Sorry, ladies, but the TRUTH HURTS!
"Code Pink, fearful of setbacks for women, rethinks call for U.S. troops to withdraw from Afghanistan
.... Now the left-wing activist group is rethinking its call for a deadline to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The reason: After a week spent in Kabul talking to female Afghan leaders, the group now understands their fears that a resurgent Taliban would probably target women and girls who have made tremendous progress since U.S. troops routed the fundamentalist militant group in 2002.
See: How I Came to Love the Veil
Sick of the Zionist lies about Muslims yet?
"We have been feeling a sense of fear of the people of the return of the Taliban," Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin said in an interview with the Christian Science Monitor. "So many people are saying that if the U.S. troops left, the country would collapse. ... A palpable sense of fear that is making us start to reconsider" a deadline for troop withdrawal.
Isn't that a Jewish name?
Of course, US missiles and bombs are liberating Afghan women by killing them, their children, and their men. Is that what Code Pink is standing for?
Code Pink says it continues to oppose sending fresh troops to Afghanistan and will advocate for more humanitarian funding. What might get relaxed is its call for an immediate pullout...."
Oh, I'm all with humanitarian funding -- I call it REPARATIONS for WAR CRIMES after we LEAVE!!!
Additional commentary:
(Ahem)
Frankly, I don't buy this, and I am very disappointed in Code Pink.
I have to wonder if they might have been funded by the newly emergent recreational pharmaceutical industry in Afghanistan, because they sure sound like they are smoking opium here. But more likely, Code Pink is willing to turn a blind eye on the wars because now they are Obama's wars instead of Bush's wars and that makes it all just hunky dory!" -- Wake the Flock Up
Related:
".... Medea Benjamin and Code Pink are no threat to the established order, a fact that should be obvious when Code Pink’s finances are examined—the group is supported by the Winston Foundation, an organization linked to the National Endowment for Democracy, a documented CIA front, and connected as well to the Rockefeller Family Fund, the Carnegie Corporation, the Heinz Family Foundation, and the Soros Foundations (see the Zmag wiki entry for the Winston Foundation for World Peace).
“Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin, a director for Global Exchange, says they are paying a bargain $400 a month for a cubicle office at 15th and H streets in the District. More space for Code Pink is on loan from two organizations down the hall, the National Organization for Women and the Institute for Policy Studies,” Julia Duin wrote for the Washington Times on April 3, 2003. At the time, the Institute for Policy Studies was receiving $2.2 million from the Turner, Ford, MacArthur and Charles Stewart Mott foundations.
No, the threat, as perceived by Bill and his global elite handlers, does not emanate from Code Pink or MoveOn.org, the latter funded by the Iraq Peace Fund, an effort of the Tides Foundation, a “progressive” organization that has received more than $36,000,000 from the Ford Foundation since 1989....
--source--"
So it is all to present the ILLUSION of DISSENT and DEMOCRACY, when we really have neither.
Also see: Amy Goodman, Left Gatekeeper
WHERE is the left on 9/11, huh, truthers?
Update:
Btw, readers, I receive NO JOY from POSTING THIS INFORMATION! I LOVED THEM at one point and WANTED to BELIEVE!
Once again, a myth is shattered and I am devastated.
"Confused?; Code Pink rethinks Afghan withdrawal
When I heard that there would be antiwar protests across the country on October 7, 2009, mourning the 8th anniversary of the start of the invasion of Afghanistan, I immediately picked up the phone to get one of the great anti-warrior women of Code Pink to join me on Antiwar Radio for the occasion.
Imagine my shock at seeing this story in the Christian Science Monitor describing the new, post-trip-to-Afghanistan-position of Code Pink’s co-founder and most famous leader, Medea Benjamin.
"’We would leave with the same parameters of an exit strategy but we might perhaps be more flexible about a timeline,’ says Benjamin. ‘That’s where we have opened ourselves, being here, to some other possibilities. We have been feeling a sense of fear of the people of the return of the Taliban. So many people are saying that, ‘If the U.S. troops left the country, would collapse. We’d go into civil war.’ A palpable sense of fear that is making us start to reconsider that.’"
"Did you just read that right?" said one half of my brain to the other. Is this reporting accurate? Has Code Pink turned pro-war?
Well, the interview took place, as scheduled, and this is the result:
Interview recorded October 7, 2009. Listen to the interview.
EXCERPTS:
Benjamin: Well actually, there were many different opinions in Afghanistan and unfortunately because of the security situation we were very limited in who we talked to. We didn’t get out to the countryside, we didn’t talk to people who had been the targets of U.S. bombing, we didn’t talk to people who lived under Taliban control....
Horton: Well Medea, as you know, America has been adopting Taliban justice and destroying our own rule of law. And I wonder how well you think that this government can export a rule of law that we’ve abandoned to a country like Afghanistan. I mean if they get rid of Dostum and the heroin dealers and the worst of Karzai’s allies, maybe even Karzai, who’s to replace them with? I mean, it’s like, you know, the coup against Diem. Well now who’s going to be the puppet dictator of South Vietnam? You know?
Benjamin: Yeah, well that’s a good question. There are a lot of great people in Afghanistan and many of them working inside the government. The women that we’ve met who are members of parliament are really extraordinary. A number of them are medical doctors, they are professionals, they are putting their lives at risk just by being members of the parliament, both by targets that they might be from the Taliban as well as targets inside the government, inside the parliament itself where…
Horton: Right. But so the question is does it make any sense to prop up a bunch of western educated female doctors to be the rulers of this country when they have no indigenous support whatsoever? It’s like this is a fantasy being played out in a sociology class somewhere in an American college or something.
Benjamin: Well, you just assume that these were western educated and didn’t have support. One of the doctors we met is from Wardak province and she said that it was actually her villagers who forced her to run, that she wasn’t interested in running. She didn’t spend a penny on her campaign and she was elected by a great majority from her area because people really wanted her to get into government. So what I’m saying is there are some good people. But your questions are good questions. What do you have when you have an outside foreign force, i.e., the U.S. and NATO that has been propping up a government that’s full of people who have in the past and continue to commit crimes, live off of drug money? You don’t have a very pretty picture and that also means that a lot of the soldiers don’t have great reasons to fight.
Horton: Right. And of course fight is just a euphemism for killing people, which is what’s been going on there for eight years now. And of course Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are already doing their best to spread the war into Pakistan. So far they hired the prime minister there, Zadari, to start a civil war. They created three million refugees. When you talk about women’s rights, how about women with their little baby daughters in their arms being forced out of their homes by the millions, by America?
Benjamin: Well, I don’t think that war is the answer, that drones is the answer. Every time we drop a bomb we create more people who join the insurgency and want to attack us and it’s an endless vicious cycle and it’s got to end.
Horton: So we need occupation, but without soldiers.
Benjamin: Where are you getting that from?
Horton: Well, I mean I’m just trying to understand. Because you’re saying we need to build up their court system and we need to do all these things to have a proper exit… a responsible exit strategy rather than just leaving and letting them call their own shots, work out their own problems. And I just wonder how these things all go together. We’re supposed to occupy the country, but without killing anybody. And we’re supposed to have soldiers to protect women’s rights, but not to, whatever it is that they’re actually doing there, which of course has nothing to do with women’s rights in the first place. You follow me?
Benjamin: Yeah. I don’t think the soldiers are protecting women’s rights. We did hear a lot of people say that they fear the Taliban coming back in. We spoke to a lot of women who lived under the Taliban times who couldn’t go to school, who couldn’t do their jobs, were stuck inside their homes. And I think we have to recognize that. But on the other hand there is supposedly only about 5 or 10% of the Taliban that are ideologically motivated. So my point is that we have been shoring up the Taliban with their policies of occupation, that as part of an exit strategy has to be peace talks, that women are at the table, and they have to figure out how people who have joined the Taliban out of economic desperation and joined the Taliban out of revenge because their loved ones have been killed by foreign forces, how they can be brought back into their villages and live productive lives.
Horton: Um, okay. Well, I guess, you know, I’m for that. You know, I’m an individualist and a libertarian and I believe in natural rights for all people no matter where they are. It’s just a question of, you know, who’s going to do the guaranteeing of them....I don’t really want to fight with you. It seems like you and I must already agree so much that it’s just got to be a communication breakdown here somewhere or something. I mean I’m not phrasing it right. Well, okay: Remember a few weeks ago when some locals stole a German fuel truck and the Germans called in an airstrike and the Americans blew up the fuel truck all over a bunch of civilians. A hundred or so who were lined up to get some fuel and burned them to death.
Benjamin: Mm-hmm.
Horton: I wonder how many more of those before you say, "You know what? The U.S. government must get out of Afghanistan yesterday, that’s it. And whatever happens after this, at least it won’t be our government burning little kids to death."
and see here’s the thing too though: The Taliban at this point, what does that even mean? You know what I mean? It was a very small number of people. A lot of them were killed years and years ago. It basically seems to be the NATO, U.S. government, U.S. media euphemism for anybody in Afghanistan who resists our occupation.
Benjamin: Well that’s why I think as part of the exit strategy is the peace process. And if there are 20,000 Taliban at the most, the vast majority of them are people who are not ideologically driven who want to go back to their villages, would probably much prefer to do something other than be shooting at people. And that if we gave them the opportunity for that by announcing that we were going to be leaving, that we were going to be helping to allow their community leaders to reincorporate them into society, then you would be basically taking away the strength of the Taliban.
Horton: Yeah. Well, I certainly think that’s true. We saw the same thing in Iraq where the occupation is a perpetual motion machine. In fact I was just reading a little something about American occupations in Central America, I think in, I forget if it was in Nicaragua. Way back in the day, you know, 80 years ago or something, where of course the longer they stayed the more the people resisted and that was the excuse for staying, and we can’t just leave with Nicaragua in such a mess and all these people fighting each other and whatever, when of course the occupation is the basis of in the first place. And I think, wasn’t Code Pink’s argument about Iraq not "We have to leave responsibly but we’ve got to get the hell out of there because staying there is irresponsible"?
Benjamin: Yeah, in the case of Iraq I think it was a little bit different. It was absolutely clear our troops should never been there beginning and you didn’t have a Taliban like government…
Horton: Yeah, but I mean Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri escaped eight years ago. They haven’t been in Afghanistan for eight years.
Benjamin: But you do have the Taliban in Afghanistan and you have…
Horton: Yeah, but what did the Taliban ever do?
Benjamin: Well the Taliban…
Horton: To us.
Benjamin: Huh?
Horton: What did they ever do to the United States?
Benjamin: Well see, if your perspective is just from the United States. My perspective is also from what they did to the women of Afghanistan. But if your perspective is truly from the United States, what people say is that if we allow the Taliban to take over Afghanistan then that will be a safe haven for Al Qaeda....
That answers my question about 9/11. What a bummer.
--MORE--"
And let's close with this UNMENTIONED GEM (and what seems to be where the U.S. is headed under Obama with the "Al-CIA-Duh" fiction in full swing):
"The U.S. government was well aware of the Taliban's reactionary program, yet it chose to back their rise to power in the mid-1990s. The creation of the Taliban was "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," according to Selig Harrison, an expert on U.S. relations with Asia. "The United States encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support the Taliban, certainly right up to their advance on Kabul," adds respected journalist Ahmed Rashid. When the Taliban took power, State Department spokesperson Glyn Davies said that he saw "nothing objectionable" in the Taliban's plans to impose strict Islamic law, and Senator Hank Brown, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia, welcomed the new regime: "The good part of what has happened is that one of the factions at last seems capable of developing a new government in Afghanistan." "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis. There will be Aramco [the consortium of oil companies that controlled Saudi oil], pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that," said another U.S. diplomat in 1997."
No kidding?Oh, that's a real kick to the lower groans, isn't it, ladies?
The TALIBAN was established under U.S. AUSPICES?
We can "LIVE WITH THAT?"
Well, I SURE CAN as long as the KILLING STOPS -- especially since (sorry) I NO LONGER BELIEVE the LIES PROMOTED by my WAR-MONGERING, MUSLIM-HATING, AGENDA-PUSHING AmeriKan PRESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!