Politico's Martin: "Is Code Pink to the left what the Westboro Baptist Church is to the right?"
In a September 10 blog entry, Politico senior political writer Jonathan Martin compared the anti-war group Code Pink: Women for Peace to the "virulently homophobic" Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), asking: "Is Code Pink to the left what the Westboro Baptist Church is to the right?" According to Martin, the groups are comparable because of their "bizarre tactics" that are "so self-defeating as to give credence to conspiracy theories that they're not what they seem."
As Media Matters for America has noted, members of the WBC, based out of Topeka, Kansas, have gained notoriety for protesting the funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming that their deaths are inflicted by God to punish the United States for accepting the "sin" of homosexuality, and carrying signs reading "God Hates Fags." The WBC has been classified a "general hate" group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Martin's blog entry was subsequently highlighted in Politico chief political correspondent Mike Allen's September 11 "Politico Playbook."
From Martin's September 10 blog entry:
Is Code Pink to the left what the Westboro Baptist Church is to the right?
While the anti-war group and the anti-gay church denomination could not have more different politics, the bizarre tactics that both use seem so self-defeating as to give credence to conspiracy theories that they're not what they seem.
The Topeka-based church, of course, is best known for attending the funerals of U.S. soliders [sic] with signs asserting that God is incurring His wrath upon America because of the country's tolerance for homosexuality. "God hates Fags" is a perennial favorite among Westboro's subtle sign-wavers.
But just as the church would seem to be an outlandish and extreme caricature of how some on the far left view the the far right, the Code Pink protestors almost seem to be a parody of a liberal protest group.
To show up and unfurl signs that read "Generals Lie Soldiers Die" outside the House offices where Gen. David Petraeus is testifying today and have a guy prancing around Independence Ave in a W-as-devil mask holding a sign that reads "I've got Petraeus by the soul?"
Karl Rove, Lee Atwater and Donald Segretti couldn't put their heads together and come up with such a dream scenario.
Oh, and that doesn't even include their standing up and repeatedly screaming during Petraeus's testimony.
More than a few Democrats probably said to themselves what House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton whispered to Ranking Member Duncan Hunter before a hot mic as yet another of the protestors was dragged out. "That really pisses me off, Duncan," Skelton complained. "Those assholes."
From Allen's September 11 "Politico Playbook":
The Politico's Jonathan Martin wrote about why the MoveOn.org ad, which was mentioned by nearly every Republican who questioned Petraeus and Crocker yesterday, appears to have had an unintended effect:
"For the GOP, the ad was a helpful reminder that, despite all the bad news of late, they still have friends on the left that are always glad to help them squeeze the Dems in the middle. Polls show Americans are skeptical of the Petraeus report and the surge policy, but attacking a decorated general is the sort of tactic that, in the words of Jesse Jackson, allows many Republicans to Keep Hope Alive for '08."
JoMa (that's for you Steel) on Code Pink, the most visible of the ejected demonstrators: "Is Code Pink to the left what the Westboro Baptist Church is to the right? While the anti-war group and the anti-gay church denomination could not have more different politics, the bizarre tactics that both use seem so self-defeating as to give credence to conspiracy theories that they're not what they seem. ... To show up and unfurl signs that read 'outside the House offices where Gen. David Petraeus is testifying today and have a guy prancing around Independence Ave in a 'W-as-devil mask' holding a sign that reads 'I've got Petraeus by the soul?' Karl Rove, Lee Atwater and Donald Segretti couldn't put their heads together and come up with such a dream scenario. Oh, and that doesn't even include their standing up and repeatedly screaming during Petraeus's testimony."
Considering Westborough defines the right, I'd say no. Code pink does not define the left.
Not only does it not define the left, but it is nowhere near the radical hatred espoused by Westboro. To suggest as much is an insult not only to the families whose sons and daughters' deaths have been denigrated by those inbreds as well as to every American who cherishes their right to verbally challenge their government officials.
I agree that the Code Pink protestors are not as bad as the Westboro crowd, they still leave a lot to be desired in terms of how one should present themselves. If dissent is the highest form of patriotism then shouldn't those who dissent be respectable? I don't call Code Pink's seemingly personal vitriole to be within reason or close to respectable.
That's a good point. But I can appreciate the fact that unlike the GOP, we don't have "protest zones" where we cage em up out of sight, out of mind at this hearing.
That is so true.
Now that I think about it, isn't it more apt to compare Code Pink to Hannity or O'Reilly? They basically shout down the audience, sounds apt to me!
Excuse me?...
It seems that you forgot the FREESPEECH ZONES at the Democratic National Convention ... in Boston.
Hypocrisy knows no party.
I must not be privvy to the personal vitriol - can you enlighten me?
Read the story above. Research their vile actions at Walter Reed.
If you will remember in the protests of the Vietnam War, bad publicity caused the message to get lost. Those who conducted themselves in a civil manner were able to get more done. Look at John Kerry's testimony before Congress and compare that to the 68' convention riots. Which do you remember as being more persuasive to the public to end the war?
I don't know much about Code Red. I'll have to look into the WR incident.
I agree about the Vietnam War protests Chris. I think the street theater aspects of the demonstrations back then turned off many who might have joined the peace movement sooner. The media focused on the people who made the most startling images for the TV screens.
I think what eventually turned the tide in the nation was when mothers, fathers, grand parents, Vets and respectful people took to the streets to say that the war should end.
I'm hoping that more of what passes for the normal people will step up and say that this war should end before history repeats itself with freaks and anarchists in the streets.
