[Peace-discuss] Fwd: [New post] Gabbard Says She’d Drop All Charges Against Assange And Snowden

Wed May 15 00:12:47 UTC 2019

Gravel, a hero of the Pentagon Papers, was 89 yesterday… 

The Democrats are useless, of course, and are willing to do anything to return to power - except adopt Gravel/Gabbard anti-war sentiments.

Or abandon neolib policies. 

> On May 14, 2019, at 6:54 PM, J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> The only Democratic candidate worth considering
> 
> Consider what Sen. Mike Gravel is talking about as well; he says some agreeable things that likely won't get past a one-time DNC-run debate. Then consider what the DNC Corporation's lawyer Bruce Spiva told the court in the (largely not covered by news outlets) lawsuit which Bernie Sanders supporters brought against the DNC. Spiva pointed out that that party will require that their representative represent the values of the party elites and need not include your input:
> 
> From http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/042517cw2.pdf which is a transcript of a court hearing
> 
>> [I]f you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I'm gonna take this
>> money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and
>> stole the money, of course that's different. But here, where you have a
>> party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer,
>> and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are
>> voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily
>> decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and
>> smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was
>> done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right,
>> and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party
>> politics to answer those questions.
> 
> Getting back to Johnstone...
> 
> Caitlin Johnstone wrote:
>> Gabbard Says She’d Drop All Charges Against Assange And Snowden
>> by Caitlin Johnstone
>> 
>> In midst of an interesting and wide-ranging discussion on the Joe Rogan Experience, Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard said that if elected president she would drop all charges against NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
> The interview Johnstone refers to is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR8UcnwLH24 .
> 
> Around 28m in they had problems finding a copy of Eisenhower's farewell address that wasn't edited or interrupted. A copy of Eisenhower's farewell address without music or announcers can be found on https://archive.org/details/DwightD.Eisenhower-FarewellAddressmilitary-industrialComplexSpeech :
> 
> https://archive.org/download/DwightD.Eisenhower-FarewellAddressmilitary-industrialComplexSpeech/EisenhowersFarewellAddress1.mp4 -- address, likely the one you want to see (and likely what the Joe Rogan show was looking for)
> 
> https://archive.org/download/DwightD.Eisenhower-FarewellAddressmilitary-industrialComplexSpeech/EisenhowersFarewellAddress2.mp4 -- address with "Mox News" overlay
> 
> https://archive.org/download/DwightD.Eisenhower-FarewellAddressmilitary-industrialComplexSpeech/EisenhowersFarewellAddress3.mp4 -- address with timecode and leader recorded at the time
> 
> and a transcript on https://archive.org/download/DwightD.Eisenhower-FarewellAddressmilitary-industrialComplexSpeech/EisenhowerFarewell.txt
> 
> And according to Wikipedia cites multiple different wording of the now-famous "military-industrial complex" not just "military-industrial-congressional complex":
> 
>> The phrase was thought to have been "war-based" industrial complex
>> before becoming "military" in later drafts of Eisenhower's speech, a
>> claim passed on only by oral history.[14] Geoffrey Perret, in his
>> biography of Eisenhower, claims that, in one draft of the speech, the
>> phrase was "military–industrial–congressional complex", indicating the
>> essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation
>> of the military industry, but the word "congressional" was dropped from
>> the final version to appease the then-currently elected officials.[15]
>> James Ledbetter calls this a "stubborn misconception" not supported by
>> any evidence; likewise a claim by Douglas Brinkley that it was
>> originally "military–industrial–scientific complex".[15][16]
>> Additionally, Henry Giroux claims that it was originally
>> "military–industrial–academic complex".[17] The actual authors of the
>> speech were Eisenhower's speechwriters Ralph E. Williams and Malcolm
>> Moos.[18]
> 
> [14] https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-10-eisenhower-address_N.htm
> [15] http://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/guest-post-james-ledbetter-on-50-years-of-the-military-industrial-complex/
> [16] https://web.archive.org/web/20060323001947/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2001/6/2001_6_58.shtml
> [17] https://web.archive.org/web/20070820234731/http://www.paradigmpublishers.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=168000
> [18] Griffin, Charles "New Light on Eisenhower's Farewell Address," in Presidential Studies Quarterly 22 (Summer 1992): 469–79
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss