Peace Activists Protest DNC Attack on Steele Over Afghanistan

The following letter was sent to the Democratic National Committee this afternoon:


Brad Woodhouse, Communications Director, Democratic National Committee
Tim Kaine, National Chair, Democratic National Committee

Mike Honda, Vice Chair, Democratic National Committee
Linda Chavez-Thompson, Vice Chair, Democratic National Committee
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Vice Chair, Democratic National Committee
Donna Brazile, Vice Chair, Democratic National Committee
Raymond Buckley, Vice Chair, Democratic National Committee

430 South Capitol Street SE
Washington, D.C., 20003

Dear Mr. Woodhouse and Governor Kaine,

As Americans working to end the U.S. war in Afghanistan, we write to express our deep disappointment and concern at the recent attack by Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse on Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele in response to Mr. Steele's criticism of the war in Afghanistan.

We have three concerns.

First, in supporting the war in Afghanistan, and portraying this as a Democratic position, Mr. Woodhouse was not representing the majority of Democrats in the United States, who oppose the war. Two-thirds of Democrats think the war is not worth the cost, the Washington Post reported in June. [1] Shortly before Mr. Woodhouse made his statement attacking Mr. Steele, three-fifths of the Democrats in the House, including Speaker Pelosi, Representative Honda, and Representative Wasserman Schultz, voted for an amendment introduced by Representative Jim McGovern, Representative David Obey, and Representative Walter Jones that would have required President Obama to establish a timetable for U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan. [2]

Second, in his attack on Mr. Steele, Mr. Woodhouse seemed to be encouraging Republicans to enforce "party discipline" on Mr. Steele to support the war in Afghanistan: "The likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham will be interested to hear that the Republican Party position is that we should walk away from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban without finishing the job." [3] Regardless of Mr. Woodhouse's intent, his attack has had this effect. Enforcing Republican party discipline on Republicans to support the war in Afghanistan is not in the interest of the majority of Democrats who want to end the war; quite the contrary. If a third, instead of 5%, of the Republicans in the House had supported the McGovern-Obey-Jones amendment, reflecting the third of Republicans in the country at large who do not support the war [4], the McGovern-Obey-Jones amendment would have passed. As a private citizen, Mr. Woodhouse is entitled to his views, as the rest of us are. But as a spokesman of the Democratic National Committee, he is not entitled to take actions that run counter to the interests of the overwhelming majority of Democrats, if the DNC wishes to be perceived as institution that represents Democrats and is entitled to their support.

Third, in attacking Mr. Steele as "not supporting our troops" because of his criticism of the war - Mr. Woodhouse said that Mr. Steele was "betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan" [5] - Mr. Woodhouse engaged in a tactic that Democrats have justly and bitterly complained about when Republicans used it against them. Indeed, when he was president of Americans United for Change, which pushed for "a safe and responsible end to the war in Iraq," Mr. Woodhouse was ostensibly on our side of this dispute. By engaging in this sort of attack, Mr. Woodhouse helps to foster a climate in which critics of this war or any other can be marginalized with attacks on their patriotism. This is unacceptable whether done by Republicans or Democrats. As E.J. Dionne wrote in the Washington Post, Mr. Steele "had a right to offer his opinion without being accused of undermining our troops or 'rooting for failure.'" [6]

To address our concerns, we urge Mr. Woodhouse and the Democratic
National Committee to issue a public statement that would do the following:

1. Acknowledge that accusing Mr. Steele of "betting against our troops and rooting for failure" was unjust, not only towards Mr. Steele, but towards all American critics of the war;

2. Commit that the Democratic National Committee, and anyone speaking on its behalf, will not represent support for the war in Afghanistan as the position of Democrats; and

3. Commit that the Democratic National Committee, and anyone speaking on its behalf, will not attack the patriotism of critics of the war, nor accuse critics of the war of "rooting for failure," nor of "wanting to cut and run," nor of "not supporting our troops," nor engage in any other attack which impugns the motives of critics of the war.

