In fact if you read the article you will see that:
"The letter was drafted mainly by Ellen Bork, a PNAC fellow and its main consultant on China and Hong Kong. Bork worked for longtime Beijing foe Jesse Helms on the staff of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 1996-98 and then served as counsel to Martin Lee, chairman of the Hong Kong Democratic Party.
Like a number of other signers, Bork is considered a member of the so-called "Blue Team", an informal group of China specialists in Washington who believe that a US confrontation with Beijing is inevitable and strongly favor policies and legislation intended to weaken its power and reduce its reach.
Other signers who generally share Blue Team views are Kristol, Christian Right leader Gary Bauer, Council on Foreign Relations Fellow Max Boot, Kagan, PNAC executive director Gary Schmitt, and Arthur Waldron and Tom Donnelly at AEI.
Kristol and Kagan, for example, accused the Bush administration of practicing "appeasement" in last year's spy-plane crisis and have since called for Washington to adopt a policy of "regime change" in China.
"These guys grab at every opportunity to stick a finger in China's eye," said John Gershman, a China specialist at New York University. "But it seems pretty disingenuous for them to protest anti-terrorist legislation when these are the same people who are pushing for the global extension of the 'war on terror'. Why is Hong Kong the issue and not Indonesia or India?"
AEI was particularly heavily represented among the signers. AEI associates included Nicholas Eberstadt, Hillel Fradkin and Danielle Pletka, as well as Waldron and Donnelly. PNAC, whose own signers included Kristol, Bork, and Schmitt, occupies the fifth floor in AEI's building in downtown Washington. Until three months ago, Donnelly worked as Schmitt's deputy at PNAC.
Many of the other signers are associated with other right-wing think-tanks, including Freedom House, the right-wing Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution in California.
Joe W.
>From: "Nathan Newman" <nathanne at nathannewman.org>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] AFL-CIO & PNAC
>Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:32:28 -0400
>
>I'm not so high on Sweeney right now, but this piece is literally "guilt by
>association" since Sweeney has no official role with the Project for the
>New American Century. In fact, a google search of the site yields mention
>of Sweeney only on a letter signed by a number of folks condemning China's
>move to crack down on democratic freedoms in Hong Kong.
>
>As to the Iraq War, while Sweeney was hardly the strongest voice against
>the war, he questioned the motives of Bush in going to war and the rush to
>military solutions over diplomatic efforts, as Harry Kelber seems to have
>oddly forgotten, since he wrote about this after the AFL-CIO's October 2002
>message to Congress on the Iraq War vote. See
>http://www.laboreducator.org/endsil.htm and the AFL-CIO statement here:
>http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/prsptm/tm10072002.cfm
>
>But I am always interested that those who demand union democracy also
>demand that the AFL leadership ignore quite divided sentiments on issues
>like Iraq. Some unions did come to a consensus in opposition to the Iraq
>War, but many had strong enough pro-war sentiments among their members that
>they didn't feel a strong antiwar position reflected their membership--
>which is how the AFL-CIO overall position no doubt evolved.
>
>I wish the membership of all the unions were as antiwar as SEIU and a few
>of the others who came out agains the war. But they weren't and blaming
>Sweeney for that is ridiculous.
>
>Nathan Newman
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joseph Wanzala" <jwanzala at hotmail.com>
>To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 4:08 PM
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] AFL-CIO & PNAC
>
>
>
>http://www.laboreducator.org/sweenhawk.htm
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>LaborTalk for April 6, 2005
>
>Sweeney Is Silent on Ties to War Hawks
>Who Are Promoting Bush's Global Agenda
>
>By Harry Kelber
>
>
>AFL-CIO President John Sweeney has declined to explain why his name and
>title appear on a list of supporters of the Project for the New American
>Century, an organization whose prime activity is to promote the
>establishment of an American global empire through the use of military and
>economic power.
>
>On the list of "people associated" with the Project, besides Sweeney, are:
>Vice President Dick Cheney, a founder; Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
>Florida Governor Jeb Bush, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz
>and a gallery of neo-conservatives, many from the American Enterprise
>Institute and the Heritage Foundation. The list is "current to Dec. 2004."
>
>The Project for a New American Century is a think tank, founded in 1997,
>whose principles are now the governing foreign and military policies of the
>Bush administration. In September 2000, the Project released a "grand plan"
>that called for sufficient combat forces to fight and win multiple major
>wars and be equipped for "constabulary duties" around the world, with
>American rather than U.N. leadership. The Project supports the doctrine of
>pre-emptive war and the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons.
>
>Union members are entitled to know what, exactly, is Sweeney's relations
>with the PNAC? What prompted him to collaborate with an organization that,
>to say the least, is hardly a friend of organized labor?
>
>Sweeney is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, regarded as the
>most influential think tank on foreign and economic policy, whose
>recommendations are often adopted by the government. Executives from 200
>"international companies representing a range of sectors" participate in
>special Council programs. They include the largest commercial banks,
>insurance companies and strategic planning corporations. Petroleum,
>military
>and media companies are also well represented.
>
>How is Sweeney's presence on the Council of any benefit to the 13 million
>union members he represents? Doesn't his name on the Council imply support
>for its activities?
>
>Although Sweeney has continuously criticized President George Bush on
>domestic policies, he has remained conspicuously silent on Iraq and the war
>on terrorism, even in the final days of the presidential elections, when
>Bush was especially vulnerable on his handling of the war.
>
>In the two years since the invasion of Iraq, Sweeney has refused to comment
>on any of Bush's embarrassing problems: the failure to find weapons of mass
>destruction; the rising toll of dead and wounded American soldiers; the
>exorbitant cost of the war, and the lack of an exit plan for the return of
>our troops.
>
>Moreover, the AFL-CIO, with Sweeney's apparent approval, has maintained a
>strict blackout of news and information about Iraq, homeland security and
>terrorism. Most affiliated unions have followed Sweeney's example; their
>leaders have refrained from issuing any statements that criticize Bush's
>foreign policy, and their publications act as though the war in Iraq is not
>an issue for America's working families.
>
>The news blackout is enforced even within the labor movement. AFL-CIO
>publications and policy statements by the Executive Council have
>consistently ignored the anti-war movement and its advocates among members
>of its affiliated unions. U.S. Labor Against the War reports a list of
>unions, representing better than a third of the entire AFL-CIO membership,
>that have passed resolutions calling for an end to the American-led
>occupation in Iraq and the return home of our soldiers. Yet this is not
>considered newsworthy by the AFL-CIO's official magazine, America at Work and
>other union publications.
>
>It is high time for Sweeney to be accountable to the AFL-CIO membership.
>There are a few straightforward questions that require straightforward
>answers:
>
>. Does he approve of the Project for a New American Century? If so, why? If
>not, will he publicly denounce it and ask PNAC to remove his name from its
>list?
>
>. Why has he maintained membership in the Council of Foreign Relations?
>What
>has been his role within the Council? Does he intend to continue his
>Council
>membership? Why?
>
>. Why has he remained silent on Iraq and the war on terrorism since the
>invasion? Why has he refused to criticize President Bush on foreign policy?
>Who ordered a strict blackout of news and information about Iraq? Will he
>announce an end to the blackout?
>
>Brother Sweeney, silence is no longer an acceptable option.
>
>Harry Kelber's e-mail address is: hkelber at igc.org
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk