Mike Gravel: 'Questioning Obama’s morality'

[Newsjock]

Source: DC Agenda

By Mike Gravel

When I first met Barack Obama on the stage at the first of the presidential debates he was a bit put off by my challenging his morality with respect to his commitment to the AIPAC lobby to use nukes against Iran if need be.

Apparently his moral shallowness toward the use of violence then didn’t seem to register with others, probably because he was making the main thrust of his campaign opposition to the Iraq war, a politically advantageous stance vis-a-vis Hillary Clinton and the others for their faux pas in giving President Bush the power to invade Iraq.

... Obama may seem regal, smug and secure today but the moral weight of the useless killing and suffering that he has set in motion will come to haunt him till the day he dies with this refrain: “Hey, hey, Obama say, how many AfPak kids did you kill today?”

The personal loss for Obama, so ambitious to become great, is the lost opportunity to do in this century what Gorbachev did in the 20th. Unlike the Vietnam War, a slight majority of Americans is already opposed to the war and that’s without the support of the media. With his command of the teleprompter, Obama could turn that support of the American people into a super majority empowering him to take on what no president since Eisenhower has even acknowledged as a problem: the democracy-eclipsing military industrial complex.

Mike Gravel is a former U.S. senator from Alaska and a 2008 Democratic candidate for president. Reach him via mikegravel.us.

Read more: (Link to DC Agenda here)

[bluestateguy]

1. Oh screw that old fart

He never endorsed Obama last year. and Obama owes nothing to the people who did not support him.

[Ken Burch]

9. Why would he have endorsed him? After this party laughed Gravel off

He decided he was a Libertarian, and tried for THEIR nomination.

[pnorman]

11. I'm probably in much closer support of Obama than many here.

But Mike Gravel's voice is one of many that deserves to be listened to. (From an elderly fart of 79.8)

[pnorman]

39. I'm learning a lot more about Mike Gravel, that I never knew before!

My opinion of him in as expressed in my earlier posting, may need some revising.

[malaise]

55. +1

Touche!! Mike Gravel paid his dues.

[G_j]

38. he can certainly express his opinion

without having endorsed Obama. Kind of a strange reasoning there.

[roguevalley]

48. edit. this is glitching. sorry.

[EFerrari]

2. Ouch.

[Indenturedebtor]

3. Gravel is hilarious. I'm pissed at Obama but Gravel is a nut

Sorry..

[glen123098]

5. In what way is he a nut?

[Indenturedebtor]

13. Did you ever see an interview with him during the primaries?

Sometimes he says things that I completely agree with... other times he acts like a space drifter... most of the time it's the latter.

[debbierlus]

28. Very insightful words he offered up here

Why don't you read the comments and not summarily dismiss the post based on a bias?

What in particular do you disagree with?

[HughMoran]

37. There is no critique Obama that you don't celebrate

You are one miserable person.

[Mari333]

4. KNR

'The loss of opportunity to the nation is even more egregious. Money saved in Afghanistan could have gone for jobs, education and rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure on a sound environmental footing — all lost. Instead we have a president playing Peter Pan to the war mongers and war profiteers. He has bought into the Bush rhetoric that Afghanistan is vital to American interests and that of NATO countries. As our credibility unravels and the Taliban continue to succeed, our leadership role in the world will plummet back to the Bush level and no amount of sonorous teleprompter rhetoric will retrieve it.

Obama’s credibility will concurrently suffer a similar fate at home as people begin to examine his policies and compare them to his promises, whether it’s the economy, healthcare or the environment. A case in point is the hypocrisy Obama has shown with respect to the policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” affecting the ability of gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans wishing to serve in and needed in the military.'


I agree completely. Obama blew it big time.

[galileoreloaded]

6. Mike Gravel??? Seriously? I listened to him back when I actually had a soul and cared...WTH??

n/t

[ThomCat]

7. I never took Mike Gravel seriously.

He's a Republican after all, and when all is said and done he has no liberal or progressive credentials no matter how much a grass roots movement he built.

But this critique of Obama's Foreign Policy stance is deadly accurate, unfortunately. :(

[undeterred]

8. He's a Republican?

[Blue_In_AK]

Mike Gravel was never a Republican.

He was my senator and a good anti-war Democrat from way, way back.

