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

Wed Jul 28 10:52:34 CDT 2010

I haven't discounted other issues at all. On the contrary, at the
outset I said: folks may support Gill over Johnson based on other
issues, and with that I have no argument.

I am ambivalent about the Congressional race. I am not campaigning for
either candidate. I respect the people who are campaigning for Gill,
and wish them well. I am certainly not against tilting at windmills in
general. :)

But as it stands I expect to direct my attention elsewhere. I will
probably spend more time on the Senate race, because Mark Kirk is True
Evil - never met an AIPAC proposal he didn't want to champion - and I
would very much like to keep him out of the Senate, a goal I believe
to be quite feasible.

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Brussel Morton K.
<mkbrussel at comcast.net> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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