Documents

Center for American Progress Emails

Nov. 5 2015 — 7:04p.m.

/8
1/8

To: Benjamin Armbruster; Core Cc: PR Core Subject: E: Should Libya pay us back? ljust lind the demands that war-ravaged and potentially unstable countries should pay us back ior helping liberate them from dictamrs rather than invest in their own Stabilitv rather dumb from a US national security perspective, particularly at a time when we're not too iorthcoming with necessary investments via foreign aid. i understand the emotional grounding of such claims - we want some gratitude tor putting our servicemembers' lives on the line and spending the money necessary to support military operations that removed tyrannical regimes, particularly ones that have American blood on their hands - but they don't add up when you consider us interests in having a stable Libya or Iraq orwherevers From. Benjamin Armbruster Sent: Friday, October 11, 2011 11:05 AM To: NSIP core Cc: PR Core Subject: should Libya pay us back? Ali and I talked about Libya repaying the the other day when we were doing the post on bachmann saying lraq should repay America lorthe war. on the surtace, find it somewhat objectionable that we would ask to be repaid tor the Libya war but the idea seems to have some support on both sides otthe aisle. Wondering what people think -- PIERS MORGAN: Senator, there is a debate now about whether the United States should be repaid the several billion dollars this operation has cost from the irozen assets that Libya has of 30 to 35 billion, depending on which report you read, what isyour view oi that? SEN ROBERT MENENDEZ: Well, I certainly think we should be (alking to the transitional national council as it moves to establish a government in Libya. And, you know, we do have anywhere between $30 and $35 billion in irozen assets. it might very well be that they will have the wherewithal, it seems to me, especially when oil production gets back up and running, to look towards repaying the United States. That's not why we did this, obviously, but nonetheless it would be an excellent gesture. Along with something that have been pushing tor quite some time, which is making sure that the transitional national council works with us in giving us access to those who still may be in their domain oi the Gadhafi regime who may have been part oithe van Am 103 bombing where 270 citizens lost their lives including 34 from my home state of New lersey. Benjamin Armbruster Thinkprogressorg center (or 5 Phone: 0 Twitter: @TPASecurily @beniammja

No one is suggesting we pro?t from it or they pay the whole amount. Hence no incentive is created to actually engage in this kind of activity. Now there is a huge disincentive to engage. Because it basically means cutting domestically. Rebalancing that a bit makes sense to me. From: Faiz Shakir Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 11:24 AM To: Neera Tanden; Peter Juul; Benjamin Armbruster; NSIP Core Cc: PR Core Subject: RE: Should Libya pay us back? I don?t think it?s fair that we create our own domestic problems and then ask other nations to pay for it. You see the adverse incentive problem here right? If we think we can make money off an incursion, we?ll do it? that?s a serious policy/messaging/moral problem for our foreign policy I think From: Neera Tanden Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 11:23 AM To: Faiz Shakir; Peter Juul; Benjamin Armbruster; NSIP Core Cc: PR Core Subject: RE: Should Libya pay us back? We have a giant deficit. They have a lot of oil. Most Americans would choose not to engage in the world because of that de?cit. If we want to continue to engage in the world, gestures like having oil rich countries partially pay us back doesn?t seem crazy to me. Do we prefer cuts to Head Start? Or Or Medicaid? Because we live in deficit politics, and that?s what is happening and will be happening even more. From: Faiz Shakir Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 11:21 AM To: Peterluul; Benjamin Armbruster; NSIP Core Cc: PR Core Subject: RE: Should Ltya pay us back? Also, the menendez argument has the undertone of ?we did this for them.? I feel that's the most dangerous part. The primary mission should always be to advance our national security interests, and promoting Libyan democracy and protecting human rights seems generally aligned with that mission. If people start to think that our military is just for-hire to carry out the agendas of other people around the world, we?ve got a bigger problem. From: PeterJuul Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 11:17 AM

Subject: Fw: Followin m> To: Fail Shakir >,Ken Gude CC: Whatever mv response is to this is going to get circulated widely amongst the groups. Do either olyou have an intern who could read what she's talking about and draft a reply? From: an" lewis Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 09:34 AM Yo: Neera Tanden Subject: Following Up I am technologically incompetent trying to go back and forth from Think Progress archives to email lums out to be really hard for me, I'm sure most people do it wellt) So this will be more of my comments and fewer direct quotes- than I thought I could do when I began, but I hope will convey why I have problems: I was pleased to see the statements that Think Progress( I guess CAP) supports a two state solution in the MIdeast . and effective sanctions on Iran. I don't think I would know that from reading the TP Security posts. On Iran sanctions I read that they would hurt ordinary Iranians 11/9) "take food from ordinary Iranians" (10/12); is the kind of strategy that can lead to war; are "Iraq style" 8/3 . AIPAC's strategies in supporting sanctions "mirrors the run up to war in Iraq." Besides, there is no proof that Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons - although a TP post at the time of the IAEA report acknowledges that some of what they found is "nuclear weapons specific" A 0 references, in a Quinnipiac poll for example. to Iran's efforts to build nuclear weapons are "factually inaccurate." As to a two state solution: I found one reference, 9/12. What Would a Two State Solution Physically Require 7 which was not exactly what I would call an an endorsement or positive vision. Ironically, David Makovsky, who is described in a different 9/12 post headline as a "neo- con" has actually come up with serious. detailed maps about what a two -state solution would look like; TP does says he is "less hostile" to the Palestinian state [did not see any mention of his work Maybe it was acknowledged earlier 7 Througout the Mideast section there are regular criticisms of the Israeli government 1 I saw no balanced recognition - even occasionally that Israel might really have concerns for security (no mention of rocket attacks from Gaza .for example ;did I miss 7 . Ambassador Michael Oren is called a liar in two posts, 9/19 and 10/14; Once for saying Palestinians did not come to the table after Israel put a security freeze in place. As I recall. the freeze was for ID months. PA began to negotiate after 9 months - could this be a little more complicated 7. Even when the US and Israel agree on a specific cancern -for example, raising this ICC issue in arguing against a Palestinian state - the TP post says that Israel is "most outspoken." There are a number of disconnected posts that I found to raised more quesitons than provide information: State to Fund "discredited neo-con organization (MEMRI)

