Quantcast
Free video subscription: Zip Code:
Optional Member Code
Brave New Films
Brave New Films Press
All posts by Politico
by Politico - November 5th, 2009

by Jen Dimascio at Politico | November 5 2009

With a White House decision on the direction of the war in Afghanistan still up in the air, and President Barack Obama considering whether to send as many as 40,000 additional U.S. troops, veterans groups on opposite sides of the debate are storming Capitol Hill this week to sway congressional opinion.

With U.S. deaths in Afghanistan rising and the Taliban resurgent, officials from the hawkish Veterans for Freedom and the dovish Veterans for Rethinking Afghanistan said they are increasing their lobbying campaigns to dramatically change how America conducts the eight-year war.

Veterans for Freedom kicks off Thursday at the District of Columbia’s American Legion post with a breakfast and strategy session, followed by a meeting with Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who represents the district where part of Fort Campbell — the military base that houses the 101st Airborne Division — is located.

After a news conference, and armed with embedded media, a group of 50 to 100 veterans will fan out across Capitol Hill for meetings with the staffs of key senators, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrats John Kerry of Massachusetts and Jim Webb of Virginia and Republicans John McCain of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas.

“This is a very important litmus test for Obama,” said Pete Hegseth, chairman of the group and a supporter of surging more U.S. forces into Afghanistan. He noted that, during the campaign, Obama called Afghanistan the “good war” and has endorsed continuing to fight a counterinsurgency there.

If Obama backs a request by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, to send more U.S. forces to the country, “we’ll stand right next to them and support that,” Hegseth said.

On the other side of the issue is Veterans for Rethinking Afghanistan, a relatively new group, with a handful of members, that is trying to persuade lawmakers that U.S. war strategy in Afghanistan is a massive failure and that the military is part of the problem.

The group is starting to receive notice in the national media, particularly after a debate it had this week against Veterans for Freedom. Veterans for Rethinking Afghanistan met with the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and will check in with anti-Iraq war Democrats — including Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Reps. Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee of California — trying to stuff their briefing books with reasons to end the military commitment to Afghanistan.

“Listen, you’ve got to stop falling in love with the military solution; it’s not feasible,” said Jake Diliberto, one of the group’s founders. “This is a war of poverty and cultural misunderstanding, and it’s an Afghan problem that we don’t have the means or the wisdom to figure out.”

In between the two groups is VoteVets.org, a veterans group with closer ties to the Democratic Party that has staked out the middle ground and is watching this week’s lobbying activities from the sidelines.

In 2007, Veterans for Freedom supported the surge of U.S. forces in Iraq, and VoteVets.org opposed it, advocating a drawdown from Iraq instead. But for now, the organization is still debating its position on the war in Afghanistan, said VoteVets Chairman Jon Soltz, and it is concentrating its efforts on climate change.

“The only mission that we think we’re sure can be successful is the military option,” Soltz said. But that’s not a matter of simply beefing up troops, he said, and it doesn’t address questions about whether Afghan President Hamid Karzai is a legitimate political partner, how much Pakistan cooperates inside its own territory in the fight against Al Qaeda and whether the U.S. government can provide the kind of humanitarian support and reconstruction that is required to boost security in Afghanistan.

VoteVets wants to see how the White House defines the goals of a troop buildup, Soltz said. “We’re waiting to see how they define success and whether these other elements can be achieved.”

Of the three groups, Veterans for Freedom has the most extensive lobbying background. The organization began in 2005 and helped cement support for the U.S. troop surge in Iraq by saturating Washington with advertising and sending 400 of its members to the Hill on two occasions to twist arms.

And history suggests that if Obama does not support McChrystal’s request for more troops, Veterans for Freedom may turn on the president. The group actively ran a whisper campaign in western Pennsylvania to defeat Democratic Rep. John Murtha and has backed a slate of largely Republican veterans for Congress.

The group’s founder, David Bellavia, who in 2008 ran unsuccessfully for Congress in New York, attacked Kerry and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy in 2005 for supporting statements that Iraqis wanted the United States to leave their country, claiming in an article on FrontPageMag.com that the comments were “a political attack on the troops, an attack that is aiding our enemy.” The publication is run by Holocaust denier David Horowitz.

With the U.S. drawing down in Iraq and on the brink of ramping up in Afghanistan, Bellavia’s group is now courting Kerry and says it has a meeting scheduled at the White House to discuss war strategy. That’s completely consistent, Hegseth said, because Veterans for Freedom is dedicated to a single issue: winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The newest group, Veterans for Rethinking Afghanistan, has outside backing from Brave New Films and its president, liberal activist and filmmaker Robert Greenwald, who created documentaries including “The Real McCain” and “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism.” Greenwald has been a regular donor to liberal members of Congress and supported Kerry’s 2004 presidential bid.

Members of the group say that one of the arguments they will make to lawmakers on Capitol Hill is that the price of remaining in Afghanistan is simply too high. Leighton Akio Woodhouse, political director for Brave New Films, asserted that supporting one soldier for one year costs American taxpayers $1 million.

