[Peace-discuss] Is there any question who's the war party?
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at illinois.edu
Thu Apr 7 11:59:21 CDT 2011
Bob--
Much as I appreciate your careful attention to improving my character (which
attention I'm sure should never be interpreted as "attacking the person who
explained it"), I'm still in the dark about what that I've written is untrue.
I pointed out that the Senate Democrats avoided another opportunity to vote
against the war - as they have done consistently since gaining control of
Congress more than four years ago. Isn't that true?
I did I admit indicate skepticism at your assertion that continuing to vote for
the war and funding it "isn't a good indicator of their sentiment."
Is what I "have written [that] is not true" my implied lack of faith in the
coming "clean vote"? Should I simply be affirming, against the appearances,
that the Democrats and President Obama are really against the war and and are
doing what they can to end it quickly? Is that true?
I first heard that point asserted passionately more than forty years ago by
partisans of President Nixon in his first term, but I am surprised to hear you
take that position now, if that's what you're doing.
But best wishes in any case for your continued endeavors
to assert the truth & reform the characters of those around you,
Carl
On 4/7/11 10:23 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
> As usual, when it is explained that something which you have written
> is not true, you attack the person who explained it and try to change
> the subject, instead of acknowledging that you were wrong, something
> that I have never, ever seen you do, that I can recall. This is
> telling, because all human beings are wrong sometimes. So, since you
> are human, you must be wrong sometimes. Yet you are apparently
> incapable of ever acknowledging it. I see this as a character flaw.
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM, C. G. Estabrook<galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
>> > Is it misinforming people to say what the Democrats actually do - rather
>> > than try to reassure people about what is presumably in their secret hearts?
>> >
>> > Wouldn't you say it's misinfornign people - to put no finer point on it - to
>> > continue to encourage the delusion that the Democrats are opposed to the US
>> > war in the Mideast - now the MENA War, I suppose - and are just waiting for
>> > a "clean vote" or a chance to give "a good indicator of where they stand"?
>> >
>> > I know the Democrats have been doing that for years - Obama built a
>> > presidential campaign on it - but people are not fools and may actually see
>> > through pundits' mystifications. Meanwhile Obama continues to order killing
>> > and torture from Quantico to Kandahar.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 4/6/11 11:59 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I know that you're not educable on this. I'm just trying to stop you
>>> >> from misinforming other people.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:55 AM, C. G. Estabrook<galliher at illinois.edu>
>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Come on, Bob. Senate Democrats had a chance to vote against what everyone
>>>> >>> admits was an unconstitutional act of war and chose instead to vote for
>>>> >>> it.
>>>> >>> Just as they could have cut off funds for Bush's war (it only took 41
>>>> >>> votes)
>>>> >>> and chose not to do it.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I'm when the Socialists voted for war credits in Germany in 1914, it
>>>> >>> "wasn't
>>>> >>> good a indicator of where people stood." Maybe they were waiting for a
>>>> >>> "clean" vote.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On 4/6/11 11:45 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> The analysis of the peace folks watching this in Washington is that
>>>>> >>>> this vote wasn't a good indicator of sentiment in the Senate. Senator
>>>>> >>>> Lugar, a Republican who has been arguably the most prominent
>>>>> >>>> Republican critic both of the war in Libya and the decision to launch
>>>>> >>>> it without Congressional authorization, voted with the 90 to table,
>>>>> >>>> not with the 10. The question on the floor was attaching language
>>>>> >>>> about war powers to a small business bill.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> I'm not against what Senator Paul did; it's more than anyone else has
>>>>> >>>> managed to do on the floor of either body so far. But this particular
>>>>> >>>> vote is not a good indicator of where people stand. Senator Webb, like
>>>>> >>>> Senator Lugar (though not as prominently) has been very critical.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Hopefully, Paul or Lee or others will come back with something else
>>>>> >>>> that will allow a more clean vote ("clean" in the sense of not being
>>>>> >>>> entangled with other issues.)
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:26 PM, C. G. Estabrook<galliher at illinois.edu>
>>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> 10 GOP Senators Vote to Oppose Libya Intervention
>>>>>> >>>>> Posted: 05 Apr 2011 03:29 PM PDT
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Senator Rand Paul’s resolution opposing President Obama’s use of force
>>>>>> >>>>> in
>>>>>> >>>>> Libya gained the support of 10 Republican senators — and not a single
>>>>>> >>>>> Democrat.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> The resolution was the same as a quote from President Obama when he was
>>>>>> >>>>> a
>>>>>> >>>>> Senator and presidential candidate:
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> “The president does not have power under the Constitution to
>>>>>> >>>>> unilaterally
>>>>>> >>>>> authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve
>>>>>> >>>>> stopping
>>>>>> >>>>> an
>>>>>> >>>>> actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> The resolution was defeated by a motion to table. The vote was 90-10.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Republican Senators voting to oppose US intervention in Libya were:
>>>>>> >>>>> Collins (R-ME), DeMint (R-SC), Ensign (R-NV), Johnson (R-WI), Lee
>>>>>> >>>>> (R-UT),
>>>>>> >>>>> Moran (R-KS), Paul (R-KY), Sessions (R-AL), Sowe (R-ME), Toomey (R-PA)
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Where are the antiwar Democrats?
>>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110407/7860cc7d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list