SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A J'accuse for CAP, MoveOn Afghanistan Silence
Mar 30, 2009
President Obama went on CBS News' "Face the Nation" Sunday to make the case for his great big war in Afghanistan.
The good news is that Obama says, "What I will not do is to simply
assume that more troops always results in an improved situation."
The bad news is that Obama is dispatching more troops to a country that has never taken well to occupation.
So where is the MoveOn.org blast condemning the ramping up of an
undeclared war and the president's refusal to rule out an even more
dramatic expansion of that war to Pakistan? Where is the memo from the
Center for American Progress outlining the case against giving the
president "a blank check for endless war"?
Don't hold your breath, says John Stauber, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy and the co-author of Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq and The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies and the Mess in Iraq, two of the most scathing books on the Bush-Cheney administration and its war in Iraq.
In a no-holds-barred critique of groups that earned their
reputations as critics of the rush to invade and occupy Iraq, Stauber
argues that the Obama administration has effectively co-opted some of
the nation's most high-profile anti-war groups.
Here's what Stauber writes in a piece titled: "How Obama Took Over the Peace Movement," which appears on the CMD website:
John Podesta's liberal think tank the Center for American Progress strongly supports Barack Obama's escalation of the US wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is best evidenced by Sustainable Security in Afghanistan, a CAP report by Lawrence J. Korb.
Podesta served as the head of Obama's transition team, and CAP's
support for Obama's wars is the latest step in a successful co-option
of the US peace movement by Obama's political aids and the Democratic Party.CAP and the five million member liberal lobby group MoveOn were behind Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI), a coalition that spent tens of millions of dollars using Iraq as a political bludgeon against Republican
politicians, while refusing to pressure the Democratic Congress to
actually cut off funding for the war. AAEI was operated by two of
Barack Obama's top political aids, Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes, and by Brad Woodhouse of Americans United for Change and USAction. Today Woodhouse is Obama's Director of Communications and Research for the Democratic National Committee. He controls the massive email list called Obama for America
composed of the many millions of people who gave money and love to the
Democratic peace candidate and might be wondering what the heck he is
up to in Afghanistan and Pakistan. MoveOn built its list by organizing vigils and ads for peace and by then supporting Obama for president; today it operates as a full-time cheerleader supporting Obama's policy agenda. Some of us saw this unfolding years ago.
Others are probably shocked watching their peace candidate escalating a
war and sounding so much like the previous administration in his
rationale for doing so.
Ouch!
Stauber's piece has circulated widely in recent days, stirring the same sort of dialogue that his previous criticisms of MoveOn inspired.
The truth is that important players in the anti-war movement are speaking out against Obama's Afghanistan buildup.
Peace Action is petitioning
Congress to oppose Obama's Afghanistan plan. Peace Action executive
director Kevin Martin has compared the president's moves with those of
John Kennedy in Vietnam:
"It's a shame President Obama believes he can pursue
the same militaristic strategy as his predecessors and produce a
different result. While President Obama has made some good statements
on increasing diplomacy and economic aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan,
the emphasis is clearly on military operations. John F. Kennedy was in
a comparable situation when he was elected. He chose to escalate then
as well, and the consequences of his decision left our country mired in
an unwinnable war."
The Friends Committee on National Legislation,
which maintains the largest peace lobby in Washington, says that "more
troops won't bring more peace in Afghanistan. Instead, the U.S. should
invest in long-term diplomacy and development assistance."
United for Peace and Justice,
of which both Peace Action and FCNL are member groups, is organizing
coordinated local actions on April 6-9 to pressure Congress to oppose
the Afghanistan escalation.
But Stauber's broad point is an important one.
There is significant discomfort with the expansion of the U.S. presence
in Afghanistan, and opposition has been expressed by political leaders
abroad and at home (including Democrats and
Republicans in Congress). This is a time when genuine anti-war groups
could be expected to harness that discomfort and build a stronger
movement to shift U.S. policy.
As such, it is a time of testing for organizations that came to
prominence opposing not just George Bush and Dick Cheney but the
wrongheaded war-making of the White House -- no matter which party
happened to occupy the Oval Office. And that makes Stauber's J'accuse a particularly stinging one.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 The Nation
John Nichols
John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin. His books co-authored with Robert W. McChesney are: "Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex is Destroying America" (2014), "The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again" (2011), and "Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy" (2006). Nichols' other books include: "The "S" Word: A Short History of an American Tradition...Socialism" (2015), "Dick: The Man Who is President (2004) and "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism" (2006).
President Obama went on CBS News' "Face the Nation" Sunday to make the case for his great big war in Afghanistan.
The good news is that Obama says, "What I will not do is to simply
assume that more troops always results in an improved situation."
The bad news is that Obama is dispatching more troops to a country that has never taken well to occupation.
So where is the MoveOn.org blast condemning the ramping up of an
undeclared war and the president's refusal to rule out an even more
dramatic expansion of that war to Pakistan? Where is the memo from the
Center for American Progress outlining the case against giving the
president "a blank check for endless war"?
Don't hold your breath, says John Stauber, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy and the co-author of Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq and The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies and the Mess in Iraq, two of the most scathing books on the Bush-Cheney administration and its war in Iraq.
In a no-holds-barred critique of groups that earned their
reputations as critics of the rush to invade and occupy Iraq, Stauber
argues that the Obama administration has effectively co-opted some of
the nation's most high-profile anti-war groups.
Here's what Stauber writes in a piece titled: "How Obama Took Over the Peace Movement," which appears on the CMD website:
John Podesta's liberal think tank the Center for American Progress strongly supports Barack Obama's escalation of the US wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is best evidenced by Sustainable Security in Afghanistan, a CAP report by Lawrence J. Korb.
Podesta served as the head of Obama's transition team, and CAP's
support for Obama's wars is the latest step in a successful co-option
of the US peace movement by Obama's political aids and the Democratic Party.CAP and the five million member liberal lobby group MoveOn were behind Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI), a coalition that spent tens of millions of dollars using Iraq as a political bludgeon against Republican
politicians, while refusing to pressure the Democratic Congress to
actually cut off funding for the war. AAEI was operated by two of
Barack Obama's top political aids, Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes, and by Brad Woodhouse of Americans United for Change and USAction. Today Woodhouse is Obama's Director of Communications and Research for the Democratic National Committee. He controls the massive email list called Obama for America
composed of the many millions of people who gave money and love to the
Democratic peace candidate and might be wondering what the heck he is
up to in Afghanistan and Pakistan. MoveOn built its list by organizing vigils and ads for peace and by then supporting Obama for president; today it operates as a full-time cheerleader supporting Obama's policy agenda. Some of us saw this unfolding years ago.
Others are probably shocked watching their peace candidate escalating a
war and sounding so much like the previous administration in his
rationale for doing so.
Ouch!
Stauber's piece has circulated widely in recent days, stirring the same sort of dialogue that his previous criticisms of MoveOn inspired.
The truth is that important players in the anti-war movement are speaking out against Obama's Afghanistan buildup.
Peace Action is petitioning
Congress to oppose Obama's Afghanistan plan. Peace Action executive
director Kevin Martin has compared the president's moves with those of
John Kennedy in Vietnam:
"It's a shame President Obama believes he can pursue
the same militaristic strategy as his predecessors and produce a
different result. While President Obama has made some good statements
on increasing diplomacy and economic aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan,
the emphasis is clearly on military operations. John F. Kennedy was in
a comparable situation when he was elected. He chose to escalate then
as well, and the consequences of his decision left our country mired in
an unwinnable war."
The Friends Committee on National Legislation,
which maintains the largest peace lobby in Washington, says that "more
troops won't bring more peace in Afghanistan. Instead, the U.S. should
invest in long-term diplomacy and development assistance."
United for Peace and Justice,
of which both Peace Action and FCNL are member groups, is organizing
coordinated local actions on April 6-9 to pressure Congress to oppose
the Afghanistan escalation.
But Stauber's broad point is an important one.
There is significant discomfort with the expansion of the U.S. presence
in Afghanistan, and opposition has been expressed by political leaders
abroad and at home (including Democrats and
Republicans in Congress). This is a time when genuine anti-war groups
could be expected to harness that discomfort and build a stronger
movement to shift U.S. policy.
As such, it is a time of testing for organizations that came to
prominence opposing not just George Bush and Dick Cheney but the
wrongheaded war-making of the White House -- no matter which party
happened to occupy the Oval Office. And that makes Stauber's J'accuse a particularly stinging one.
John Nichols
John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin. His books co-authored with Robert W. McChesney are: "Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex is Destroying America" (2014), "The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again" (2011), and "Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy" (2006). Nichols' other books include: "The "S" Word: A Short History of an American Tradition...Socialism" (2015), "Dick: The Man Who is President (2004) and "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism" (2006).
President Obama went on CBS News' "Face the Nation" Sunday to make the case for his great big war in Afghanistan.
The good news is that Obama says, "What I will not do is to simply
assume that more troops always results in an improved situation."
The bad news is that Obama is dispatching more troops to a country that has never taken well to occupation.
So where is the MoveOn.org blast condemning the ramping up of an
undeclared war and the president's refusal to rule out an even more
dramatic expansion of that war to Pakistan? Where is the memo from the
Center for American Progress outlining the case against giving the
president "a blank check for endless war"?
Don't hold your breath, says John Stauber, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy and the co-author of Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq and The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies and the Mess in Iraq, two of the most scathing books on the Bush-Cheney administration and its war in Iraq.
In a no-holds-barred critique of groups that earned their
reputations as critics of the rush to invade and occupy Iraq, Stauber
argues that the Obama administration has effectively co-opted some of
the nation's most high-profile anti-war groups.
Here's what Stauber writes in a piece titled: "How Obama Took Over the Peace Movement," which appears on the CMD website:
John Podesta's liberal think tank the Center for American Progress strongly supports Barack Obama's escalation of the US wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is best evidenced by Sustainable Security in Afghanistan, a CAP report by Lawrence J. Korb.
Podesta served as the head of Obama's transition team, and CAP's
support for Obama's wars is the latest step in a successful co-option
of the US peace movement by Obama's political aids and the Democratic Party.CAP and the five million member liberal lobby group MoveOn were behind Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI), a coalition that spent tens of millions of dollars using Iraq as a political bludgeon against Republican
politicians, while refusing to pressure the Democratic Congress to
actually cut off funding for the war. AAEI was operated by two of
Barack Obama's top political aids, Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes, and by Brad Woodhouse of Americans United for Change and USAction. Today Woodhouse is Obama's Director of Communications and Research for the Democratic National Committee. He controls the massive email list called Obama for America
composed of the many millions of people who gave money and love to the
Democratic peace candidate and might be wondering what the heck he is
up to in Afghanistan and Pakistan. MoveOn built its list by organizing vigils and ads for peace and by then supporting Obama for president; today it operates as a full-time cheerleader supporting Obama's policy agenda. Some of us saw this unfolding years ago.
Others are probably shocked watching their peace candidate escalating a
war and sounding so much like the previous administration in his
rationale for doing so.
Ouch!
Stauber's piece has circulated widely in recent days, stirring the same sort of dialogue that his previous criticisms of MoveOn inspired.
The truth is that important players in the anti-war movement are speaking out against Obama's Afghanistan buildup.
Peace Action is petitioning
Congress to oppose Obama's Afghanistan plan. Peace Action executive
director Kevin Martin has compared the president's moves with those of
John Kennedy in Vietnam:
"It's a shame President Obama believes he can pursue
the same militaristic strategy as his predecessors and produce a
different result. While President Obama has made some good statements
on increasing diplomacy and economic aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan,
the emphasis is clearly on military operations. John F. Kennedy was in
a comparable situation when he was elected. He chose to escalate then
as well, and the consequences of his decision left our country mired in
an unwinnable war."
The Friends Committee on National Legislation,
which maintains the largest peace lobby in Washington, says that "more
troops won't bring more peace in Afghanistan. Instead, the U.S. should
invest in long-term diplomacy and development assistance."
United for Peace and Justice,
of which both Peace Action and FCNL are member groups, is organizing
coordinated local actions on April 6-9 to pressure Congress to oppose
the Afghanistan escalation.
But Stauber's broad point is an important one.
There is significant discomfort with the expansion of the U.S. presence
in Afghanistan, and opposition has been expressed by political leaders
abroad and at home (including Democrats and
Republicans in Congress). This is a time when genuine anti-war groups
could be expected to harness that discomfort and build a stronger
movement to shift U.S. policy.
As such, it is a time of testing for organizations that came to
prominence opposing not just George Bush and Dick Cheney but the
wrongheaded war-making of the White House -- no matter which party
happened to occupy the Oval Office. And that makes Stauber's J'accuse a particularly stinging one.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.