[Peace-discuss] Obama admits to war views

[Brussel Morton K.]

Of all the (obnoxious) candidates who conceivably can win the  
presidential election, Obama is the least transparent. That is, he's  
the one with whom there is the most uncertainty (about how he would  
govern). In that there exists a scintilla of hope.  The outlook is  
bleak, but given the three candidates, the maximum hope for  
progressives  lies with Obama…

This is not to say that one should vote for Obama as the best of the  
bad.  Supporting a minor candidate can be justified in helping to  
bring the issues  of war and peace, militarism, civil rights, racism,  
health, unrestrained capitalism, environmentalism,… before the  
public, —if only such a candidate can get access to the media. Will  
it make a difference?

A spoiler role is unlikely, but possible. Strategic voting is called  
for.

--mkb


On May 2, 2008, at 6:33 AM, John W. wrote:

> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Randall Cotton  
> <recotton at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> : I keep thinking that Obama is a better man than he is seen to be  
> in the
> : political campaign snakepit.  I keep thinking of Earl Warren, who  
> when he
> : was appointed was thought to be a conservative Supreme Court  
> justice, and
> : then surprised just about everyone with his "liberalism" (there's  
> that word
> : again).  The Warren Court turned out to be the most expansive, in  
> terms of
> : individual rights, in American history.  A high water mark.
>
> One problem with this comparison is that Supreme Court justices are
> appointed for life. Another problem is that Supreme Court Justices are
> largely self-contained independent entities. They are not dependent  
> on a
> Party, campaign contributors/volunteers corporate and not, favorable
> treatment by the media, etc. They don't need to worry about being
> re-elected in four years.
>
> If I understand you correctly, you posit that Obama's deplorable  
> positions
> such as:
>
> 1. U.S. foreign policy had nothing to do with 9/11
> 2. U.S. troops should stay in Iraq for things like "training",  
> protection
> of "U.S. personnel and facilities" and "targeted counter-terrorism
> operations" (how would that be any different than what we're doing  
> now?)
>
> that these positions are really not his positions after all - he's  
> just
> *saying* that to get elected and then afterwards, he'll turn right  
> around
> and say and do the right thing.
>
> No, that's not what I'm positing, exactly.  I'm positing - with  
> more than a grain of hope - that Obama will "grow into" the  
> position of President much as Lincoln and FDR did, and as Earl  
> Warren and several other Supreme Court justices have done.  I'm  
> positing - and hoping - that Obama will, when the occasion demands  
> it, become a statesman rather than just another political hack.   
> That he'll see and come to understand the Big Picture in a more  
> humane way than his recent predecessors.
>
>
> Well, maybe you're right. Maybe. It's certainly comforting to think  
> so,
> but isn't that the way with all self-deceptive wishful thinking? I  
> think
> Obama's unusual background and especially his flowery rhetoric induces
> people to write whatever they hope for on his largely blank slate.  
> But his
> conduct is indistinguishable from a "venal political huckster" who  
> will
> say and do anything to get elected (and you admit that's what you  
> think
> he's doing).
>
> Not exactly.  He's certainly trying to appear moderate...and maybe  
> he IS moderate.  Even that moderation is  better, in my view, than  
> saying that we're going to be in Iraq "for 100 years", or that  
> we're going to "obliterate" Iran.
>
>
> What reason do we have for believing that once elected he
> wouldn't continue to say and do anything to get *re*-elected?
>
> In the way that it's possible a comet could obliterate Earth this
> afternoon, I suppose it's possible that Obama is secretly planning a
> Trojan horse strategy whereby, once elected, he will turn on a dime  
> and
> pull all U.S. military out of Iraq and Afghanistan, explaining that  
> what
> we're doing there only creates the kind of enmity that gave rise to  
> 9/11
> in the first place, finding a way to make reparations to the millions
> we've victimized there. And he'll suddenly break with his unqualified
> support for the state of Israel and immediately rein in the opulent
> billions in annual military and financial support, explaining that  
> this,
> more than anything else, has been enabling the ongoing violent  
> oppression
