| Author |
Message |
    
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10633
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 6:07 am: | 
|
Paul, obviously in the New America, anyone who doesn't drink the koolaid and accept the Administration position hook, line and sinker is a lib. By all accounts the SMPA sponsored meeting made a real attempt to provide balance in the presentations.
I have lost my patience for wing nuts, both left handed and right handed.
However, I still feel that The Families of the Fallen for Change made a tactical error in aligning themselves with SMPA, although this probably comes under the heading of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14561
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 6:35 am: |
|
So it's fair to say that none of the speakers, including from Families of the Fallen, were offered, or given, compensation for travel? |
Edufacts
Citizen
Username: Edufacts
Post Number: 5
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 7:06 am: |
|
Augie's parents were given the opportunity to sell t-shirts or other such items to help pay their travel expenses to the forum. They do not have any of those things to date, so they paid their own fare. If you, however, wish to help cover their travel expenses, you could get their address from their website, www.fofchange.org! |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 528
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 8:04 am: |
|
Bob K
SMPA is a mainstream organization. We've been praised on the Senate floor by Senator Lautenberg and on the House floor by Congressman Payne. Our petition was signed by more than 1,300 Maplewood and South Orange residents in a space of a month and our last initiative asking our Senators to support the Feingold Resolution was supported unanimously by all 5 Maplewood Township Committee members, all 7 South Orange BOT members and 18 of 20 Seton Hall Student Govt Assn members. We have excellent relations with the Police and Fire departments, the Library and many community-based organizations.
Our mainstream position within the peace movement was perhaps most clearly demonstrated when we objected to inclusion of the Right of Return in the program of the September 24th antiwar demonstration in Washington. The text of our statement appears on our website (www.BeAboutPeace.com / go to the "actions & events" page). Our statement was covered in the Jewish News of New Jersey and The Forward.
We are fundamentally opposed to the war in Iraq as an unnecessary war that has caused enormous and unnecessary human, financial and diplomatic costs, but we are in agreement with FoF that a call for immediate withdrawal is not the best solution. We have generally supported an international solution similar to the proposal of Rep. Lynn Woolsey that would return responsibility of Iraq to the United Nations, where has always belonged and should never have been removed as it was by the Bush Administration. However, we recognize that the best option for withdrawal may not be the most politically viable, so we are open to other proposals, including that of FoF.
I will be discussing the position of SMPA in more detail in the Sunday Platform at the Ethical Culture Society on February 26th at 11:00 am. My talk, which will include commentary by Cheryle Gittens-Bailey, a South Orange management consultant, is titled, "How to Be About Peace: What's Right and What's Wrong with the Peace Movement." This talk will update the presentation I gave last year with the same title.
You and everyone else is invited to come and to express your opinions.
Edufacts,
What you have stated is correct.
Sbenois,
Modest honorariums were given to our other two featured speakers, Ray McGovern and Paul Kawika Martin.
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14563
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 8:20 am: |
|
Paul,
While I appreciate that honorariums were given to the two other speakers, I think that if you reread the text of the emails that were exchanged with the White House, you might agree that no compensation was mentioned for them - to at least cover taxpayer funds that would be used on travel.
And that does not seem to be equal handed.
Is it your expectation that the White House should be sending out spokesmen - at taxpayer expense - to your event and the no doubt thousands of others that they are invited to? |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 529
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 8:50 am: |
|
Sbenois,
A couple of points.
First, I find difficult to accept your implication that the White House does not have $168 to send a representative on Amtrak and another $40 for cab fare to and from Maplewood to address a public forum on the Administration's Iraq policy, for which more than $300 billion has been allocated thus far, and for which more than $1 trillion will likely be spent if we "stay the course."
Frankly, I'm not aware that a similar offer has ever been made to the White House, which reinforces the points I made to Bob K in my previous post, about SMPA's mainstream position.
The White House is not being inundated with requests such as ours.
Second, re-read my first reply to you.
The White House was invited as the author of one of the options for withdrawal, along with all Congressional authors of withdrawal proposals to present their proposals at the meeting. They were all treated equally -- no compensation offered for travel or expenses.
The White House has many spokespersons and resources to draw upon. Speeches are made frequently by White House, Defense Department and State Department spokespersons all over the country. I am sure that the White House, State and Defense, have travel budgets.
I have several questions for you
(1) Are you doubting that we made a legitimate invitation to the White House to present its position at our meeting?
(2) Do you think the White House should have accepted our offer for dialogue and requisitioned the $218 to appear at our meeting?
(3) Do you think that it's possible that the motivation for declining our invitation might have been something other than lack of funds?
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14565
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 9:08 am: |
|
Well first of all, the cost of travel relative to the cost of the war is unrelated.
Secondly, I don't believe that my response to you included anything about the White House receiving invitations to "events like (yours)". Do you not think that the White House must get requests for speakers on hundreds of topics at events all over the country?
Finally, in response to your questions:
(1) Are you doubting that we made a legitimate invitation to the White House to present its position at our meeting?
Was it legitimate? Sure.
(2) Do you think the White House should have accepted our offer for dialogue and requisitioned the $218 to appear at our meeting?
No.
(3) Do you think that it's possible that the motivation for declining our invitation might have been something other than lack of funds?
Sure it's possible. We'll never know.
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14566
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 9:14 am: |
|
BTW Paul,
I haven't forgotten: I'll try to find that link this weekend.
I'll send it to your email address when I track it down.
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 669
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 9:21 am: |
|
ESL-
Boy aren't we testy?
Partisan rage?
I was never much for sitting around and talking about ANYTHING ad nauseum, that includes a "responsible" withdrawl from Iraq. There comes a point where talking needs to cease and action needs to occur.
I commend the forum even though I may not agree with it. They can meet everday for all I care-knock themselves out.
I just can't believe that with all this "discussion" they basically came up with the same old position that those critical of the war always held.
Let me know when the next event is held and I'll make every effort to attend. I am curious to see how "open" these talks are. My gut feeling tells me the contrary....
-SLK |
Edufacts
Citizen
Username: Edufacts
Post Number: 6
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 9:49 am: |
|
SLK,
I attended the forum and wasn't aware that ANY position was agreed upon. People were informed as to the content of the various proposals, which were reviewed and their legislative status discussed. Anyone could choose whichever proposal seemed closest to his/her own position.
I think nearly everyone who attended would agree with you: There comes a point where talking needs to cease and action needs to occur. The war is stalled. Whatever action taken, however, has to be decided in Washington, DC.
Hopefully, those attending the Maplewood-SO forum will "take pen in hand" and rattle cages in DC. For that matter, you might want to do that, too!
|
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 530
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 10:09 am: |
|
Sbenois,
By definition, the White House must be selective about events it chooses to send representives to address. In my view, if an event like ours is not a high priority, there's a serious problem in the White House.
I have to admit that I'm surprised that you've decided to take a stand on defending the taxpayers over a $218 expenditure that could open a dialogue between the Administration and the public on the leading moral and political issue of our time.
Perhaps I'm forgetting, but have you issued similar defenses of the taxpayer with regard to the $300 billion-plus allocation for the war of choice in Iraq? Not to mention the billions of funds missing and squandered within that allocation?
And thanks, I'll be sure to post the "missing link" on our site when you send it on.
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 653
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 10:16 am: |
|
ESL,
I love your passion as well as Paul's. But you have me confused. You tell me how wonderful Paul and his organization is in his first two paragraphs but then you start the third one by saying you don't know him very well. Which one is it? Here's my basic litmus test on whether I truly believe a person is legit - would I allow him/her to baby sit my children? I have a lot of acquaintances who I believe are good people but no way would I let them baby sit my children because I sure don't know them that well.
Listen, I have no problem with this group holding a forum and I'm sure Paul is good guy and I would enjoy his company. But when their stated position is "We are fundamentally opposed to the war in Iraq as an unnecessary war that has caused enormous and unnecessary human, financial and diplomatic costs..." Then you can't tell me they want an honest discussion.
And then they invite the White House (as if that is the only invitation they received that day) and then must publish the correspondance to prove they made an attempt.
I guess what drives me nuts the most is most liberals are to wishy washy to even make their position clear. Everyone knows where this group stands but they won't admit it. They want the facade of being thinking people. They are no better than the right wing nutjobs that most of you despise. Why can't most of you just be true to your own views. Posters like Foj, tulip, themp, Straw, Scrot, Duncan, cjc are true to themselves. They have their view and aren't afraid to espouse that view. They don't need to play games like Paul's group.
You better keep holding your forums and continue to sway minds to your side. Us conservatives are doing the same thing on a daily basis so the struggle continues. The next test to see which side is doing a better job comes up in November. You probably have more time to hold another 8-9 forums.
Paul, none of this is personal. It is politics. Like I said, your probably a decent guy and we could be friends even though we disagree politically. And ESL, thanks for the monetary offer but I'll pass. I have enough liberal friends down here so I know what they think and believe. Use that cash for a cause of your choosing.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10634
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 11:20 am: |
|
This fall the GOP will increase their majorities in both houses, but especially in the Senate and three years from now the MOLers will be blasting the policies of President Frist, or Delay or Lott and still wouldn't have a clue that what the left views as mainstream is viewed by most of the country as extreme.  |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14567
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Sbenois,
By definition, the White House must be selective about events it chooses to send representives to address.
I agree. That was my point
In my view, if an event like ours is not a high priority, there's a serious problem in the White House.
I disagree. Your event is important to you. And while the war is (allegedly) important to the White House, your event is no more important to them than endless events that they are "invited" to on topics that are far too numerous to imagine.
I have to admit that I'm surprised that you've decided to take a stand on defending the taxpayers over a $218 expenditure that could open a dialogue between the Administration and the public on the leading moral and political issue of our time.
I've simply questioned if the people who were invited were all given the same considerations. Please enlighten me: a) were all of the invited guests schedules checked before the date was set? b) is it your view that invited speakers should not have their travel expenses covered?
Perhaps I'm forgetting, but have you issued similar defenses of the taxpayer with regard to the $300 billion-plus allocation for the war of choice in Iraq?
No. But as I wrote earlier, this is not about the war, it's simply about the event. And in the of ensuring that you do not misinterpret my writings: I have no issue with the event
Not to mention the billions of funds missing and squandered within that allocation?
And thanks, I'll be sure to post the "missing link" on our site when you send it on.
Okay |
Barbara
Citizen
Username: Blh
Post Number: 612
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Often, if a white house staffer isn't available, a regional official will be asked to step in if the administration wishes to have a presence. I worked in senior management at the USED for 10 years -- and several times represented "the Secretary" at events they thought were significant. By the way, at least when I was working for the federal government, we weren't allowed to accept money for travel or expenses. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 655
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Who makes the decision as to what is significant? The host or the possible guest? Or was attendance mandatory. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 531
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 4:23 am: |
|
Sbenois,
You say
Quote:I disagree. Your event is important to you. And while the war is (allegedly) important to the White House, your event is no more important to them than endless events that they are "invited" to on topics that are far too numerous to imagine.
I'll just rephrase my position that if the war is not a priority for the White House, then we -- and the troops -- have a problem even more serious than we thought.
You say:
Quote:I've simply questioned if the people who were invited were all given the same considerations. Please enlighten me: a) were all of the invited guests schedules checked before the date was set? b) is it your view that invited speakers should not have their travel expenses covered?
Perhaps you've misunderstood because you weren't at the event. The program was divided into three parts: (1) Presentations on the President's Victory Strategy and four categories of withdrawal proposals (2) A presentation by Paul Schroeder and Rosemary Palmer which included their withdrawal proposal (3) Commentary by Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and Paul Kawika Martin, political director of Peace Action in Washington.
The White House was invited as part of the first group. Also invited in that group were 14 Senators and Representatives who have authored withdrawal proposals. Of those 14, only one asked about travel expenses. All 14 declined the invitation because votes were scheduled on that day. None of these parties were offered travel expenses. In addition we invited Congressmen Payne and Pascrell and Senator Lautenberg (we didn't get to Menendez). They also declined because of scheduled votes.
The Paul Schroeder and Rosemary Palmer were not offered travel expenses because their organization was a co-sponsor of the meeting.
Ray McGovern was paid an honorarium and Paul Kawika Martin was reimbursed for travel.
The only schedule that was checked in advance was that of Paul and Rosemary. We set a date and proceeded from there.
With regard to your question of my view on whether speakers should have travel expenses paid, I don't have a general view. I think it's a case-by-case question. In this case I think the White House's claim that they could not come because we wouldn't pay their travel and lodging expenses is ludicrous.
And I think in the context of the administration's recent request for another $70 billion to fund the Iraq war, it's ludicrous to support this claim as an effort by the White House to save taxpayers' money.
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 665
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Maybe they just think your group isn't worth spending a few hundred bucks to come and take part. This isn't a pot shot but reality. How many Christmas parties do you get invited to every year? Do you attend all of them and burn every weekend from Thanksgiving to Christmas or do you prioritize? |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 532
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Southerner,
I agree that the White House was not interested in being part of our event. But the excuse they gave -- that they couldn't afford the travel expense -- has no credibility. In my view, the incident confirms that President Bush and his advisors have no interest in a public dialog on Iraq.
|
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2597
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 5:10 pm: |
|
Come on, Paul, answer the question!
How many Christmas parties do you get invited to every year? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10644
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Hate to blow peoples bubbles, but a small meeting run by a peace grou[ with no major press coverage (Fox News wasn't there) isn't going to get a big response from the White House. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 708
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 6:56 pm: |
|
Paul-
All due respect, but it is about time you and your cohorts got over yourselves. Did you honestly think the WH was going to come to this little gig? And because they declined because they are not interested in public dialog over Iraq?
You must have one inflated ego if you thought such. Are you a distant cousin of Ma Sheehan or something?
They politely declined the invitation so accept it and move on. What were you actually going to ahem, "discuss" with them that they haven't already heard a million times over?
I am going to invite Dubya to brunch next week and if he declines by golly I'll, I'll....
Unbelievable...
-SLK |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 667
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 7:09 pm: |
|
Thank you Paul. Your response is at least your first honest one. You guys were laying in wait, and you're upset that they didn't walk into your trap. I respect your position on the war and this admin, but don't pretend to be something you and your group are not. You guys don't want an honest debate. You simply want to bash and make yourselves feel better. If Kerry would have won, I doubt you would be holding these type of seminars. But, again, at least you were finally honest. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 535
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 11:03 pm: |
|
Scrotis,
One difference between Cindy Sheehan and us is that she asked for a meeting with the President, while we extended an invitation to the White House to take part in our meeting.
Frankly, I'm not aware of any other peace group doing this.
We sought to engage the Administration in dialogue and debate over its "Victory Strategy," but in their absence we presented the strategy and Republican John Warner's Iraq Policy admendment in detail, as well as three other withdrawal proposals.
We weren't surprised that the White House declined the invitation, we were surprised at the ludicrous excuse they gave.
Southerner,
With regard to Kerry -- one of the main points made during the meeting was the inaction and passivity of most Democratic Senators on the withdrawal proposals and the need to exert pressure on them to take action. I don't recall whether he was mentioned by name, but this certainly includes John Kerry.
|
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 536
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 11:10 pm: |
|
Anon,
Three, sometimes four. And to the best of my recollection, I have never submitted a travel voucher to any of the hosts.
|
SoOrLady
Citizen
Username: Soorlady
Post Number: 2988
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 11:19 pm: |
|
Southerner - the White House did not decline because they were not interested. Had South Mountain Peace Action had money in its coffers to pay all the presenters the White House would have sent a representative. Since non of the presenters were reimbursed, the White House declined. And. it's interesting that you can put words into Pauls mouth.. and cite his agenda when you did not attend the meeting. I did. There was no Bush bashing. It was a very informative evening presented in a calm, thoughtful manner. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page