AFL-CIO President Sweeney Has Strong Ties to PNAC???...

[Totally Committed]

*******
ON EDIT
*******
The link on my story no longer works. (It did work when I posted it, or I wouldn't have posted it.) I am trying to find another link at present. I will post one ASAP. Until then, my apologies.

*******


AFL-CIO President Sweeney Is Silent on His Strong Ties to PNAC

Excerpts:

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney has declined to explain why his name and title appear on a list of supporters of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an organization whose prime activity is to promote theestablishment of an American global empire through the use of military and economic power.

>snip<

In the two years since the invasion of Iraq, Sweeney has refused to comment on any of Bush's embarrassing problems: the failure to find weapons of mass destruction; the rising toll of dead and wounded American soldiers; the exorbitant cost of the war, and the lack of an exit plan for the return of our troops.

Moreover, the AFL-CIO, with Sweeney's apparent approval, has maintained a strict blackout of news and information about Iraq, homeland security and terrorism. Most affiliated unions have followed Sweeney's example; their leaders have refrained from issuing any statements that criticize Bush's foreign policy, and their publications act as though the war in Iraq is not an issue for America's working families.

The news blackout is enforced even within the labor movement. AFL-CIO publications and policy statements by the Executive Council have consistently ignored the anti-war movement and its advocates among members of its affiliated unions. U.S. Labor Against the War reports a list of unions, representing better than a third of the entire AFL-CIO membership, that have passed resolutions calling for an end to the American-led occupation in Iraq and the return home of our soldiers. Yet this is not considered newsworthy by the AFL-CIO's official magazine, America@Work and other union publications.

It is high time for Sweeney to be accountable to the AFL-CIO membership. There are a few straightforward questions that require straightforward answers:

**** Does he approve of the Project for a New American Century? If so, why? If not, will he publicly denounce it and ask PNAC to remove his name from its list?

**** Why has he maintained membership in the Council of Foreign Relations? What has been his role within the Council? Does he intend to continue his Council membership? Why?

**** Why has he remained silent on Iraq and the war on terrorism since the invasion? Why has he refused to criticize President Bush on foreign policy? Who ordered a strict blackout of news and information about Iraq? Will he announce an end to the blackout?

Brother Sweeney, silence is no longer an acceptable option.

http://digbig.com/4dcsr

TC

"The Republicans are 95 percent corrupt and the Democrats are 75 percent corrupt," Kennedy. "They are accepting money from the same corporations. And of course, that is going to corrupt you."

-- Robert Kennedy, Jr.
"Fascist America"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7804.ht...

[ZootSuitGringo]

1. Well,,

I declare!:wow:

This is news to me!

[Totally Committed]

2. I know...

I 'bout near dropped when I saw this!

TC

[gizmo1979]

3. I do declare I think you're full of

shit!

[Totally Committed]

4. Why?

Is this article wrong? I would love nothing more than for that to be so!

Do you know?

TC

[gizmo1979]

6. Smells bad to me.

I watch alot of news read 3 newspapers a day and have never heard of anything about sweeny being a whacko.

[Totally Committed]

9. I actually hope you're right...

This would be such a tragedy.

TC

[ZootSuitGringo]

5. Both of your links

are error links. Do you have a good link?

[Totally Committed]

7. Geez... it was there when I posted it.

I'll try and find another link! BRB

TC

[Totally Committed]

8. Here's the link for the Kennedy quote:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7804.htm

and I have e-mailed the person who sent me the link for the story, and asked for the entire link. That digbig link worked when I posted it, or I wouldn't have. Believe me.

Why would access be denied if I could see it before?

TC

[leveymg]

13. This isn't good. If you can't come up with a working link, buddy. . .

Is there theme music when someone walks the plank here?

:nopity:

[Totally Committed]

14. So, are you saying I should ask to remove this story...

untiil the link works? Because I will.

TC

[AntiCoup2K4]

10. Oh shit! It's true. Sweeney's a PNAC'er

Or at least a John J. Sweeney is.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/hongkong-20021126.htm

Goddamn it, this fucking blows :grr:

[Totally Committed]

11. OMG...

well, thanks for finding the link to the document with his name on it. I still haven't been able to reach the woman who sent me that link before.

This is a tragedy. Is everyone in any sort of power twisted or what is the story?

I am crushed.

TC

TC

[leveymg]

16. The Governor called. You've been pardoned.

Remember - always two sources, or else we take back that Pulitzer.

What do you think this is, a Blog?

:bounce: :spank: :spray:

[gizmo1979]

12. Why would sweeny cut his throat like that.

We'll have to see how it all pans out.Why would he risk all his power for some assinine thing like this?Come on without the AFL-CIO sweeny is just a guy.A nobody like me.

[AntiCoup2K4]

17. In a sick way, it makes perfect sense that PNAC would want a Labor mole.

You know, someone to convince the unions that globalization, outsourcing, and so called "free trade" are really "good" things.

[ClarkUSA]

38. Yes, it makes sense to me, too.

That's the way I'd game things....under his reign, union membership has plummeted,too, as unions go the way of an endangered species.

Coincidence?

[ZootSuitGringo]

15. And I hope that's not our

John Edwards who's name appears on that PNAC page either. I pray not!

[Totally Committed]

18. Now you are pulling my leg...

John Edwards is not on that list!

TC

[ZootSuitGringo]

20. Nope

It's John Edward Porter (note Edward has no "s" at the end), but the last name "Porter" floated to the middle of the page when you open the PNAC link provided.

Whew, Thank the Pope! The pit of my stomach nearly dropped when I saw that!

[leveymg]

19. No, it's John Edward Porter. Whoever the hell that is. Strike up

the band. We've got another who wants to go swimming tonight . . .

;-)

[ZootSuitGringo]

22. I said "I HOPE IT IS NOT",

Meaning I've been saved, literally!

[gizmo1979]

21. There is a john Sweeney republican

from New York.Could this be a case of mistaken Identity?

[Totally Committed]

24. Then, why the story on the ILCA site?

I hope it is mistaken identity. That would be a good ending to this, at least for me.

TC

[oasis]

44. Who's to say ILCA is a credible source for information?

BTW, John Sweeney came out strongly against Bush returning for another four years. His opposition to Bush was from the standpoint that Chimpy was bad for working families and for unions.

A labor leader's main function is to attend to matters that concern the work force. Spearheading anti-war movements does not fall into that category.

[AntiCoup2K4]

25. You know his middle initial, by chance?

It's not good that the PNAC Sweeney has the same middle initial as the AFL-CIO Sweeney. If the Republican Sweeney had the same initial,at least it would establish reasonable doubt.

EDIT: I looked it up. Results are not good.

[ZootSuitGringo]

26. Not if TC can come up with the link to the article

she initially posted. The name on the signature page could certainly mean that this is a different Sweeney. But coupled with that article, it certainly would be our Labor Sweeney.

TC, keep looking, or I might have to start looking for a blindfold.

[AntiCoup2K4]

30. It's not the NY Sweeney. Wrong middle initial

http://www.house.gov/sweeney/about/

Shit... I was hoping we could at least throw a neocon congressman into the mix. But he's John E Sweeney :evilfrown:

[pnorman]

23. Neither of the above links are any good.

Here's one that will work, regarding that Harry Kelber letter: http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2176&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

I've held Harry Kelber in high regard for a long time, and am on his labor-related mailing list. Here's the same article on his own website: http://www.laboreducator.org/sweenhawk.htm

However, I think he's vastly overstating his case. Sweeney is at best, a passive enabler --- a "go-alonger". I don't think he's part of that "team" in any way, shape, or form. This PNAC thingie is developing the vague shapelessness of that "Trilateral Commision" of many years ago. What is needed with the PNAC is scrupulous accuracy and a healthy dose of scepticism, or we'll rapidly lose our way.

pnorman

[Totally Committed]

27. The quote link works, and the story link goes to the site,

but now access to the story is denied.

Here is a digbig link for the quote:

http://digbig.com/4dctx

TC

[AntiCoup2K4]

28. Why would ANYONE allow their name to be used on a PNAC document...

...if they did not agree with the PNAC agenda?

The Joe Biden fans have tried to explain away his signature on another one of these traitorous documents, but Biden affirms his commitment to the neocon agenda nearly everytime he opens his mouth.

Sweeney needs to address this, and he needs to do it ASAP. Organized labor is under enough attack from these traitorous fucks as it is, without worrying about PNAC'ers in the ranks.

[pnorman]

33. That's assuming that it's the same person.

However, Sweeney DID speak before the CFR as follows: http://www.cfr.org/pub52/john_j_sweeney/the_new_internationalism.php

As I said, I regard Harry Kelber as a reliable source, but my gut feeling is that he's substantially wrong about Sweeney and the PNAC. (I actually got that same bulletin a few days ago, but I hadn't gotten around to reading it yet). But as a result of this dialog, I'll do as much researching as I can. This DEFINITELY is important, and my gut has been wrong a few times in the past.

As far as I can determine, Sweeney will NOT run for reelection. Instead, Trumka will run for AFL-CIO President, and will probably make it.

pnorman

[Totally Committed]

34. pnorman:

would you post what you find out here?

I am hoping this is nothing but a really bad mistake. I'd love to see what you can find!

Both my father and grandfater were Union men.

Thanks!

TC

[ZootSuitGringo]

29. Thanks for the good links.

Although I understand about a good dose of skepticism, if Labor Sweeney and PNAC signer Sweeney are the same person, I'm sorry but I do see a problem.

If it is evident that there has been news blackout about the war in Iraq by Labor, wouldn't that lend substance to what Kelber is asserting? And why if Kelber is normally trustworthy would he come out with an article so damning and damaging to Sweeney?

Since you are "labor", can you recall if there has been some kind of "Blackout" on the subject of Iraq?

[pnorman]

35. Not so much "blackout", but near-criminal vagueness.

But Sweeney is largely hamstrung by the ~50 person Executive Council, the majority of which aren't particularly pro-Sweeney. And many are, for narrow, short-sighted, and opportunist reasons, flag-waving jingoists.

Having said that --- there's NO crime on this DU in being wrong. I'll dig out as much as I can, and also keep a close eye on this thread.

pnorman

On edit: This is the topic I'm very deeply interested in, and Harry Kelber has an excellent 6 part series on it: http://www.laboreducator.org/darkpast.htm

It's ALL well worth reading. I had the definite feeling near the beginning of Sweeney's first term of office, that he was sincerely trying to undo that policy, particularly that DISGRACEFUL ANTI-labor AIFLD. But I could be wrong here too.

I'm going to "vote" for this thread; consider doing likewise.

[Totally Committed]

31. Let's see if this link works!

http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2176

Here is the entire text found there PLUS the e-mail address for the writer!

Sweeney Is Silent on Ties to War Hawks
Who Are Promoting Bush’s Global Agenda
By Harry Kelber

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney has declined to explain why his name and title appear on a list of supporters of the Project for the New AmericanCentury, an organization whose prime activity is to promote the establishment of an American global empire through the use of military and economic power. On the list of “people associated” with the Project, besides Sweeney, are: Vice President Dick Cheney, a founder; Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and a gallery of neo-conservatives, many from the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. The list is “current to Dec. 2004.”

The Project for a New American Century is a think tank, founded in 1997, whose principles are now the governing foreign and military policies of the Bush administration. In September 2000, the Project released a “grand plan” that called for sufficient combat forces to fight and win multiple major wars and be equipped for “constabulary duties” around the world, with American rather than U.N. leadership. The Project supports the doctrine of pre-emptive war and the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons.