> of millions of Palestinians and preventing the possibility of a  
> successful
> peace settlement. We could write in many more Trojan horse  
> scenarios on
> this blank slate.
>
> But put on your best skeptic's hat (and you have some good ones I  
> know)
> and ask yourself what you really think the odds are that Obama  
> really is
> "a better man than he is seen to be" and that, unbeknownst to  
> anyone on
> the planet, he has been silently planning to surprise us all, once
> elected, by saying and doing what we wish he would instead of what  
> he has
> actually been saying and doing all along.
>
> Even in the improbable case that this dicey wishful thinking turned  
> out to
> be spot on, I maintain on principle that one shouldn't cast their vote
> based on wishful thinking regardless.
>
> Normally I would agree, and I have the past voting record to prove  
> it.  I voted unequivocally for Nader twice.  But THIS time feels  
> different to me somehow.  THIS time I feel like Obama offers at  
> least the possibility of, as I said above, "growing into" the  
> Presidency as a true statesman.  THIS time I really don't want to  
> "waste" my vote on Nader or Cynthia McKinney, much as I might like  
> them.  THIS time I feel it's important to cast my vote for hope and  
> possibility over certain despair and 4 or 8 MORE years of "business  
> as usual".
>
>
> R
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
> To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> Cc: "Peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 3:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Obama admits to war views
>
>
> : On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:07 AM, C. G. Estabrook  
> <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> wrote:
> :
> : The Jeremiah Wright controversy has exposed once again Obama's  
> support for
> : > US war policy in the Middle East.  That support has been clear  
> from the time
> : > of his campaign for the US Senate, although he has covered it  
> with attacks
> : > on the war tactics (but not the overall strategy) of the Bush  
> administration.
> : >
> : > "Obama denounced [Wright's suggestion] that the United States  
> was attacked
> : > because it engaged in terrorism on other people..." [NYT].  
> "When I say I
> : > find these comments appalling, I mean it," [Obama] declared.  
> "It contradicts
> : > everything that I'm about and who I am" [G&M].
> : >
> : > "Obama cited Wright's contention ... that U.S. actions overseas  
> were
> : > partly to blame for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks ... Wright's  
> statements
> : > 'offend me, they rightly offend all Americans and they should  
> be denounced
> : > and that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally  
> today,' Obama said
> : > in a news conference in Winston-Salem, North  
> Carolina" [Bloomberg].
> : >
> : > Of course what Obama supports -- aggressive war in the Middle  
> East in
> : > "Afpak," Iran and Palestine as well as in Iraq -- is worse than  
> terrorism
> : > and includes it, as the Nuremberg tribunal pointed out at the  
> beginning of
> : > the post-WWII world. The tribunal, spelled out in the UN  
> Charter, declared
> : > that initiation of a war of aggression is "the supreme  
> international crime
> : > differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within  
> itself the
> : > accumulated evil of the whole."
> : >
> : > But Obama rejects Wright's quite accurate characterization of  
> US policy.
> : > --CGE
> :
> :
> : *sigh*  You ain't never gonna get it, Carl, but Obama has no choice
> : politically.  Wright's style as well as his substance are too  
> inflammatory
> : for the average (white) American voter, who still buys into most  
> of the
> : mythologies that sustain our declining empire.
> :
> : I keep thinking that Obama is a better man than he is seen to be  
> in the
> : political campaign snakepit.  I keep thinking of Earl Warren, who  
> when he
> : was appointed was thought to be a conservative Supreme Court  
> justice, and
> : then surprised just about everyone with his "liberalism" (there's  
> that word
> : again).  The Warren Court turned out to be the most expansive, in  
> terms of
> : individual rights, in American history.  A high water mark.
> :
> : I entertain the hope that Obama will surprise even you, Carl, and  
> turn out
> : to be another Lincoln or FDR, a statesman rather than a venal  
> political
> : huckster.  At least he's about 50,000 times better than the  
> alternatives.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080502/67c966bd/attachment.htm