when speaking directly to them?
> ---- 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
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list