[Peace-discuss] Repeating a lie...

Wed Feb 6 16:40:34 CST 2008

So now it's "has not been" vs "was"... Carl (using my patient voice), we ALL agree that Obama's position has changed during the period you mention and that "he has not been" as anti-war as we would have liked!!! But for you to continue to say that he "was" not on record as uniquivocally opposing the Iraq war in 2004 during his run for US Congress (when btw most people did NOT share his views) is meanspirited and unfair, as well as untruthful.
  My last word on this. I need to get a life.
   --Jenifer     

"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
  Obama has not been "against the war from the first," because (a) he's 
waffled, as you say, and (b) what opposition he has shown has been 
tactical, not principled -- he's not really against it at all. He just 
knows that a majority of Americans are, and he has to try to cover over 
the differences. That is in fact his constant strategy.

If you're not willing to consider the examples I've shown you, how about 
those from, e.g., the Joshua Frank piece that Mort posted? I've 
emphasized a few phrases:

"After Obama won his senatorial race in 2004 he quickly abandoned the 
antiwar rhetoric he had touted along the campaign trail. While remaining 
critical of the White House and the lies that pushed us toward war, 
Obama still maintained that U.S. military should remain in Iraq until 
the job was completed.

"...in a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in late 
November 2005 ... he said, 'In sum, we have to focus, methodically and 
without partisanship, on those steps that will: one, stabilize Iraq, 
avoid all out civil war, and give the factions within Iraq the space 
they need to forge a political settlement; two, *contain and ultimately 
extinguish the insurgency in Iraq*; and three, bring our troops safely 
home.'

"Obama continues to favor a 'phased redeployment' of our troops as well 
as 'benchmarks' for the Iraqi government, but *promises to not 'fully 
withdraw'* – hence why the Illinois senator has supported the majority 
of Bush administration's pork-engorged appropriation bills that are 
draining the U.S. Treasury. *Obama wants to keep cadres of troops 
throughout Iraq with others all other the region to strike if necessary.*

"So where would President Obama send the troops he's redeployed? A good 
guess might be Iran...

"Iran is a 'genuine threat' to the United States and Israel, Obama later 
expressed at a forum sponsored by AIPAC on March 12, 2007, in 
Washington, D.C. At the event Obama reiterated that he would not rule 
out the use of force in disarming Iran, a position he shares with rival 
Hillary Clinton.

"Earlier that same month, on March 2, 2007, Obama spoke at an AIPAC 
Policy Forum in Chicago, where he succinctly laid out his position on 
how he would deal with the Middle East, promising not to alter America's 
lopsided relationship with Israel. '[W]e must preserve our total 
commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully 
funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related 
missile defense programs,' he said. 'This would help Israel maintain its 
military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as 
close as Gaza.'"

Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> 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 /* 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 > > 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" > >
> >Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Peace-discuss] Repeating a lie ...
> >To: "C. G. Estabrook" > >
> >Cc: Peace-discuss List 
> >
> >
> > 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
> > > 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 
> > 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
> > 
> > > >>
> 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
> > > ...

---------------------------------
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/20080206/74bdf8d8/attachment.html