[Peace-discuss] 33 Billion Dishonest Excuses for War

[C. G. Estabrook]

"Clinton, though his poll ratings were high at the end of his term (when voters
knew they would see the back of him), was an albatross in a way that Reagan was
not. Partly this was because, unlike Reagan, it was plain that Clinton had no
particular convictions, beyond the desire to stay in office — he attracted no
broad or dedicated following. More acutely, however, the scandals that
surrounded his Presidency made it impossible to convert into any kind of a
rallying-point. He was plainly guilty of the charges — molestation in Arkansas,
perjury and obstruction of justice in Washington — against him, which were fully
impeachable: the Constitution calling for the removal of a President culpable
even of ‘misdemeanors’ short of such breaches of the law, which in other fields
of office would have swiftly led to resignation or dismissal. Widespread
resistance to this logic, strong enough to block it, comprised a number of
elements. Partisan loyalties were affronted among Democrats and the academic
following attached to the Party. Cultural susceptibilities were aroused by fears
of Grundyism. Popular aversion to impeachment, however, rested on a much more
powerful bedrock of sentiment — attachment to the quasi-monarchical status of
the Presidential office itself, as embodiment of national identity in the world
at large, a late-twentieth-century fixation foreign to the Founders. But if
popular opinion did not want impeachment, instinctively seeking to protect the
Presidency, for the same reasons it did not relish Clinton’s conduct, an
indignity to the office not easily forgotten."


On 5/8/10 12:20 AM, E.Wayne Johnson wrote:
> The failure to remove terminally flawed presidents is not a matter of the
> whether or not the guy was guilty, and in such a way as to compromise his
> effectiveness as a servant of the people.
>
> It is obvious to all that Clinton, Bush, and Obama are trashers of the
> constitution and violators of the publick trust and they trash and violate in
> the name of personal gain, tyrannical power, and filthy lucre the same as any
> other stinking-ninth-rate king would do. The American people have grown to
> love and respect that sort of thing.
>
> The Congress and the system are so corrupted by so-called political
> motivations that they interpret every matter as being a matter of partisanism
> rather than a matter of principle. The American people are also concerned
> about the embarrassment involved in having to depose their Emperor and having
> to admit that they made a unfit man their Emperor, or even that one of them
> might be unfit.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
> To: "E.Wayne Johnson" <ewj at pigs.ag> Cc: "peace discuss"
> <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 8:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] 33 Billion Dishonest Excuses for War
>
>
>> I think you're right about what a vote for Gill means.
>>
>> I've seen no reason to remove the "Impeach" sign from my car. It was
>> attached during the last administration but seems unfortunately quite
>> appropriate for this one.
>>
>> I also supported the impeachment of Clinton and regret that he wasn't
>> convicted by the Senate for the crimes of which he was clearly guilty.
>>
>> It would have established a helpful precedent and incidentally may have
>> prevented the accession of Bush Jr. --CGE
>>
>>
>> On 5/6/10 7:40 PM, E.Wayne Johnson wrote:
>>> Most of those who will vote R will do so for reasons other than the war,
>>> perhaps voting for Tim Johnson because he's an R in spite of the fact
>>> that he wants to defund the war, and those who vote D will likewise not
>>> be considering the war.
>>>
>>> The Impeach signs have long left Urbana. It seems that most of those
>>> sporting such defiance were doing so because they didnt like Republicans,
>>> not because of anything particular that W did or didnt do.
>>>
>>> In fact, the Principle behind many of the impeach signs was that Dems
>>> were mad at the R's for pursuing bill clinton in regard to the way he was
>>> discharging his duty in the white house.
