[Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters

[Robert Naiman]

I apologized for what I wrote in my email to Keven Zeese after he attacked
me, which he then spread all over.

Where's your apology for championing Trump, Snarl?

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 7:20 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> [Jeffrey St. Clair, editor of Counterpunch (& a friend), wrote correctly
> in <
> https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/19/roaming-charges-prime-time-green/>
> as follows.]
>
> ...It so happens that Naiman, an alleged peace activist, is also the board
> president for the liberal website Truthout. Veteran readers of CounterPunch
> will recall Truthout from John Pilger’s acrid account of his head-on
> collision with their editors, who peevishly tried to cleanse his essay, “A
> World War Has Begun: Break the Silence,” of passages which might prove
> uncomfortable for the Democratic Party establishment.
>
> In a nasty email exchange with longtime Green organizer Kevin Zeese, who
> is now co-director of Popular Resistance, a group which grew out of the
> Occupy movement, Naiman sunk even further into the slime and threatened to
> expose Jill Stein as “a Trotskyite cancer.”
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Robert Naiman  wrote:
>
> Oh, is today my day to be harassed by Green Party thugs?
> I’ll make you a deal: call off your dogs and I won’t further expose Jill
> Stein as a Trokskyite cancer.
>
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
>
> Slandering Stein and the Greens for being “Trotskyites” (or “Trokskyites,”
> in Naiman’s quaint verbiage) is as intellectually vapid as it is vile.
> Everyone knows that most of Leon’s former disciples in the US have long
> since morphed into neocons and thus can be spotted in Georgetown cafes
> polishing their resumés for slots on Hillary’s foreign policy team.
>
> “Robert Naiman epitomizes the attitude of the paid, professional Democrat
> progressives attacking the Green Party and Jill Stein,” John Stauber told
> me. “These shills see no hypocrisy in embracing a candidate supported by
> Wall Street, the Koch brothers and the neoconservatives who with Hillary
> lied America into attacking Iraq.  So there it is, Hillary is his champion
> while a woman running on the most progressive platform in America is just a
> damned Communist.  Rather than back down when he himself was exposed, he
> doubled down with a smear befitting the worst of American politics. Naiman
> is not an aberration however; indeed, he embodies the funded progressive
> elite who since 2000 have become a front group for the Democrats liberal
> oligarchs such as George Soros and his Democracy Alliance.”
>
> The hypocrisy of the Clintonoids is almost as audacious as their
> dissemination of lies about Jill Stein. Of course, their champion, the
> “pro-science” Hillary Clinton, ignores scientific facts and assessments
> whenever such considerations prove to be an even minor inconvenience to the
> headlong pursuit of her corporate agenda (cf, fracking).
>
> “People may wonder why suddenly everyone was saying Jill Stein is anti-vax
> — now we know it was a coordinated campaign,” Zeese told me. “Obviously, it
> also happens in the media because all of a sudden multiple news outlets
> were reporting the same thing. Had Stein said something that all these
> media outlets saw and ‘reported’ on — no, she had not said anything
> anti-vax, but they were coordinated. It was a planned slander attack.”
>
> Despite Clinton’s apparent lead in the polls, there’s a palpable sense of
> desperation in the air, as if her support is so soft that Hillary could
> sink another 10 points in the wake of one more email dump from Wikileaks or
> Guccifer 2.0. This explains why her surrogates are reaching so deeply into
> their bag of dirty tricks. The red-baiting of Stein and Baraka is a perfect
> expression of the Clinton machine’s political and moral bankruptcy...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 2019, at 7:08 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > If I said that Jill Stein was a Trot, that was a mistake and I
> apologize. That's a harsh charge. Trots have done a lot of damage to the
> Left in the United States.
> >
> > Will you, Snarl, now apologize for supporting Trump?
> >
> > ===
> >
> > Robert Reuel Naiman
> > Policy Director
> > Just Foreign Policy
> > www.justforeignpolicy.org
> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> > (202) 448-2898 x1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:59 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> > You have a history of spreading lies about Greens, Bob (e.g., Jill Stein
> is "a Trokskyite [sic] cancer”):
> >
> > <
> https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/19/roaming-charges-prime-time-green/
> >.
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:43 AM, Robert Naiman <
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > As I said before, anyone can check the archive, for all the times that
> Snarl championed Trump.
> > >
> > > ===
> > >
> > > Robert Reuel Naiman
> > > Policy Director
> > > Just Foreign Policy
> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org
> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> > > (202) 448-2898 x1
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:40 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> > > Cooking sherry already this morning, Bob?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:34 AM, Robert Naiman <
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You actively supported Trump by name, Snarl.
> > > >
> > > > The prosecution rests and asks the court for summary judgment.
> > > >
> > > > ===
> > > >
> > > > Robert Reuel Naiman
> > > > Policy Director
> > > > Just Foreign Policy
> > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org
> > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> > > > (202) 448-2898 x1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:29 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> > > > No, I supported (and voted for) Jill Stein - even tho’ some people
> thought that to do so was ‘objectively' to help Trump.
> > > >
> > > > I did (and do) think it important to recognize the populist upsurge
> that made Trump president.
> > > >
> > > > That hasn’t subsided, although Trump has betrayed it by adopting the
> last administration’s neolib and neocon policies (more war and more
> inequality) - which he attacked in the campaign.
> > > >
> > > > —CGE
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:12 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On this very list, Snarl, you openly campaigned for Trump. Anyone
> here can verify this for themselves by checking the archives.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why aren't you willing to take responsibility for Trump starving
> children to death in Yemen, given that you openly campaigned for him?
> > > > >
> > > > > ===
> > > > >
> > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman
> > > > > Policy Director
> > > > > Just Foreign Policy
> > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org
> > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:57 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> > > > > Actually, I voted Green in the last presidential election - as I
> expect to do in the next - against the advice of people whose opinions I
> respect, like Chomsky.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don’t regret it, but we Americans have a great deal to repent,
> notably not constraining the greatest purveyor of violence in the world
> today.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 5:24 AM, Robert Naiman <
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's not forget that Snarl supported Trump. The blood of Yemeni
> children is on Snarl's hands.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ===
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman
> > > > > > Policy Director
> > > > > > Just Foreign Policy
> > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org
> > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:19 AM Robert Naiman <
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Look up the estimates for how many civilians have been killed in
> U.S. drone strikes in all theaters since 2001.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then look up the numbers for the number of children who have
> starved to death in Yemen alone as a result of the U.S.-Saudi war and
> blockade since 2015.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Come back and report when you've finished your homework.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ===
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman
> > > > > > Policy Director
> > > > > > Just Foreign Policy
> > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org
> > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:16 AM Robert Naiman <
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But there is no reason to do that, unless you don't understand
> anything about how life on Planet Earth works, and you don't care to learn,
> because you actually don't care about the consequences of your actions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ===
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman
> > > > > > Policy Director
> > > > > > Just Foreign Policy
> > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org
> > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:11 AM C. G. Estabrook via
> Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> > > > > > “Practical’ as this advice is, re-read it, imagining oneself at
> the appropriate time and place - and substituting 'concentration camps’ for
> ‘drone strikes.’
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as
> weapons per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in
> the United States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly
> because it's fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing
> intrinsically worse about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile
> strike - in fact, the contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise
> missile is worse. And there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not
> particularly scandalized by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're
> running for President of the United States, not student council at a Quaker
> college. There are things we could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone
> strikes, like ending the wars that the drone strikes are part of, but
> banning drones is not one of them in any future we can see. If I were
> advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a way, I am, I'm talking to people who
> talk to them - I would not advise them to call for getting rid of drones. I
> would advise them to call for getting rid of wars that the drones are part
> of. The way to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and
> Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out of Afghanistan and Syria.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional
> U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the
> war against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten
> anywhere.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems
> likely that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk
> about ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war
> in Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to
> talk about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the
> U.S. from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid
> to the government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that
> the U.S. is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How
> far do you think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy
> Pelosi is going to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in
> the Middle East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's
> something we might even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it
> in the case of the Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out
> against it. It wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should
> have been. But we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more
> pressure on Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose
> from the tree.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ===
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman
> > > > > > > Policy Director
> > > > > > > Just Foreign Policy
> > > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org
> > > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via
> Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > Robert Naiman wrote:
> > > > > > >> "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between
> the Bernie
> > > > > > >> supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against
> the common
> > > > > > >> enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 --
> > > > > > >
> https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders
> > > > > > >> administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look
> like?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: All of that and more.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones--
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly,
> it is
> > > > > > >> terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a
> facility or a
> > > > > > >> building which kills women and children, you know what? Not
> only doesn't
> > > > > > >> do us any -- it's terrible.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using
> drones if you
> > > > > > >> think you've isolated an important terrorist?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: So that continues?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 --
> > > > > > >
> https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that
> in the
> > > > > > >> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach
> with
> > > > > > >> strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that
> still your
> > > > > > >> position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you
> believe the
> > > > > > >> U.S. military should be used around the world for
> counterterrorism, is
> > > > > > >> that still your position?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the
> unconventional
> > > > > > >> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of
> these other
> > > > > > >> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using
> basically
> > > > > > >> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these
> mass
> > > > > > >> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions
> of dollars
> > > > > > >> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military
> Force and
> > > > > > >> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations
> of those
> > > > > > >> current AUMFs.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> So, with these terrorist cells, for example, yes, I do still
> believe
> > > > > > >> that the right approach to take is these quick strike forces,
> surgical
> > > > > > >> strikes, in and out, very quickly, no long-term deployment, no
> > > > > > >> long-term occupation to be able to get rid of the threat that
> exists and
> > > > > > >> then get out and the very limited use of drones in those
> situations
> > > > > > >> where our military is not able to get in without creating an
> > > > > > >> unacceptable level of risk, and where you can make sure that
> you’re not
> > > > > > >> causing, you know, a large amount of civilian casualties.
> > > > > > > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one
> common enemy:
> > > > > > > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war.
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20190320/05268af7/attachment-0001.html>