« Myths of Iraq by Ralph Peters | Main | David Ignatius in Iraq »
March 18, 2006
Code Pink at it Again
From their latest on-line petition
We, the women of the United States, Iraq and women worldwide, have had enough of the senseless war in Iraq and the cruel attacks on civilians around the world. We've buried too many of our loved ones. We've seen too many lives crippled forever by physical and mental wounds. We've watched in horror as our precious resources are poured into war while our families' basic needs of food, shelter, education and healthcare go unmet. We've had enough of living in constant fear of violence and seeing the growing cancer of hatred and intolerance seep into our homes and communities.
(If you want the root URL, start here and select "Sign the Call Now". Also hat tip to Freedom Watch for finding the petition)
Uh, wait a second. So their objection to the war in Iraq is financial? That we're spending money there that we oh-so-desperately need here at home in the world's richest nation?
"...our families' basic needs...go unmet"
Basic needs? The federal budget this year will be over 2 trillion dollars, with less than 400 billion of that on defense. This doesn't even count spending by states and localities. And we still can't meet our "basic needs"?
The reality, of course, is that OIF has cost much less than most American wars, once one adjusts for inflation.
Also, aren't liberals the ones who are always telling us that we need to spend more on foreign aid?
For the record, I'm in favor of foreign aid, if it is done right. If we can pull this off (and I think we can), then our investment in Iraq will pay dividends for decades if not centuries to come. Stay tuned for a coming post on this subject.
Christopher Hitchens had something to say about this during the last presidential campaign
A few years ago, many of the same liberals and leftists were quoting improbable if not impossible numbers of dead Iraqi children, murdered by the international sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein. Even at its most propagandistic, this contained an important moral point: Iraqi civilians were suffering for the sins of their dictatorship (and from the lavish corruption of the U.N. supervision of the "oil-for-food" program). OK, then, we'll remove the regime and lift the sanctions. Happy now? Not at all! It turns out that 1) the Saddam regime was only a threat invented by neo-cons and that 2) we don't owe the Iraqi people a thing. Also, we could use the money ourselves.This would mean that all the protest about dead and malnourished Iraqi infants was all for show. Surely that can't be right?
Afraid so, Hitch.
He continued
Whatever you think about the twists and turns of U.S. policy toward Baghdad in the last three decades, there can be no doubt of any kind that we have collectively incurred a huge responsibility there, much of it political but a good deal of it purely humanitarian. To demand that American funds be cut off or diverted, just as the country is fighting to rebuild and struggling toward a form of elections, is unconscionable from any standpoint.
"Unconsionable" pretty much sums up Code Pink. You can read all about them on David Horowitz database of leftist groups here. I exposed them (again) here last week. And just click on "Rallys and Protests" at right to read all about their fake vigils in front of Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC.
But Wait, There's More
What does Code Pink want? Here are their first three demands
- The withdrawal of all foreign troops and foreign fighters from Iraq;- Negotiations to reincorporate disenfranchised Iraqis into all aspects of Iraqi society;
- The full representation of women in the peacemaking process and a commitment to women's full equality in the post-war Iraq;
Oh, my head is spinning.
Do these useful idiots not realize that if they got their way on the first the second two would not take place? No, they don't. These people actually think that if we left Iraq the insurgency would die by itself, that the only thing that keeps it going is the presense of foreign troops.
This, however, is not the case. To be sure, the presence of American troops provide propaganda value for recruiting and a rally cry.
But as General John Abizaid, CENTCOM commander, said in his statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 14 2006, the enemy in Iraq is made up of three groups, each of which would continue to fight whether we were there or not
Iraqi insurgents are predominantly Sunni Arab and consist of three major elements: Iraqi rejectionists, Saddamists, and terrorists and foreign fighters. These groups operate primarily in four of Iraq’s eighteen provinces, where they receive varying levels of support from the Sunni population but are certainly not supported by all Sunni Arabs. Indeed, Sunni Arabs participate in all governmental activities and constitute a large number of Iraq’s security forces. These different insurgent groups have varying motivations but are unified in their opposition to U.S. and Coalition presence and their refusal to accept the authority of the legitimate, democratically-elected government of Iraq. While deadly and disruptive, the insurgency is also attractive to numbers of unemployed Iraqi young men and criminals.
The Iraqi rejectionists, mostly Sunni Arabs who want a return to their privileged status under Saddam, form the largest insurgent group. Their leadership is fragmented. They view themselves as an “honorable resistance” seeking to oust foreign occupation forces and unwilling to recognize the new-found power of groups previously excluded from political and economic life.
The Saddamists are mostly former senior officials from Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. Their numbers are smaller than the Iraqi rejectionists. They seek a return to power by trying to de-legitimize and undermine the new Iraqi government through a campaign of mass intimidation against the Sunni population. They also conduct stand-off attacks with improvised explosive devices (IEDs), rockets, and mortars against U.S. and Coalition forces, Iraqi security forces, and government officials in an attempt to demoralize these groups. They exploit criminal elements to assist them with these attacks. The Saddamists lack broad popular support, but they harbor long-term designs to try to infiltrate and subvert the newly-elected government from within.
The terrorists and foreign fighters are the smallest but most lethal group. The al Qaida in Iraq (AQI) network, led by the terrorist Zarqawi, is the dominant threat within this group. AQI’s objective is to create chaos in Iraq by inciting civil war between Sunni and Shia through terrorist acts such as the recent bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. Such mayhem, they believe, will topple the elected government of Iraq and drive Coalition forces from the country. This could enable AQI to establish safe havens for Islamic extremism within Iraq from which to launch terrorist attacks against other moderate regimes in the region. Zarqawi has pledged his allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and the goals of AQI support bin Ladin’s broader objective of establishing a Caliphate throughout the Middle East.
One may make the argument that none of these groups would exist if we hadn't invaded. This is only partly true, as the first two would be running the country, and as we all know now were partially in league with last. We went into Iraq for sound reasons, but that's not the point of this post.
None of the above three groups would support either the reincorporation of "disenfranchised Iraqis into all aspects of Iraqi society" or women's equality.
Code Pink ends their petiton by calling on
...world leaders to join us in spreading the fundamental values of love for the human family and for our precious planet.
Doll at Freedom Watch says it best: "The only fundamental values these morons seem to be spreading is their hate of George Bush and the War on Terror."
Ditto that.
Posted by Tom at March 18, 2006 3:25 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/613
Comments
The sooner people wise up and realize we are fighting a war on terror because of the terrorists the safer our country will be. PINCO et al continue to put our country at risk with this sort of rehetoric.
The left would like to justify this by using Section 8 of the Constitution but that is ridiculous. Article II is extremely clear. We are not just speaking of discent here, but possible treason and insurrection.
The on-line petition is pure proof of this truth.
Posted by: Doll at March 18, 2006 5:19 PM
Excuse my typos I am sick today and really should just be in bed nursing this cold.
Posted by: Doll at March 18, 2006 5:20 PM
If their families' basic needs are not being met, maybe they should stay at home and take care of them rather then spending so much time, money and effort with the Pinko drivel.
Posted by: Anna at March 18, 2006 10:19 PM
Tom,
Could you imagine Americans in World War II saying, "We had better get out of this war with Japan and Nazi Germany so we can spend this money on education, child care, health care and sensitivity training."
Thank goodness the greatest generation didn't buy that nonsense.
Posted by: Mark at March 18, 2006 10:40 PM
OK ... maybe it's just me ... but if these wackos are concerned that their families' needs are going unmet ... shouldn't they go back home and take care of those very needs? Shouldn't they go back to being mommies and quit playing at politics? And shouldn't they quit expecting the *government* to take care of their families' needs?
Give me a break! Those women are an insult to my gender!
Posted by: Diane at March 19, 2006 7:55 PM



