Iraq Veterans Against the War.
Two whiners e-mailed C.I. last week to whine about IVAW. The two were former members.
They felt C.I. needed, just needed, to know that IVAW was no longer a group working to end the Iraq War, it was a group of Socialists.
Intent on what?
That was never clear in the e-mails.
Ava, C.I. and Mike have friends in IVAW (Elaine is not working on this feature and not doing so due to disclosure reasons -- read into that what you will). None of us are in IVAW.
We are all independent of the organization.
We note it often and we praise it but we will and have called it out.
During IVAW's original Winter Soldier in March 2008, we did so here. Out of at least six articles at Third in 2008, one criticized a panel.
Before a word on that was written, C.I. had already heard complaints -- loud complaints -- from IVAW members about the panel we called out, that it was a joke, that it was an embarrassment.
We agreed and we wrote about that. (Briefly, the panel did not follow the rules laid out for Winter Soldier -- which included that all panelists must have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan -- and it also seemed to confuse sexual attraction with sexual assault.) When that went up, some friends at IVAW contacted Mike, Ava or C.I. to agree with our take and some didn't and all that were friends didn't have to e-mail to pass on what they thought.
One person we don't know couldn't stand to live on this planet if we all didn't love that panel and that IVAW member e-mailed all of us and tried to turn us against each other and against our own opinion. We blew that IVAW member off. Much the way we're blowing the two whining ex-members of IVAW off right now.
Hint, if you were a friend, you wouldn't have to contacted C.I. through the public account. You would have done so by phone or in person.
If the e-mails are being e-mailed to C.I. than they're going out elsewhere or will at some point so we're going to tackle this right now.
The e-mails are smear campaigns.
Socialist and Communists are in IVAW.
Yes, they are.
And so are Republicans. And so are Democrats. And so are libertarians. And so are people who don't plan on voting.
But the e-mailers both want to pass on that ___ and ___ and ___ and ___ and ___ are Socialists.
And that Socialists are taking over IVAW!!!!
There is one member of IVAW that is not mentioned here.
He does not exist in our world.
And the reason for that is not because he is either a Socialist or a Communist (he is one though) but because he is a liar.
He wants to trick people.
He was involved with a story in the news cycle a few years back. Because he was attached to a story already in the news cycle, the news outlets continued to mention him for that one story and the plan was to drop him as soon as the story was over. Ava and C.I. didn't wait on that. Ava was very clear at Third that he was gone -- in a roundtable.
We're not, this is a paraphrase of her, going to be left holding his lies when they all blow up.
He was noted after at The Common Ills in one article from a Socialist publication that was reprinted in full and on another topic (war resisters) which mentioned him in the middle of the article (he's not a war resister).
Otherwise, he fell off our radar.
Some news outlets were already in the know back then (Ava and C.I. found out the original problems from a friend who's a producer at CNN), they were trying to get the story through the news cycle (a news worthy story) by avoiding the problem factor, that one member of IVAW.
We, at this site and community wide, dropped the entire story, not just ___ but the entire story.
If there was duping going on -- the e-mails maintain IVAW is 'duping' people -- then that man would be leading IVAW and yet he's not even in leadership.
(Carl Webb is often smeared by the right as a liar. We don't know Carl but we do know the stories he has shared publicly and they have been consistent. We are not talking about Carl. This person was repeatedly inconsistent on every detail of his life that went way beyond military service. He was a known liar to the press. This person also was more interested in the sort of the thing the two e-mailers insist is going on.)
The two e-mailers make a lot of claims and will, no doubt, continue to make these claims elsewhere but the charges don't hold up.
Anyone else who receives the 'psst, pass it ons' should take a moment to examine the charges.
The charges appear to be made by two centrist Democrats who used IVAW time, events and name to push Barack Obama. Some IVAW members used IVAW events to push Barack. IVAW is not a get-out-the-vote organization. IVAW has a diverse membership. Having used the organization to pimp for their candidate -- and uglied the organization as a result in my opinion -- the two now want to whine that Communists and Socialists are taking it over for political reasons. There is no take over. But what appears to be upsetting to the two former members is that their little stunts and tricks from 2008 weren't surprises any longer and people were clear that they weren't going to happen again. Translation, these two former members were told that IVAW would not be used as a propaganda arm for Barack Obama and then AND ONLY THEN did the two members quit.
Having been told that IVAW would not be used to promote any political party, the former members now want to accuse IVAW of promoting the Socialist or Communist Party. In other words, they want to accuse IVAW of doing what they wanted to do: Pimp out the organization.
We're trying to be as clear as possible in the above to explain that we're not IVAW apologists. Nor do we follow them blindly. If something smells wrong, we're not getting involved with it. (And Ava and C.I. both knew something smelled about the liar mentioned earlier. Which is why he's not just dropped from the press radar, he's dropped from the radar period.)
If IVAW does something that truly offends us in public, we'll call it out. (Minimizing sexual assault by likening it to being asked "Want to dance?" at a club is offensive.
Equally true, we ignored IVAW in September and October and did so due to the faction who was determined to pimp the organization out for Barack. You can still find some of those people. After the assault -- and it was an assault -- on IVAW at the Barack and John McCain debate, it was curious to read things like "Sarah Palin doesn't support free speech! Why doesn't she speak out against this!" at IVAW. Sarah Palin? A debate between Barack and McCain would seem to mean that those two should be held accountable to speak out.
Why drag Sarah Palin into it? And why drag her in and leave Joe Biden out?
That wasn't about logic, that wasn't about anything other than advancing the Democratic Party's presidential ticket. It was whoring for a political party.
So we took a walk away from IVAW until the nuttiness settled down. It has settled down and that is why there are now some former members who are disgruntled. IVAW is not VoteVets. IVAW has a stated purpose (briefly end the wars, reparations and adequately fund the benefit and health programs needed for today's veterans). Those who thought they could hijack the organization and turn it into Barack Love Central have decided to go elsewhere.
Iraq Veterans Against the War continues to do strong work (one of the few organizations to continue to do strong work) and it takes a lot of nerve to have abused the group by attempting to hijack it to elect Barack Obama and now turn around and claim that other political interests are trying to hijack it.