>>>
>>> It's clear enough to me that a vote for Dr. Gill is a vote for Obama's
>>> perpetuation of the Bush Doctrine and American Imperialism. Those who
>>> thus vote for war will pride themselves that they are not single issue
>>> voters.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook"
>>> <galliher at illinois.edu> To: "peace discuss"
>>> <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 7:20 AM
>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] 33 Billion Dishonest Excuses for War
>>>
>>>
>>>> [In fact, in the 15th Illinois Congressional District, our Congressman,
>>>> Tim Johnson, has said he was wrong to vote for the invasions of
>>>> Afghanistan and Iraq and will not vote for any more funding for war in
>>>> the Mideast. His Democratic opponent, David Gill, has not made a
>>>> similar pledge. But remarkably enough some people who say that they are
>>>> opposed to the war say that will vote for Gill nevertheless. So long as
>>>> the Democrats can count on that sort of support, there will be no
>>>> change in the war policy. --CGE]
>>>>
>>>> 33 Billion Dishonest Excuses for War Posted by davidswanson Tue May
>>>> 04th 2010, 07:21 AM
>>>>
>>>> If you were to call your congress member's office at 202-224-3121 and
>>>> ask them to vote against spending $33 billion to escalate the war in
>>>> Afghanistan, they would give you one of several common excuses.
>>>>
>>>> If they refuse to tell you what they plan to do, you can let them know
>>>> that they work for you and that you are going to vote against them in
>>>> November unless they commit to opposing the funding of this escalation
>>>> now. Sure, their opponent could be worse, but not much, and decent
>>>> representation will only be possible if representatives fear the public
>>>> more than they fear the funders, media, and parties. Ultimately, this
>>>> is the only thing you can tell them that they might care about. Still,
>>>> it helps for them to know that you understand the issue and will not be
>>>> easily swayed. So . . .
>>>>
>>>> If they tell you (as Rep. Delahunt told me) that they like the
>>>> attention that comes from remaining undecided, ask them how they think
>>>> that sounds to the loved ones of those killed. Let them know they could
>>>> get even more attention by tattooing "Loser" on their forehead.
>>>>
>>>> If they tell you they want to vote for aid to Haiti or some other
>>>> lipstick included in the bill, or they want to wait and see what
>>>> sweet-smelling things are packaged into the bill, tell them those
>>>> things can pass separately and constitute no excuse. You want a
>>>> commitment now to vote No no matter what. This is life and death. They
>>>> need to be trying to block the bill, not just considering the
>>>> possibility of individually voting No if it looks like no one will
>>>> mind.
>>>>
>>>> If they tell you this is the very last off-the-books war supplemental,
>>>> tell them you didn't believe that BS last June and won't believe it
>>>> now, and that it never constituted any excuse for funding war or
>>>> escalation.
>>>>
>>>> If they tell you they want to obey the president, ask them to read the
>>>> U.S. Constitution and see what's in Article I. Ask them why they think
>>>> the framers put the war power in the Congress.
>>>>
>>>> If they tell you they want to "support duh troops," tell them that a No
>>>> vote merely avoids or undoes an escalation, thus preventing troops from
>>>> being sent to risk their lives under illegal orders.
>>>>
>>>> If they tell you they're voting for a toothless non-binding request for
>>>> an exit time-table, tell them a growing causus opposing the funding
>>>> sends a stronger message and builds toward the ability to actually end
>>>> the war. Tell them the exit strategy approach, last summer, was rightly
>>>> delayed until after the funding vote, and then garnered 138 votes, to
>>>> which the president merely gave a one-finger salute. Let them know that
>>>> ineffective rhetoric is no substitute for action, and that you see
>>>> through the use of this "timetable" vote as cover for funding an
>>>> escalation. If they point to peace organizations that will accept that
>>>> excuse and only want their support for the "timetable" make clear that
>>>> those organizations do not speak for you.
>>>>
>>>> If they tell you they're waiting to see who else will vote No before
>>>> they decide to vote No, point them to the list at defundwar.org and
>>>> point out that the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee is on it,
>>>> but also ask them whether they represent their constituents or their
>>>> colleagues.
>>>>
>>>> If they tell you that they're afraid Fox News and the rest of the
>>>> "media" would attack them, let them know that Glenn Beck has been
>>>> opposing war funding, that this is escalation funding, and that if they
>>>> say they want the money for jobs at home nobody can touch them. On top
>>>> of which, we'll have their back with independent media and media
>>>> activism. They can encourage media outlets to ask President Karzai,
>>>> when he's in town next week, whether he supports an escalation -- if
>>>> they're not afraid of the answer.
>>>>
>>>> If they make clear that they're afraid of losing funding, directly from
>>>> the war profiteers or laundered through a political party, point them
>>>> to the fundraising that members like Grayson and Kucinich are able to
>>>> do on their own. Ask them if they will be able to live with having
>>>> funded death for the sake of blood money.
