Thursday, August 25, 2005

Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel

Code Pink (whose co-founder Medea Benjamin expressed support for the Communist Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, as well as saying of her trip to Cuba, "It seem[ed] like I died and went to heaven") has organized a demonstration outside Walter Reed.

Of course, America being a democracy, they do have a Consitutionaly protected right to engage in this type of activity. My thoughts on the issue are best express by Kevin Pannell, a member of the Army's First Cavalry Division:

He went on to say:
When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.

"We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever," Pannell, a member of the Army's First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.

"You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors' guilt is the worst thing you can deal with," Pannell said, adding that other veterans recovering from wounds at Walter Reed share his resentment for the anti-war protesters.

"We don't like them and we don't like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed," he said. "[The wounded veterans] are there to recuperate. Once they get out in the real world, then they can start seeing that stuff (anti-war protests). I mean Walter Reed is a sheltered environment and it needs to stay that way."

But, there is hope yet. One demonstrator did concede that a hospital might not be the most appropriate venue for this kind of event:
"Maybe there is a better place to have a protest. I am not sure," said a man holding a sign reading "Stop the War," who declined to be identified.

HAT TIP: Wizbag, Sister Toldjah, Say Anything
Also: The Man, Katie's Dad, Gary, H2So4

I can't cope with you my dear, you guys are faster than me =) When I am commenting on one then you have another one ready =)
Have a good night!
Shame on you Caribe :) I can't tell you how disappointed I am.
There are no words in the English language - or any language known to man, I'm sure - that can really express my contempt and disgust for these people. They are the same kind of cretinous scum that threw dog s*** on our troops returning from Vietnam. Their ranks include such luminaries as Jane Fonda, John Kerry, Ramsey Clark, and Tom Hayden. They are among the lowest form of trash that walks on two legs and calls itself human. They are not fit to breath the same air as the wounded GIs they claim to support. They are parasites: filthy, slimy, and disgusting. A tapeworm has more intrisic decency and worth than they do.

Scum of the earth. Absolute scum of the earth.
I don't approve of this particular tactic, so I'm not debating the picketing of wounded people.

What I find curious is your inclusion of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua among your list of supposedly dispicable communists. Do you know anything about what happened in Nicaragua?

The laws we broke? The people killed? The deliberate overthrow of a sovreign nation?

Did you know that the US was found guilty of war crimes? Does none of that matter to you? Or were you just acting on a hunch that since the Sandinistas were communists, they were automatically the bad guys?
I was in Santa Barbara last weekend visiting my little sister (who is in the Navy) who was on shore leave with the USS Ronald Reagan (Based in San Diego) when a "peace bus" was there and they set up a number of white crosses right on the beach next to a pier.

I really wanted to walk up to them and say "I'm really glad you are choosing to honor the soldiers who have fallen for the great cause of worldwide freedom from terror and opression and I commend you for your efforts to keep them all in our hearts and minds", then kneel and say a little prayer and walk away.
Dan Trabue, I don't claim to know much about the Sandanistas or the Nicaraguan situation, but I'm going to bring in another example: Che Guevara. There are numerous t-shirts and slogans chanted around the world in his name for "freedom". Yet few realize that Che Guevara was a lot more violent and oppressive himself than the Argentinian government he was trying to overthrow.
I had to check you at home ;-)
I think you are right, people shouldn't be protesting close to hospitals or something where soldiers need nothing but PEACE (what a wonderful word).
Comment# 3 is what makes people see all pro-war people as crazy extremists not open to peaceful discussion, congratulations participant #3 keep going that way you help us anti-war people :-)
FYI: Somoza was a brutal bloody dictator supported by the US (just like the ones you have critiziced in your previous posts) just that you know, as Noriega, Pinochet, Videla, Figueredo, Saddam at some point (I better stop here I have to
go sleep today, they were all supported by the US government like they support Musfarrah today or whatever the pakistani president's name is, remember his name he will be an evil in the future but he is a friend now, this makes me laugh how history is so great and obvious!). Daniel Ortega former nicaraguan president went to elections eventually and he lost, and he still participates and the guerrilla became democratic. Althought I don't like them to be sincere with you what will never be forgotten is the horror you made central america go thru. Not every US intervention will necesarily be correct. Do you recognice you could have made a "few" mistakes? Do you recognice any mistake at all? Or are your policies perfect because this country goes by the hand of all mighty Jesus?

To Henry:
The thing is that people protesting against war also care about those soldiers dying and being hurted and their families (I am actually talking for myself) but they may not agree with you in the fact that the army is fighting for freedom from terror and opression.
Thing of everything there was before every single of those dictators in modern history and you will find your partial responsibility in the things that happened later on.
By the way, I hate Che's shirts (thanks to mass production :-) ).
I think Che had great ideas about equal oportunities for every one in this world, but the means were obviously no right just because of the violence in my opinnion.
What Henry says about Che is exactly what I think about Bush, wonderful! economy of language.
"Yet few realize that [GWB] was a lot more violent and oppressive himself than the [please insert any government that has oil here. i.e: Iranian, Iraqi, Venezuelan] government he was trying to overthrow."
And I don't think the purpose of the Che was to overthrow the argentinian president, try not to claim too much about Argentina either.
well he expanded from Argentina to other South American countries. His problem was that he stooped to the very methods that oppressive governtments used (or worse). When freedom fighters behave like terrorists, don't expect any sympathy from me when they're killed.
killed by? The CIA ;-) The "freedom spreaders" around the world. CIA hands are into almost every single dictatorial regime in latinamerica in the last century. Proven, archives, documents, I can fax you a few in their involvement in Chile in the 70s. I don't think that has changed much since then, nope.
He left Argentina being nothing but a dreamer not even a guerrilla leader, he just fought for Cuba's revolution (or however that strange experiment may be called) and Bolivia whithout any success (In the Americas, I think he also fought in Angola but I am not completely sure). However his influence, and the influence of Cuba's "revolution" among latinamerica was strong.
YOU GUYS ARE MAKING ME THINK OF OPENNING A BLOG IN ENGLISH, instead of bombing the girl blog with comments so long ;-)
Terrorism is also dropping a bomb in the wrong place and killing an innocent family, "collateral damages" my a**!
dt: Do you know anything about what happened in Nicaragua?

Do you?

True, the contras were no choir-boys. But saving Central America from the Khmer Rouge's cousins saved millions of lives.
of course, but that was under eisenhower's presidency and things were done differently back then. Gerald Ford signed the order forbidding the CIA from delving into foreign politics like that (especially after Kennedy's Bay of Pigs fiasco)

In the meantime, Che Guevara isn't the "freedom spreader" of your hero worship. Sure, he did fight for what he believed in, but he not only fought, he terrorized.
Henry, what Che believed in was power for Che, pure and simple. The left loves Che because they -- if given the opportunity -- would be just like him... a bunch of murderous bleeps.
Right. The Nicaraguan rebels were no choirboys, but there was a lot more to the Nicaraguan effort than people knew.

The only law we broke was one that was specifically passed to thwart President Reagan because the Democrats were pissed off that he would give the rebels aid. It was a pathetic attempt by a bunch of pathetic people to try and de-legitimize the help we were giving the Rebels.

Also, the Democrats kept harping about how the Nicaraguans wanted the Sandanistas as the governing body. They made the argumet so much Daniel Ortega believed them and held elections. Guess what. The Sandanistas lost by a margin of 2 to 1. And then Ortega refused to give up power for about 8-10 years. At which time he finally did give up power peacefully. An action that was considered by the Nicaraguans to be very honorable, so he is remembered decently by the citizens.

And we didn't kill anyone. Good grief.
I think the Code Pink story is about to blow up. Unfortunately it means more press for these lefty loonies. But at least most Americans will be able to see them for the traitors they are. I explore there nutty protesters on my blog. Hopefully the NY Post will carry my piece on this Saturday or Sunday. BTW NYGir\l we should get in touch
This not about left or right, it is about common sense you get into a country that IS NOT yours and kill them (directly or indirectly, your government actually prefers to use others give them weapons so they don't get dirty) just because you think communism is wrong and then do not expect someone to come into this country and hurt you. Hate creates nothing but hate.
By the way you left TOO many of my questions open without an answer. Is anyone going to give an answer about all the latinamerican dictators that your country supported, even Saddam???? Isn't this country about democracy. Hello, I have a question here, someone please come with a logical answer.
The sources that scrutinator uses are OBVIOUSLY biased, try a better source of info. I guess the CIA and the american administration have some sort of death-meter that tells them that if they get into a place that IS NOT their country, they will "avoid" more deaths, that's not an argument guys.
Think with small examples, your house is your house and your neighbor's house is his house. If your neighbor is hitting his wife and children you call the police (which in this case will be the UN, that it's basicly the US itself since they have pretty much control over it) and they get into that house and put order. You don't come into the neighbor house and kill him to teach him not to hit his wife, and then all the children (the people of the coutnry) is watching your "great act of justice". Let them be communist if they want to for god sake.
Almost forget, Ford's law is a joke, you may not kill leaders directly with your hands are still behind so many crimes.
Also be consistent with your foreign policy and use priorities, that will help.
* If you are looking for WMD get into a country with proven weapons like North Korea not Iraq. (Forget about oil when taking these decisions).
* If you like democracies then start by Saudi Arabia, Russia and Pakistan that are your alliads or else don't let them be your alliads if they are ruled by virtual dictators or kings.
* Look for the root of the problems not the consecuences. i.e if you want to stop drugs stop sending weapons to Colombia and stop smoking weed overhere instead, or use that money you use in weapons in educate your children.
* If you don't like brutal dictators then never support them like you did with Saddam and many others.
* If you are fighting for Human rights then start by home and judge the responsibles for Abu Graib and give a decent trial to the people in Guantanamo (hang them if you want but give them a trial).
* If you are fighting against poverty and injustice start with Africa and fair trade.
* If you want to be respected them respect the rest of the world and let them be.
And the most important of all.
* Don't leave my questions without an answer.

Your premises are all wrong, so why would we answer loaded questions?
Just to make me feel stupid (you see I answer yours) give it a try ;-)

Yep, the US has done some pretty bad things in the past. The CIA overthrew the government in Guatemala in the 1950s, we supported Somoza and Batista, the Contras weren't choirboys, El Salvador had human rights violations, etc, etc. Guilty as charged.

However, consider the times. Stroll back through history and consider the threat: Soviet-sponsored communism. Castro overthrew Batista and set up a regime that was at least as oppressive. A few years later, the Soviets were trying to put nuclear missiles on the island. Cuban troops were sent to fight in Africa. Along comes Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, and Nicaraugua goes red... with Cuban help. Che was busy through the '60s trying to bring communism to other Latin American countries.

The US was confronted with what certainly seemed like a choice: support brutal, right-wing governments and dictators, or see country after country fall into the Soviet orbit.

It's easy to scoff at this fear from the safety of 2005; the Soviets are gone. But thirty years ago, many US policy-makers genuinely and sincerely believed that a red Latin America was possible, and we had to do a lot of distasteful things to stop that from happening.

BTW, it's estimated that communists / communism was responsible for the deaths of over 100 million people in the 20th century. Does it really seems like it might have been a good idea to let communist regimes crop up in Latin America?
You don't want me to add up numbers in Central America, Southeast asia, argentina (just 30,000 thousand there) and Irak (yes, you knew about the kurd genocide and you said... NOTHING because Saddam was your friend then) and more and more bloody governments you supported and overthrew.
Great! Politicians and governments are evil by nature, here is where I wanted to get. Either left or right, when they get on the extreme they can make a crappy world althought we enjoy safety in our homes. That's so true all what you said what obviously is not true is that the US government is a "savior" that makes no harm and that uses Jesus to help the world, no! you've done so much harm (and you keep repeating yourselves) and the true cannot be hidden, recognice it and try to find other ways of helping the world we cannot keep adding death of innocents the way we have been since man is man.
And then people doubt about evolution, this is the proff of evolution, we keep acting like nothing but animals.
Saddam was never a US "friend." For a short time he was considered to be less bad than the fanatical, murdering, expansionist Iranian regime next door.

There is no such thing as a communist freedom-fighter, because communism and freedom are antithetical. You can't have Marx without Lenin, Stalin and Pol Pot.