[Ken Burch]

14. He beat the true antiwar Dem senator from Alaska, Ernest Gruening, in the '68 primary

And Gravel was later responsible for making Democrats unelectable to a House or Senate seat from Alaska for almost thirty years when he sabotaged the original Alaska lands bill in 1978, provoking the Carter Administration to impose a much more restrictive lands policy and allowing Alaska 'pugs to initiate the "bloody shirt" line, "the lock-up of Alaska's lands".

When someone spoke for Gravel at the Juneau Democratic precinct caucus in '08, the guy was booed off stage by all 1200 people in the Centennial Hall ballroom(the man had made the mistake of not doing his homework and announcing that GRAVEL had voted against Gulf of Tonkin, instead of Gruening, the man Gravel was used to remove from office).

[Blue_In_AK]

17. Well, all righty, then.

I liked the guy, but what do I know?

[Ken Burch]

20. Well, not everyone remembers how Gravel got his start

Wasn't meaning to attack you, Blue.

[Blue_In_AK]

40. I didn't take it as an attack, so no worries.

I moved here in 1975 so wasn't so familiar wuth the earlier issues.

[Ken Burch]

41. Good. Glad to hear it.

n/t.

[Ken Burch]

12. Actually, he went Libertarian, not Republican

But Gravel never had a real claim to being an antiwar politician. Mike Gravel was the today that Lyndon Johnson used to deny Ernest Gruening, Alaska's incumbent Democratic senator and one of only two members of the U.S. Senate to vote "no" on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the Democratic nomination for another term in the Senate in 1968. Gravel ran as an all-out hawk in that primary.

[jonnyblitz]

21. he's a Democrat, he ran as one in the last presidential primary

and even participated in the debates , don't you remember?

[Ken Burch]

24. He was in our primaries and debates, but AFTER that

he sought the Libertarian nomination. Why anyone would WANT it is a bonafide mystery.

[sabrina 1]

30. Why did the Democrats refuse to allow him to continue in the

debates? I wanted to hear what he had to say as he was usually right on target, regarding the important issues. If his own party wouldn't let him speak, I don't blame him for joining another.

[Ken Burch]

32. I think it was mainly that he wasn't considered to have a real chance at being nominated

That's how they forced Dennis to withdraw in Nevada.

[sabrina 1]

42. 'They' meaning the Democratic Party?

But they do not know what voters might decide, if someone is given a chance to talk to them. They prevent us from hearing from all the candidates. What makes one more entitled than the other to be heard. A lot of people I know wanted to hear from Gravel and Kucinich. The debates were far more interesting when they were involved.

If the 'legitimate' candidates cannot stand up to the kind of questions asked by both Gravel and Kucinich, then imho, they are not legitimate candidates.

This really is the problem with this system. It has been hi-jacked by both parties and makes it impossible for other perfectly legitimate candidates to be heard from. That means we the people are not choosing the president at all. Some faceless party operatives decide who is acceptable, not to us, but to them, and then present us with two or three to choose from, all of whom have clearly demonstrated that they won't be a problem to the the ruling elites. This keeps the illusion of the people making the choice.

And that is not democracy.

[Ken Burch]

43. I'm not defending the decision to exclude

as I said, it was also done to the candidate I was supporting.

And yes, "they" would be the party establishment.

[sabrina 1]

52. Sorry, I didn't think you were, but re-reading my post

I could see how you could have thought that. My apologies :-)

[Ken Burch]

53. IT's all good

Screw the leaders. All the leaders. They ain't worth jack.

[sabrina 1]

54. Lol, I can't disagree with you on that, at least not today!

[C_Lawyer09]

34. There is much more breadth within the Libertarian party

Than most on du care to acknowledge. Primarily, what a real free market economy is versus what is termed as "free market" economy. Secondly there are hugely dissenting voices within the party that make a lot of sense, Mary Ruwart for example. Many may badmouth Ron Paul, but he has set a consistent standard of integrity and backbone that many don't understand. Hence, why Arlo Guthrie is such a proponent of "End the Fed". Smaller govt. in many ways is the answer, if you want to thoroughly examine the consequences of blanket legislation. A recent example would be the Senate Health Care Bill, which passes off unpaid for mandates to states which must balance their respective budgets and aren't allowed to deficit spend as in the federal budget. I'll get beat up on this post, "Peanut Gallery, Fire for Effect!!" but read a few articles on the Ludwig Von Mises Institute page, and see if they make some sense. Why not challenge a little bit of what you feel to be the right path? You may not agree at all, you may not agree whole heartedly, but I feel I've learned a lot vis a vis invisible taxes on the poor, that things like the stimulus bill portend. Simply, the fat cats have first take at all the money, before the inflationary or devaluing effects take place. Having said that, you Keynesian fans can take aim as well. I'm not an economist, I just like to read. And, my moniker? It's a play on words, as in "Sea Lawyer" A Marine Corps dilletante, usually lower enlisted that studies all the regs in an attempt to tell others what he/she feels they can get away with.

[glen123098]

45. That was 41 years ago.

Are you trying to say someone can't change in 41 years. I'm only 23 so thats nearly twice my life.

[jonnyblitz]

18. Mike Gravel is a Democrat, Thomcat.

:hi:

[ThomCat]

19. Oops. My mistake. I don't know why I was sure he was a republican.

:shrug:

Probably because he's a Libertarian, and I tend to think that people who call themselves Libertarians are republicans.

[jonnyblitz]

23. he's a democrat, he was in the presidential primary and

participated in the beginning debates. he isn't a libertarian either.

[ThomCat]

31. He had a hell of a lot of libertarian support.

:shrug:

[noamnety]

47. If you have a chance to watch this

it's an excellent retelling by Gravel of how he came to read the pentagon papers into the congressional testimony - he's a great story teller, and this is a piece of US history everyone should know. Really, I just can't recommend it highly enough, at some points I was laughing so hard watching it with a friend that I was crying, but also it's serious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5ks8hz5Ulg

-----
On the issues:

100% supports gay marriage
openly opposes DADT (he's a veteran, btw)
pro choice
opposes death penalty
supports signing Kyoto protocol
opposes sanctions as foreign policy tool
supports universal health care
supports amnesty for immigrants
100% rating with AFL-CIO for full legislative career
opposes NAFTA
supports immediate full withdrawal from Iraq
doesn't buy the war on terror bs
is a left wing democrat - speaks out against the DLC and believes clinton sold out to corporations.

I think the libertarians like his tax proposal - replace income tax entirely with sales tax with prebates for essentials and massive capital gains tax to force the rich to pay their fair share. (I remain unconvinced on that point, for the record).

[sabrina 1]

26. Gravel is a Democrat.

He was a two term Senator from Alaska. He was opposed to the draft during the Vietnam War. I wouldn't dismiss him so quickly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-mike-gravel

Senator Gravel enlisted in the U.S. Army (1951-54) and served as special adjutant in the Communication Intelligence Services and as a Special Agent in the Counter Intelligence Corps. He received a B.S. in Economics from Columbia University, New York City, and holds four honorary degrees in law and public affairs.

Mike Gravel served in the Alaska House of Representatives from 1963-66, and as Speaker from 1965-66. He then represented Alaska in the U.S. Senate from 1969-81. He served on the Finance, Interior, and Environmental and Public Works committees, chairing the Energy, Water Resources, Buildings and Grounds, and Environmental Pollution subcommittees.

In 1971, he waged a successful one-man filibuster for five months that forced the Nixon administration to cut a deal, effectively ending the draft in the United States. He is most prominently known for his release of the Pentagon Papers, the secret official study that revealed the lies and manipulations of successive U.S. administrations that misled the country into the Vietnam War. After the New York Times published portions of the leaked study, the Nixon administration moved to block any further publication of information and to punish any newspaper publisher who revealed the contents.

He's always been someone who is outspoken, even when it put him at personal risk, and/or his career. Quite honestly, I wish there were more like him in the Senate. People who speak the truth are apparently not popular in DC. But in his short time in the Senate, seems to me he did what needed to be done at the time, and who knows how many lives he helped to save.

You can disagree with his opinions, but to call him an idiot is simply wrong.

[roguevalley]

50. I voted for him. I remember him being mavericky before it was kewl.

:) He is not a predictable guy.

[roguevalley]

49. Mike is a lot of things, Universal Unitarian for one but he was never

a republican.

