As a local coordinator for MoveOn.org's Operation Democracy council in Grand Rapids I can attest to the many times we demonstrated against the war and urged our Congressman Vern Ehlers to stop voting for the funding that escalated the war. MoveOn today is focusing on Obama's clean energy/green jobs proposal with a partnering with Green for All and the Clean Energy Corps proposal. I have heard nada about any attempts to influence its members to support Obama's foreign policy initiatives, which would no doubt be a devisive issue with our five million plus constituents. Mike Franz, Grand Rapids, MI
There are ethical issues for consideration here. For example, between 1981 and 1989 [[Philip Morris]] performed at least 115 studies at their lab in Cologne, Germany, called INBIFO, on the [https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Secondhand_smoke#Tobacco_industry_toxicity_testing_not_revealed_to_public toxicity of secondhand tobacco smoke]. The studies revealed that inhaled fresh secondhand smoke is approximately four times more toxic per gram in its total particulate matter than mainstream cigarette smoke (the smoke the smoker himself inhales). The condensate (commonly known as "tar") derived from secondhand smoke is approximately three times more toxic per gram and two to six times more tumorigenic per gram than that of mainstream smoke when applied to skin. Philip Morris never brought the results of these studies to the attention of any government of public health authority. Quite the opposite; they performed these studies in foreign countries to keep the results out of American media and court cases. Was Ms. Gillibrand, in her capacity as an attorney, helping PM continue to shield this information from the public? She traveled to INBIFO and worked with the scientists there.
I used to have respect for Eli Pariser and Move On. This reads like media "prostitution?" tsk tsk. The problem is not PR, is it? The problem is schisms between "intelligence" , the Pentagon and corporate lobbies within the White House, causing contradictory "BUT"s from Obama. Policy Confusion is the result.
Coming as I have from a mostly pacifist background, I understand John's frustration that those who opposed one war might support any escalation in another.
But please keep in mind that many who completely opposed the war in Iraq did so in part because it was a distraction (perhaps "disruption" is a better word) of the presumably more worthwhile fight in Afghanistan. That isn't to say that both fights were hideous under Bush, and Af/Pak may well be hideous under Obama (war usually is), but a resurgent Taliban is one of the few things Americans might still be in favor of attacking--especially if it were to be done intelligently. (Oh, that it had been originally...)
I'm not defending Matzzie, the Sustainable Security report, or any other specifics--but the very fact that the plan includes Pakistan, which is arguably more of a threat to the world than either Afghanistan or Iraq ever was, means that someone up there gets the idea of regional stability. Before we condemn, many of us want to see what the administration has in mind--if it turns into Obama's Vietnam, there's always time to oppose.
Meanwhile, you keep up the pacifist front--I'm glad you're doing it--but let's not gloss over one war for another. Just because the last administration couldn't seem to keep them separate in their "War on terror" branding, doesn't mean many of us can't tell the difference.
Pages