[Peace-discuss] [sf-core] 13th IL CD & Obama's wars

Sat Aug 11 01:47:31 UTC 2012

There is every indication that Gill and Dick will adhere to and support 
a strictly Obamist agenda
of continuing the war.

On 8/11/2012 4:10 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> Belden--
>
> "David Gill was against the war in Iraq from the get-go"? Really? Can you direct me to a dated public statement of David's that establishes that?
>
> But remember that Barack Obama was "against the war in Iraq," too. In fact that's what got him elected president.
>
> But he was lying - he carried out the Bush policy in Iraq and widened and intensified the war elsewhere.
>
> To my certain knowledge - I have the emails - David Gill supported the occupation of Afghanistan.
>
> As far as anyone might know from his campaign website, he may still do so. The war in any of its dimensions is - astonishingly - not mentioned there.
>
> Don't you think that silence speaks volumes? Could it tell you that Gill in Congress may support Obama's mendacious "winding down the wars" - rather than voting against any more money for war in the Mideast and Africa, as Tim Johnson does?
>
> I wrote this post, about Gill's sucking up to Durbin over the latter's endorsement, recalling Durbin's insistence that Iran was building a nuclear weapon and must be stopped.
>
> Durbin is a liberal apologist for the administration's shameful, murderous foreign policy. And I think Gill will be too.
>
> But I actually have no wish "to undercut him": I would like to know how he'll vote on the new administration's war policy. He doesn't seem eager to tell us.
>
> Given that his opponent is a Republican hack, I'll probably vote for Gill, but I certainly wish he opposed Obama's wars the way Tim Johnson does.
>
> Speaking of purism, Belden, I'm delighted to learn at this late date that you "went door-to-door supporting [my] candidacy for Congress many years ago" (viz. ten years ago, when I ran against Tim Johnson as a Green) - especially since it was a certain purism that prevented your organization, the local Socialist Forum, from endorsing or supporting my candidacy. You were apparently in a minority in that group when you "went beyond tolerating our differences [apparently over abortion and Israel] to active support because I thought that, in general, your positions were better than those of the other candidates and I wanted to show support for the Greens."
>
> So I deny your charges of "purism, and ... distortion of  David's words." I'd like to hear some real words from him, for a change, about how he'll continue Johnson's opposition to Obama's wars. I don't think I will.
>
> Regards, Carl
>
>
> On Aug 10, 2012, at 12:45 PM, "Fields, A Belden"<a-fields at illinois.edu>  wrote:
>
>    
>> Mort and Carl,
>>
>> You are absolutely right, Mort.  David Gill was against the war in Iraq from the get-go, is a strong support of labor struggles, gets out in the streets to support anti-war and labor struggles, and is a strong advocate for a single-payer health care system and women's reproductive rights.  If there are any cracks in his commitments on other social issues, I have not found them.
>>
>> Carl disagrees with his stand on abortion rights.  Perhaps that adds to his bitterness toward David. One can't have everything in a candidate, but David Gill is as progressive a candidate as one can get with a chance of winning.   He did remarkably well in the old district which was stacked against Democrats.  Now he has a real chance of winning.  Why people who present themselves as progressives would want to undercut him is beyond me--unless, of course, there is one issue that trumps all. e.g., abortion rights.  If that's it, fine, I understand.  But don't pretend that Gill is making statements on an issue that one disapproves of when that is a figment of one's imagination.  Grasping at straws is precisely the right metaphor Mort.
>>
>> By the way Carl,  I wasn't looking for perfection in a candidate when I went door-to-door supporting your candidacy for Congress many years ago.  I went beyond tolerating our differences to active support because I thought that, in general, your positions were better than those of the other candidates and I wanted to show support for the Greens.  I don't regret not being a purist then.  I just hope that other progressives don't buy into your purism, and your distortion of  David's words, now.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Belden
>> From: sf-core at yahoogroups.com [sf-core at yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Brussel Morton K. [mkb3 at mac.com]
>> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 11:29 AM
>> To: C. G. Estabrook
>> Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; sf-core
>> Subject: Re: [sf-core] 13th IL CD&  Obama's wars
>>
>>
>> There is nothing about foreign policy, e.g., Iran, in Gill's statement. It seems to me, Carl, that you are grasping at straws in efforts to undermine Gill's chances to win the congressional seat.
>>
>>
>> --mkb
>>
>> On Aug 10, 2012, at 10:41 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>
>>      
>>>
>>> Senator Durbin, when he last spoke in town, insisted that Iran was building a nuclear weapon&  must be stopped.
>>>
>>>
>>> Our incumbent Congressman votes against this sort of warmongering.
>>>
>>> Our new Congressman, whoever he is, apparently won't:
>>>
>>> http://www.gill2012.org/statement-of-dr-david-gill-on-endorsement-of-us-senator-dick-durbin/
>>>
>>>        
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120811/1d529caa/attachment-0001.html>