We would appreciate a response from the Democratic National Committee to our concerns and to our proposals for redress, which may be directed to Robert Naiman at

Respectfully yours,

Robert Naiman, Policy Director, Just Foreign Policy
Paul Kawika Martin, Political Director, Peace Action
Raymond McGovern, Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Gael Murphy, Cofounder, CODEPINK
Robert Greenwald, Director, Brave New Foundation
Michael Eisenscher, National Coordinator, U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW)


1. "Public remains unfriendly on Afghanistan," Jennifer Agiesta, Washington Post, June 10, 2010,

2. "In war-funding vote, Democrats cast doubts on Obama's Afghan policy," Perry Bacon Jr., Washington Post, Friday, July 2, 2010, "Final Vote Results For Roll Call 433," 1-Jul-2010,

3. "Dems say Steele is 'rooting for failure.' Really, Dems?" Greg Sargent, Washington Post, July 2, 2010,

4. "Public remains unfriendly on Afghanistan," Jennifer Agiesta, Washington Post, June 10, 2010,

5. "Dems say Steele is 'rooting for failure.' Really, Dems?" Greg Sargent, Washington Post, July 2, 2010,

6. "Let Michael Steele have his say on the Afghan war," E.J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post, Thursday, July 8, 2010,

I associate myself with the views of the writers of this letter. How foolish and how opportunistic to criticize a Republican for voicing opposition to a war that a majority of Democrats detest. This should have been a moment to be seized by Democrats as an opportunity to widen their influence. Democrats are as ineptly-led as Republicans.

Hi! ALL viagra online viagra online without prescription viagra viagra cheap viagra cheap viagra viagra price free viagra buy viagra cheap viagra,cialis online,cialis price,cialis,buy cialis,cheap cialis,cialis,cialis daily,buy cialis,cialis price,cialis reviews rtybtybtybu64

other people may look at you, you can go without a word arrogant, someone who ignores you might not give you the opportunity .You have the money, maybe the poor will avoid you, you have the power, there may be good people will isolate you, you have ideas, perhaps you afraid people will avoid you, you have no other people, other people might envy you, fawn you, perfunctory you, you have your own pay, others may look down on you, worry you, hate you, because you have so others would be worried, because you did not, so people will be afraid, because people vary, so life is not too much too much.Not everyone will be perfunctory you, so you must learn to keep his nose clean, not everyone cherish you, so you have to retain the opportunity to know, not everyone hates you, so you have to cherish mutual affection, not everyone is willing to help you, so you must know the kind to others, not everyone needs money, so you have to match up, not everyone feels good self, so you have to change the attitude to life, not everyone hates curry favor in exchange for all, so you have to know how to understand ourselves.Live attitude required to survive need to pay, do not wait for someone else to go, you know what is the mutual affection, not everyone needs someone good for you, but you have helped your people well, others will look at you high Maybe your eyes will look to the future, all the cold process, then the people around you might have someone leave you, you might think that a lot of people to leave, but will not turn back the heart, it is to abandon the fate of your entire life.You stand not high enough, then the gap will soon be denied the community, you hide quickly enough, will soon be wise Mail closed grab you busy enough, will lose a future name called, you the name may not be noble, but it is a unique value you pay, your story may be very simple, but every time you are writing to someone else's feelings can not be replaced, you do not use as an excuse to busy, after all, the heart of the family stopped , maybe you busy for a lifetime, you will not exchange a word.Moving a person needs experience and time, but you moved himself, take a minute to express, let the opinions of others to change, maybe some people avoid you, someone approached you and this world, when every decision you make will Some people avoid you, someone to produce views on you, and you can still change their point of view, change the view, change people's mentality, requires not only the ability, as well as the help of others, do not always opinionated, because people hidden knowledge It is very rare.

Everybody seek for peace. That is what others think of as a good life.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • No HTML tags allowed
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.