And, yes, holding protests against wounded soldiers is a cowardly, nasty, contemptible act.
So how comes that you financed him and gave him weapons that then he used against you and your people and did nothing when he killed people??? Ooooowooo
An example in a minor scale. Would you give a weapon and money to a guy you don't know for killing a guy that is against you (or at least that is what you think, you may be a paranoid about this other guy that you think is against you) not thinking that he may once come against you, and let him kill innocent people with the money and the weapon you gave him? Will you give him a gun and money? You just do that with people you trust, and they are called "friends" by society, so if he wasn't a friend I should check on my definition of friendship now.
What you are basically telling me is that your administration was so IRRESPONSIBLE for arming and financing a guy that they didn't trust??? (like they are doing now with pakistan btw).
We have a problem here, fanatical, murdering , expansionist (specially this last part) is how I think of your administration.
This country considers communist everything that is not right and conservative. Even democrats are considered "left", I have nothing to say if you consider democrats left.
Everything that smells like left is inmediately seen as evil, why? because that is the way you were taught since you were a children. I agree that communist governments are crapy but stop being paranoid about socialism and left tendences.
Why isn't this barbarity by "peace protesters" getting more media attention? This should be a great publicity stunt, but the MSN looks to be protecting these nuts from themselves (media wise).
WF wrote:
"The only law we broke was one that was specifically passed to thwart President Reagan"

We (the CIA) mined the harbor at Corento. For this, we were righteously found guilty of war crimes. Hey my law abiding friends: you CAN'T bomb another country! There's a word for that, what was it....Oh, yeah! Terrorism. Bush I, of course, IGNORED a World Court finding! I just can't get over that so many people like you continue to support our ILLEGAL actions in Nicaragua.

And, YES! Congress did pass a law specifically to thwart Reagan's support of terrorists! What is weird about that?! You people awe me with your words. Do you not know history or do you just ignore it when convenient.

Yes. Times were different. The soviets were killing people. But communism is NOT antithetical to freedom. Perhaps soviet style communism was, but that was a problem with fascism, not communism. The Nicaraguan people were fine with the Sandinistan government.

How do I know? I've been to Nicaragua. I have friends who lived there and who live there still. The Nicaraguan people were satisfied with democratically-elected Ortega and the Sandinista gov't. Yes, the Nicaraguans eventually voted Ortega out but that was after ten years of a war waged with US support. They told me that they feared if they didn't vote out Ortega, the US would continue the war. AND YET, even with a US gun to their heads, Ortega has always run close elections.

Please! Don't talk about things you don't know. Go visit if you want to know more. Read something besides right wing demogoguery. But if you want to have any credibility at all, you have to own up to the bad in US history and policy as well as what is great about the US.
I have always owned up to the bad in U.S. history. The problem with liberals (you) is that the U.S. has never done one thing right and when we speak up about the good things, you attack us and throw out canards.

Why don't YOU as in the liberal part of this country own up to the mistakes that YOU, the liberals, are responsible for?

1. The abandonment of Eastern Europe to the U.S.S.R. after WW2.
2. The buildup of nukes in North Korea (I know you really want to blame this on Bush but I have seen the official paperwork proving it was being done in 1995 during Clinton's tenure). Albright when asked about it said, "We were duped by NK". Why has she never had to answer for that?
3. The debacle of the Bay of Pigs. don't try and bame this on Eisenhower, or you have to blame Clinton for claiming that,
A. Hussein was actively pursuing nukes.
B. Al Quaeda did indeed have ties with Hussein.
Both were claims made by Clinton.
4. Vietnam. Started by Kennedy, made worse by Johnson. Nixon was making headway with B-52s but it was not "politically correct" to bomb with B-52s. I am sure all the Vietnamese murdered by the communists had a real moral problem with losing the war on political correctness.
5. The length of the Cold War. Reagan proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Detente and appeasement of the U.S.S.R. did not work and that strengthening of the military was the smart choice.
6. Tax cuts. The economy is doing better than in Clinton's tenure directly due to Tax cuts. Tax revenues UP. Interest rates LOW. Inflation LOW. Deficit (deficit spending during a recession is absolutely necessary, ask any economist) is shrinking much faster than predicted.
7. 9/11. Barriers put up specfically by the Clinton administration directly contributed to 9/11 and also his refusal to accept Bin Laden when offered contributed to it as well.
8. The cut and run tactic employed after one Ranger died (it was tragic, but it should not have decided policy) and the body dragged through the streets directly contributed to Bin Laden believing we were "easy targets".
9. The recession. The recession began in Clinton's tenure. I have yet to see one liberal own up to that. I have never blamed Clinton for it, because I knew why it happened, but I have seen plenty of liberals claim it was Bush's fault.
10. Just about everything blamed on Bush in Fahrenheit 911.

All of this I have mentioned is verified by at least three sources. Can you say the same for your information?

I could go on and on. I heard what I said about Nicaragua directly through a person who was a Nicraguan in exile. I lived through the Iran-Contra hearings and it was a pathetic sham perpetrated on us by the Democrats. I bet you were proud of the unsolicited attacks by the Democrats and their hired guns on President Reagan.

So, when talking about ignorance, please don't direct your comments at me. Or I may feel the need to say, "Physcian, heal thyself".
The main reason for the economy tanking was the dot com bust. The dot com market was overinflated and it had nothing to do with any president at all (even though for some reason they get blamed for it). Even if it had been during Clinton's tenure, they would have blamed HW Bush, because his was right before.
True. Tohugh, if you listened to some of the liberals I have spoken to lately, it was Bush's fault.

I have a photshop picture of Hillary doing the weather and she is pointing at a huge screen of the U.S. and the weather there. A huge "Bush's Fault" is pread over the U.S. That sums up the Democrat argument pretty well right there. Hence why I always say "Bush caused Pangaea to break apart".
W.F. asked me why we liberals don't own up to "mistakes that YOU, the liberals, are responsible for?"

I'd just point out, in regards to her list, that liberals weren't and haven't been in charge. The Democrats who've been in office have been moderate ones. Clinton signed NAFTA, despite opposition from progressives (my preferred self-label). JFK was responsible for the Bay of Pigs and continuing the Cold War, despite opposition from progressives. Ditto for LBJ and Viet Nam. These people were NOT progressives. Yes, they were more liberal than you, but that doesn't make them progressive or liberal in fact.

What non-violent resistor has ever been in a lead position? What true progressive? We've had none.

So don't say that "our" way didn't work. "Our" way hasn't been tried.

And I'd suggest that basing your position on Nicaragua on the views of ONE Nicaraguan is pretty limited info. You didn't answer my query about the World Court opinion against the US so I'll say it again - WE WERE CHARGED WITH WAR CRIMES. WE WERE CONVICTED OF WAR CRIMES! Will you just ignore that as Bush I did? We have no credibility until we own up to our mistakes.

Where's your integrity? Your truth? Your honor?

You say all your "points" are backed by three sources. There are plenty of other sources that take issue with your points. I'm talking about Truth here, not your neo-con talking points.

And I'll say it again as you apparently didn't see it in my previous post - the US has a lot in its favor. Our ideals are outstanding. I just want to see us live up to those ideals. I want conservatives living up to THEIR ideals. How about a little personal responsibility? How about integrity and honesty? Compassion? Those are all Conservative Ideals as well as Progressive ones. Let's live up to them, shall we?
The world court is a joke. And I am quite fine with my integrity and honor, thank you very much. Every one who knows me knows that I am as honorable and full of integrity as anyone they have met. I stand for those things, so don't be trying to make it out because I don't believe Michael Moore and his ilk like I have none. Where is YOUR integrity, truth, and honor?

I am talking the Truth here, too, too bad you have yet to make an aquaintance with it.

Conservatives live up to their ideals every day. Liberals, too. The bad thing is that the Liberals ideals are damaged goods. What happens when a liberal runs a campaign on their ideals? They get waxed at the polls, like in 2004.

So, then the liberals run to the center to make them more palatable. Maybe you should ask your questions of liberals. Conservatives know who they are and they run on it every election and get elected on it every election. Liberals have to play word games and "remake themselves" to get elected. Why do you think Hillary has been taking a hawkish stance or been talking like a conservative? Because she knows she would never get a chance if she ran as what she truly stands for.
You've not answered my question about our War Crime Conviction, except to say that the world court is a joke. Does that mean you think that we DIDN'T mine the harbor as charged? That we didn't commit war crimes?

Or are you saying that we are above being charged because we're the Big Dogs?

People who put themselves above the law do not have integrity, despite your claims to the contrary.

It's not a matter of opinion. Either we did or we didn't mine the harbor. If we did, then that is a War Crime. We can't just go around blowing up stuff cause we want to. That is the stuff of terrorists and that is what I'm talking about when I say I want to see the US live up to her wonderful ideals.

My integrity is linked to wanting to see the Truth honored and wanting us to live by the law. You disagree?
Looking for information and found it at this great site... » » »
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?