>>>>
>>>> Now, it's just conceivable that they will also try a more substantive
>>>> excuse on you, so be prepared.
>>>>
>>>> If they tell you they're concerned for the safety of the country, point
>>>> out that terrorism has been increased by the global war on terrorism
>>>> and that there is no way escalating a war in Afghanistan doesn't make
>>>> us less safe. We escalated it last year and saw violence increase, with
>>>> nothing else accomplished. Last week, the Pentagon issued a new report
>>>> finding that one in four Afghans in important areas support Karzai's
>>>> government, violence is up 87% in the past year, European allies are
>>>> bailing out, corruption runs rampant, insurgents still control Marjah,
>>>> the Taliban is growing, and the Afghan government is getting weaker.
>>>> Our military experts say we would need hundreds of thousands of troops
>>>> and millions of civilians to accomplish anything. An inadequate
>>>> escalation is an end in itself, quite literally for those it will
>>>> kill.
>>>>
>>>> If they tell you the U.S. public supports the war, ask them about
>>>> polling in your district. And tell them this: Back in December, U.S.
>>>> pollsters asked Americans if they supported funding an escalation, and
>>>> in several polls a majority said No. So a lot of congress members voted
>>>> for more war funding but promised to oppose the escalation funding in
>>>> the spring. Then the White House began the escalation, and the
>>>> pollsters (apparently assuming that our servile congress would fund
>>>> anything the president had already begun, even if the people opposed
>>>> it) stopped polling on the escalation. Polling just on the war,
>>>> pollsters find the US public evenly split or leaning slightly in
>>>> support. But they ask whether people support the president, not how
>>>> much longer they want the war to last or whether that's their top
>>>> choice for where to spend a trillion dollars. Many Americans think they
>>>> are required to say they support the president, and others choose to
>>>> support a political party, but both big parties support the war (which,
>>>> by the way, will cause a lot of Democrats to stay home in November).
>>>> When Democrats.com funded polling on Iraq that no one else would do, we
>>>> found a majority in favor of Congress cutting off the funding. I'm
>>>> confident we could find that on Afghanistan at least following the
>>>> coming rise in deaths. And this supplemental is not to keep the war
>>>> going but to escalate it, which the American people opposed when asked.
>>>> Also, nobody has polled on the popularity of a congress member saying
>>>> they want to fund jobs instead of wars. And what about the people who
>>>> are best informed? A recent survey of Kandahar, the area where the
>>>> escalation is planned, found that 94% of the people there prefer peace
>>>> negotiations to U.S. attacks, and 85% see the Taliban as "our Afghan
>>>> brothers." The survey was funded by that radical pacifist organization,
>>>> the United States Army.
>>>>
>>>> If they tell you they have to keep weapons jobs funded to benefit the
>>>> economy, tell them we could have 20 green energy jobs paying $50,000
>>>> per year for every soldier sent to Afghanistan: a job for that former
>>>> soldier and 19 more, and reduced demand for the oil and gas and
>>>> pipelines and bases. We're spending as much as $400 per gallon to bring
>>>> gas into Afghanistan where the US military used 27 million gallons of
>>>> the stuff last month. We're spending hundreds of millions to bribe
>>>> nations to be part of what we pretend is a coalition effort. We're
>>>> spending at least that much to bribe Afghans to join the right side, an
>>>> effort that has recruited 646 of the Taliban's 36,000 soldiers, but
>>>> then lost many of them who took the money and ran back to the other
>>>> side. We've spent $268 billion on making war on Afghanistan, and using
>>>> Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz' analysis of Iraq we need to multiply
>>>> that by four or five to get a realistic cost including debt, veterans
>>>> care, energy prices, and lost opportunities. Public investment in most
>>>> other industries or in tax cuts produces more jobs than investment in
>>>> military. In fact, military spending is economically, as well as
>>>> morally, the worst thing Congress can do. And this is economically the
>>>> worst time in many decades to be doing the worst thing you can do.
>>>>
>>>> Call Your Congress Member at (202) 224-3121 and tell them that you will
>>>> vote against them if they vote to fund an escalation in Afghanistan.
>>>> Tell them you will stand for no excuses.
>>>>
>>>> http://journals.democraticunderground.com/davidswanson/1076

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.