Discredited There may be arguments about some of its work, but I think MEMRI has a lot of credibility as does the State department apparently; 9/9 Israel's Foreign Minister "Reportedly" seeks meeting with anti-Turkish terror group (Did this happen if it was just a rumor, was it newsworthy other than one more chance to criticize One more personal reaction: I found the news wrap-ups both more interesting and more balanced than the single posts almost everything that troubled me came in single posts, some quoted above. So I had expected to be more detailed and professional sorry about that. But I hope this gives you some idea of my reaction. Happy to talk any time if it would be helpful.

Original Message 7 From: Neera Tanden Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 09:07 PM To: Faiz Shakir; Judd Legum Cc: Ken Gude Subject: Fw: PM the love of gadl Is it wise to throw around the Israel issue in khis? Can we discuss tomorww. Original Message From: Howam Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2012 09:01 PM To: Neera Tanden Subject: For the love ofgodl Sem from my iPhone

From: Neera Tanden Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:00 AM To: Faiz Shakir; John Podesta; Judd Legum; Tara McGuinness; Winnie Stachelberg; Tom Perriello; Ken Gude; Andrea Purse Subject: RE: Post piece Reporting in: I just got off the phone with Ann Lewis who continues to be adamant that a real problem is that our blog seems anti-Israel because - and I'm just reporting in - while it seemingly takes every opportunity to criticize Israel, it takes no opportunity to actually say Israel is doing the right thing. She said she went through even the last few weeks and saw this bias. For example, on the Palestinian aid situation, which Israel was helping - we wrote nothing (an irony given the c3's work in this arena). On Iran, we seem to take every opportunity to criticize the critics of Iran, but we don't regularly discuss the problems with a nuclear Iran. I went through our more recent posts on human rights. She basically said we're going to continue to have a problem until our blog seems like it's not anti-Israel. I tried to discuss Israel, v. the Israeli govt.'s policies. But she for one was not really buying it. She recommended I call all the groups I've met w/ - even ADL after today's post. And w/ ADL she said I should state I'm surprised but not get confrontational with them.. And she recommends calling AJC. Ann is definitely old school, but she has been a voice for the center point in these debates.

From: Ken Gude Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 1:18 PM To: Neera Tanden; Tom Perriello; Winnie Stachelberg; Tara McGuinness; Rudy deLeon; Brian Katulis; Faiz Shakir; Judd Legum Subject: Good meeting with Jeff Colman I met Jeff Colman from AIPAC today and I would say it was very positive. It was a ?get-to-know-you? meeting, so I wasn?t expecting fireworks, but he certainly expressed the view that he felt we were now moving in the right direction. From a very early stage I didn?t feel like I had to be defensive at all and it wasn?t a frank exchange of views, we were just talking and mostly about how to move forward. We talked for about an hour. We didn?t have to rehash all that has transpired given he stipulated what steps we have taken. He reiterated the position that AIPAC was not pleased that all this was aired in public and that it has done harm that AIPAC does not want or support and their strong preference to keep disagreements private. He was very clear about distancing AIPAC from Block. Jeff is a big fan of Fiudy and Brian and is very supportive of Tom coming on board and feel that is in good hands. I got the very clear impression that they want to move forward. We talked a little about ADL he said he has been in touch with Stacy Burdett recently. I told him that we were a little frustrated with Foxman?s quote in the Washington Post and. while not exactly throwing him under the bus, Jeff said that there are organizations in which there is a boss and everyone else and then there is another kind of organization and you?ll never have a ?left hand-right hand? problem with AIPAC. He was very supportive of our effort to reach out to Jason lsaacson at AJC and said that he is in regular contact and would probably speak to him in the normal course of business before our meeting and I think he?ll offer a good word. He mentioned Brian's participation on a panel at their upcoming conference and invitations to attend it. And it?s very likely that I?m going to Israel on one of their upcoming trips. Ken

From: Danielia Leger Sen Tuesday, June 12, 2012 2:13 PM To: Dc,office Cc: Tara McGuinness; Sarah Margon Subject: Invite: Israel brown bag debrief Hi CAP. Last week Tara, Sarah and traveled to Israel with the American Israeli Education Fund. It was a most interesting trip of meetings and discussions on the current state of Israel and their variuus issues. both domestic and international. A number of you have asked for a debriei, so we thought we wnuld open it up to anyone Mn: is interested in hearing about it. if you are interested, piease join us on Friday, June 15'" In canlerence mom 0 iron- 1-2 pm, Cheers, Tara, Sarah and Daniella Dar-Mia (iibbx Lu'gur Vire PrtxidenI/m Amerime Vulim am! New Cnmmumiir.>> (Ir/interim" Program

Filters SVG