[WeDidIt]

10. Well, if Mike Gravel is dissing Obama

I might have to reconsider my stance of being opposed to some of the things he's done recently.

Gravel has a horrible habit of being completely wrong.

[sabrina 1]

29. He's been very right about some very important issues

Or do you disagree with him about the Vietnam War and releasing the Pentagon Papers which he felt the public had a right to see. The lies about that war. Maybe you do, I am asking seriously.

Me, I love him, I loved the way he forced the debates to be actually interesting and on topic, not allowing the other candidates to get away with the standard, prepared answers they usually have. Of course he was not welcome as he wasn't willing to stick with the Party's script which they had prepared for their chosen candidates.

I was very angry that he was not allowed to continue in the debates. I was very interested in what he had to say even if I would not have voted for him.

[PufPuf23]

15. I worry that there will be more war in Africa and Latin America

There are already simmering disputes and have been attempts at instigation of escalation by our proxies.

Mike Gravel is Mike Gravel -- I would not want him POTUS -- he played the DK of Vietnam in getting things on record then.

I voted for Obama in primary and general and sent $ and was more into a Presidential election since Eugene McCarthy ran when I lived in SF Bay area and was on the streets of SF and Berkeley and even went to mock George Wallace at the Cow Palace.

I want Obama to succeed but he is blowing it or at least the framework he has been allowed does not give much success that reflects the will or the well-being, safety, and freedom of most of the electorate. His key advisers and cabinet members are essentially corporate, pro-privatization, and free (as opposed to fair) trade. The MIC is status quo or expanding and, as under GWB, not detailing the failures nor risks. Neo-liberalism and neo-con are essentially the same in foreign policy, more nuance than bully.

The process and content of HCR is a fiasco and to the best of my understanding be a transfer of wealth and control to the private insurance industry worse than status quo.

Thanks for a Mike Gravel thread so I can vent with not much visibility.

[mopinko]

16. sounds a little bitter.

no?

[Truth2Tell]

22. K&R for Gravel. Love the guy... so here's a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S2zkh6ZOGE

Never gets old. :headbang:

[EFerrari]

25. One of my favorites.

lol

:headbang:

[debbierlus]

27. Dead on.

[rucky]

33. Wow - lotsa ad hominem here.

Too bad. He raises some points that would be interesting to discuss.

[Canuckistanian]

35. Bless Mike Gravel

He was a decent guy in an indecent world. And intelligent, too.

In a just world, he could have become president in the mold of FDR, JFK or Carter.

[sabrina 1]

44. I absolutely agree ~ he is a little rough around the edges

but he would not put up with the BS that goes on DC. He has proven he has the guts to stand up to anyone, including Nixon. We need more like him, as well as people like Obama who is more diplomatic. But both are needed. The rightwingers in our government need to know that they will be challenged on a regular basis. And that is what is missing even with Dems in the majority.

[HughMoran]

36. The fact that many are reccing this is very telling

There is no standard low enough for what is considered valid criticism of Obama.

[sabrina 1]

46. What it says is that people have respect for

for Gravel's record of service to his country. Both in the military and again, when this country badly needed someone to stand up against Nixon and the warmongers who lied the country into THAT war.

His opinion of Obama is his. It can be debated. But the knee-jerk reaction to him stating his opinion, the incorrect characterization of a man who probably did more for this country than any of us will ever do, needed a response.

It is not treasonous to criticize the president. I spent the last eight years telling rightwingers that as I'm sure many others here have. It would be a little hypocritical now for me and others to attack someone else for doing so, considering how we all didn't worry about standards when it came to Bush.

And when Gravel slammed Bush, airc, he was a hero. Facts don't change. Gravel is still who he was when criticized Bush. Calling him a 'nut' now, makes hypocrites of those who went after Bush.

Obama can be defended from Gravel's criticism, without resorting to lies about his character, and in fact, that would be a better way to deal with criticism. It's how I deal with rightwing lies about Obama, I just correct them. Far more effective than calling them names.

[roguevalley]

51. telling. anyone can have an opinion and express it. listeners have the

right to turn away. simple.

[cali]

56. crazu little fuckwad Gravel. Never could stand the asswipe.

[shotten99]

57. Still campaigning for the Libertarian ticket apparently.