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

[Robert Naiman]

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:05 AM, David Gill <davidgill2010 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Arrogant refusal"? For many years I've stated that we need to begin to
> immediately withdraw the vast majority of our troops from Afghanistan.
> This is not a "parsed" statememt, Mr. Naiman, and it is vastly different
> than the position of either President Bush or President Obama.

I accept your clarification. You are certainly right that this is not
President Obama's position; it is a position which today is still well
ahead of the center of national debate.

> I publicly opposed the invasion of Iraq before it occurred;  had my positon
> carried the day, rather than Tim Johnson's position, millions of people who
> are dead today would instead be alive.
> Those who deny the truth and importance of that statement demean the worth
> and dignity of each of those human beings.

I certainly don't deny it. Tim's vote for the war was wrong, as he has
acknowledged. But I'm not willing to put 2003 above all else, when we
still have wars to end.

> Mr. Estabrook appears to have no understanding of the district, and has no
> grasp of the electoral history of the district.  A 57-43 defeat is nowhere
> near "2 to 1"-- Carl implies that I previously lost by 33-34 points when in
> fact it was 14-15 points, less than half of what Carl purports.  And he
> appears to have little understanding of the implications of directly
> providing care to individuals in the district-- witness that my share of the
> vote in DeWitt County was three times the typical Democratic percentage.
> I've now been caring for people in McLean County for three years, and we're
> seeing that same phenomen replicated here.  Mr. Johnson's shill, Mr.
> Estabrook, couldn't be any further from the truth when he states that I have
> "no chance of winning"-- we are well on our way to winning in McLean County
> and handily winning the district overall.  On top of everything else
> (increased name recognition, relocation to McLean County, increased public
> understanding of Mr. Johnson with regards to term limits lies and initiation
> of endless wars and tax cuts for the wealthy and allowing of Big Pharma to
> pillage our Treasury and on and on), the anti-incumbent fever overtaking
> thuis region far outweighs the national anti-Dem feeling.  Or perhaps Carl
> has talked with a different set of 100,000 voters than I have over the past
> 12-15 months?

"handily winning the district overall"? Bet you dinner that it's not so.

> It doesn't help to have people who are purportedly interested in "peace and
> justice" back an incumbent whose votes have produced millions of deaths, but
> we'll succeed in spite of such foolishness.
>
> Over the past several weeks, I've come to the conclusion that even leaving a
> few thousand troops in Afghanistan/Pakistan is unwise, and I would support
> no AfPak military funding other than that necessary to bring all of our
> troops home now.

This is a strong position, and I praise you for taking it. I hope you
will take advantage of opportunities to state it publicly.

> And yes, Mr. Estabrook, we do indeed need to "plumb the souls" of
> candidates-- because there will be future wars and war votes, and one should
> try to understand the heart of a candidate-- does he love his fellow human
> being, or does he simply stick his finger up and see which way the wind is
> blowing.  My opponent was gung-ho for war when it was supported by 80% of
> the public;  now that the majority of the public opposes the war, so does
> he.  Mr. Estabrook's gullibility never ceases to amaze me-- in fact, I
> suspect that he actually has agendae other than peace and justice, as he
> couldn't truly be as gullible as he appears to be.  When the next invasion
> is popular, my opponent will likely be right there, riding the wave,
> supporting the war.

I can't agree with you here. As I pointed out, Rep. Johnson's voting
record is now very well ahead of the national debate. Yesterday, Rep.
Johnson was with less than 10% of the House voting in favor of
withdrawing U.S. troops from Pakistan. You can't plausibly attribute
that to "finger in the wind."

Moreover, we currently have a majority in Congress who are voting for
war *despite* the fact that the majority of Americans are against it,
so right now we could use more of this kind of opportunism, not less.

> David Gill, M.D.
>
> ________________________________
> From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
> To: Stuart Levy <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
> Cc: Brussel Morton K. <mkbrussel at comcast.net>; david at gill2010.com;
> Peace-discuss List <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Sent: Wed, July 28, 2010 5:16:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] House Votes Today on Afghan, Pakistan Wars
>
> It's not enough to have a Congressional representative vote to defund the
> war -
> we have to be sure he's doing it for the right reason?
>
> The House votes no more money for war - and we have to plumb the souls of
> the no
> voters before we approve?
>
> And while we're probing souls, what do we say about that of a candidate who
> arrogantly refuses to tell us how he'll vote? He's supposed to do that so we
> can
> decide whether to vote for him or not.  Instead, he's marketing himself like
> toothpaste. (I admit that's what Obama did.)
>
> And we are spending far too much time on this.  David Gill has no chance of
> being elected.  It's a gerrymandered Republican district (as he points out)
> in a
> year when there will be a substantial vote against the administration and
> the
> Democrats.  Under those circumstances, he can't expect even to do as well as
> his
> 2-1 losses before. Does he think he'll get Tea-party support?  There isn't
> even
> a strong enough pro-war sentiment in the district for his attempt to stay to
> the
> right of Johnson on the war to garner him many votes.
>
> Let's get back to an issue more serious than David Gill's bashfulness about
> his
> views on killing people - like dirty T-shirts...  --CGE
>
>
> On 7/28/10 4:40 AM, Stuart Levy wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:08:04AM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Well... as I mentioned in David Gill's facebook thread, we still don't
>> know why Tim Johnson has flipped on the wars (even though I called him
>> this week to confirm that I'm glad he did).  And as I said there,
>> one can imagine several plausible reasons -- including that this war
>> is now being promoted by a President of the opposite party, which could
>> change in a couple years.  If a President Palin attacks Venezuela,
>> what would Johnson think of that?  Given that uncertainty, I don't think
>> the
>> choice is as clear as you say.
>>
>> It'll mean more if we can see that Gill is taking a position which is
>> opposed to the President of his own party.  He's done that on health care,
>> as far as I can see.  And Gill commented, just last night, after
>> conferring
>> with Progressive Dems. of America, that he will now issue a position
>> on (I think) war funding, which he had not done before.
>> I look forward to reading it.
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>



-- 
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for Military Withdrawal from Afghanistan
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern