[Peace-discuss] Fwd: [cchcc-l] Gov. Quinn Announces State-Federal Partnership Health Exchange

Tue Jul 31 20:26:04 UTC 2012

Stuart,

I personally think this has been an informative exchange of opinions about a topic relevant to AWARE and the anti-war topic / debate in general.
People who are debating are in fact informing and it is needed occasionally, especially approaching a national election.
People who are debating should not take differences of opinion personal. As long as someone is not insulting or using profanity against them.
I have learned a lot of good info from this exchange.

If there are organizing projects then of course it would not be appropriate to tie up the list with debate like this. That would of course necessitate  seperate lists. A general topic / discussion list and a working committee list.
My opinion for what it is worth.

David J.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stuart Levy 
  To: Carl G. Estabrook 
  Cc: John W. ; C. G. Estabrook ; Ricky Baldwin ; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 12:56 PM
  Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [cchcc-l] Gov. Quinn Announces State-Federal Partnership Health Exchange

  Please, I agree with Ricky.  This kind of wrangling is (a) why meeting groups have subcommittees, (b) a distraction for AWARE and all the other groups on this list from any work we should be doing, and (c) far too much traffic for anyone who isn't retired to attend to.  I certainly don't have time to, and I have to moderate these messages.  Please let's move this discussion either to peace-discuss or (better, if you ask me) to private messages.

  I'm deliberately omitting JwJ and CUCPJ from this reply.  Let's hope others do likewise.

  I'd really like to see some discussion of what AWARE might do about the spin-up to making war on Syria.  Pepe Escobar's article is right on - but what can we do to make our voices heard?   Also, this coming week is the 67th anniversary of the US bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, at a time when the US is ramping up its production of *new* nuclear weapons.   More of that in another message when I get a bit more time...

  On 7/31/12 12:41 PM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote:

    John-- 

    David Gill, the perennial 'independent' Democratic candidate (i.e., the state and national parties wouldn't give him any money and tried to defeat him) is running against Rodney L. Davis, a shady Republican apparatchik, in a newly-gerrymandered district. Davis worked for incumbent Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL19).

    The New York Times counts the district as leaning Republican. --CGE

    On Jul 31, 2012, at 12:26 AM, John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:

      Hasn't Tim Johnson announced that he's not running for office again?  Who is Gill's Republican opponent this time around?  Seems to be we should be more concerned about the current race than about the actions and motivations of a lame duck Representative. 

      John Wason

      On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 7:43 PM, C. G. Estabrook <cge at shout.net> wrote:

        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.)
      _______________________________________________
      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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120731/4fb2c5a9/attachment-0001.html>