[Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Re: [Discuss] [CentralILJwJ] Fw: [OccupyCU] Fwd: [cchcc-l] Gov. Quinn Announces State-Federal Partnership Health Exchange

Tue Jul 31 00:52:35 UTC 2012

I believe you put words in my mouth, sir.  My point has nothing to do with Johnson's "secret heart" and everything to do with the weight we ought to assign any contrast with Gill.  The distinction is pretty misleading without the background on how it was accomplished.

Ricky 
________________________________________
From: C. G. Estabrook [cge at shout.net]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 7:43 PM
To: Ricky Baldwin
Cc: David Johnson; astridjb at comcast.net; sf-core; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; C-U Citzens for Peace and Justice; JWJ C-U
Subject: Re: [sf-core] Re: [Discuss] [CentralILJwJ] Fw: [OccupyCU] Fwd: [cchcc-l] Gov. Quinn Announces State-Federal Partnership Health Exchange

Ricky--

As was true in Vietnam and Nicaragua, when we're trying to marshall votes against a criminal war, it's a bit ridiculous not to accept them if we can't convince ourselves that they're *really sincere*...

In fact, Tim Johnson has said that he was wrong to vote for war in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and since then he has been a consistent vote against any more money for war in the Mideast - one of the few in the House, where 2/3-3/4 continue to support the war. (And remember there is just one war from Central Asia to Central Africa, in several "theaters," as Obama says.)

David Gill on the other hand, even though he now seems to have said quietly (only on Facebook comments, so far as I know!) that he would vote as Tim does, has never admitted that he's changed his position, even though he originally trumpeted his agreement with Conservative British MP Rory Stewart about how the occupation of Afghanistan should proceed.

Obama mendaciously asserts that he's 'winding down' the war(s), when in fact he's substantially widening and intensifying them - more brutally and efficiently than Bush did. (I had a piece in last Sunday's News-Gazette about his real war policy.) Hypocrisy being the tribute vice pays to virtue, Obama misleads a public, 2/3-3/4 of which think US troops should be withdrawn.

My fear is that David will fall into the administration's arms on this point (see picture) and say he supports Obama's 'withdrawal.' Johnson's forthright opposition (whatever his secret heart) to voting for any more money for war in the Mideast will be lost.

So I hope, if David becomes the Congress member for IL-13, he'll vote on the war as Tim did, but I'm not convinced he will.  To summarize:

~ Why hasn't he publicly pledged (as Johnson did) to vote against funds for war in the Middle East?
~ Why hasn't he admitted (as Johnson did) that he's changed his position on the war (if he has), since he once espoused Rory Stewart's views?
~ Why hasn't he publicly praised the bipartisan suit by members of Congress (including Rep. Johnson) against Obama's obvious violation of the War Powers Act in Libya (an impeachable offense)?
~ Why hasn't he publicly condemned Obama's murders of US citizens and children (an impeachable offense)?
~ Why hasn't he publicly condemned Obama's illegal drone wars in six countries (an impeachable offense)?

Obviously the most important thing the federal government does is kill people. Many Americans have worked for years to convince their elected representatives to prevent the mass murder carried out by the Bush & Obama administrations on the excuse of 9/11. I'd be sorry to replace one of the few members of Congress who has voted consistently against it with someone whose position is not so clear.

Regards, Carl

PS - I think I can shed some light on the "secret information ... which justified ... support for [the invasion of Iraq]" in 2003.

As the Green party candidate, I ran against Tim for Congress in 2002. I told him at the time, quite publicly, that he shouldn't vote for the invasion of Iraq - but he refused to take a position on the matter. I met with him and his people just after the election (which I lost) and told them in even more detail why the the invasion was both a crime and a blunder.

A short time later, the White House invited in a number of members of Congress, including Tim, to give them "secret information" that the WH said sealed the case for war. They told them (I think but cannot prove) the Niger yellow-cake story, the made-up CIA yarn about how Saddam Hussein was seeking materials for a nuclear bomb from Africa. That was the story that eventually led to Amb. Joseph Wilson's revelation of its falsity, CIA agent Valerie Plame's outing, and the conviction of Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby. But it served its purpose with a number of wavering Congressmembers, and we were able to go back the traditional American pastime of slaughtering Iraqi men women, and children. (Remember Clinton was responsible for a death of about a million of them.)

On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:25 PM, Ricky Baldwin <rbaldwin at seiu73.org> wrote:

> Actually, as you recall, Carl, Tim Johnson was an enthusiastic cheerleader for the war when Bush was in office until he saw the handwriting on the wall. The fact that we helped him see it with the referendum votes against the war should not lessen the reality that Johnson changed out of self-interest.
>
> Before the invasion of Iraq Johnson claimed at a public meeting here in town that he was privy to secret information that the rest of us could not know about, which justified his unapologetic support for war.  After the invasion of Iraq he was asked about that information, and his response that we should not be "Monday morning quarterbacking" - a bad joke because our position was not after-the-fact but of course had been made clear through protests and letters, etc., well before the war.
>
> None of that swayed him, nor did any subsequent revelations about the Bush Administration's lies, Abu Ghraib, the dirty contracts, and so on.  He was not swayed in the least by our constant criticism, either, it seems, but in the end by a clear demonstration that local voters overwhelmingly opposed the war - and perhaps by the impending end of Bush's second and last term of office the next year.
>
> Ricky
> ________________________________________
> From: C. G. Estabrook [cge at shout.net]
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 5:46 PM
> To: David Johnson
> Cc: astridjb at comcast.net; Ricky Baldwin; sf-core; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; C-U Citzens for Peace and Justice; JWJ C-U
> Subject: Re: [sf-core] Re: [Discuss] [CentralILJwJ] Fw: [OccupyCU] Fwd: [cchcc-l] Gov. Quinn Announces State-Federal Partnership Health Exchange
>
> Here's one of his publicity photos, David.
>
> What is it the Obamanians say? "Oh, he's got to do that!"
>
> But will he vote against Obama's war plans, as Tim Johnson does?
>
> Will he vote against Obama's 'entitlement' cuts?
>
> I hope so.  --CGE
>
>
> [https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/549668_2883010354197_858605138_n.jpg]
>
> On Jul 30, 2012, at 3:54 PM, David Johnson <dlj725 at hughes.net<mailto:dlj725 at hughes.net>> wrote:
>
> Gill will be one of the few dems I will vote for in November ( the rest I will leave blank or vote third party ).
> The reason I will vote for Gill is because of his position supporting expanding medicare for all and his changed and improved position against the continued occupation of Afganistan and his refusal to accept corporate money.
> If the democratic party has any future it will need to have more candidates like David Gill.
> I hope he doesn't flip flop once he is elected, I have had that happen all too often in the past.
>
> David J.
>
>