Union members are entitled to know what, exactly, is Sweeney’s relations with the PNAC? What prompted him to collaborate with an organization that, to say the least, is hardly a friend of organized labor?

Sweeney is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, regarded as the most influential think tank on foreign and economic policy, whose recommendations are often adopted by the government. Executives from 200 “international companies representing a range of sectors” participate in special Council programs. They include the largest commercial banks, insurance companies and strategic planning corporations. Petroleum, military and media companies are also well represented.

How is Sweeney’s presence on the Council of any benefit to the 13 million union members he represents? Doesn’t his name on the Council imply support for its activities?

Although Sweeney has continuously criticized President George Bush on domestic policies, he has remained conspicuously silent on Iraq and the war on terrorism, even in the final days of the presidential elections, when Bush was especially vulnerable on his handling of the war.

In the two years since the invasion of Iraq, Sweeney has refused to comment on any of Bush’s embarrassing problems: the failure to find weapons of mass destruction; the rising toll of dead and wounded American soldiers; the exorbitant cost of the war, and the lack of an exit plan for the return of our troops.

Moreover, the AFL-CIO, with Sweeney’s apparent approval, has maintained a strict blackout of news and information about Iraq, homeland security and terrorism. Most affiliated unions have followed Sweeney’s example; their leaders have refrained from issuing any statements that criticize Bush’s foreign policy, and their publications act as though the war in Iraq is not an issue for America’s working families.

The news blackout is enforced even within the labor movement. AFL-CIO publications and policy statements by the Executive Council have consistently ignored the anti-war movement and its advocates among members of its affiliated unions. U.S. Labor Against the War reports a list of unions, representing better than a third of the entire AFL-CIO membership, that have passed resolutions calling for an end to the American-led occupation in Iraq and the return home of our soldiers. Yet this is not considered newsworthy by the AFL-CIO’s official magazine, America@Work and other union publications.

It is high time for Sweeney to be accountable to the AFL-CIO membership. There are a few straightforward questions that require straightforward answers:

• Does he approve of the Project for a New American Century? If so, why? If not, will he publicly denounce it and ask PNAC to remove his name from its list?

• Why has he maintained membership in the Council of Foreign Relations? What has been his role within the Council? Does he intend to continue his Council membership? Why?

• Why has he remained silent on Iraq and the war on terrorism since the invasion? Why has he refused to criticize President Bush on foreign policy? Who ordered a strict blackout of news and information about Iraq? Will he announce an end to the blackout?

Brother Sweeney, silence is no longer an acceptable option.


Harry Kelber’s e-mail address is [email protected]

URL (broken, must be joined to paste into browser):

http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php? op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2176

TC

[Totally Committed]

32. Bingo!

There's the link!

TC

[leveymg]

40. I'm glad you brought this to our attention.

Would you contact Kebler, and please ask him to write DU Admin requesting that his article be reposted here?

I think this is a major story and it's made the first cut. I'm sure there's further skeptical vetting ahead.

Thank you.

:applause:

[dogman]

36. Signing a letter does not make one a PNAC member.

If you check all of their letters you will see various signatures of those who agree with that particular letter. The CFR is a large organization that is bi-partisan. One can well argue that a letter should not be signed or that a person has no interest in this countries' foreign policy but that does not make sense to think a labor leader would not have such an interest. It sounds like their is dissension in the Union ranks. We know such dissension occurred during the VN War.

[ClarkUSA]

37. I believe the author of the article is asking valid questions re: Sweeney

If you read it, he's asking for clarification as to why Sweeney's name appears on this letter and why the AFL-CIO seems to want to quelch the antiwar sentiment felt by a significant 30% of its chapters, among other things.

It sure seems strange bedfellows. If a Democratic politician's name appeared on this letter, I sure as hell would have questions, too.

[dogman]

39. Go look at the letters.

There are a number that have been signed by Democrats. Sweeney signed the one on Hong Kong. You would have to read that letter and determine if Sweeney had an interest. Since he signed as an individual and not in a Union capacity he would not have to explain it. It sure might help if he did though. And of course any individual has the right to ask these questions. My point is that he is not necessarily guilty of being PNAC. As pointed out, Albright and Holbrooke have signed other letters. Theirs were about Russia.

[dutchdemocrat]

41. This Link works for the article

They are using Postnuke for their content management system at that site - one I am familiar with and sometimes links go weird with it. I did a search on the site for Sweeny and came up with a new link to the article in question.


Sweeney Is Silent on Ties to War Hawks
Who Are Promoting Bush’s Global Agenda
By Harry Kelber

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney has declined to explain why his name and title appear on a list of supporters of the Project for the New AmericanCentury, an organization whose prime activity is to promote the establishment of an American global empire through the use of military and economic power. On the list of “people associated” with the Project, besides Sweeney, are: Vice President Dick Cheney, a founder; Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and a gallery of neo-conservatives, many from the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. The list is “current to Dec. 2004.”

The Project for a New American Century is a think tank, founded in 1997, whose principles are now the governing foreign and military policies of the Bush administration. In September 2000, the Project released a “grand plan” that called for sufficient combat forces to fight and win multiple major wars and be equipped for “constabulary duties” around the world, with American rather than U.N. leadership. The Project supports the doctrine of pre-emptive war and the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons.

Union members are entitled to know what, exactly, is Sweeney’s relations with the PNAC? What prompted him to collaborate with an organization that, to say the least, is hardly a friend of organized labor?

http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2176

[Radical Activist]

42. The AFL-CIO passed a resolution opposing the Iraq War

before it started. That was a pretty rare event in the organization's history. That hardly sounds like a PNAC agenda.

If the war in Iraq isn't labors #1 issue it might be because their members expect them to do something about what is happening in the workplace, not what is happening in US foreign policy.

This reminds me of the time Barack Obama was accused of being DLC because they put his name on a list without his knowledge and he then had it removed.

[GettysbergII]

43. Here's an anti-Beijing PNAC letter Sweeney signed on to.

http://www.faluninfo.net/hongkong/articles/Asia%20Times%20Hawks%20press%20Bush%20on%20Hong%20Kong%20security%20law.htm

Phil Fishman, a senior Asia specialist at the AFL-CIO, said Sweeney's signature represented serious concern about the fate of independent labor unions in Hong Kong if the draft proposals take effect. The proposed laws could be used, for example, to outlaw independent trade unions in Hong Kong, a concern also reflected in a statement last week by the Brussels-based International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU).

He said Sweeney conditioned his signing of the letter on its including a substantial number of other signers from the center and center-left side of the US political spectrum.

But Gershman, who stressed that there were legitimate grounds for concern about the future of democracy and human rights in Hong Kong, questioned the political wisdom of having PNAC sponsor such a letter.

"It's entirely unclear to me why people who have a strong record of commitment in support of human rights and democracy would choose to ally themselves with some of the most retrograde and anti-Chinese members of the foreign-policy establishment," he said. "An alliance like this seems destined to accomplish the exact opposite of what they intend."

[oasis]

45. Does this show Sweeney having "strong ties to PNAC"? I don't think so.

The OP story is bogus.

[GettysbergII]

47. Are you a union member? I am.

And I don't want to hear about any union leadership having anything to do with any anti-democratic ruling class stealth organizations like the CFR or PNAC. This needs to be thoroughly investigated and evaluated and Sweeney does need to explain his relationship to both these organizations.

Also, while most of us are quite aware of the Neocon dominated PNAC, few of us have taken the time to examine the CFR closely and it is high time we did.

The Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), of which Sweeney is a member,
is the most powerful anti-democratic bipartisan tool the ruling class
has in determining foreign and domestic policy as well as who is
allowed to run for president and what the limits on foreign policy
debate are.

The CFR began pushing for the invasion of Iraq in 2002 and began
quickly pushing its agenda on both Democratic and Republican leaders.

In March of 2003 Laurence Shoup, an universally acknowledged scholar
on the CFR, wrote the following piece for Z Magazine that explained in detail the nature of the CFR's Iraq warmongering and its mode of
controling both the Democratic and Republican foreign policy. The
entire article is well worth reading but it states in part:

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Mar2003/shoup0303.html

Behind the Bipartisan Drive Toward War
The Council on Foreign Relations and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq

<snip>
In mid-2002 the CFR, together with the James A. Baker III Institute
for Public Policy of Rice University, established a 23 member planning group to formulate the U.S. war aims and the political and economic rules for a post-war Iraq. One of the project directors was Rachel Bronson and members included Kenneth Pollack, as well as corporate leaders (Boeing, PFC Energy), university professors (Princeton, Yale, Vermont) a Naval War College professor, a Senate on Foreign Relations staffer, and representatives from the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, the Brookings Institution, the James Baker III Institute for Public Policy, and nine staffers from the CFR. A report, Guiding Principles for U.S. Post -Conflict Policy in Iraq, was produced by the Council in late 2002.
<snip>

The report begins by pointing out that it is based on the
“...assumption that full-scale military operations will be
necessary and of relatively short duration” and stresses that the U.S. could win the war and easily lose the peace, creating serious long term problems. A three-phase approach is proposed to create a post-war Iraq friendly to U.S. interests. It includes a short term period of U.S. military rule, a middle period of UN supervision, and finally a sovereign Iraqi government. One of the key early problems will be “finding the right Iraqi allies...making possible an early
exit.” In addition, a “vigorous public diplomacy campaign” is seen as
necessary to convince skeptical publics at home and abroad that U.S. objectives and intentions are just. In this regard the Guiding Principles report states: “One of the most important issues to address is the widely held view that the campaign against Iraq is driven by an American wish to ‘steal’ or at least control Iraqi oil. U.S. statements and behavior must refute this.... A heavy American hand will only convince them and the world that the operation against Iraq was undertaken for imperialist, rather than disarmament, reasons.”

Yet the body of the report has a section called “The Lure of Oil:
Realities and Constraints,” as well as an addendum called
“Oil and Iraq: Opportunities and Challenges,” which is almost as long as all of the rest of the report text. In the sections focusing on oil, lip service is given to Iraq’s control of its own oil, while, in
fact, the report argues that national control of Iraqi oil must be scrapped and an “economy based on free market principles” and a “level playing field for all international players to participate” be created. The report goes on to point out: “Paragraph 30 of UNSCR 1284 already authorizes the UN secretary-general to investigate ways that oil companies could be allowed to invest in Iraq. Thus, the legal basis for the UN to authorize and oversee foreign investment...already exists.”

The report also makes clear that the Iraqi oil contracts that French
and Russian companies now have will be challenged: “Finally, the
legality of post- sanctions contracts awarded in recent years will
have to be evaluated. Prolonged legal conflicts over contracts could
delay the development of important fields in Iraq.... It may be
advisable to pre-establish a legitimate (preferably UN mandated) legal framework for vetting pre-hostility exploration agreements.”

[gizmo1979]

48. I too thoght the story was bogus

I googled it to death.I saw his name on the pnac registry along with wolfiwitz,rumsfeld etc.Unless it's someone else with the exact same name.I looked hard maybe you can find the flaw.If it is true sweeney has to go like yesterday.He then needs to be investigated for fraud and put in jail.

[liam_laddie]

49. PNAC founders

Go to the PNAC "Statement of Principles" from 1997 at
<http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm> to see who the real founders of this "think tank" are. Lots of
names you'll recognize...
Then check the "Letters & Statements" link on the left. Many
of them, many signed by a variety of people with agendas related
to the subject of letter/statement. The REAL culprits are those (25) original signers/founders. A nasty group indeed, even Bill Kristol <snark> I feel that signing one of their docs, if it relates to one's concern, does NOT make one a de facto PNAC member.

[Algorem]

46. link to LBN thread on this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1380584