[Peace-discuss] Repeating a lie...
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Wed Feb 6 18:57:27 CST 2008
He never *unequivocally* opposed the war, even when he criticized how the Bush
administration handled it in 2004, because he never opposed it in principle --
only how the administration was doing it. --CGE
Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> 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.
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list