[Peace-discuss] Is there any question who's the war party?

Thu Apr 7 12:13:20 CDT 2011

Doug Henwood, of Left Business Observer, sends along a relevant note:

"Nice piece by Scott McLemee on on a paper about the demobilization of the 
antiwar movement, thanks to Obama. Interesting comment from one of the paper's 
authors on how the increased polarization of the parties aids this process - in 
contrast with the 60s. This contradicts the usual line about the shrinking 
distance between the parties:

<http://www.insidehighered.com/views/mclemee/mclemee_antiwar_no_more>."

On 4/7/11 11:59 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 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