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

Wed Jul 28 16:22:16 CDT 2010

But Giannoulias may be nowhere near the standards of someone chosen randomlhy 
form the phonebook.  And there is another choice, LeAlan Jones, the Green.

On 7/28/10 12:04 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:
> I have no evidence that he is better on the I-P issue. I am certain
> that Kirk would be worse for the world, because he is a key,
> aggressive leader of the right wing of the pro-AIPAC forces in
> Congress. It's like, if you had a choice between Joe Lieberman and
> someone chosen randomly from the phone book, take the person from the
> phone book. That's how bad Mark Kirk is. If Mark Kirk is elected, and
> there is a resolution in the Senate saying that the U.S. is not doing
> enough to be butch with Iran, Mark Kirk will be the person who
> introduces it.
>
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:58 PM, David Green<davegreen84 at yahoo.com>  wrote:
>> Bob, do you have any evidence that Kirk's opponent is any different regard
>> I/P?
>>
>> ________________________________
>> 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: Wed, July 28, 2010 10:52:34 AM
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>