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

[Brussel Morton K.]

So where does Bob Naiman stand with regard to the candidates in the forthcoming election? 

He seems to be "parsing" his positions. A political tactician rather than a strategist? 

Note: I'm pleased that Tim Johnson has "turned" on the war, and congratulate him on that, but history and other issues should not be discounted so readily. 

--mkb

On Jul 28, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss