[Peace-discuss] Disgusting fake progs

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Heather Hurlbutt: Wanking the Supplemental
	By: Jane Hamsher Saturday June 13, 2009 4:20 pm	

There's a special place in hell for think tanks that set themselves up to suck 
up donations from rich donors for the sole purpose of wrapping imperialist 
foreign policy in progressive rhetoric.

May Heather Hurlbutt and her "It could be the last of its kind" speculations 
spend a great deal of time there.

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/06/13/heather-hurlbutt-wanking-the-supplemental/

	Heather Hurlburt
	Executive Director, National Security Network
	Posted: June 12, 2009 11:46 AM
	Six Reasons to Love the Supplemental and
	Celebrate Progressives in Government [sic]

Usually, there are lots of reasons for progressives not to love supplemental 
spending bills. And I won't argue that this one is perfect. But before you get 
too queasy, consider six ways that progressives in Congress and the man at 1600 
Pennsylvania turned "more of the same" into "change." Perhaps most important, 
the bill offers shifts in momentum that progressives can build on -- 
prioritizing economic support for poorer countries, even in an economic 
downturn; stopping the advance of the conservative effort to turn back the 
closing of Gitmo and ending of torture; and ending the apparently ceaseless 
expansion of defense budgets. It also marks various brands and blocs of 
progressives coming together to promote each other's goals -- i.e., successfully 
managing American's security and international engagement. And that's worth 
showing a little love.

1.	It marks the first turn-back of conservative efforts to push the Obama 
Administration to the right on torture. Some progressives want to force the 
Administration to release photos of Abu Ghraib abuse -- others believe that 
allowing Senator Lieberman and Graham to set that policy legislatively takes 
away the Administration's freedom of action and sends the wrong message about 
what photos might be suppressed, and why. And they won!

2.	It makes it clear that the priority pathway for Guantanamo detainees is 
civilian trials in United States courts. Even as Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney and 
their wacky friends continue to suggest that American courts and prison guards 
can't do their jobs -- the same institutions that currently hold dozens of 
convicted terrorists, including the only convicted 9-11 conspirator -- Congress 
explicitly endorses bringing detainees to the US for civilian trials. That's a 
welcome rebuke to the drumbeat of "Khalid Sheikh Mohamed infiltrates your 
supermarket" we've been hearing on the Senate floor for the last month. I don't 
want to downplay the importance of the points still in contention -- where and 
how we imprison convicted detainees, and how we convince other countries to take 
in detainees if we don't take any ourselves. But with civilian trials a process 
begins which puts some of those decisions clearly in the hands of the executive 
and legislative branches -- and inside the rule of law, which was progressives' 
goal all along. Without civilian trials, no pathway to the rule of law exists. 
*Sometimes, the devil really is in the details. And these are devilish on both 
national security and human rights grounds. I don't want word getting out on 
where detainees are going 45 days in advance. Downgrade this to 'waiting to see 
the next move.'

3.	It will move money to prevent meltdowns in countries hit hardest by the 
economic crisis. That's what the IMF money is for -- Pakistan, Hungary. And no, 
this isn't your 1990's "Washington consensus" lending, with the kind of 
conditionality that the left loves to hate. This is in some ways the IMF 
returning to its original core mission -- stepping in as a temporary 
lender-of-last resort to economies in dire straits. The countries in question 
want the money. And, fiscal conservatives, it's a loan from us to the IMF. 
Backed by gold reserves. We get it back.

4.	It builds Obama's credibility overseas. Obama jammed a major increase in IMF 
support for poor countries hard-hit by the economic crisis into the April G20 
Summit, over the objections of Europeans who wanted to focus only on re-writing 
market regulations and leave struggling countries (like Pakistan) to fend for 
themselves. Moving this money to the IMF in just two months will make it clear 
globally that Obama can deliver on his promises and heighten the likelihood that 
others deliver on theirs as well. And, as CAP's Nina Hachigian points out, this 
will increase our credibility at the IMF at a moment when China is building its 
own oomph.

5.	 It's smaller. In a break from Bush Administration practice, the Obama 
Administration shifted a significant proportion of the Iraq and Afghanistan 
warfighting expenses back into the regular budget -- where they can be analyzed 
and debated and held up against other priorities.

6.	It could be the last of its kind. The Obama Administration has also pledged 
to move all of the war-fighting expenses that are actually regular and 
foreseeable into the regular budgets. So there's a decent chance that, in 
future, members of Congress from all sides will lose the ability to push 
unpopular projects through by tying them to money for the troops on the ground.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-hurlburt/six-reasons-to-love-the-s_b_214826.html