Some people seem to be very interested in spreading an untruth. They claim that the activist organization CodePink is now standing in support of continued war in Afghanistan. This claim is untrue. CodePink as an organization stands AGAINST the war in Afghanistan.
I’m not letting you know this because I have a horse in the race. I’m not a member of CodePink, and I don’t know anyone who is. I’m just tired of hearing this demonstrably false line trotted out at convenient moments.
The Rumor
Somebody out there is working very hard to spread false information: a claim that now with Barack Obama as President, CodePink has fallen into partisan Democrat messiah worship and isn’t opposing war in Afghanistan any more. If true, it would demonstrate that the anti-war movement is insincere, a mere tool of the Democratic Party that had (by extension) been complaining about the wars only when they were Republican wars. If true, it would invalidate the moral argument of the anti-war movement. Boy, wouldn’t it show those twerps up? IF TRUE?
Here anti-war activist Bruce Gagnon catches pro-war DC Beltway groups pushing the “CodePink supports the war in Afghanistan” line.
Here FOX News misquotes CodePink’s Medea Benjamin, taking her description of what someone else with a different opinion told her and portraying it as her own.
And here on Irregular Times we have a visitor who regularly leaves comments declaring that now CodePink supports the war in Afghanistan and Barack Obama’s plan for it:
It’s also interesting that MoveOn.org and Code Pink are no longer supporting Cindy Sheehan’s camp Casey, which she relocated to Martha’s Vineyard to protest Obama. Why did they agree to join in during when Bush was in charge?
Kind of makes me think the antiwar movement was actually an anti-Bush movement.
Of course Bush got us into it all so that excuses it to some extent.
It’s still worth noting though that MoveOn and Codepink are not just not attending due of lack of enthusiasm or anything like that, but instead, they are committed to Obama’s plan for Afghanistan and Iraq and oppose Sheehan. Well makes you wonder for a moment anyway.
Code Pink is now supporting the mission in Afghanistan.
The Code Pink has gone code yellow on us.
Code Pink supports the Afghanistan effort now.
The Bullshit
A simple check of the CodePink home page shows this to be false. Some choice quotes from the CodePink front page this morning:
December 3, 2009
Protesters march to oppose Afghan troop surge
San Francisco protests”
TAKE ACTION
Tell the Executive Office of the President what You think of the Escalation!
Send our “Hopeless Escalation” e-card to your friends, or download our flier: BW | Color
Here’s CodePink head Medea Benjamin going on the air to explain why CodePink is helping to organize a national rally December 12 in Washington DC against the escalation of war in Afghanistan:
On that show, Medea Benjamin says, “We have to convince members of Congress not to fund this war.”
Here’s a list of endorsers of the December 12 anti-war march in DC. Look who’s there! Why, it’s CodePink!
The next time someone spreads the Urban Myth that CodePink supports the war in Afghanistan, let them know it’s not true. Ask them if they’ve checked the claim. Then ask them why they’re telling people this when it’s very clearly, demonstrably, untrue. Why do they want the false claim to be true?
You’re wrong on this Jim.
Code Pink opposes a troops escalation, but they oppose a troops withdraw.
Essentially Code Pink supports a different war strategy than Obama, but still generally supports the war so long as its according to their war strategy.
Show me the citation where CodePink says “we oppose the withdrawal of American troops.” Give me a source, qs.
You won’t do it, because you can’t.
Just what I expected. You haven’t provided that source because there is no such source.
The antiwar interview was about this article.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1006/p06s10-wosc.html
While the group hasn’t dropped its call for a pullout, the visit convinced them that setting a deadline isn’t in Afghanistan’s interests, say Ms. Benjamin and fellow cofounder Jodie Evans.
“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 US 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.”
No.
I’ve read that article, and already linked to it, and as the interview transcript I linked to makes clear, Medea Benjamin specifically says she was taken out of context in that article and is NOT in favor of troops remaining in Afghanistan and was NOT speaking for CodePink policy. Medea Benjamin was reporting 1) on what OTHER PEOPLE TOLD HER, and 2) QUESTIONS the delegation was asking itself. You know, like reasonable, thinking people often do.
CodePink is against the war in Afghanistan. CodePink is against the escalation. CodePink is against the Obama policy. CodePink is for military withdrawal. CodePink is for humanitarian engagement.
Go visit the CodePink website and tell me otherwise again.
You still haven’t told me why you need to feel otherwise.
Listen to her interview on antiwar radio from last month.
http://antiwar.com/radio/2009/10/07/medea-benjamin
She is trying to spin it, but the implications of what she claims is essentially the same rationale of Cheney, etc.
Cindy Sheehan, as opposed to Media Benjamin, does oppose the war though.
Here’s the transcript of that interview. I encourage everyone to read that transcript, because in that interview she says quite the OPPOSITE of what you say she says, qs.
* She says the U.S. should not send more troops.
* She says the U.S. should withdraw troops.
* She says the U.S. should engage in humanitarian investmment in the country.
I mean, really, could she be more straightforward and clear than this:
“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.”
Why are you so interested in proclaiming that CodePink is for war in Afghanistan, qs, when the available evidence clearly shows otherwise?
What axe are you grinding?
Do you acknowledge that she code pink has changed their position since Obama took office?
Previously they supported withdrawal. They no longer support this but instead support a measured withdrawal.
Code Pink is quite in favor of the withdrawal part too. Citation: Front page of their site, under Latest Campaigns heading there is a large banner stating “More war equals more suffering for Afghan women & children.”
And a link worded “Stop the surge. Start responsible withdrawal.” takes one to
http://codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=5129
Afghanistan’s people need humanitarian assistance from invited, unarmed organizations; they don’t need foreign military forces attacking anyone who sticks their head above the rubble.
“Start responsible withdrawal.”
Yes I see that. That’s where the Code Pink’s philosophy has changes.
In 2007 they supported IMMEDIATE AND FULL withdrawal, and the marines there were war criminals.
Once Obama got in, they now support “responsible withdrawal”, and do not support withdrawal if the Tali’s get charge again, which is essentially the Obama-Bush position.
Qs, you know that’s not the Obama-Bush policy, don’t you?
Bush policy: No date to start withdrawal. War until… whenever.
Obama policy: “Deadline” to START withdrawal in one and a half years, except that the “deadline” is “flexible”, so maybe it’ll be 5 more years, or 10 more years, or… whenever.
CodePink is calling for a responsible withdrawal beginning right now.
If you can’t perceive the significant difference between CodePink and the Bush and Obama policies, then it’s because you’re straining to not perceive it.
What you say is not true. I’ve provided documentation to that effect. CodePink does NOT say that American troops should stay in Afghanistan. All they say is that there should be a peace process and humanitarian investment while American troops are being withdrawn.
Code Pink said they changed their position after visiting Afghanistan. Previously they supported full withdrawal.
Now they don’t.
The “responsible withdrawal” phrasing is not a request to maintain the occupation until we’re sure our allies will continue to be in charge of their government. It is stating that troops will be withdrawn in such a way as to prevent their death rate from increasing during the withdrawal. Which one would usually not have to state explicitly, but the right wing noise machine did not hesitate to assert that Americans advocating an end to the occupations were trying to get soldiers killed in the process. Another factor in being responsible is noting that we broke a lot of shit in their country and we owe them something for it, but continued occupation is no way to repay that debt.
You’re backpedaling. Clearly, CodePink is in favor of an end to the war and a military withdrawal. That has been true and is true, whether accompanied by mention of proposed details regarding a peace process and continued civil investment or not.
What exactly is the “peace process?”
The Bush administration doesn’t want to leave because they didn’t want the Taliban getting power again.
The Obama administration doesn’t want to leave because they don’t want the Taliban getting power again.
During Vietnam we didn’t want to leave because we didn’t want to the communists getting power.
So as long as you buy into that, then we have to stay there to prevent all that.
That’s all YOU. Not CodePink.
No Jim.
Well sorry if I assume that Code Pink’s founder and spokeswoman speaks for Code Pink when she gives an interview. That seemed like a pretty REASONABLE assumption. What she said on antiwar radio was similar to what she said in that Christian Science Monitor interview, and mirrors what I said about Vietnam and not wanting the communists to take over.
At the end of that interview she said (form the transcript link you posted)…
“Benjamin: Well I think it’s just full of distortions, because what we say is we want a responsible pulling out of U.S. troops and we certainly are against what McChrystal is calling for. We’re against sending in more troops, we’re against troops being visibly present in the villages because we think their presence is more of a threat to people there and puts them at risk. And we want our troops to pull out. We just want to do it in a way that is not going to lead to a Taliban takeover that will put women back inside the home.”
She is using the same rationale as Obama and Bush. They want to stay there in order to prevent the Taliban from taking power (for Woman’s rights as she also states in the interview.)
You want to know why I haven’t bothered to respond to this latest round? Fine. Here’s why. Because:
1) You’re reading your own definition of “peace process,” your own notion of what you think Medea Benjamin implicitly means, into the conversation between Medea Benjamin and Scott Horton. She never actually says she supports what you say she supports. She doesn’t! What she actually says is that she is against the war, against the escalation, and for pulling American troops out. That’s what she says. You want to play, “ah, that’s not what she MEANS” games? Do it by yourself, man, because it’s getting boring.
2) You ignore a great deal of what’s being said. Medea Benjamin says in that interview, despite what you say she says, that the Christian Science Monitor quote does NOT represent her thinking or CodePink’s position. Every time Scott Horton (what, is that you? b/c you’re doing the same thing he does) tries to put words in her mouth about what her position must be in that interview, she says that no, it’s NOT her position. The main thing Scott Horton (either you or your tactical doppelganger) demonstrates over and over in that interview is that he doesn’t understand Medea Benjamin’s position. Both he and you are reading things into what she says that aren’t there. I am not interested in having a debate with you if the facts at hand are secret, unstated positions. That’s just not empirical.
3) You’ve been saying for some time now that “Code Pink is now supporting the mission in Afghanistan,” that “Code Pink supports the Afghanistan effort now,” that ” they oppose a troops withdraw,” and “still generally supports the war.” Then you say CodePink has the same rationale as Obama and Bush. Hello, they are ORGANIZING AN ANTI-WAR MARCH AGAINST THE OBAMA PLAN FOR THIS SATURDAY with A STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO OBAMA, WITH OBAMA’S FACE ON THE FLIER, and they CALL FOR A WITHDRAWAL, and they say they WANT TROOPS OUT. Explicitly. In the interview, and on the flier, and at their website. That’s three places, man. If you won’t interface with reality, why should I talk to you?
Look, you may not be happy with the particular position that CodePink takes regarding continued civilian engagement in Afghanistan, or with the idea of having Muslim nations bring a peacekeeping force into Afghanistan (yeah, THAT was her idea in the interview, qs), and you may have an idea about why that particular position of CodePink’s won’t work. Fine, whatever. But to say that CodePink supports the war in Afghanistan, and supports the Obama plan, and opposes withdrawal of troops is, frankly, wiggy.
And here’s where you say, “no, blah blah blah,” without referencing any cited factual material that actually support whatever “blah blah blah” says. You go ahead and do that if you want. I’ll give you the last word if that’s the thing you want. But it’s simply not correct for the reasons I’ve laid out. Until CodePink releases a statement making a declaration that they oppose the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, I’m not going to reiterate these facts again. There’s nothing left to say.
Jim,
Well you addressed this post to me. Sorry if it bothers you that I responded to clarify what my opinion is..
“But to say that CodePink supports the war in Afghanistan, and supports the Obama plan, and opposes withdrawal of troops is, frankly, wiggy.”
Well that’s not what I believe.
I think that Media does not support the Obama plan.
I think that Obama and Media both believe in eventual troop withdrawal if the conditions are supportive of that. Even McCain proposed a flexible withdraw date during his campaign (he was specific in that he did not believe in a fixed withdrawal date, which is what Gates has said to be the current plan)
I think Media disagrees on war strategy, and she does not support the troops surge.
Media has stated that she does not support troop withdrawal if the Taliban are to gain power.
Here is the quote again.
“Benjamin: Well I think it’s just full of distortions, because what we say is we want a responsible pulling out of U.S. troops and we certainly are against what McChrystal is calling for. We’re against sending in more troops, we’re against troops being visibly present in the villages because we think their presence is more of a threat to people there and puts them at risk. And we want our troops to pull out. We just want to do it in a way that is not going to lead to a Taliban takeover that will put women back inside the home.”
There’s no trick here. What she said in the CSM and the antiwar interview was the same thing.
Then you disagree with your own contention of September 6, which is fine. Good to know you’re changing your position, which is absolutely your right to do. I have no problem with you writing what you want, but I’m not going to continue to write back on this.
Jim,
Well perhaps I didn’t phrase that Sept 6th quote correctly, but I don’t think that Obama’s troops surge plan had not been decided on Sept 6th.
I do think that Code Pink supports keeping troops there and supports the mission, but that they do not support the troops surge. Perhaps she opposed starting the mission in the first place, but she I think there is a difference between what she wants now and what she wanted during the Bush years.
Code Pink would not endorse Cindy Sheehan to defeat Nancy Pelosi on a side note.
New troops surge plan. This thing was announced on Dec 1st.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/12/02/obama-announces-afghan-troop-surge-of-30-000-91466-25301165
I think Code Pink generally supported what Obama’s current plans in Afghanistan before he announced the troops surge so that thing I said on September 6th was before any of this happened.
There were probably some rumblings about a troops surge going on in September, but I’m not sure if i was even thinking about that when I posted that.
Also Cindy Sheehan’s position is no troops under any circumstances (maybe she would make an exception for genocide or something like but that’s in the current picture.)
She doesn’t believe that any American troops should be sacrificed to save Afghans from the Taliban whereas Media would not support immediate full withdrawal.
There is a cynicism on the right that Media Benjamin and Code Pink and such would switch positions as soon as a Democratic president got power so mean Media gives and interview about a new position, then people like Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com jump on her for it because they don’t trust her and have been burned in the past by the Moveon.org and other organizations that change positions.
bumpbumpbump. no reply for this post?
Try this on for size:
http://zenhuber.blogspot.com/2009/11/unforced-errors.html