Posted by 
It seems Obama has yet another association to be proud of, none other than Code Pink. Code Pink best known for their antiwar and anti-American positions, has a bad habit of trying to embarrass the President and American troops, rather than positively and peacefully advocating their antiwar sentiment.
The latest example is Code Pink’s disruption at an American Citizenship induction ceremony on July 4th. The left leaning press didn’t even cover the protest, because it actually shows Code Pink making fools of themselves, once again. Its members call for U.S. troops to turn against their commanders. And they hang out with true human rights violators like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.
Jodie Evans with friend and communist confident – Hugo Chavez
Jodie Evans, a Code Pink leader, gathered at least $50,000 from friends and associates and donated it to Obama’s presidential campaign, according to information compiled by the nonpartisan watchdog group, Public Citizen.
Evans and her son, a student who lives at her Southern California address, each also gave the maximum individual allowable donation of $2,300 to Obama’s campaign.
The donations have raised questions about Obama’s association with the more radical elements of his base. Code Pink has harassed, vandalized and impeded military recruiters across the United States in a campaign it calls “counter-recruitment.” The group also gave $600,000 to the families of Iraqi terrorists in Fallujah, whom it called “insurgents” fighting for their homes.
Excerpt from
Code Pink ‘Bundles’ for Barack
I totally agree that “Code Pink” is a group that doesn’t know what the military “REALLY” does in Iraq or else where. The money they gave to the Iraqi terrorists is only killing more of my brother’s and sister’s over there. They should all go over there raise there little pink flags and let the military take care of them. I gaurentee none would return!
As for Barack, I believe he is a good man and will really try to help the nation. I am a military woman and I do have a military son and a military husband. We all hope and pray that Barack makes it. Does no one understand what McCain will do to this nation and military families? We are dying everyday, suffering with NO help. McCain will keep us in a place we should have NEVER entered! And he will put more troops in danger in other places thoughout the world. I believe we should be taking care of OUR NATION, not other’s. I and many military member’s are done with the republican way. We are tired and hungry for a “NEW” way of life for us.
So many sit on their couch and watch what they THINK is going on in the world. Little do they know the truth. But please continue to sit there and let US protect your freedoms, that’s what WE signed up for.
By sheila on Jul 9, 2008
I respect your opinion very much, especially knowing that you have served our country so well! I want to make the case to you that Obama would be terrible for America. Obama is a community organizer and Junior Senator, running for the most important job in the world. Where’s the experience, the know how?? Sure, he speaks well, he should, he is a Harvard grad lawyer. He’s trained to be persuasive.
I ask you to take a closer look. Do you really trust Obama to take this country to a better direction? As far as I am concerned, the guy has no character, no convictions, and his positions change with the wind. It is the charge of the American President to be Commander in Chief. Do you really think Obama has the courage to be that chief executive??
“Does no one understand what McCain will do to this nation and military families? We are dying everyday, suffering with NO help. McCain will keep us in a place we should have NEVER entered! And he will put more troops in danger in other places throughout the world.”
People will disagree whether going into Iraq was right or not. But, moving forward, McCain is a true Patriot and serviceman. I don’t agree with everything he has does in his Senate carreer, but atleast he’s sincere about his positions. I get the impression that he really cares, and out of any other candidate, I think he’s the least likely to put our troops in danger. Sheila, trust me, 9 times out of 10, Democrats act like school children.
By Raquel on Jul 9, 2008
Kudo’s on your new blog from a devoted Raquel fan!
God bless you and your family, Sheila for your service to our great country!
I believe your service “over there” is preserving freedom and liberty here, at home. I respect the initiative we have taken as the only nation in the world that can protect the people (ours & theirs) from the growing threat of Islamist tryanny and the threats from within represented by such cancers as Code Pink. I don’t think Obama really “gets it.”
By Phil Orenstein on Jul 10, 2008
Great looking blog! Good luck on your new endeavor, Raquel!
By Mitchell Langbert on Jul 10, 2008
Sheila, I don’t understand the dissonance in your comment. On one hand you understand that Code Pink is funding the killing of your brothers and sisters in arms in Iraq. On the other hand, you have no problem with Barack Obama also taking money from Code Pink.
This article just scratches the surface of the relationship between Obama and Code Pink. As a military family members myself, I find it downright treasonous for Obama to be working with Code Pink.
Do some investigating of your own about Obama and Jodie Evans. You may well end up rethinking your support for his candidacy.
By Kristinn on Jul 11, 2008
One question – how did the invasion of Iraq help protect the US from “islamist tyranny”?
I mean look at the situation on the ground pre invasion. There was a baathist (which is a pan-arabic avowedly secular movement) military dictatorship run by evil madmen with with sunni backgrounds in control, but unable (due to the wisdom of the fist president Bush setting a policy which was followed by his successor in office) to project power sufficient to even completely control all the territory within its borders, but with sufficient power to serve as a check against its arch enemy, a shiite controlled theocratic dictatorship run by evil madmen in Iran.
With the vast majority of the Iraqi population being of the fundamentalist shiite stripe themselves, the only thing we could expect by forcing out the then current evil madman in Iraq and allowing true free open majority rule elections would be……. A fundamentalist Shiite theocracy!
Don’t tell me this is hindsight, btw – this was my opinion even before the invasion.
So, although our military is the finest in the world, and has done a fantastic job on the military end in Iraq, even a complete and total military victory will merely mean a massive political setback for the US as two of its enemies, which used to check against each other, become instead allies.
Thus, the only reasonably possible outcome of the Iraq war (absent a major realignment of its entire basis) is to INCREASE the risks posed by islamist tyranny as Iran will ultimately gain another shiite fundamentalist ally.
One way to salvage it might be to partition the country, write the shiite end off, and try to focus on the Kurdish sector which, though majority muslim is primarily of the sufi sect of sunni and so not closely aligned with the wahabbism of al queda, and try to co opt that and the remaining secularized sunni Iraqi elements into a reasonable check on Iran, and its new ally the Shiite dominated sector of Iraq. If we then shift the remainder of our military resources in the area to shoring up the secularized end of the sunni bloc in Afghanistan (where our post 9/11 military priority SHOULD have been in the first place), we will have the Shiite islamist threat penned in between two more or less secularized sunni areas.
Now there are problems with this strategy too, no doubt. How to deal with the Turkish issue is one of them, along with others.
But the blind jingoistic “let’s just keep pursuing the original strategy in Iraq, only with more troops”, isn’t going to help anything, and anyone who thinks the invasion of Iraq, and continuing the current strategy there did anything to protect US interests generally, let alone protect the US against islamist threats, is just fooling themselves.
By bob on Jul 11, 2008
btw, the code pink photo you have at the top is photoshopped. It doesn’t help anyone’s credibility when fakes are used to support an argument, unless they are specificly identified as satire.
That’s the strategy used by Bush Jr. (not even half the man his father is in my view) and Karl Rove, and you can see what a good position its put the GOP in for this cycle.
By bob on Jul 11, 2008
My first thought after reading your post was that you should have been at the speaker’s meeting I was at last night. The speaker was Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It. For a little lady, she was quite spectacular and I highly recommend her book.
I’m having some difficulty responding to some of your assertions because I don’t agree with any of your premises. And I believe most if not all are false. You may believe them to be true, but I don’t.
Give me a couple of days to work on an article for you, that explains why I think the war in Iraq has indeed protected us from Islamic Terrorists. Right off the top of my head, the fact that we haven’t been attacked on American soil since 9/11 is some proof.
I think for the most part strategy during War is always changing, even on a day to day basis. Your implication is that we have to change strategy. But, that’s going on every day. If your implication is that we should surrender, my answer is no way, that’s what we did in Vietnam and millions of Vietnamese were killed by the Communists.
Anway, I gotto go Bob, more later…
By Raquel on Jul 11, 2008
We’ll see how the GOP does in this election cycle. I’m pretty sure Obama will not be able to beat McCain. McCain is a War hero. Obama has too many shady connections, he’s inexperienced and his positions vary on a day to day basis, or in other words, he has no conviction. Maybe he should try running for Governor of Illinois or something and get his feet wet, he’s just not qualified to be President
By Raquel on Jul 11, 2008
The GoP would have been much better off if it stuck with folks like Reagan, self made real people. McCain would be a step in the right direction, but the Bush Jr. loyalists really hamper his chances.
As for the lack of terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, that doesn’t prove anything. There are numerous other things that have happened since then (eg the sun continuing to rise) that have nothing to do with Iraq as well. Look at it this way – after the first world trade center attack in 1993 there was not another successful islamic attack in the US during the remainder of Clinton’s term. Does that prove Clinton’s antiterrorism policies were effective in your view?
By bob on Jul 11, 2008
Oh, and I’m not talking about surrender. I’m talking about winning and how to do it.
By bob on Jul 11, 2008
Don’t get me started with Clinton. He brought troops to Bosnia, whether right or wrong, just to steer attention away from his adulterous liason with Monica Lewinski, White House intern, in the oval office. Sorry, I couldn’t help myself. His actions are so atrocious.
Back on topic, different sets of events cause for different actions. Al Quaeda is on the run like never before, we’ve taken their war to them in Iraq and we’re winning. Our troops are wiping them out, and I say good ridance.
By Raquel on Jul 11, 2008
I don’t think so. Al queda is in fact resurgent in places like afghanistan. We should have put our troops there after 9/11. If we had done that we could have shut them out entirely, and given ourselves a strong ally on Iran’s eastern border – and cut down on the heroin trade out of that region, as well as given ourselves a strong ally close to Russia to boot.
Seriously. Attacking Iraq never made any sense if you’re putting America’s interests first.
Al queda’s presence in Iraq is also greater than it was pre invasion. In fact, pre invasion Iraq had no apprecable al queda presence at all, as that was not one of the areas where they had an ally in power.
By bob on Jul 11, 2008
On Bosnia, btw, whatever Clinton’s other faults and whatever his motivations he did the right thing there.
When an opportunity to co-opt former eastern block regions at a fairly low cost presents itself, it should be pursued. This is because even though the USSR is gone in name, it is even now seeking to rebrand and rebuild its power – and diminished as it is from the height of the cold war, it is still a far more significant threat to US interests in both the short and long term than a rebirth of the caliphate.
Accordingly, to the extent it can be easily prevented from re accumulating its satellites action should be taken to prevent it from doing so.
In the case of Bosnia, you had the collapse of the USSR leading to the collapse of Yugoslavia, with Milosevic, as communist apparatchik seeking to consolidate power there, which, had it been successful, would have given post USSR Russia an ally to aid the rebuilding of its power base. Cutting off that threat, which could be done by the US with a very limited expenditure of military resources only made sense. As an added bonus, it made valuable PR points with our allies in western Europe and demonstrated the US was a better option than Russia to other former soviet satellites.
Today, as a result, Bosnia is moving toward a capitalist style economy and is a potential future NATO member, making resurgence by the USSR more difficult. This is a good thing.
So whatever Clinton’s motives there, he made the right call.
By bob on Jul 11, 2008
Oh, and FYI, the main problem we have in Iraq is with shiite militias allied with Iran, not with al queda, which again is a sunni organization that regaurds shia as heretic.
By bob on Jul 11, 2008
Hey, Bob, good job of hijacking the thread. The topic is Obama’s intimate ties with Code Pink. What are your thoughts on a leading presidential candidate allying his candidacy with a group that funds the killing of American soldiers?
By Kristinn on Jul 12, 2008
Perceptions of the situation in Iraq depend to a great degree on which sources of the agenda driven media inform you and NOT on the facts on the ground, unless you skip the front pages of the NYT. A number of months ago the NYT reported somewhere on the back pages “Militant group (NYT-speak for al Queda) is out of Baghdad, US Says” The report said civilian murders were down 80% IED attacks down 70% and 1000′s of displaced families were returning to their homes since al Queda has been routed from Baghdad. The agenda driven Bush vilifying media is invested in the failure in Iraq, so don’t look for the facts there. The facts on the ground show that the surge is working, al Queda has been drivewn from every major city in iraq including the worst terror infestations in 2005, Fallujah and Ramadi. Bob, you’re still living in 2005, before the sucessful troop surge and Gen Petraeus’ counter-insurgency startegy was deployed. The “al-Anbar awakewning” has spread throughout the country as Sunni sheikhs have renounced al-Queda in Iraq and aligned themselves with the Marines. The”Sons of iraq” movement has swelled the ranks of Iraqi Securyt forces able to defend their own country as they did against the anti-America Sadr militias in Basra. The imminent victory will justify the reasons for invading Iraq as just one battle in a war against “Islamic Tyranny” that the jihadists have declared on us.
By Phil Orenstein on Jul 12, 2008
Look, first, I didn’t hijack the thread, k?
Any organization’s support of a candidate is irrelevant in and of itself. I might as well say, of, look don’t read the bible or worship god because Fred Phelps reads the bible and worships god.
The question is, which candidate would be better for national defense, which we all agree is a crucial issue for the country.
Myself, to be honest, I am yet undecided. McCain has some excellent points in his favor, for example:
- He clearly has significant and important military experience; he has been tested in the most adverse conditions possible and has consistently served his country extremely well under those conditions, he has vast experience in the appropriations and budgeting process necessary to supply and equip our forces, and he has direct familiarity in the field with all kinds of military situations – from the most high tech state of the art operations with a huge networked team right down to the nitty gritty in the field on your own make do with whatever you find and get it done situations.
No one can reasonably deny those are all strong arguments in his favor.
There are arguments against as well though. For example:
- He seems to have consistently thought raiding Iraq was a good idea and could serve America’s interests. While he was far from alone on that at the outset (who can deny the vast majority of our politicians on both sides of the aisle screwed up on that one?) he is one of the few who seem not to have realized it was probably a bad idea. He also seems to have, like Bush the younger, to have trouble grasping the nature of fighting jihadists. These are not people who care about anyone’s lives – they happily and indiscriminately slaughter innocents among their own people. Confronting them with a conventionally fielded military force is like firing a gau-19 at the suicide bomber about to detonate his bomb in a crowded market. Yes, you may keep the bomb from detonating, but the collateral damage is overwhelmingly likely to moot your success.
As for Obama, there are certainly arguments against him, for example:
- He has no military experience at all, he is quite young (although two presidents in the past served at younger ages, they both had real military combat experience), he does not have nearly as much experience as McCain in how Washington works and how to get your priorities funded
But there are also arguments for him, for example:
- He was one of the few non-fringe politicians of national stature who went on record in opposition to the Iraq invasion before it started (and yes, I consider BOTH Ron Paul and Dennis Kusinich fringe politicians); he seems to have a good grasp of the fact that dealing with jihadists will require use of both military and non-military assets; he is demonstrably less tied to the policies of the current administration, which on any reasonable measure has been at best a disappointment.
That, in my mind is the debate. Trying to smear one or the other candidate with allegations that they are supported by fringe groups, smearing comments about patriotism, all that garbage is just politics as usual, and that I can do without.
So no, I’m not hijacking the thread. I’m trying to address the issues.
Now. On to the surge.
The surge was a good idea, agreed, but it should have been bigger, and it should have been sooner. It should have been done from the outset if the invasion was going to be done at all, in fact, just as Shinseki said. The fact that it was done so late and done with too few troops made it much less successful than it otherwise would have been.
The point on the subject remains the same, however. Let us assume that we manage to completely pacify all the various insurgent terrorist elements in Iraq (note by pacify I do mean ‘make peaceful’ but not “make peaceful by making nice with them”. I mean “make peaceful by neutralizing their ability to engage in terrorist activities and if that means making them dead then so be it”). Let us assume that we pacify Iraq to the extent that all citizens can vote and install a democratically elected government of their choice in full, fair and free elections. What will result? The most likely result will be a Shiite theocracy allied with Iran.
This is a bad outcome.
There is of course a possibility that we can co-opt the remaining secularized sunni elements (including the kurds) to counter this, but it will take a drastically different approach than the surge – it will take a whole shift of mindset. This is because the sunni elements in Iraq are in a substantial minority. The only way they were able to maintain control over the Shiite elements pre-invasion was through brutal repression. Even if sunni control if Iraq is re-established, what we are likely to see is a replay of event s from the last time we propped up sunni elements to fight Shiite jihadists in that region. Fifty cents (in pretend internet money) to you, phil, if you know what we did and how it turned out.
So partition seems like a sounder strategy, but then we’re back to the issue that creates with Turkey. Frankly with the Saudis too. It might be unworkable.
Finally, when you conflate the jihadist element in Iraq with sunni al queda, you show a lack of even the most basic understanding of how things work over there. They both want a restored caliphate, but the pedigree of the caliph divides them. Iran is funding and equipping Shiite militiamen in a bid to keep us occupied while they ramp up their ability to project power in the region. This is a bad thing, and the main question is how to stop it. It is important to free up assets quickly to demonstrate to Iran that should they decide to play, they will regret it.
They question for me is which candidate will be better on that front.
By bob on Jul 12, 2008
“Oh, and FYI, the main problem we have in Iraq is with shiite militias allied with Iran, not with al queda, which again is a sunni organization that regaurds shia as heretic.”
“Who wants yesterday’s papers?” – RS. The sectarian civil war in Iraq never happenned. But only those still hung up on the 2005-6 sectarian strife incited by foreign terrorists and al Queda, could make such a clueless statement. The Iraqi army recently reocuppied the cities of Basra, Mosul and Sadr city forcing the once proud and defiant Shia militia underground eliminating Iran’s proxies in Iraq. The Shia Iraqi army fighting Shia militias and al Anbar Sunni sheikhs calling for the defeat of al Queda in Iraq and other sunni terror organizations, doesn’t sound like sectarian strife to me. In fact it sounds like the road to victory.
Oh, and FYI, our own troops fatalities are down 90% from last year, so instead of throwing in the towel and thinking of partitioning the country, why don’t we finish the job, and make the losers in the media and democratic politicains eat crow.
By Phil Orenstein on Jul 12, 2008
“It is important to free up assets quickly to demonstrate to Iran that should they decide to play, they will regret it.”
This pay to play logic doesn’t jive with the correct logic in your previous statement(.50 cents to you bob, now we’re even):
“…the nature of fighting jihadists. These are not people who care about anyone’s lives – they happily and indiscriminately slaughter innocents among their own people.”
That’s a fair descrption of the Iranian jihadist machine. How could such an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy, that sent 100,000′s of youth to their death in human wave attacks in the Iran-Iraq war ever understand international diplomacy, economic sanctions or dialogue or even threats? The Iranian regime is so extermist that they regard war as the necessary precursor to the appearance of the hidden 12th imam. I am sure that Obama doesn’t get this. McCain has the worldy and military expertize to know how to deal with such fanatics. I would feel 1000X safer with a McCain administration.
Also another point. You are judged by your freinds and associates. Especcially politicains with a weak resume such as Obama, should be vetted by his associations and his close ties should be thouroughly investigated. Just as the Cinton’s brought their freinds and associates to the white house staff with them, even kicking out the good people in the travel office, I want to know who my president will bring into the White Hoiuse. Im not saying unrepentent terrorist Bill Ayers would be appointed sec’y of Education, but he may certainly have the ear of an Obama admonistration. This is something to be absolutely alarmed about.
Oh, and regarding the .50, I know the answer as you do. Understanding the threat of theocratic Iran allied with the Soviets, during the cold war, wouldn’t you choose the realpolitic of helping Sadaam Hussein who was loosing to the fanatical Khomeini regime martrying iran’s children who were crushing the iraqi offense with their weaponless bodies?
By Phil Orenstein on Jul 12, 2008
In terms of supporting, or not acting against, saddam, to the extent necessary to maintain an external check on Iranian Shiite jihadists, particularly when said jihadists have ties to any communist block, we are agreed. If that’s your best option, that’s your best option.
Note, however, that this is only to the extent necessary to protect US interests – the objective is not to allow one to triumph over the other, the intent is maintain stasis – ideally that stasis will involve both sides focused on the potential for combat with one another, but both sides also to weak and distracted with one another to make any significant threat to you.
The only time you want to disturb the stasis is when (1) you have no other choice; or (2) you have a real and significant opportunity to convert one side or the other into a true ally (ie a free democratic society with a market based economy – there is no true ally that is of any other system).
Which, incidentally, is why the decisions made at the time with respect to the Iran Iraq war were correctly made, the decisions with respect to the first gulf war were correctly made (why cheney changed his mind about them I’ll never be able to fathom), why I believe Clinton, whatever his motives or other faults, did the right thing in maintaining Bush the Elder’s policy on Iraq, and why I believe Bush the Younger, along with every single politician that agreed with him on the subject, screwed up.
We can usefully compare these to Bosnia and Afghanistan. In Bosnia, there was a real and significant opportunity to piece off a former eastern block satellite and keep it from falling back into the tattered remains of the Russian sphere of influence. To do so made sense. After 9/11, there was a real chance to piece off a base of operations for jihadists – at that point, even a direct invasion and occupation of Afghanistan would have been successful, particularly if it had been done with Pakistani and Northern alliance support. But that wasn’t done. Now clearly the opportunity was not as clear and easy as Bosnia. ..
But in Iraq in 2003 there was no opportunity at all and there will not be any real opportunity for the foreseeable future to convert them into a true ally.
So the question is what to do. An open ended military commitment is an open ended military commitment, but that strategy only works when all local power bases of any significance have lost all credibility, and the presence at first is enough to project complete control. At this point, in my mind, anything less than a massive presence (on probably twice the order of Shinseki’s original estimates, as the situation was made much more difficult by the minimal troop strength strategy originally employed) over a period of twenty to thirty years would be the minimum required to reasonably assure ourselves that the country will not ultimately become a shiite Islamic theocracy allied with Iran within 10 years of our exit.
I say this because again, even if we leave the country nominally stable, absent an external force present the sunni leadership will not be able to maintain control except through brutal repression, which will lead to violent revolution as Iran funds Shiite rebels. If, on the other hand, no sunni block attempts to maintain control through such means and the country is at least initially governed through democratic means, before a few cycles are out the fundamentalist Shiites will have seized control through peaceful democratic means, and will at a minimum look to make their diplomatic ties with Iran central to their foreign policy, and at a maximum run through government reforms essentially turning the society into a militant Shiite theocracy like Iran.
So again, the question is how best to restore a balance where Iran is too concerned about its neighbors on it borders to be worried about trying to project power regionally. We can’t do that by maintaining a huge troop presence in Iraq for a long period because then Iran knows that if we try to suddenly shift forces to confront them we leave an exposed flank. It makes sense to declare victory and leave at least a nominally stable government in some areas of Iraq and let events take their course. It also makes sense to shore up those geographic areas where folks at last nominally allied with us can maintain control without having to engage in routine anti insurgent operations, though that support would have to be primarily logistical – although certainly with air support assistance if someone tries to project power into their region. But that brings us back again to the issue with Turkey and the Saudis, who will not view this as in their interests.
It might be in order, of course, to use the threat of such a tactic to get Turkey and the Saudis to devote more significant resources to the area, but that would have to be done while insuring that their respective dependencies on us are not diminished.
Finally, the surge, again, was a bandage. A necessary bandage, it is true, but not a solution. When I hear defenders of the current administration tout the surge, it rather sounds to me like the guy who was repeatedly warned that his reckless driving was going to get someone hurt brag about how he administered first aid to all the passengers in his car after he finally wrecked.
Both McCain and Obama appear to recognize that the surge was not, is not, and cannot be the endgame, and they are both right about that. You can’t tell me he doesn’t recognize the futility of dealing with Iran as anything other than an adversary, and you can’t tell me that McCain doesn’t either – the question is which policy is more likely to be effective in that regard. On the face of things I like Obama’s post surge priorities better.
Execution is a critical question as well though, and of the two McCain has much better credentials and is a better bet to be able to actually implement the strategic decisions he makes. He is also better equipped to recognize the immediate impact of various military strategies in the air and on the ground and to assess the relevant options in the short term in terms of military goals.
If I could, I’d take McCain’s experience and proven ability to execute combined with Obama’s overall policy, but unfortunately that isn’t an option.
By bob on Jul 12, 2008
Bob, the title of this entry is “Obama and Code Pink”. It reports that Jodie Evans of Code Pink is a bundler for Obama’s presidential campaign and calls on Obama to denounce Code Pink.
What this entry does not get into is that Obama had Jodie Evans co-host his first big Hollywood fundraiser in Feb. 2007 when he announced his candidacy.
This is not an issue of accepting or not an unsolicited endorsement. This is an intimate political alliance. Evans and Obama recently had a meeting at his latest Hollywood fundraiser last month which Code Pink bragged about.
Even though Evans’ support for the terrorists in Iraq, sympathy for bin Laden, admitted efforts to “undermine the war effort” and work with state sponsors of terrorism has been well documented and publicized, Obama stands by her and keeps her on as a major part of his campaign.
Obama and Code Pink also have another thing in common. They’re both friends with the Weather Underground.
Bob, I’m not asking you about Iraq, I’m asking, “What are your thoughts on a leading presidential candidate allying his candidacy with a group that funds the killing of American soldiers?”
By Kristinn on Jul 13, 2008
In my last post k, I put out the question of guilt by association, that it is necessary to vet our national candidates’ by their friends and associates to see who will have the closest range to my future president’s ear. I never got a responce either. I don’t want those influences to be ex-cons, indicted weather underground terrorists or radical hate-spewing preachers. Don’t tell me those issues aren’t important to consider. Answer please??
By Phil Orenstein on Jul 13, 2008
What you’re asking is if I prefer to discuss smears or issues. I prefer to discuss issues.
You’ve clearly made up your mind which way you’re going to vote. That’s fine. That’s your right.
But if you want to effectively advocate for your chosen candidate with those who haven’t decided, you’re going to have to do better than just try to smear the side you’ve decided against. You’re going to have to engage on issues.
By bob on Jul 13, 2008
This is an issue, not a smear. If you’d rather not adress it, that’s fine, but nevertheless it’s a critical issue to be conerned about. Perhaps you’re not familiar with the famous Teapot Dome scandal during the Warren G. Harding administration where his “cabinet appointees had illegally sold medical supplies and leased oil wells to Sinclair Oil interests.” Barack Obama’s supporters claim that he should not be accountable for the negative views and past criminality of his long time friends and associates and you think these are merely “smears”. But since presidents appoint their friends and associates to staff and cabinet positions, I believe this is an important concern. It may be a stretch to imagine an Obama cabinet with William Ayers as Secretary of Education, Reverend Louis Farakhan as Attorney General, Rev. Michael Pfleger as Secretary of the Interior, George Soros as Secretary of the Treasury, Bob Avakian as Secretary of Defense, and so forth as Prof. Mitch Langbert proposes in one of his blogs. But then Mitch poses an intriguing question: “given Mr. Obama’s poor judgment in his choice of associates, how many Teapot Dome scandals will ensue from an Obama cabinet?”
By Phil Orenstein on Jul 13, 2008
Look, until you say that you are equally concerned that John McCain thinks 9/11 was god’s righteous punishment of America for sinning because he courts the so called “chirstian conservative movement” (which is actually none of those things) you are going to inevitably look like your smearing, not discussing issues.
Trying to focus on code pink might be your strategy because you haven’t made the slight effort required to learn about actual issues, and frankly that’s been a problem with the electorate in recent elections.
This reminds me of the last cycle, where I had a Bush supporter try to convince me that I should vote his way because Kerry was for the assault weapons ban and Bush against it. This was after I rebuffed all his attempts to sway me with arguments that Bush was honest and Kerry a dishonest politician who would say anything to get elected as useless smears.
Now the second amendment is an important issue to me, so I took that as an actual attempt to discuss issues. When I pointed out to that person that Bush’s announced position and Kerry’s announced position were exactly the same, the idiot actually tried to convince me that I should ignore Bush’s announced position because he was just understandably saying what he needed to say to get elected.
The point is this: smears are useless – it is each American’s duty as a citizen to understand and discuss the actual issues and the pros and cons of each candidate with respect to same.
By bob on Jul 13, 2008
Code Pink is just one issue among many when it comes to Obama. Comparing his direct association with Code Pink, with ONE Christian Conservative’s support for McCain is like comparing apples and oranges.
At least a quarter of Democrats believe Bush is responsible for 9/11, does that mean Obama believes it? Of course not.
Not only did Obama take loads of cash from Code Pink, but he met personally with Code Pink’s leader, Jodie Evans, giving Code Pink legitimacy. This is not your friendly-neighborhood anti-war group, they hate America, are rooting for terrorists, and as one poster asserted, are funding terrorists.
bob, Are you prepared to vote for someone who supports this America hating group?
By Raquel on Jul 13, 2008
Look, McCain has met with and courted Pat robertson’s supporters and taken cash from those in Jerry Falwell’s organization.
Heck, a huge number of Regent folks are on the fed payroll as a result of Bush.
These are people from organizations who called the 9/11 terrorist attacks god’s righteous punishment against America.
You agree with me that calling the 9/11 terrorist attacks a good thing (after all, everything god does is good and just, yes?) is pretty odious, no?
I worry about those folks far more than code pink, mainly because they have a much stronger power base politically, but again the bottom line is it is far more important to talk about actual issues than to smear candidates with allegations that they are backed by this or that fringe nutball group.
Your blog says you want to debate issues. So let’s do that. You’ve got an opportunity here to win a vote for McCain, if that’s what you want.
You’re just not going to do it by slinging mud.
By bob on Jul 13, 2008
Frankly, I have no problem with Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell’s characterization that 9/11 is a result of God’s righteous punishment againt America, if that’s what they believe, that’s their problem. People can decide for themselves.
But, it’s not like that’s all Falwell and Robertson have to offer either, they preach the gospel as far as I understood, and I’m not even sure what context these words were said, and I’m sorry but my initial reaction, is that the press probably blew it out of porportion (they really hate Christians and will gladly smear, yes smear, Christians any day over a Muslim).
It’s completely a different matter when the association in question is rooting for the enemy, advocating death to American soldiers.
I mean c’mon you in one breath criticize Christian Conservatives and their take on God and the Universe, and at the same time defend a group like Code Pink (you can’t underestimate their power, especially when being funded by rich donors like George Soros, who thinks he can control the world with his “progressive” ideas).
By Raquel on Jul 13, 2008
Oh come on.
If it was an Obama supporter who said that you’d clearly have a huge problem with it, as you claim to have with code pink.
As for myself, I view both code pink’s support of Obama, and the “christian conservative” support of McCain in the same way – I don’t approve of either group but niether group appears to be central to the campaign of either candidate, nor does either group appear to speak for either candidate.
Soros, btw, I generally approve of, insofar as I approve of successful capitalists. That is to say I don’t think he’s got my best interests at heart but we’re generally on the same page with respect to capitalism being good. I also respect his anticommunist work and believe he, like Bill Gates (though in a different way) has been an important figure in spreading capitalism and democracy.
By bob on Jul 14, 2008
Bob you’re full of crap when you say you’re a conservative. Soros, and his “world order” ideology does nothing but undermine American interests. His agenda is the “anything goes” mentality, population control (abortion, sterilization), world order, one world army, and no individual governments, no America. Control through socialism/communism.
Christian conservatives are not hate mongers!! Like your friends at Code Pink, Code Pink is providing aid to our enemies, name one Christian conservative group doing that.
By Raquel on Jul 14, 2008
Soros’ record is that of a dedicated anticommunist – I don’t know how you could call him an advocate of communism. Further, though I think he is a democrat he clearly works closely with many in the GoP to advance American interests, both politically and through business. Take the Carlyle Group for example – a group that has been vital to funding some of our most important companies in the defense industry.
Again, I don’t agree with everything he does or think he has my best interests at heart any more than any other successful capitalist, but let’s face it – he is a fairly good example of what this country is supposed to be about. Work hard, work smart, and you can rise from very humble beginings to great success. That to me is the foundation of America. The oportunity to work, invest, and suceed.
I don’t recall ever hearing of soros endorsing forced sterilization.
On the “Chirstian conservative” front, I don’t think all people who associate themselves with that movement are hat mongers. Many are well meaning individuals of faith. The ones I have a problem with are those who try to impose their faith on others, or who take anti american positions in order to try to advance their own interests. Folks like Falwell and Robertson. I view them primarily as hucksters selling snake oil. I know plenty of committed chirstians who view them the same way.
I mean how can you get more Anti-Amercian than saying America deserved what happened on 9/11? If a democrat ever said something even remotely similar would you ever say you didn’t have a problem with it? I’d sure say I had a problem with it no matter who said it.
And yes, it is their right to say it – but it’s my right to be vocal in my disagreement with them.
As for code Pink, as I’ve said – I don’t approve of them. I also don’t approve of presenting photshopped fakes to make a point, unless the same are identified as such. Your top photo on this page is a photoshopped fake, and if you’re going to lead with it you should identify it as caricature.
By bob on Jul 14, 2008
Soros works very closely and funds many of those far left groups, ACORN (currently under indictment for voter fraud), Move On.org. – set up to “overthrow” President Bush, and other shadowy groups. Works with the GOP?? Not a chance. We must be talking about two different people.
And, Yes, Soros is for abortion, sterilization, contraception, its the whole “eugenics” thing, some humans have more value than others, that he is a part of.
Now concerning some Christian Conservatives, I’d like to see a transcript of any one of the claims you made. Taking sound bites from CNN and running with it doesn’t work for me.
Bobb, let’s try this again, do you know of any Christian organization that funnels money to our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan?? Code Pink does. There is no comparison between the two.
By Raquel on Jul 15, 2008
I don’t know what parallel universe bob is living in, but George Soros is no dedicated anti-communist in mine. Soros and his Open Society Insititue, whose director founded SDS, a dedicated communist group on the side of the Soviets in the cold war, which later morphed into the Weathermen terrorist group, promote and fund a whole host of radical, anti-military, anti-capitalist and anti-American causes. They invest $$100 millions in leftist groups, dedicated marxists and leftist politicians including moveon.org, Pacifica found, Tides found, Lynne Stewart, La Raza, Nat’l lawyers Guild, partners with cold war Soviet front groups, and many more which are dedicated to undermining national security and US sovereignty, and championing open borders and UN control of US foreign policy. These groups see American capitalism as a racist system ruled by priviledged whites who subjugate racial minorities, the new oppressed class in the global struggle to overthrow the repressive capitalist system through violent revolution, legal means (lawfare) funded by soros, media, political and infiltrating our schools. Also, in my book not too many dedicated anti-communists go around trying to de-nazify the Bush administration and chastise Israel for not supporting Hamas’s fair elections. Wake up and smell the latte!
Also, please don’t be so disingenuous as to say that Christians are imposing their faith on others. Academic texts are being rewritten to glorify Islam and denigrate Christianity and Judiasm. In the past few centuries it hasn’t been the Christians who have been beheading, issuing death fatwas, rioting, firebombing churches, murdering apostates, stoning, suicide bombing, and threatening “Death to America” in the name of their religion. Timothy McVeigh wasn’t imposing Christianity on the West, and old Pat Robertson doesn’t scare me one scintilla. Either you’re slick or clueless.
By Phil Orenstein on Jul 15, 2008