[Peace-discuss] Obama's threat

[C. G. Estabrook]

John W. wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:29 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> 
> [Remember that in the 2000 campaign Bush attacked Clinton's invasion of 
> Serbia and said that he would not indulge in such "nation-building."  We have
> to assume that some people voted for him because they were tired of Clinton's
> foreign policy lies.  Now Obama attacks Bush's foreign policy lies...]

I mean that some people may vote for Obama because they're tired of Bush's
foreign policy lies -- with no assurance that we'll get anything different  (We
didn't last time.)  In fact, there's some evidence that we'll get a continuation
of the usual US foreign policy, perhaps with cosmetic changes, so to speak.


> And you're attacking what you've already decided are Obama's past lies, while
>  holding up his present words as some sort of immutable truth. What if Obama 
> is lying NOW to get elected, and he really intends, once elected, to do the 
> opposite of what he's saying now?  You reckon that's possible?

I'm afraid that's what Obama's defenders are reduced to: "Vote for him -- he's
lying!"

> Ralph Nader tells the truth all the time, and never changes his message.  But
>  he don't get elected.  What does that tell you?

It reminds me that the US spends a third of its world-largest GDP on propaganda.
  You can manufacture a lot of consent for that.

> Barack Obama calls Iran a 'threat' Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:32:07
> 
> US Presidential hopeful Barack Obama calls the Islamic Republic of Iran a 
> 'threat' during a word association game in a TV interview ...