Not that there's anything wrong with the freaks. I was one myself for awhile.
I don't know much about Code Pink either.
I read the article, and didn't consider a W-Devil mask "personal vitriol" although I will agree that those antics aren't persuasive. I'll have to look into Walter Reed, I hadn't heard of anything in that regard.
'68: Wasn't there then. I only have what I've read to go off of, and that's not the same as being there.
I'd say you got that exactly opposite.
He's unfortunately correct about Code Pink, although not about Westboro. The left should be taking lessons from those women.
Well, when I think of the right, I think about commentators like Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity, Beck, Savage and Maulkin, I think about hate groups like the KKK and neo nazi's, and I think about preachers like Robertson, Falwell, and this Westborough group. And I think about their loyal minions who approve of their speech. How could Westborough not define the right unless you are telling me I left someone out?
You cannot honestly place the KKK and WBC in the same category. That is simply unfair. Their actions are not similar.
Oh yeah, the KKK just loves homosexuals.
I base that comparison on the common denominator, which is hate. Splitting hairs on who they hate is valid if you are comparing exactly what they do, but the common themes are hate, exclusion and a failed sense of superiority over their fellow man.
I apologize, I don't think I communicated very well. I was trying to say that I don't think it's fair to place the KKK and WBC in the same category with conservative figures. Those two groups are in a class of their own. I don't care which side of the fence they claim to be on, their actions are simply inappropriate and intolerable to me.
That's OK, I'm not being as clear as I wanted to either. I don't see the right as conservative anymore. While they like keeping their money and want to drown government in a bathtub, they don't embrace the more conservative values of legitimate oversight of business, they certainly don't support the constitution if it gets in their way, and their goals are definitely steeped in selfish concerns vs. the nation as a whole.
Fair enough. My apologies as well.
I have to agree. Conservatives do not protest and mock the funerals of dead soldiers.
But then again, what "liberal" group engages in something so despicable?
Westboro no more "defines" the right than ELF and ALF define the left. Westboro is right-wing, no doubt, but to single it out as defining anything aside from, say, fundamentalism gone awry, is so disengenuous to border on an outright lie.
Of course you would!
I was actually expecting you to claim Westborough is a leftist org because it's leader claims to be a democrat, but I'm glad you agree that he's a righty after all!
Actually, I could care less where either of these extremist fringe organizations hang their ideological hat.
I agree Tommy. I'm not sure either group falls along a political continuum. Neither group has political motives, only evil ones.
Although I do disagree with how Code Pink presents themselves as well as conducts themselves, I fail to see how they have EVIL intentions.
Pardon, evil may not be the best word to use here.
Ok, enlighten us.
Exactly how are the political motives of Code Pink evil?
I don't see either group making efforts to endorse what they believe in by way of informing people of their beliefs other than through extreme and cold efforts. They yell, hold signs that are offensive, wear ridiculous outfits into a congressional hearing, act inappropriately, and are both immature. If they were to go about expressing themselves in a civil manner and dialoguing, they would sit better with me. I still wouldn't agree with either of them, but at least I could respect the manner in which they expressed themselves. To me, they are both very selfish groups, and to me that is evil. They lack consideration for other people.
Why not just call them selfish instead of evil? Evil is an incredibly loaded word.
Well put BLR.
What a surprise! An incomprehensible argument. Though if someone could interpet I might be able to keep up.
Considering Westborough defines the right...
Only in your misguided mind.
Dave, insulting so early?
That's not an insult. That's my opinion of your post. I think you are misguided. Notice I didn't include get a brain cell, higher brain function, moron, etc. Those would be insults.
Yes they would though they could also be described as my opinion of anyone that would make a specific post so being an opinion doesnt mean it is not an insult. Having said THAT I pretty much agree its in no way fair to say the right can be tarred with WBC brush. THEY are far out there bigots and the right is not responsible for them nor defined by them
Thanks for the defense in general Solon. I have to disagree with you though. I get the impression that everyone discussing against the right comparison is interchanging "right wing" with "right wing christian". Are there right wing christian extremists in the right wing? Of course! But there are also neo nazi's, the KKK, WBC, and several other groups that persue goals of marginalizing some segment of society. These people aren't right wing conservatives, but make up most of that 28% that will never be convinced otherwise as they hum happily along to the tunes of Coulter, Maulkin, Rush and O'Reilly.
This makes me exceptionally angry. Out of those that were removed from the hearing before 5pm yesterday, many were code pink, and some were iraq war veterans who oppose the war. The veterans would shout for the committees to swear in the witnesses - allowing, of course, for a perjury charge if either of them were found to be outright lying. The code pink women were removed for various reasons - some for holding up signs, one stood up and shouted that Patraeus was lying (I think this is when he was showing the "progress" charts), and the entire group of them were removed en masse (even those who had not caused a disturbance) when the chairman got exasperated.
I listened to the half-truths, I listened to our representatives dance around important clarifications and facts, I listened to the self-serving back-slapping, and had to wonder - how in god's name does the voice of the people get heard when simply wearing a color of interest in a house of government can get you removed, when politicians only allow you to speak openly in segregated, fenced-in "free speech" cattle zones, when the representatives, by and large, spend valuable time taking digs at the other party instead of getting to the heart of the matter?
Those who risk their freedom by using their freedom - these veterans and women in pink - do what I do not dare. They value the Truth and demand it from our government, and are incarcerated because our politicians get uncomfortable when we demand anything from them, especially accountability. The worst is this:
""That really pisses me off, Duncan," Skelton complained. "Those assholes.""
Assuming this is true - and I did not hear it - this is the worst of all. These politicians sincerely seem to believe it is our collective job as the citizenry of the republic to sit down, shut up, pay our taxes, and deal with what our betters decide for us. We have a right to speak, and if the voices will be drowned out elsewhere, I hope more of them come to light where these poor, abused politicians find less appropriate.
Man, you just got my vote for post of the day.
The behavior of our elected officials and our media really pisses me off. Those assholes!
Great post BLR.
If you can't conduct yourself in a respectable manner in the Capitol Building during an important hearing I would tend to think those folks have no manners. There is a respectable way to dissent. These folks haven't showed it. For example, take a look at how they conducted themselves at Walter Reed. Pitiful!!! as a veteran I find their actions repulsive. I don't have a problem with their intentions but their actions speak much louder than their words. I tend to think that people on a whole would lose sight of Code Pinks message because they can't seem to conduct themselves apropriately for the occasion. What more can I say?
Well said, AChris.
well said, I couldn't agree more. Once members of a group get loud and boisterous, it only follows that the group as a whole will be stereotyped. Unfortunately, that is what is really wrong, a few bad apples spoiling it for the whole bunch. Groups should actively seek to eliminate the bad seeds so as not to let them be defined by them because the unthinking masses sure ain't gonna do a little homework and seperate fact from fiction now, are they?
"I would tend to think those folks have no manners."
If years of exceptionally poor behavior from our government officials is then covered up by a media that refuses to report dissent on any meaningful level, and a government that shuts down protest and dissent at every permissable level possible, what are the options left? At some point, the dissenting populace must make its voice heard and know that their voices are reaching the ears of their representatives. Protesting in a hearing - especially at the level seen yesterday (some protestors were at Gonzales' hearings, but not nearly as many) - is a breaking point for people who have found NO other way to ensure that their voices are recognized. The alternative is to write letters and sit in free speech cattle cages and hope someone somewhere is listening. At some point, that process is realized for the BS that it is.
Where has the government shut down protests and dissent at every permissible level?
To me, this is when the government shut down dissent at permissible levels:
When the government arrested those two people for wearing anti-Bush shirts and would not let them be around the President. When the President is only taking questions from pre-screened, "safe" audiences.
So, when the President doesn't take questions from non-screened audiences, that is tantamount to the govt. shutting down dissent and protest?
Ahhh, ok.......
Do you think the exclusion and arrest of people wearing anti-Bush t-shirts who did not cause a disturbance is stifiling dissent?? I certainly think that when Bush (or any President) visits my town for a "town hall" meeting, I should not be excluded because I disagree.
To me, that is stifiling dissent, what would you call it?
Also:
When the government actively keeps the press from being able to ask questions (check out Boehlert's column today)When the government tells citizens that their freedom of speech must be restricted to out-of-the way public areas, where their politicians can neither see nor hear them
Why not read the manual, Tommy.
[link to en.wikinews.org]
So, you agree with the above poster that govt. is shutting down protest and dissent at every permissible level?
Would you agree that the government is stifiling dissent at some levels?
That is not what the poster said, what he did say was every level, which is what I asked for clarification.
Fair enough, but you didn't answer my question either ;).
I believe there have been examples of that throughout history, and there probably always will be.......but that was not what I took issue with at all. It was the blanket statement that was false.
Fair enough. I hope you joined me in writing Congresspeople after those two in the objectionable t-shirts were arrested.
I actually said "every permissable level possible," and I stand by that. You seem to be reading something akin to "every possible level," and have yet to note why or how you disagree.
There are ways an American government can stifle and even prosecute simple freedom of speech without causing enough of a stir to spawn a constitutional legal crisis. This is happening, and you have been given examples of it.
You said every permissible level possible. That means there is no permissible level possible, does it not?
"That means there is no permissible level possible, does it not?"
No. Please stop being so combatitive when the real issue is your lack of reading comprehension.
"every permissable level possible" implies there are levels that are not permissable for the government to stifle dissent, and this is true. This administration is taking advantage of every opportunity it can to stifle dissent, and is staying away from actions that are so extreme that they would cause an unwanted lack of attention - legal or otherwise.
What? There have always been permissable and non-permissable levels of dissent, you specifically said every level possible. If you want to amend your implication now, I am all for it. Thank you.
Plus, you also mention what options are left? Implying, most definitely, that the govt. has in essence shut down all levels of dissent and protest.
Which is ridiculous.
That is not what I said. The original post is there for your reference, if you'd like to read it again.
This argument is over - I refuse to continue debating when you refuse to acknowledge (1) what was actually written or (2) that you are arguing a point that was never made. I cannot be held responsible for your intellectual dishonesty or lack of reading skills.
Whatever, you made a blanket statement basically stating the govt. is trying to shut down every permissable level possible for citizens to protest. And now you move the goal posts, change what you implied, parse the meaning of words, and feebly wiggle your way out - all because you couldn't back up such a silly assertion.
Instead of just saying you overstated it, you refuse to.......and then accuse me of reading comprehension problems and being dishonest, when they were your words to begin with.
Have a nice day.
I'm not saying that, but I am saying that dissent is definitely being stifled in this country.
It's being done overtly and also through intimidation. The right's trick of painting anyone who dissents as a terrorist sympathizer, appeaser, traitor or fill in the blank had done more to limit dissent than anything in my lifetime.
That was what the poster said, which was I responded too. Why take issue with me, and not the poster's assessment then?
From what I've seen over the last several years, the administration has tried to use every PERMISSIBLE way to limit free speech.
Holding pens, manuals for presidential appearances, etc. don't belong in a free and open society.
Hmm. Because I see protesters on the streets of LA all the time holding up anti-war, virulent anti-Bush signs, and they are PERMITTED to do it all day long. They have not been shut down by anyone. Just one example.
So, every permissable level possible is hyperbole, and wholly inaccurate. But if it bothers nobody else here, it's all good.
You're just being obtuse again. Its just a matter as to whether or not its intentional on your part. My guess is that its not intentional.
Unless you can show me where those demonstrators were hauled off to jail, then you're post is nothing but trollish, and ridiculous.
Just as I thought, unintentional.
OK, I'll grant you that the government isn't limiting free speech in every permissible way.
I'm pretty sure that BLR was trying to make a point about how the administration has tried MANY ways to limit free speech.
They've been very successful. I don't see how anyone could deny this, can you?
Worrier,
I only called him on that specific point, yet I get "you mean you don't think there are ANY limits?"
Any, Many and EVERY are quite different.
Had he phrased it the way you did, there would be no issue. Don't blame me.
I'm not blaming you.
I'm trying to see if you believe that dissent has been limited to a degree by this administration and if you think it is, does that sit right with you?
If dissent has been illegitimately limited under our free speech laws whatsoever, by anyone, they should addressed and handled on a case by case basis and resolved according to the constitution.
I would hope everyone would agree on that.
I am pretty unhappy about those Free Speech zones where if you have a pro Bush sign you can stay right on the sidewalk along a route but if you have an anti Bush sign you are trundled half mile away to a free speech zone where you wont be seen. THAT happened here in Flagstaff when Bush came here. See sill me I thought America WAS a free speech zone
Try LA, the anti Bush, anti war folks are front and center, major intersections, main streets....signs waving. I have no problem with any of them, they are very respectful not to infringe on anyone's space, are not violent, just concerned citizens expressing their rights.
Not the same. Sure they were all over the city THUS getting press and media exposure. What is NOT allowed is protests anywhere near where Bush can see them. Nowhere NEAR speeches or public appearances. That they can get on CAMERA isnt the point that they cant be seen along Bush's route or near where he will speak is outrageous. The Free Speech zone here in Flagstaff was about three MILES away from where he was speaking and not allowed on the route he was travelling.
BLR,
I see your point and I sense your passion about this issue. I can respect that. That being said, frustration is no excuse for poor behavior. There are plenty of respectable ways for those folks at the hearings yesterday to show their dissent and be heard. It happened in the 60's in both the anti-war movement and the civil rights movement. Those guys acted irresponsibility, it showed a lack of repsect and manners. It has been my experience that folks respond better to ideas put forth in a manner which lacks radical hijinks. Like it or not, displays such as those used by Code Pink and Westboro only serve to mask their message behind their actions. That is what people see and they don't hear what is being said. I don't buy for one minute that actions such as those you approve of are necessary because no other means have worked. As I said before history has proven you wrong. In any event, I sympathize with your frustration. I encourage you to find alternate outlets other than those used by Code Pink. I think you will fare better.
I certainly understand the call for propriety - I have to personally wonder what 12' tall street puppets and smashing windows (both of which I've been personally privvy to during protests) have to do with influencing political wranglings. Having said that, I do also believe that if a government is immobile and is deaf to the calls of the people, the people may have to step into impropriety to be heard.
It would be nice if we could avoid that, of course, but some times it's the only thing that will be heard.
Perhaps I shouldn't have assumed you engaged in actions such as Code Pink. I just figured that as one who advocates for such action you would have at some point engaged in them. Broad assumption, my apologies. I can't help to think that your line of thought on this isues is just one step away from advocating violence to be heard.
Somebody has been listening in the country as evidenced by over 70% disapproving of this war. I refuse to believe that Code Pink and their antics have swayed but only a few. How then would you suppose that most Americans do not support this war?
There's really no need to apologize. I've been part in these protests as a relatively quiet participant, and have never personally been comfortable with their more radical elements - they are counter to my personality. I simply recognize their usefulness when traditional routes have been exhausted.
"I can't help to think that your line of thought on this isues is just one step away from advocating violence to be heard."
Your thinking is actually quite correct in that regard. Much as I do not believe the Holy Spirit's last manifestation was in the tongues of fire that visited the Apostles, I also do not believe that this country's last need for physical conflict to restore political order ended with the defeat of the redcoats, or with the end of the civil war. I would really like to see us as a people resolve these difficulties peacefully and reasonably, but there is a point where things come to a head and bloodshed is required to cleanse the streets. I do not believe we are anywhere near that point right now, nor do I think I'd see us come to that during my own lifetime.
I think it was Jefferson who said "a little revolution now and then is a good thing". In a sense I don't disagree with you or Jefferson. As I am truly glad you don't feel that "bloodshed is required" now or in the near future, I would be lying if I didn't say that I am somewhat surprised as to your non chalant manner toward bloodshed. Isn't that kinda of what Bush is accused of? You know, extolling the virtues of war without ever having exprienced it.
Heh. It's not the thing he's criticized for, it's simply one of a very long laundry list - I would not say it's the primary thing he's criticized for.
"You know, extolling the virtues of war without ever having exprienced it."
I would really like to think that if we, as a country ever came to that point within my lifetime that I would participate as my conscience dictates and not remove myself from action out of greed or fear.
I can also see how you would think my approach to this is casual, but it's not. It comes after a long time of considering the issue and coming to that conclusion, and for now I accept this conclusion as truth. I don't worry about it - there is little, if anything, I can effect to cause or prevent such a movement from happening.
Fair enough. I enjoyed our discussion. We disagree, but I feel I have learned from you. Always a good thing. Good luck.
Exactly BLR,
As the shroud of the police state descends onto our heads... We should be polite?
And when that is squashed like a fruit fly... like it has been for many decades... then what?
I dont know what you mean about Walter Reed. I remember a protest they had there a couple of years ago. In THAT protest they were attacking BUSH trying to cut vetrens benifits and vetrens health benifits. NOT the vetrans. That was CLEAR by their signs and what they were saying. It got smeared by the right as protesting Vets but it wasnt. Now sometimes they protest in ways that make me queasy and if they did something else at Walter Reed I dont know about it. But two the only protest I KNOW about at Walter Reed by them was righteous and subsequent exposure of the poor conditions there bear them out.
The protesters hold signs that read "Maimed for a Lie" and "Enlist here to die for Halliburton."
Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.
... One anti-war protester, who would only identify himself as "Luke," told Cybercast News Service that "the price of George Bush's foreign policy can be seen right here at Walter Reed -- young men who returned from Iraq with their bodies shattered after George Bush sent them to war for a lie."Luke accused President Bush of "exploiting American soldiers" while "oppressing the other nations of earth." The president "has killed far too many people," he added.On Aug. 19, as the anti-war protesters chanted slogans such as "George Bush kills American soldiers,"...
...But the anti-war activists were unapologetic when asked whether they considered such signs as "Maimed for a Lie" offensive to wounded war veterans and their families.
"[The anti-war protesters] have no business here. If they want to protest policy, they should be at the Capitol, they should be at the White House," said Nina Burke. "The only reason for being here is to talk to [the] wounded and [anti-war protests are] just completely inappropriate." Albion Wilde concurred, arguing that "it's very easy to pick on the families of the wounded. They are very vulnerable ... I feel disgusted."[The anti-war protesters] are really showing an enormous lack of respect for just everything that America has always stood for. They lost the election and now they are really, really angry and so they are picking on the wrong people," Wilde added.
There's more...
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200508%5CSPE20050825a.htmlI am not going to CNS, nor Freetoilet, nor the other BS sites you offer. Give a reasonable source if you expect us to believe you. IF they were using the protest in that way its tasteless. No where NEAR the level of protesting at a funeral and saying they deserve to die like WBC. Still tasteless. ALBION doesnt get to say where people should protest, and Walter Reed IS the right place to protest cuts in vetrens benifits and THAT was the point of the protest even IF some of those who showed up didnt stick to that like you and I think they should have. We dont get to make that call. Even still they were attacking BUSH not the vets. It might hurt their feelings to say they were killed for a lie. It is not AIMED at them THAT isnt the point like WBC protesting funerals saying they DESERVED to die.
What they did was deplorable sir. They had flag draped coffins, came on the busiest visiting day, and were saying things like maimed for lies. Like it or not no veteran recuperating from war wounds wants to see or hear that sh#t. It was inappropriate and lacked respect for brave men who just returned home from being nearly killed. Period.
I agree those few examples are inappropriate. Still you are talking about the whole group and the protest was NOT to attack the soldiers rather to expose the attempted cuts in benifits.
O.K. then why not go to the Veterans Administration building. I doubt anyone at Walter Reed proposed the cuts that were in question. The reality is that I have no issue with the content of the demonstration. Walter Reed was not an appropriate place no matter what. It happened and I firmly believe that any young soldier recovering and learning to live with the fact that he is not whole any longer does not need protesters around to remind him of turmoil. I have seen first hand the shock and complete desolation one feels at these times. Seeing or hearing this crap helps noone, especially those who are wounded. The folks who did this have no decency.
I disagree. THAT is where those who would be victims of those cuts WERE. You act like the inappropriate signs were all that were there. It is a vigil. Many of the signs, most of the ones I saw were saying things like UP vetrens benifits, fund wounded not war, and REAL support= Higer benifits. THOSE were the point Code Pink was trying to make and I think soldiers seeing signs like that would be elated to see that people care. I am with you criticising those who took the vigil in another direction. That wasnt the POINT and I dont think Code Pink as a whole should be attacked for what were good intentions.
If they allowed people to have political signs in their vigil they lack respect on the same level as those who carried the signs I am referring to. What do they hope to accomplish by standing in front of Walter Reed anyway? The last thing those guys are is elated at that time. I applaud the intention of protesting for better veterans benefits, but come on. They should take their vigil to Congress and the Veterans Administration. They are making no difference at the hospital except getting bad press which takes away from their message. Now that I think about it, not only is it disrespectful but quite frankly it is non productive to their goals.
We disagree about that. I think WR WAS the right place to make that point. And I also think it is a good thing they see a vigil demanding they be taken care of better. Even been on the inside of a large political event? I have, you plan, you talk about what the message is, you tell everyone what NOT to do. You then show up and several other people not involved also show up and use the publicity to push THEIR agenda and there really isnt anything you can do about it. You can ASK them to go away but if they dont want to there isnt anything you can do about it. Now I dont know whether that is what happened here. I also dont know if Pink disassociated themselves from the inappropriate signs, I think they should have but WR was EXACTLY where such a vigil should take place since THAT is where the effects of what they were talking about were most clearly defined
We'll just have to respectively disagree here. I believe that it is downright disrespectful to have crap like "maimed for lies" and "enlist here to die for Haliburton" in front of a hospital in which brave men have lost limbs and sufferred terrible trauma. I can tell you from experience that they dont' want to hear it or see it. How do you think a guy who just lost his legs feels or his family for that matter when he see that kind of crap in front of a sheltered place of recuperation? If you think that is the right place for that kind of stuff, we have a much different view on honor and respect for those guys. I'll tell you this, it sure as hell don't brighten their day and if that is all it does then it is wrong.
Great post. I completly agree. Too often politicians forget THEY WORK FOR US.
Shortly before the interchange between Skelton and Hunter, Skelton had a testy exchange with Dan Burton who was trying to tell him how to handle the protesters. Skelton's comment to Hunter may well have been about Burton -- who had come over and apologized which Skelton appeared to rebuff.
In other words, Skelton may not have been disparaging the protesters at all. His ire may have been directed at Burton who is unquestionably an asshole.
Thanks BLR for speaking truth to much of the nonsense that has preceded.I think that the CODE PINK folks are heroes.
Whoever says the protests in the 60s were ineffective and that the protesters were outrageous is flat full of excrement.I was there for the 68 "police riot" in Chicago,and it was just that--a police riot.The cops were out of control.At Kent State the same thing only far worse.The National Guard killed four innocent students.
I always believed that the Kent State thing was payback for the fall of `69 Peace Moratoriums across the U.S.when hundreds of thousands of peaceful,WELL BEHAVED demonstrators formed outside the Federal Buildings in most large cities in America, and asked for a moratorium on the war.That was the beginning of the end to the Vietnam war.We need to do this again.
This time will be more difficult because our leaders are more ruthless,but with brave people like the Code Pinkers and the Gold Star Moms for Peace,and the Vets for Peace and all others who want this thing to end;WE WILL END IT THIS TIME,AGAIN.
I will be at the march from the Capitol to the White House on the 29th of Sept.,and I support those courageous who are marching this weekend.We`re going to manifest peace no matter how long it takes. Frank Zappa said in a mid-60s satirical song about peaceniks: "...I will love everyone.I will love the cops as they kick the dung out of me on the street...." Now I`m not that evolved,or naive,but I will never forget the feelings I had,autumn 1969 as I stood in the crowd of 20,000 or so silent people in front of the Federal Building on Government Square in Cincinnati.
Maybe I will get the snot kicked out of me.Probably not.No matter what I will know that what I am doing will make a difference. Just before the current war,I was protesting near the University of Cincinnati.I met a Vietnam Vet.I told him,somewhat apologetically,that I had been a war protester because a friend of mine was killed over there.He thanked me for helping to get him home from there sooner.
Anyone who bad mouths peace activists,who tries to put them in the same boat as radical, right wing,wacko evangelists just does not know how it feels to risk getting beat up,arrested,or killed in order to help a soldier come home from an illicit war.I invite them to join us in Washington.
An absurd comparison, of course, but the WBC no more defines the "right" than Code Pink defines the "left." Is there anything to be gained from this kind of spurious mudslinging?
Martin is obviously off his rocker. The amount of traffic he gets is well deserved.
It's a false equivalency whether you like all of Code Pink's tactics or not. They want to end the war.
The church group wants to demonize homosexuality. Very different goals; only Code Pink's goals have merit.
Mary,
Would you also say that those that want to end abortion, through tactics such as bombing clinics, that their goals also have merit?
Ending abortion? Or outlawing it?
The goals of ending abortion and making abortion illegal are very different, and IMO, are equally different in terms of merit.
A military occupation of a foreign country is something that can be ended, abortion is not.
Abortion is something that can be forced underground and into the shadows, a military occupation is not.
Thanks Pete. That is right, another false equivalency, because "ending abortion" is an impossible goal.
Reducing abortions would require a different mind-set; which would include increased educational opportunities, better information, access to birth control, better economic opportunity and so on. This goal requires thought instead of emotion and violence.
By the way, I am not a member of Code Pink and think that some of their tactics are counter-productive; however I share their goal of ending the occupation.
Mary,
You're ideology is showing. Its a fair comparison. The tactics are the same, you just disagree with the message. There's no merit on tactics for either side.
Correction - the tactics would be the same if Code Pink were also protesting the funerals of the war dead and saying they deserved to die for participating in the war. *
* I have been told to look into the "walter reed" incident, so I acknowledge that this may have happened. If it has, the comparison is apt.
I looked into this supposed incident at Walter Reed. There doesn't seem to be anything about it from a non-right-wing source. They were, however, protesting for veterans' benefits, so I don't really get what makes their actions so disgraceful. The Wikipedia article about Code Pink claims that protestors held fake coffins and signs saying "Maimed for lies." Those things might have offended some veterans who still have right-wing sympathies, but disgraceful? Hardly. This incident seems to be tantamount to the claims that soldiers returning from Vietnam were literally spit upon by protestors.
I take exception to your suppostion sir. As a veteran with no right wing sympathies I fear you have no idea of what is offensive in this matter. You don't go to a military hospital on the busiest visiting days, have fake flagged draped coffins on the sidewalks, and chant crap which can be construed by WOUNDED VETERANS as telling them they fought for lies. That is the last thing you want to hear and see when you are recuperating from battle wounds. Furthermore, you must think that once you come home you suddenly forget about what you saw and done. Well you don't. So if you don't see how these CODE PINK idiots were out of line then you need to talk to any combat veteran, liberal or conservative. That demonstration was not done in the proper place nor with any taste or respect, plain and simple.
I'm with you Chris. Walter Reed was not the place to demonstrate. Whichever side anyone is on, they should respect the sacrifice that these people have made.
Take the coffins to the White House or congress or a defense contractor if that's how someone wants to express themselves.
Now if they were demonstrating about conditions at the hospital and how we as a nation treat our veterans, I could see demonstrating at the hospital.
KING,
Protoesting hospital conditions at the hospital would be o.k. if done in respectable manner. I agree. It pains me to think that people think it is o.k. to engage in actions such as those done by CODE PINK. To me it is an inappropriate as protesting war dead at a full honor burial at Arlington.
The difference is that was the POINT of the WBC. Code Pink should have had discipline but that wasnt the POINT of the protest. Rather THAT protest was AIMED at exposing Bush attempting to cut their benefits and health benfits. So I DONT think the two groups are equivalent
I agree totally. They are not equivalent, by no means. I don't think that was BRANSBY"S point though. He saw no particular problem with the protest in question. He even marginalized it by saying that only soldiers with right wing sympathies would have a problem with it. That is ludicrous. I for one feel that if you want to protest cuts in Veterans benefits go to the source. Folks should try to remember that there are combat wounded in those walls, visiting families have to pass by that crap to see their loved ones, and using props such as flag draped coffins and signs saying "maimed for lies" is beyond the pale of respect. That being said, at least they didn't protest war dead or veteran death benefits at Arlington during a funeral. Nonetheless, it lacked taste and I for one wouldn't support Code Pink if they paid me large sums of money to do so after that fiasco.
I take exception to your suppostion sir. As a veteran with no right wing sympathies I fear you have no idea of what is offensive in this matter. You don't go to a military hospital on the busiest visiting days, have fake flagged draped coffins on the sidewalks, and chant crap which can be construed by WOUNDED VETERANS as telling them they fought for lies. That is the last thing you want to hear and see when you are recuperating from battle wounds.
I would submit that you don't speak for all veterans. I say this because I know there are wounded veterans who would agree with those particular protesters that they were fighting for lies. But let's say you're right: maybe they should have been more tactful with their timing, or maybe they shouldn't have protested outside the hospital itself. That isn't really my point. Code Pink is not analogous to the WBC.
Furthermore, you must think that once you come home you suddenly forget about what you saw and done. Well you don't.
When did I ever say anything that had any resemblance to "veterans suddenly forget what they saw and did"? Why would you think that I believe this?
So if you don't see how these CODE PINK idiots were out of line then you need to talk to any combat veteran, liberal or conservative. That demonstration was not done in the proper place nor with any taste or respect, plain and simple.
The protest was done for the veterans sake. The purpose was to secure greater veterans' benefits. You can't paint the entire Code Pink group with the same brush as the particular protesters holding up signs you think were offensive that day.
That being said, I think those particular sign-holders were only out of line for bringing the separate issue of the Iraq War to a protest in favor of veterans' benefits. But as far as offending certain veterans is concerned, it is still a free country and those protesters should be allowed to say whatever they want. Even offensive things.
I never indicated that the people shouldn't be allowed to hold their protest, nor at any time did I indicate that Code Pink was on a level with WBC. Now that you clarify your statements to show your disdain for those who made this "vigil" a political protest it seems we are in agreement. My statements and beliefs come from experience with these matters sir. I have been in military hospitals recovering from wounds. I know that most if not all of the guys I was with would not have had any elation for such crap outside their hospital. I also know, that Walter Reed is place of recovery for soldiers, most of whom are recovering from serious wounds. I fail to see how holding a vigil or protesting policy issues outside of such a place is o.k. It lacks taste and respect. I am not saying they shouldn't be allowed to be there, but if they had any decency they would take it to the capitol, white house, or veterans administration. By the way, how many wounded veterans do you know? I knew plenty and I can tell you this sh#t ain't kosher with most I know.
I never indicated that the people shouldn't be allowed to hold their protest, nor at any time did I indicate that Code Pink was on a level with WBC.
You did call Code Pink's actions "pitiful" and "repulsive," adjectives I would reserve for groups like the WBC. I take issue with that description. I may have exaggerated by suggesting that you wish to stifle free speech.
Now that you clarify your statements to show your disdain for those who made this "vigil" a political protest it seems we are in agreement.
No, because I don't "disdain" those who brought the war into a veterans' benefits protest. I think they were wrong on that particular day.
My statements and beliefs come from experience with these matters sir. I have been in military hospitals recovering from wounds. I know that most if not all of the guys I was with would not have had any elation for such crap outside their hospital. I also know, that Walter Reed is place of recovery for soldiers, most of whom are recovering from serious wounds. I fail to see how holding a vigil or protesting policy issues outside of such a place is o.k. It lacks taste and respect. I am not saying they shouldn't be allowed to be there, but if they had any decency they would take it to the capitol, white house, or veterans administration. By the way, how many wounded veterans do you know? I knew plenty and I can tell you this sh#t ain't kosher with most I know.
All I know is that veterans' opinions run the gamut from liberal to conservative. The only veteran I know personally, unwounded, is my cousin, who since returning from Iraq has adamantly opposed the war and agrees that it was based on lies and that it has been a failure. I think it would be fine, but ineffective, to stage a war protest outside of a veterans hospital. It's completely appropriate for what Code Pink was doing. Let me ask you, why do you feel it is disrespectful to have a war protest outside of Walter Reed? I think it's ineffective because most think like you do. It would be disrespectful if they accused the soldiers of being baby killers or failures, but not by saying that they were fighting for lies. It makes sense that one would have a protest there, however, to showcase the cost of war and personalize for each observer the damage done.
I'm confused here, why were they wrong on that particular day and not any other day? Seems to me that if you think no less of such protests than those of a vigil for better veterans benefits then why would the day it is done matter.
In any event, I'll tell you why I think it is wrong to stage a war protest in front of a military hospital such as the one in question. To me it is wholly inappropriate for a young man who may have just lost both legs, who is likely suffering from depression, not to mention the pain and realization that his whole life is different, to look out his window of his hospital and see folks carrying signs that say "maimed for lies". Now, if you think that is appropriate we obviously have a differnet view on respect for a brave young man wounded in battle. Perhaps you would feel different if you were wounded and during your recovery you had to see that crap. If it does not help the soldiers it is not needed. I fail to see how in any way a war protest in front of a hospital for wounded vets helps the soldiers or helps end the war. Speaking in practicality, if it does more harm than good, which I can attest that it does, then it is inappropriate. Tell me how reminding these guys that they are wounded for lies helps them. they should be able to come to such a realization on their own in their own time. They should be able to look out their window and see cars, trees, etc and not reminders of their tragedy. Their families should be able to come visit without seeing such drivel. Now if you think it is o.k. then I suggest you march on down to Walter Reed and let those guys know you protest this war. Ask yourself this; Would you protest the war in front of a veterans hospital housing critically wounded vets?
Bransby,
Why do you think there is nothing said from the left about the Walter Reed protests? Would it be they are trying to ignore this contemptible and disgraceful protests?
I remember very well seeing those protesters on Network TV.
It was shameful and cowardly to protest in front of wounded people who have suffered so much. It was completely out of line and only caused more hurt to those at the hospital and to their families.
YOU would love there to be no protests of Bush trying to cut vetren benifits but tough. Code Pink thought it ought to have been protested and Walter Reed was the right place to do it. I have no problem with complaints about the coffins in that venue but that WASNT the point of the VIGIL not described as a protest was exactly that as you can see by the signs held and THEIR STATED purpose. It is NOT disgraceful to show what a callous jerk Bush is. Your Bush idolotry is showing again.
http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?id=476
They can call it a VIGIL if they like. If they had signs making political statements then it was a protest.
And you can call it what YOU want if THEY say it is a vigil they show up every week and burn candles they can call it a vigil
and if they show up with signs protesting policy it is a protest. If I get a group of guys together and we go play basketball but call it football, by definition of putting the ball through the hoop for two points it is basketball.
Bransby,
Why do you think there is nothing said from the left about the Walter Reed protests? Would it be they are trying to ignore this contemptible and disgraceful protests?
I can only speak for myself. I don't consider the protests contemptible and disgraceful.
I remember very well seeing those protesters on Network TV.
It was shameful and cowardly to protest in front of wounded people who have suffered so much. It was completely out of line and only caused more hurt to those at the hospital and to their families.
I don't agree that it was shameful and cowardly. First off, those sign-waving "maimed for lies" protesters weren't necessarily representatives of Code Pink. They probably shouldn't have brought the anti-war agenda to the protest for veterans' benefits. But were they having a protest against the war, those signs would have been apt. If some veterans were offended, oh well. People get offended for many reasons they shouldn't. But I know for a fact that there are veterans who either AGREE with those sign-wavers or don't give a crap what they do.
Equal techniques, by butt. I don't recall Operation Pink celebrating massive deaths (thank God for AIDS, thank god for Katrina, thank God for the Tsunami, etc, etc) or picketing funerals to mock the deceased.
Oh, it dosen't end there!
http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/mar2007/20070302_twenty-six-killed.pdf
http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/feb2007/20070209_nyia-page-funeral.pdf
http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/nov2006/20061122_huntsville-alabama-schoolchildren-funeral.pdf
http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/feb2007/20070209_nyia-page-funeral.pdf
http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/aug2007/20070802_minneapolis-bridge-collapse.pdf
http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/feb2006/20060202_coretta-scott-king-funeral.pdf
Aaaaaand the coup de gracie...
http://www.godhatesfags.com/featured/dearshirley/2007/20070407_DearShirley44.pdf
STILL think the techniques are the same? Hmmmmmmm?
I think comparisons are beyond you.
Those in that church are contemptible. It is a cult.
WRONG it is an unfair comparison and the tactics are NOT the same. WBC goes to funerals and says THOSE SOlDIERS DEAD deserved to die. Even when Code Pink goes a bit far they arent blaming the soldiers rather protesting Bush either his lying or trying to cut veterens benifits.
Sometimes frustration at seeing this invasion grind on and on, while the pudits, politicians and citizenry wish for everyone to act within certain boundaries of decorum and taste...can lead to some more outrageous demonstrations just to wake people up. Everyone here seems to agree that standing outside of Walter Reed was a poor thing to do. Code Pink has done many other thinks more palatable...but always "in your face" and outside the comfort zone of most people.
You may spend a lot of time discussing their tactics; but should the big obscenity, death and destruction, get a pass?
This is FOX News kind of stuff when you hide behind Question Marks.
This is like:
"Does the Politico and Jonathan Martin take direct payments from the KKK and the United States Nazi Party?"
What's the harm? it's just a Question Mark.