Posted on 06/26/2005 4:05:03 PM PDT by kristinn
Code Pink leader Jodie Evans, in a blog posted from the World Tribunal on Iraq, today gave her open support to the terrorists in Iraq who are killing American soldiers and Iraqis
While some may wonder, "is this news?" it is, indeed. Code Pink has been very careful over the past three years to maintain a front of being a peace group. In fact, it's complete name is Code Pink Women for Peace. The veil slipped when co-leader Medea Benjamin shot her mouth off in Jordan last December when she proclaimed the group was giving $600,000 in cash and aid to the families of "the other side" in Fallujah.
Recently, Code Pink has been holding weekly Friday night vigils at the main gate to Walter Reed Army Medical Center to express their phony support for the men and women recuperating from their war wounds. I wonder how the soldiers and families at Walter Reed will take the news that the pink sign holding people have given their support to the terrorists in Iraq.
The D.C. Chapter will be sure to tell them at our next patriotic counter-demonstration there.
Here are Jodie Evans' remarks, preserved for posterity:
We must begin by really standing with the Iraqi people and their right to resist. I can remain myself against all forms of violence, and yet I cannot judge what someone has to do when pushed to the wall to protect all they love. What does the Iraqi resistance have to lose? They are fighting for their country, to protect their families and to preserve all they love. They are fighting for their lives, and we are fighting for lies. It is so amazingly obvious; we must get out of Iraq now. They will rebuild their country, it will take time, a long time, but they cannot start until we are gone.
Code Pink now joins ANSWER as publicly endorsing the terrorists. This has been a sticking point between ANSWER on one side and Code Pink and United for Peace and Justice on the other. I expect them all to support the terrorists publicly by the time Sept. 24-26 rolls around in Washington, D.C.
The leftists are planning "non-violent direct action and civil disobedience" in D.C. on Monday Sept. 26. When they tried that two years ago, the D.C. police swiftly disrupted their plans by arresting leftist protesters demonstrating without a permit. Since then, successful lawsuits were filed against the D.C. police and the D.C. City Council passed a law severely restricting the cops' ability to preserve law and order in the city when protests get out of hand.
Code Pink will be there and I'm sure their terrorist allies will be cheering them on.
Could one of you legal, eagle persons answer a question for me???
Is it necessary for a formal declaration of war, I mean by Congress, for a person or persons to be charged with aiding the enemy?
Could that be the reason these people get away with this stuff? Is it a legal loophole of some sort?
Thanks,
AR
Lots of company here...just caught up with this news...Thanks for the PING!
Thanks for the ping! Interesting thread. I do see the Dean "go honest" working fabulously in exposing, much more clearly, less "first-amendment-chimera'd" activism by the left. About darned time. But it does require a line be drawn clearly by those who'd like to see truth made clear.
Every time I hear the name Code Pink, I get the Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies stuck in my head. Any ideas why?
Who is Ron the schmuck?
It (colde plink) conjures of images of pink tutus. EWWWWW!
He happens to be on sometimes when I am sitting down to dinner, and I manage to watch him for five minutes to see how the insane people are seeing the news. Don't worry about your mix-up, he's not THAT different from Chrissy, truth be told--Chrissy just comes off more normal. Olberman is one of those so-awful-I-gotta-see things that seem to be taking over TV; once your curiosity is passed, off he goes.
As for the 9-11 widow, I was squirming listening to her completely distort the point of the Rove appearance. I've got tons of sympathy for those whose loved ones died in 9-11 but I don't feel the need to get their permission to have an opinion about how to properly respond to the attacks.
I really don't think she knows what the heck she's talking about. These guys are not fighting for their family's or for the Iraqi people. They may be fighting for independence from the U.S., but it would be their evil, pro-Saddam or Islamofascist independence, under their evil rule, and woe to the Iraqi people if they take over. Now that we're over there (whatever the real reason for that is), we owe it to the Iraqi people to turn these vermin into a bad memory, and THEN we leave, not now. If I were in charge, I wouldn't even bother capturing these animals; if they were out of uniform, they would die swiftly, a la WWII.
The hippie enablers of these scum should really engage their brains before shooting off their mouths.
Can we please have Civil War II now?
THE LAST REBEL
"From Ward Churchill straight up the line to Dick Durbin, people giving aid and comfort to our mortal enemies should be looking out at the world from between steel bars. Why isn't this happening? Who and where would such prosecutions originate?"
what ever happened to the "militias"?
or Hal Holbrook and the boyzz of Magnum Force?
What is so ludicrous about her "I can't judge anyone who is protecting their loved ones" comment is she has no problem judging and condemning the American response to mass-murdering terror. There were a lot of loved ones lost in New York and Washington D.C., but they don't count in her assessment, apparently.
Cheap shot, but nothing new from you on that border subject. I'll bet these folks that went to Turkey would support your attitude re the US borders.
the "militias" to which I referred were specifically uninvited (and did not show up) to the event on the Messican border that you object to. But you already knew that.
Amen to your post---I think Olberman is so bitter about his TV career, tanking at every turn, that he has decided to become the "Art Bell" of TV....all conspiracy, no facts...
Don't feel too uncomfortable about some of the 9/11 widows, they even travelled with Kerry's campaign last year, and were "eating up" the attention...this is much more about fame and politics, and not much about grief at this point.
I think these traitors are funning free because, legally, they can't be charged unless we are in a war that has been declared in Congress. I'm not a lawyer of a law scholar, but I think that is the problem in bringing these pieces of clinton to justice.
I hope the President hits a home run tonight in his speech. He really needs to get his message out there to counter the 5th column media elites.
BTW, thank you for your service.
As for Olberman, he certainly comes across as a bitter, nasty jerk. I really enjoyed him laying into Tom Cruise's criticisms of psychiatry; he went on about how he's been in therapy himself since '98, and it never seemed to occur to him that maybe, just maybe, that meant he wasn't quite objective enough to be discussing the story. Cruise could have been refuted, but the segment, with a bubblehead shrink and Olberman praising therapy and prescription drugs, was simply THEIR subjective point of view on psychiatry, as opposed to Cruise's. Neither of them seemed to grasp the irony, or admit the truth, that psychotherapy is as much an art as a science.
Bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.