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

Wed Jul 28 11:48:49 CDT 2010

I am certainly not an uncritical acolyte of Alexi G. As folks know, in
the Democratic primary I supported someone else.

However, as Churchill said, "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would put in a
good word for the devil." Mark Kirk is that bad. He isn't just a bad
vote; he is a leader, an organizer of evil.

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:20 PM, E.Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:
> I would certainly agree that Mark Kirk is a package of congealed evil.
>
> The real shame is that there are no really good choices
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Naiman"
> <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
> To: "Brussel Morton K." <mkbrussel at comcast.net>
> Cc: <david at gill2010.com>; "Peace-discuss List"
> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; "Stuart Levy" <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>;
> "David Gill" <davidgill2010 at yahoo.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] House Votes Today on Afghan, Pakistan Wars
>
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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