[Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2)

[Karen Aram]

Carl, 

Pilger made that statement before the election. it’s no longer viable. Trump has capitulated on everything either the CIA or Pentagon want of him. He has handed war powers, over to the Pentagon. That which should be in the hands of Congress, not the military. Because Trump doesn’t want war with Russia or China, and says nice things, is meaningless. He is no anti-war candidate, in fact he is caving in to the neocons and Pentagons’ goal of “Iran next,” after we get Syria under control. After Iran the assumption is that Russia will be a piece of cake, I suppose. 

China is long term, and covert, thats where the CIA comes in, and always has. Hence the disagreements between our two “murder organizations,” that of the CIA and Pentagon. Trump is just floundering around between the two. 

His move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, his meeting recently with the Saudi Prince in DC with millions more in sales of arms, are just two of his recent “peace initiatives?”  

Yes, the Democrats only care about the next election, and are behind Russiagate, and yes they want to impeach Trump because Pence is easier to manipulate, like Obama, but to excuse the Republicans or to equate them with “peace loving government representatives?” Total nonsense, and you know better. 

Just because liberals and Democrats refuse to acknowledge that their Representatives, and President Obama are equally guilty of war crimes, if not more so if focusing on the body count, foreign body count and nation destruction, and Republicans may support your personal values, they sure as hell don’t support peace.  You know full well, “foreign policy” continues unabated with perpetual war, no matter which of the two party’s are in power. 

Imperialism is the final stage of capitalism, and the US and Europe is there now. Asia no, so they are on the rise, for now.

Every single one of our Representatives in DC but for a very few, is guilty of war crimes, along with mainstream media, and should be tried according to International Law, if not just our own laws.

Let us not forget 2003 and Iraq, which was only the beginning.

  
> On Mar 22, 2018, at 07:39, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> Although the public is opposed to US wars in the Mideast (as it was 50 years ago, in Vietnam) the electoral system, then as now, makes it almost impossible to cast an anti-war vote for Congress.
> 
> That’s the case here in C-U this year, where the choices are Democrat Londrigan or Republican Davis.
> 
> But it’s worthwhile to vote against the Democrats, who are duplicitously ('Russiagate’) pushing a nominally Republican president into further war provocations against a nuclear-armed Russia. 
> 
> "Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th," I will be voting for the Republican Davis, "because a neo-liberal war monger democrat” is a member of a party attempting to drive an erratic Republican administration away from peace overtures.
> 
> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…”
> 
> At the moment, the Congressional Democrats are the main “tribunes [popular leaders] of perpetual war.” Don’t help them. —CGE
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy.
>> 
>> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors.
>> That is if she wins, which she won't.
>> 
>> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did.
>> She will be defeated  because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry.
>> 
>> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose.
>> 
>> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican.
>> 
>> David J.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM
>> To: David Johnson
>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2)
>> 
>> Quite so, David. At  least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say.
>> 
>> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one).
>> 
>> Deb
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long 
>>> time."
>>> 
>>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl.
>>> 
>>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for.
>>> 
>>> David J.
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM
>>> To: David Johnson; Peace
>>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's 
>>> primary
>>> (2)
>>> 
>>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture 
>>> to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…)
>>> 
>>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time.
>>> 
>>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for 
>>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia!
>>> 
>>> Idiots.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss 
>>>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Indeed Deb,
>>>> 
>>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his 
>>>> constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He 
>>>> also had  libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil 
>>>> liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in support 
>>>> of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to opposition 
>>>> while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the Presidency and 
>>>> Congress because he was responding to citizens in his district. Not 
>>>> that he didn't have his faults.
>>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a 
>>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care 
>>>> what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his 
>>>> corporate masters.
>>>> 
>>>> David J.
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of 
>>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM
>>>> To: Karen Aram
>>>> Cc: peace
>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2)
>>>> 
>>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines
>>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, 
>>>> you are not Tim Johnson!
>>>> 
>>>> Deb
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his 
>>>>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a 
>>>>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the 
>>>>> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency 
>>>>> pressure, please name one.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and 
>>>>> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer 
>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook 
>>>>> <cgestabrook at gmail.com<mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this 
>>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed 
>>>>> in office.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while 
>>>>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against 
>>>>> Russia and China.
>>>>> 
>>>>> —CGE
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram 
>>>>> <karenaram at hotmail.com<mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Carl
>>>>> 
>>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported.
>>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, 
>>>>> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we 
>>>>> surely need.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to 
>>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you 
>>>>> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait 
>>>>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our 
>>>>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told 
>>>>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support 
>>>>> for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be 
>>>>> vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would 
>>>>> support
>>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David          Gill who is anti-war as
>>>>> well
>>>>> as single payer supporter.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook 
>>>>> <cgestabrook at gmail.com<mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in 
>>>>> IL-13.
>>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that 
>>>>> US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US 
>>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is 
>>>>> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of 
>>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, 
>>>>> National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking 
>>>>> nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm 
>>>>> elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel 
>>>>> into the legislature has no precedent in US political history”
>>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html].
>>>>> 
>>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump 
>>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama 
>>>>> administration
>>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for 
>>>>> Congress.
>>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a 
>>>>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his 
>>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn 
>>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace 
>>>>> <peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Robert,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment 
>>>>> candidate.
>>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring 
>>>>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a 
>>>>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to 
>>>>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Niloofar
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace 
>>>>> <peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656
>>>>> 
>>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13.
>>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went 
>>>>> to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and 
>>>>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it.
>>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to 
>>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November.
>>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen 
>>>>> Londrigan.
>>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end 
>>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in 
>>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to 
>>>>> me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is 
>>>>> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I 
>>>>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; 
>>>>> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan
>>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, 
>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about.
>>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it.
>>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls 
>>>>> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say 
>>>>> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen 
>>>>> Londrigan in a walk.
>>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by 
>>>>> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega.
>>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, 
>>>>> on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field.
>>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin 
>>>>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated 
>>>>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy 
>>>>> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was.
>>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth?
>>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me 
>>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy 
>>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact 
>>>>> that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus 
>>>>> for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on 
>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her.
>>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by 
>>>>> Emily's List.
>>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in 
>>>>> general.
>>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy 
>>>>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to 
>>>>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and 
>>>>> help to beat Rodney Davis in November.
>>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois 
>>>>> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to 
>>>>> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own.
>>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the 
>>>>> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate 
>>>>> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current 
>>>>> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should 
>>>>> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly 
>>>>> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't 
>>>>> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this 
>>>>> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count 
>>>>> this as a strong plus.
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss