Ann Kuster Stands with Carol Shea-Porter on War Vote

we can only hope that AMK and many others like her join CSP in Congress in Jan. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: measurestaken @ Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 08:55:36 AM CDT

measurestaken we can do more than hope (4.00 / 1)

There's a Primary 9/14. Send me a message and I'll get you a call sheet!

5

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:02:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Another clip from the article. . . . (0.00 / 0)

I realize that this doesn't fit the cherry-picking strategy, but nevertheless:

Swett and Kuster both credit Obama for announcing an end this month to U.S. combat operations in Iraq, and they agree Obama must stand by his commitment, made when he announced the increase in Afghanistan troops to begin to draw down combat forces in July 2011.

"I strongly believe this is Afghanistan's war, not America's war," Swett said. "We need to hold the president's feet to the fire to make sure he keeps to that timeline."

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:06:07 AM CDT

"Cherry picking strategy" (4.00 / 1)

When the diarist includes a link to the article itself, that is a bogus claim.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for your positive-focus diary. It doesn't seem to be in your nature.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 12:09:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks, elwood (0.00 / 0)

If it's not my grammar, it's something else.  Thanks for making me feel welcome here.

Dean presented a view of the article that distorted the similarities between the two candidates' positions.  I don't blame him for this -- he's a Kuster supporter.  I provided an excerpt that presents a more balanced view.

Given the daily anti-Swett diaries on this blog, I find it funny that you accuse me of being the negative one.  I guess that I could accuse of you and some of your fellow Kuster supporters of waging a "deligitimization campaign" against the one vocal Swett supporter left on Blue Hampshire.  But I've had enough.

The diary will be posted tonight.  No matter how many times you question my word.  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 12:19:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Distorting the similarities: (4.00 / 1)

Swett also supports President Obama's plan, announced last December, to stabilize Afghanistan by deploying 30,000 more American troops - and his pledge to begin bringing them home in July 2011.

When Obama announced his plan to escalate American involvement in Afghanistan, Kuster said, she did her own policy review, reading extensively and speaking with foreign policy advisers, veterans and members of Congress. She decided the president's plan would continue a "failed mindset" of nation-building that had drawn and held the United States in Iraq.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 13:22:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It isn't grammar (0.00 / 0)

You have an Ivy League education. You know how to use and misuse grammar. You don't need lessons from me.

When I point out that you say "is doing" rather than "once did," it isn't about grammar. It's about dishonesty.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 19:56:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, Elwood (0.00 / 0)

When you say "once did", is THAT dishonest?  I pointed far more than a single example, didn't I?

Of course, the word "once" can be interpreted in two different ways -- that there was one contribution, and that the contributions were made at one time and then stopped. I will assume that you meant the latter, and that you did not intend to be dishonest.

Similarly, my use of present rather than past tense did not mean to imply that Ann was giving contributions to Republicans at the very moment the diary was written, or in the past week, or in the past month.  It meant that she had done so over a lengthy period with no discernible explanation or end point.  But I think that you know that.  And, if you didn't, my context and examples were very clear in that regard.  Nevertheless, after you pointed out your issue with my grammar, I changed the title of my diary immediately.

All I'm requesting is a little benefit of the doubt before you throw around words like "dishonesty". I don't think that's too much to ask.

Thank you.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 20:14:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

By the way. . . (0.00 / 0)

I look forward to your response to my critique of Ann's Afghan approach below.  Because the issue merits discussion.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 12:21:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Afghanistan Strategy (0.00 / 0)

With all due respect to Ann, whom I know cares deeply about both our troops and our mission, I question the inconsistency between having a "narrowly focused counter-terrorism mission designed to disrupt al-Qaida" and opposing the surge.

Al-Qaida and the Taliban thrive on the instability of the Afghan institutions -- the lack of schools, government services, and economic opportunities throughout the country.  Our enemies get this.  That is why the Taliban blows up girls schools as a matter of policy, and why al-Qaida is funded by opium profits, making Afghanistan a virtual narco-terrorist state.  They know how to make Afghanistan unstable.

The Bush Administration did nothing about this.  The key pieces of an effective counterterrorism strategy in Afghanistan -- supporting economic development, building infrastructure, constructing stable community institutions, and enabling local governments to manage them -- were ignored and/or underfunded.  The Obama Administration has changed this misguided policy.  They are funding non-military investments at a far greater rate than ever before.

But, in Afghanistan, you need security to accomplish these goals.  International aid workers are targets, as we were so horribly reminded yesterday.  I have a friend from Tuck -- a progressive USAID leader -- who has been in the Kandahar region for the past 18 months, working to support the development of civil institutions.  He and his colleagues need to be safe in order to do the work that they need to do to stop Afghanistan from being a terrorist breeding ground.

I respect those who believe that we just need to get the hell out of Afghanistan.  (I, personally, feel that the strategies listed above cannot work unless the Obama Administration demands an end to state corruption and abuses.  Everything hinges on this.)  

But don't claim that we can counter-terrorism and attack al-Qaida without addressing the underlying reasons why our enemies thrive in Afghanistan.    

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:26:17 AM CDT

Reality check on Afghanistan (0.00 / 0)

DD, don't mean to nitpick on Afghan policy and I'm not sure if this has anything to do with Ann... but I'll respond to your observations above and what I know.

So Obama says were in Afghanistan "to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies,"  He said "If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people."

That's painting a broad brush on things and that argument tends to lump the various groups we are contending with together, and it suggests that all of them are equally committed to attacking the United States. According to Stephen Walt (co-author of the groundbreaking book "The Israel Lobby" :) ) "most of the people we are fighting in Afghanistan aren't dedicated jihadis seeking to overthrow Arab monarchies, establish a Muslim caliphate, or mount attacks on U.S. soil. Their agenda is focused on local affairs, such as what they regard as the political disempowerment of Pashtuns and illegitimate foreign interference in their country."

While it is true that Mullah Omar gave Osama bin Laden a sanctuary both before and after 9/11, it is by no means clear that they would give him free rein to attack the United States again. Protecting al Qaeda back in 2001 brought no end of trouble to Mullah Omar and his associates, and if they were lucky enough to regain power, it is hard to believe they would give the US/NATO forces a reason to come back in force.  

On a sidenote, "Time" Magazine patronizingly suggested America should stay there to prevent women from facing misogyny and human rights abuses by the Taliban (funny how human rights groups raised the same issue to the Clinton administration in '96 and '97 but were met with deaf ears and lip-service). I think Sonali Kolhatkar of the Afghan Women's Mission, said it best about the US occupation of Afghanistan and the rationale (make that America's irrationale) for staying there.

This is the same type of justification that the Soviets used (among others) to explain why they should remain in Afghanistan: to save Afghan women from the 'backward' fundamentalists. Foreign armies have always sought to protect Afghan women from violence by fomenting violence themselves. But in the end, just like the Soviets did backroom deals with radical misogynist groups, the U.S. has been empowering non-Taliban misogynist fundamentalists since the start of this war. There are incidents happening every day in Afghanistan of women and girls being harassed, raped, flogged and killed by pro-U.S. warlords and local commanders that are not working with the Taliban -- these incidents are rarely covered by the Western media. In many ways the U.S. occupation has actually made things worse for Afghan women. Afghan women activists I work with prefer to resist two threats to their security (the Taliban and the U.S.-backed central government) instead of three (the third being the U.S./NATO occupation) and have long called for U.S. forces to leave. Time magazine is playing to age-old racist stereotypes: that brown women need a foreign white army to save them from their men."

That whole quote of hers is "money."

This whole war was illegal from the start. It was just as illegal as the invasion of Iraq. It met none of the standard international moral and legal criteria for justifiable self-defense and occurred without reasonable consultation with the United Nations Security Council. Why isn't that discussed now? It should be. Look at where the hijackers came from... Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Yemen. The Taliban nor did Afghanistan did not cause 9-11. An international anti-terrorism task force would've done the job. Not invading a country that had no role in the atrocious attacks of 9-11.

This isn't directed to you, but in general.... Let's not ignore the obvious and let's stop coming up with patronizing, western, and removed from reality excuses to maintain the occupation of Afghanistan.

And let's keep this debate civil if you're going to respond. I know you have a knack for reacting, DD. : )  

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 21:47:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In Response (0.00 / 0)

My friend, I have nothing but respect for your passion on this issue, as well as your factual approach to addressing it.  I appreciate your response, as I always do.  And, as noted above, there are certainly areas where I disagree with the Administration's policy on Afghanistan. . . . A few additional points:

While it is true that Mullah Omar gave Osama bin Laden a sanctuary both before and after 9/11, it is by no means clear that they would give him free rein to attack the United States again. Protecting al Qaeda back in 2001 brought no end of trouble to Mullah Omar and his associates, and if they were lucky enough to regain power, it is hard to believe they would give the US/NATO forces a reason to come back in force.

Ex-Pat, I would argue that the Taliban's 2001 sanctuary to al Qaeda alone justifies international action to prevent their return to power.  If Taliban leadership were to renounce global terrorism and end the group's endemic human rights abuses, then this could be up for discussion, in my opinion at least.  But they have not.

On a sidenote, "Time" Magazine patronizingly suggested America should stay there to prevent women from facing misogyny and human rights abuses by the Taliban (funny how human rights groups raised the same issue to the Clinton administration in '96 and '97 but were met with deaf ears and lip-service).

I do not believe that Clinton Administration's failure to address human rights in Afghanistan should preclude us from doing so now.  And I agree that guarantees for women's rights should continue to be demanded from both our allies as well as our foes.

That said, I think that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International do a pretty good job of documenting the Taliban's systematic abuses of women. And they are not the only targets.  As Amnesty notes, "The Taleban and related insurgent groups in Afghanistan show little regard for human rights and the laws of war and systematically and deliberately target civilians, aid workers, and civilian facilities like schools (particularly girls' schools)."

This whole war was illegal from the start. It was just as illegal as the invasion of Iraq. It met none of the standard international moral and legal criteria for justifiable self-defense and occurred without reasonable consultation with the United Nations Security Council. Why isn't that discussed now?

I agree that the Bush Administration did a horrible job of ensuring sufficient international backing, and this hampered our troops in Afghanistan for seven years.  That said, I do feel that the Taliban's role in sheltering al Qaeda offers sufficient justification, as the bombing of the World Trade Center was an act of war.

That said, you never have to tell me to keep our discussions civil.  I know that you are motivated solely by your desire for peace, and that you respect those who share your ultimate goal -- if not your approach for getting there.

Hope all is well.  Look forward to catching up soon.  (Might have to be via email, as I will probably get canned from BH any day now.)

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 22:24:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This group has the right Rx for Afghanistan (0.00 / 0)

I'll let the South Asia Solidarity Initiative speak for me.

The Afghan people are capable of creating their own democratic future.  Progressive groups and democratic parties in Afghanistan are fighting to reconstruct the peace and safety of their country, and more often than not, are forced underground for fear of their safety.  Despite the repression from the U.S.-backed Karzai government, thousands of brave students and women have come out on to the streets of Kabul to protest the bombings and the continued war.  It is from these forces that a larger progressive movement will emerge that could play a role in bringing real democracy to Afghanistan.  If the United States continues the occupation, the space for progressive forces becomes increasingly limited.

We must know and remember, that liberation never comes from occupation. We must know and remember, that there will always be resistance to occupation. Occupations, no matter where they take place, from Iraq to Palestine to Turtle Island, are unjust. The American people must come out in support and solidarity with the resilient peoples of Afghanistan and elsewhere who are fighting for their own liberation, and must call for the end of all U.S. wars and occupations.

Signatories:

South Asia Solidarity Initiative
Iraq Veterans Against the War
Derrick O'Keefe co-writer of the autobiography Malalai Joya -- A Woman Among Warlords
Veterans For Peace
Courage to Resist
Anjali Kamat, Producer, Democracy Now!
Robert Jensen, University of Texas, Austin, TX

 

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 11:27:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]