“The American people need to be aware of exactly what a counterinsurgency means,” said former Marine Sgt. Devon Read, a member of the group who served in Iraq. “A counterinsurgency campaign is going to mean not 40,000 troops but 150,000 troops or more, 10 years of a presence in Afghanistan and tens of thousands more dead troops.”

by Politico - October 26th, 2009

by Ted Johnson at Politico | October 26 2009

President Barack Obama still remains a very popular figure in Hollywood. Showbiz names have lined up for his service initiatives, donors fill Democratic Party coffers and even some of his likely critics from the left, such as Michael Moore, have softened their bite. But perhaps more than any other issue, his pending decision on Afghanistan threatens to create lasting fissures in his support.

The prospect of a troop buildup, as Obama is pondering now, is likely to harden an anti-war contingent within the industry. During the height of the war in Iraq, it’s one that proved to be, at the very least, an irritant to the Bush administration and, at the very most, influential in the culture in shaping popular opinion.

An indicator of the mood in some circles came recently when Arianna Huffington, at the nexus of Hollywood and D.C., wrote on The Huffington Post that Vice President Joe Biden should resign if Obama decides to escalate.

Just a month after the Inauguration, producer Robert Greenwald and his Brave New Films unveiled the first of a series of videos called “Rethink Afghanistan,” questioning the wisdom of sending more troops to the country. Upset that he had posted a video so skeptical of the president’s policy, some supporters pulled their names from his e-mail list, and some key funders dropped out. But last month, MoveOn.org, a big champion of the president’s, sent out a call to millions of its members to host screenings of Greenwald’s film, now in six installments on its website.

“The combination of Iraq fatigue, plus the hope that Obama would not lead us here, kept people on the sidelines,” Greenwald says. “That is starting to change.”

Other views are more tentative, as the entertainment industry reflects the attitude of the population as a whole: aware that Obama, during the campaign, characterized Afghanistan as the right war to fight but wary of the deteriorating situation and the prospect of the United States backing a corrupt government.

“I think generally there is growing concern, reflecting the nation, as it is clear there are no easy answers,” says Donna Bojarsky, director of the Foreign Policy Roundtable, a salon of entertainment industry figures on world issues. “There has always been a contingent that has called for the dismantling of the effort. It may grow, but I think that people are as perplexed as the president understandably is about what the right course is.”

She says that industry figures “appreciate that he is not making a snap decision and that he is, to a certain extent, being transparent about it.”

Opposition is not so clear-cut. High-profile people such as Mavis Leno, the wife of talk show host Jay, have for years spotlighted the plight of Afghan women, and the campaign she chairs for the Feminist Majority Foundation calls for increased security and safety for the Afghan people.

Yet the idea that Hollywood Democrats will follow in lockstep with their president belies history. Former President Bill Clinton embraced the entertainment industry yet endured vocal opposition to welfare reform and protest of his fundraising practices.

The Bush years were a reminder of the vocal potency of the anti-war movement, as stars marched and even led anti-war rallies and creative types produced a spate of war-themed movies.

And as divergent as the stakes are, the Afghan situation does invite comparisons with Vietnam, when President Lyndon B. Johnson saw his liberal support from the entertainment industry crumble as the escalation continued and casualties mounted. One of the more infamous moments came in the White House itself. At an otherwise prim and proper luncheon in 1968, Eartha Kitt took the opportunity to publicly speak out against the war to Lady Bird Johnson, who was near tears after the incident.

Among those with growing concern is producer Mike Medavoy, who, with wife Irena, raised money for Obama and hosted him at a campaign fundraiser at their Beverly Park home.

Medavoy is not for abandoning Afghanistan but suggests that this is a “worldwide problem” that involves the resolution of the disputed territory of Kashmir and needs the engagement of all countries in the region: Russia, Iran, Pakistan, India, China. He also says that more attention has to be paid to one issue that gets short shrift: the monetary cost.

“I don’t speak for Hollywood. But it is still about sacrificing lives and body bags coming home, about having a reason to go in and having an exit plan,” says Medavoy, the author, with Nathan Gardels, of “‘American Idol’ After Iraq: Competing for Hearts and Minds in the Global Media Age.” “Let’s face it: We are talking about hundreds of years, in a country with poppy crops and tribalism, that we have to deal with. None of us want to relive Vietnam.”

If Obama ultimately decides to escalate, “he will have thought it out,” Medavoy says, “but my own personal feeling is that it is not a solution unless he’s got an exit plan.”

What is unlikely to happen is a spate of Afghanistan-themed movies, given the dismal results of almost anything that dealt with Iraq at the box office. Nevertheless, Medavoy says Afghanistan already evokes movies made long ago, via words attached to Laurel & Hardy: It’s a fine mess we’re in.

Campaign: Sick For Profit
by Politico - August 6th, 2009

by Mike Allen at Politico | August 6 2009

“SICK FOR PROFIT” VIDEO SERIES — from release: “As Congress breaks for recess and the health insurance industry prepares to blitz the American public with attack ads on health care reform, Brave New Films kicks off its new ‘Sick for Profit’ online campaign at http://sickforprofit.com. The first video contrasts the lavish lifestyle and extravagant earnings of United Health Group’s (UHG) CEO with their policyholders, who suffer from severe medical conditions but have been denied proper medical care.”

Press Contact
For press inquiries, please contact Martha de Hoyos at or 310-204-0448 x225.
Subscribe to the press RSS feed.
Subscribe to press releases from Brave New Films and Brave New Foundation:
First Name
Last Name
Email
Zip
Outlet/Publication/Organization

(optional)
Blog/URL

(optional)
Beat/Subject Interest

(optional)
Press Materials
Search Press