[Peace-discuss] House Votes Today on Afghan, Pakistan Wars

[C. G. Estabrook]

I have no idea how you voted, but I'll leave it to the candid member of AWARE to 
say whether you "defended Obama" by objecting vigorously to my news summaries 
that criticized his candidacy and pointed out his obfuscation of his position on 
the war.  I recall that you exploded at one TV taping when I guyed you a bit for 
offering a "commercial for Obama."

I know that our present system is a parody of democracy, but in principle we're 
supposed to vote for legislative candidates who will vote correctly on the 
issues. There is no issue more important than the war this year, and  it seems 
that, unusually enough, we have a choice: an incumbent who is consistently 
voting against the war, as he promised to do; and an opponent who refuses to 
make a similar promise.  The choice isn't hard for anyone opposed to the war.


On 7/27/10 10:40 PM, Brussel Morton K. wrote:
> It is a blatant lie to say that I defended Obama, and this statement reveals
> a kind of turpitude that I should not have expected. Furthermore, you know
> that I didn't vote Democratic (for Obama), so your second sentence is simply
> disingenuous obfuscation.
>
> You might remember that in the previous election, Gill was against the Iraq
> war;  Johnson supported it and the policies of Bush. My contacts with Gill,
> although limited,  were encouraging: He explicitly stated his opposition to
> our wars and occupations and to U.S. militarism in general (Is Johnson voting
> for cutting the military budget—and by how much if at all?. How has he voted
> on that budget?).  Whether Gill would vote the way I prefer if in Congress is
> unanswerable now, but his stances in the past were far superior to those of
> Johnson, not only on the issues of militarism, terrorism, national
> "security", and war and peace, but on many other progressive issues as well.
>
> Your manichean approach to these candidates is unworthy if not unusual.
>
> --mkb
>
> P.S. I am sending this to Gill to see if and how he responds.
>
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2010, at 9:52 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>> This is unworthy of you, Mort. It's also stupid to stay with a candidate
>> just because he's a Democrat.
>>
>> We have a Congressional representative (whom I ran against in 2002) who
>> voted for the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq.
>>
>> He now says he was wrong to do so.  More importantly, he has promised to
>> vote against any more funding for the Mideast war - and he has consistently
>> voted that way.  Isn't that what we've been trying to get Congress members
>> to do?
>>
>> His rather desperate opponent refuses to make a similar promise. (Since
>> Gill has little chance anyway - look at the returns for the last 3 or 4
>> elections in the 15th CD - he wouldn't want to offend anyone who's either
>> for or against the war.) He asks us to vote for him (because he's a
>> Democrat) and then he'll decide later how much blood he wants on his
>> hands.
>>
>> Haven't you been lied to enough?  Of course, I do remember your defending
>> Obama in similar terms.  How do you think that's worked out?
>>
>> How long will they be able to seduce and abandon you?  --CGE
>>
>>
>> On 7/27/10 9:25 PM, Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>>> Plugging for Tim Johnson is becoming tedious. So is denigrating David
>>> Gill.
>>>
>>> I'll bet on Gill's humane qualities any day over Johnson's. I suspect
>>> that there's more behind your campaign for Johnson than just his
>>> (recent opportunistic?) war issues  He goes to church and he's against
>>> abortion . Does he still believe in the war on terror, which at least
>>> until recently he supported? Forget about public health and other issues
>>> such as taxes and the economy.
>>>
>>> --mkb
>>>
>>> On Jul 27, 2010, at 8:05 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rep.Johnson voted for the Kucinich-Paul resolution.
>>>>
>>>> His arrogant Democratic opponent, David Gill, seems to want us to vote
>>>> for him without telling us how he would vote on war funding. Would he
>>>> have voted for the Kucinich-Paul resolution?
>>>>
>>>> Given the consistent lying from Democrats about what they'd do in
>>>> regard to the war, I can see no reason for people opposed to the war to
>>>> vote for them in November. Certainly not for David Gill, when he will
>>>> not even echo Tim Johnson's promise to vote against money for war in
>>>> the Mideast. --CGE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/27/10 11:53 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>>> [Note that while we can be pretty confident that Rep. Johnson will
>>>>> vote no on the war money, we have no such assurance, as far as I am
>>>>> aware, that he will support the Kucinich-Paul measure calling for the
>>>>> withdrawal of U.S. forces from Pakistan; another reason to call,
>>>>> using the toll-free number provided below.]
>>>>>
>>>>> The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote this afternoon on
>>>>> the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
>>>>>
>>>>> This morning, the Senate version of the Afghanistan war supplemental
>>>>> was brought up in the House under "suspension" rules, which require a
>>>>> 2/3 majority to pass. This expedited procedure is generally used for
>>>>> measures considered "uncontroversial," which is odd, to say the
>>>>> least, since the war in Afghanistan is anything but uncontroversial,
>>>>> with the most recent evidence being the release by Wikileaks of
>>>>> secret documents on the war, which the New York Times reported
>>>>> "offers an unvarnished, ground-level picture of the war in
>>>>> Afghanistan that is in many respects more grim than the official
>>>>> portrayal." [...] If 90% of the Members who voted for the
>>>>> McGovern-Obey-Jones amendment on July 1 vote no this afternoon on the
>>>>> war supplemental, the measure will fail. [...] Also on the House
>>>>> calendar today is H.Con.Res. 301, a "privileged resolution"
>>>>> introduced by Reps. Dennis Kucinich, Bob Filner, and Ron Paul, which
>>>>> invokes the War Powers Act to force a debate and vote on the
>>>>> deployment of U.S. forces in Pakistan.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Representative Kucinich points out, what U.S. forces are doing in
>>>>> Pakistan has never been authorized by Congress. The 2001
>>>>> authorization of military force targeted those who planned and
>>>>> carried out the September 11 attacks and those who harbored them. It
>>>>> was not a blank check to attack anyone we don't like, or anyone our
>>>>> friends don't like. U.S. forces in Pakistan are targeting people who
>>>>> did not, as far as we know, plan or participate in the September 11
>>>>> attacks, and against whom no evidence has been presented that they
>>>>> harbor those who did. Whether one thinks the enterprise worthy or
>>>>> not, U.S. participation in a war against the internal foes of
>>>>> Pakistan has never been authorized by Congress. There's nothing in
>>>>> the 2001 authorization of military force about a barter agreement in
>>>>> which we attack people in Pakistan that the Pakistani government
>>>>> doesn't like in exchange for permission to attack people in Pakistan
>>>>> that we don't like.
>