[Peace-discuss] Fw: From Bruce Gagnon: "Progressives" seek support
for Obama's escalation plans
unionyes
unionyes at ameritech.net
Fri Dec 4 06:57:43 CST 2009
----- Original Message -----
From: David Sladky
To: unionyes at ameritech.net
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 9:25 AM
Subject: From Bruce Gagnon: "Progressives" seek support for Obama's escalation plans
One of them brought up CodePink's recent visit to Afghanistan and subsequent
statements made by Media Benjamin to say that some peace groups understand that
we need to stay there and stabilize the country. Another called Obama's plan the
"full spectrum approach" that progressives must support - we "need the military"
to get to a positive conclusion.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott McLarty <scottmclarty at yahoo.com>
To: usgp-media at gp-us.org; dcsgp at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 3, 2009 8:37 am
Subject: [usgp-media] From Bruce Gagnon: "Progressives" seek support for Obama's escalation plans
From: "Steven G. Ault" <stgault at earthlink.net
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 2:31 PM
Subject: DECEPTIVE PROGRESSIVES CALL FOR SUPPORT OF OBAMA'S WAR
This post from Bruce Gagnon [Coordinator, Global Network Against Weapons &
Nuclear Power in Space] needs to circulate far and wide. Steve
DECEPTIVE PROGRESSIVES CALL FOR SUPPORT OF OBAMA'S WAR
This morning I got an email from a friend who tipped me off to a conference call
for "progressives" to discuss Obama's Afghanistan speech last night.
The call announcement included this: "The narrative so far is that the left is
against sending more troops and the right is for it,” said Jim Arkedis, Director
of the National Security Project at the Progressive Policy Institute. “But
that’s not the reality of the situation. There are reasons for progressives to
take heart from much of the President’s new strategy, as well as reasons to
tread carefully. We want to make sure all those voices are heard.”
This made me quite interested so I dialed in. The call began with everyone in
the audience on mute as the following people make opening statements.
* Rachel Kleinfeld, CEO, Truman National Security Project
* Jim Arkedis, Director of the National Security Project, Progressive Policy
Institute
* Gen. Paul Eaton (Ret.), Senior Adviser, National Security Network
* Andy Johnson, Director, Third Way National Security Program
* Lorelei Kelly, Director, New Strategic Security Initiative
* Brian Katulis, Center for American Progress
* Frankie Sturm, Communications Director, Truman National Security Project
(Moderator)
Frankly I had never heard of any of these people before and I've been working in
the "progressive movement" for the past 30 years. A couple of the organizations
they work for I had heard a bit about - they are DC-based "think tanks" that
usually are heavily funded by corporations to project their message.
Here is a bit of what some of them said in the opening:
Rachel Kleinfeld: "Thrilled by last night's speech....it's a realistic goal we
have been given...dismayed that progressives don't see that his will reduce the
violence of this war."
Jim Arkedis: Described himself as a former counter-terrorism analyst at the
Pentagon....."Think of the US like an NFL defense....by adopting this
counter-insurgency strategy it essentially takes the other sides offense off the
field.....this is about peace and stability." He slammed Rep. Dennis Kucinich
(D-OH) who was on the news this morning criticizing the plan as being from the
"far left."
Lorelei Kelly: "Progressives need to abandon the old talking points from Iraq
and Vietnam....progressives need to get inside this debate, President Obama is
trying to create a new way....these policies need support....The American
military is probably the most progressive agency we have today."
One of them brought up CodePink's recent visit to Afghanistan and subsequent
statements made by Media Benjamin to say that some peace groups understand that
we need to stay there and stabilize the country. Another called Obama's plan the
"full spectrum approach" that progressives must support - we "need the military"
to get to a positive conclusion.
Finally they unmuted the listeners and then opened it up for "questions". I
didn't ask a question but instead read a quote from the Robert Scheer article
which came from former Marine captain Matthew Hoh where he said, “In the course
of my five months of service in Afghanistan … I have lost understanding and
confidence in the strategic purpose of the United States’ presence in
Afghanistan. … I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for
the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign
soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul.”
A woman listener from West Virginia (CodePink) said she had family killed in
these wars and they need to stop. A woman from Georgia said we need to end the
wars. A man from upstate New York said they were organizing protests and that
Obama had betrayed us.
Next they put us on mute again and told us that we could only ask questions and
that we'd better be good. When they unmuted I accused them of trying to silence
the voices of the people as it was clear that they only wanted us on the call to
listen to the talking points put out by the White House.
I know this is true because last spring I did a couple blogs about the Obama
administration daily sending out talking points to groups like these that today
hosted this "conference call". You can see one such story about this by Jermey
Scahill here
One of the groups mentioned by Scahill in his article is the Center for American
Progress which was represented on the call today as one of the "expert"
speakers.
While on the call I quickly did an Internet search on the Truman National
Security Project just to see what I could learn about them. Their advisory board
stands out like a sore thumb:
Advisory Board
Madeleine K. Albright
Principal, The Albright Group LLC
Leslie H. Gelb
President Emeritus, Council on Foreign Relations
William Marshall
President, Progressive Policy Institute
William J. Perry (former Clinton Secretary of Defense)
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute
John D. Podesta (former Clinton operative)
President and CEO, Center for American Progress
Wendy R. Sherman
Principal, The Albright Group LLC
First chance I got I read the list off and commented that it was now abundantly
clear to me that this call was intended to deliver Obama team talking points to
us and that they were not in the least interested in what we had to
say.....these folks organizing this call came from the right-wing of the
Democratic Party I said...... earlier I had strongly challenged one of them who
stated that the peace movement should stop protesting and support Obama's plan!
They couldn't wait to finish the call and I am happy to say that it did not go
as well as they had hoped. I thank Mark Roman for tipping me off and I want to
warn everyone to be on the lookout for these "pseudo progressives" who will now
be coming out of the woodwork to tell the public and the media that only the
far-left is against Obama's war in Afghanistan. Good "progressives" they will
say are going to support Obama's war surge.
In the old days they used to call these folks "Scoop Jackson Democrats" after
the senator from Washington state who was a pro-war leader. They have wised up
and now call themselves progressives and will steal the rug out from under our
feet if we are not watching closely.
Bruce K. Gagnon
Coordinator
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
globalnet at mindspring.com
http://www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/ (blog)
_______________________________________________
usgp-media mailing list
usgp-media at gp-us.org
http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-media
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20091204/99c415ef/attachment.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list