Anti-War Activist Dragged off DNC Floor in Handcuffs

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

http://www.globalexchange.org/update/press/2349.html

Quote:

Behind veneer of unity, Democratic leadership works to squelch anti-war sentiment

Boston -- As Teresa Heinz Kerry gave her prime-time address at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night, Medea Benjamin of CODEPINK: Women for Peace attempted to bring an anti-war message onto the convention floor. She unfurled a pink banner that read "End the Occupation of Iraq" -- a sentiment that is shared by the majority of Americans and vast majority of Democrats -- and was promptly dragged out of the Fleet Center by the police.

"The Democratic leadership is trying to stifle people's opinions about the most important issue facing this nation: the war on Iraq. A huge majority of the delegates believe the Iraq war was a mistake, and many are convinced that the U.S. military occupation isn't benefiting Americans or Iraqis. But the Democratic platform doesn't reflect that sentiment, and it's been so difficult for people at the DNC to get that message out," said Benjamin, who is a co-founder of CODEPINK as well as the human rights organization Global Exchange.

Inside the convention, the DNC has banned anything but "officially printed" banners and signs from the convention floor, and several anti-war delegates from the Kucinich campaign have been told to take off scarves that say "delegate for peace." Outside the convention, those who oppose the Democratic Party position on Iraq are relegated to a "protest pen", which is actually a cage surrounded by fencing and barbed wire. On Saturday, CODEPINK objected to the protest pen by having some of its activists dress as pink statues of liberty with tape over their mouths.

"We are supposed to have free speech all over the United States, not just inside a pen that looks like a Guantanamo Bay detention camp," Benjamin said.

What this kind of tells me is that the powers that be in the demmunist party realize that the operation in Iraq is necessary for our security and have no intention of simply calling a halt to it under any imaginable circumstances, and that their attitude towards the haters and the idiots and loudmouths is more or less as follows: They'll be happy to use the raw hate and raw emotions and passion and simply add it to their usual pile of hatreds but, as far as there being any possibility of actually taking any of the haters or idiots or loudmouths seriously, forget it.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,127 • Replies: 18

No top replies

Swolf,

It is so nice to see you defend the anti-war movement. You aren't a member of CODEPINK are you?

0 Replies

Basically, I simply wish to ensure that everybody on A2K understands how the people running the dem party view Michael Moore and all the loudmouths and "antiwar" types.

I mean, being against Nam was one thing, but then the VietNamese never came over here and levelled lower Manhatten or poisoned the US senate office building with anthrax. Being "antiwar" against this one is basically like being against WW-II after Pearl Harbor. I mean, you gotta be kidding.

0 Replies

swolf wrote:

I mean, being against Nam was one thing, but then the VietNamese never came over here and levelled lower Manhatten or poisoned the US senate office building with anthrax. Being "antiwar" against this one is basically like being against WW-II after Pearl Harbor. I mean, you gotta be kidding.

The Iraqis didn't level the WTC.

0 Replies

haha! Right-o, princess!
I disagree with the head scarf thing, people should be able to dress as they like.

Note to self: there's no point in conversing with someone who uses the word 'demmunist" and beleieves she's posting a rational thread!

0 Replies

princesspupule wrote:

swolf wrote:

I mean, being against Nam was one thing, but then the VietNamese never came over here and levelled lower Manhatten or poisoned the US senate office building with anthrax. Being "antiwar" against this one is basically like being against WW-II after Pearl Harbor. I mean, you gotta be kidding.

The Iraqis didn't level the WTC.

It seems obvious enough that they had their hands in it in some major sort of way. I mean, the Czechs are sticking with their story about Mohammed Atta meeting with Iraqi intel officers in Prague prior to 9-11, and then you have the anthrax attacks which followed 9-11 which were clearly part and parcel of the same operation, and only Saddam Hussein ever had anthrax like that.

That (the anthrax attack) and the ship which was intercepted which forced Khadaffi to finally disavow the entire terrorism business seem to have been the straws which broke the camel's back leading to the invasion of Iraq. The ship of course was involved in an incipient three-way trade involving Iraq, North Korea, and Libya, the intent being to put Europe within range of nuclear tipped missiles in hardened sites in Libya.

0 Replies

swolf wrote:

It seems obvious enough that they had their hands in it in some major sort of way. I mean, the Czechs are sticking with their story about Mohammed Atta meeting with Iraqi intel officers in Prague prior to 9-11, and then you have the anthrax attacks which followed 9-11 which were clearly part and parcel of the same operation, and only Saddam Hussein ever had anthrax like that.

That (the anthrax attack) and the ship which was intercepted which forced Khadaffi to finally disavow the entire terrorism business seem to have been the straws which broke the camel's back leading to the invasion of Iraq. The ship of course was involved in an incipient three-way trade involving Iraq, North Korea, and Libya, the intent being to put Europe within range of nuclear tipped missiles in hardened sites in Libya.

Can you link us to this information (preferably not a hateriot rag) and explain how this proves the anthrax laced letters came from Saddam Hussein? The FBI doesn't say they do... http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/mueller101601.htm
but there is rumor that the anthrax may have come from a zionist source, not the Iraquis... http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=134396

0 Replies

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

haha! Right-o, princess!
I disagree with the head scarf thing, people should be able to dress as they like.

Note to self: there's no point in conversing with someone who uses the word 'demmunist" and beleieves she's posting a rational thread!

I agree w/you, ROS. But moving the pinks to the pen may have been a precautionary move... after all we wouldn't want to give the Homeland Security folk a reason to take protective measures and close down the DNC, now... pink is after all, a variation of red, might just be a little too similar and require a preemptive strike...

:wink: PP

0 Replies

swolf wrote:

Basically, I simply wish to ensure that everybody on A2K understands how the people running the dem party view Michael Moore and all the loudmouths and "antiwar" types.

I mean, being against Nam was one thing, but then the VietNamese never came over here and levelled lower Manhatten or poisoned the US senate office building with anthrax. Being "antiwar" against this one is basically like being against WW-II after Pearl Harbor. I mean, you gotta be kidding.

swolf no offense intended but I think it's safe to say that despite your notably honorable intentions we on A2K have a myriad of sources for understanding the democratic party that we depend on more highly than you and will in all honesty be more inclined to go to first.

But golly thanks for your sincere concern. I'm basking in the warmth of it. Perhaps this is the beginning of a new day and One America. :wink:

0 Replies

Quote:

you have the anthrax attacks which followed 9-11 which were clearly part and parcel of the same operation, and only Saddam Hussein ever had anthrax like that.

S'cuse ME! The Iraqi regime NEVER had access to the technology to produce a bio-weapon in a form that could be sent through the mail!. The only nation with THAT capability is the biggest producer of Weapons-Of-Mass-Destruction in the world - the USA!

0 Replies

So we're still number at something besides bullshit.
Good to know. My self esteem was beginning to droop around the edges.

0 Replies

Mr Stillwater wrote:

Quote:
you have the anthrax attacks which followed 9-11 which were clearly part and parcel of the same operation, and only Saddam Hussein ever had anthrax like that.

S'cuse ME! The Iraqi regime NEVER had access to the technology to produce a bio-weapon in a form that could be sent through the mail!. The only nation with THAT capability is the biggest producer of Weapons-Of-Mass-Destruction in the world - the USA!

Wrong.

The first case of anthrax after 9-11 (Bob Stevens) showed up within miles of where several hijackers stayed JUST BEFORE 9/11, a very unlikely coincidence considering that they could have stayed anywhere in the country.

The last previous case of anthrax in a human in the United States prior to 9-11 had been about 30 years prior to that.

There are other coincidences. For instance, the wife of the editor of the sun (where Stevens worked) also had contact with the hijackers in that she rented them the place they stayed.

Atta and the hijackers flew planes out of an airport in the vicinity and asked about crop dusters on more than one occasion. Indeed, Atta sought a loan to try and modify a crop duster.

Atta and several of the hijackers in this group also sought medical aid just prior to 9/11 for skin lesions that the doctors who saw them now say looked like anthrax lesions.

Basically, you either believe in the laws of probability or you don't. Anybody claiming that all these things were coincidences is either totally in denial or does not believe in modern mathematics and probability theory.

While the anthrax in question originally came from a US strain, it isn't too surprising that Iraq might have that strain since that strain was mailed to laboratories around the world years earlier.

Nonetheless, it was highly sophisticated, and went through envelope paper as if it weren't even there; many thought it to be not only beyond the capabilities of Hussein but of anybody else on the planet as well including us. Nonetheless, later information showed Husseins programs to be capable of such feats:

http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html

Quote:

In a major development, potentially as significant as the capture of Saddam Hussein, investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam's anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter, author of Losing bin Laden, told Accuracy in Media that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program.

Miniter said that Kay told him that, . That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world." Miniter said there are "intriguing similarities" between the nature of the anthrax that could be produced by Saddam and what hit America after 9/11. The key similarity is that the anthrax is produced in such a way that "hangs in the air much longer than anthrax normally would" and is therefore more lethal.

Basically, the anthrax attack which followed 9/11 had Saddam Hussein's fingerprints all over it. It was particalized so finely it went right through envelop paper and yet was not weaponized (not hardened against antibiotics). It was basically a warning, saying as much as:

Quote:

"Hey, fools, some of my friends just knocked your two towers down and if you try to do anything about it, this is what could happen. F*** you, and have a nice day!!"

There is no way an American who had had anything to do with that would not be behind bars by now. In fact the one American they originally suspected told investigators that if he'd had anything to do with that stuff, he would either have anthrax or have the antibodies from the preventive medicine in his blood and offered to take a blood test on the spot. That of course was unanswerable.

The basic American notion of a presumption of innocence is not meaningful or useful in cases like that of Saddam Hussein. Even the Japanese had the decency to have their own markings on their aircraft at Pearl Harbor; Nobody had to guess who did it. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, is like the kid in school who was always standing around snickering when things went bad, but who could never be shown to have had a hand in anything directly. At some point, guys would start to kick that guy's ass periodically on general principles. Likewise, in the case of Saddam Hussein, the reasonable assumption is that he's guilty unless he somehow or other manages to prove himself innocent and, obviously, that did not happen.

At the time, the US military was in such disarray from the eight years of the Clinton regime that there was nothing we could do about it. Even such basic items as machinegun barrels, which we should have warehouses full of, were simply not there. Nonetheless, nobody should think they would get away with such a thing and, apparently, Hussein and his baathists didn't.

Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" documents some of this:

Quote:

'Cheney?s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, quickly questions the wisdom of mentioning state sponsorship. Tenet, sensitive to the politics of Capitol Hill and the news media, terminates any discussion of state sponsorship
with the clear statement:

Quote:
"I'm not going to talk about a state sponsor."

'Vice President Cheney further drives the point home:

Quote:

"It's good that we don't, because we're not ready to do anything about it."

I've seen several items dealing with this one on the web, e.g.

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/douglass/122602.htm<br>

The Clinton administration was a disaster of unprecedented proportions. We're lucky to be alive.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

So we're still number at something besides bullshit.
Good to know. My self esteem was beginning to droop around the edges.

Read the reply to Mr. Stillwater.

0 Replies

swolf wrote:

It seems obvious enough that they had their hands in it in some major sort of way. I mean, the Czechs are sticking with their story about Mohammed Atta meeting with Iraqi intel officers in Prague prior to 9-11, [..]

In the news on 10 July 2004 (emphasis mine):

"The Senate report said the [CIA] had long ago discounted a Czech intelligence report, cited by Mr. Cheney as recently as a few weeks ago, that a ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks had met in Prague in April 2001 with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer. "The C.I.A. judged that other evidence indicated that these meetings likely never occurred," the Senate report said."

This is the text from the actual Senate report:

Quote:

The second alleged Iraqi connection to the September 11 attacks was the widely-publicized report from the Czech government to the U.S. that meetings took place between September 11 hijacker Muhammed Atta and the IIS chief in Prague, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. The CIA judged that other evidence indicated that these meetings likely never occurred.

In the news on 23 July 2004 (emphasis mine):

"the [9/11] Commission answers the question of the Atta meeting once and for all. After noting the first really, really big problem with this canard -- that it came from a single source, a Middle Eastern student informant to the Czech intelligence service, who "remembered" seeing Mohamed Atta meet with an Iraqi intelligence officer five months after it supposedly happened, when he suddenly saw Atta's face all over TV post-9/11 -- the Commission writes, "The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting."

(Interestingly, the Commission adds what I think is new information: "According to the Czech government, Ani, the Iraqi officer alleged to have met with Atta, was about 70 miles away from Prague on April 8-9 and did not return until the afternoon of the ninth, while the source was firm that the sighting occurred at 11:00 A.M.")"

You can read the whole story about the alleged Atta/Ani meeting in the paragraph "Atta's Alleged Trip to Prague" in the actual 9/11 Commission report, on page 228 and page 229.

0 Replies

Of course there must be labs in Iraq capable of producing and refining the product. There would also be the little problem of the 'identity' of the anthrax used in the attacks.

The US has the 'Ames strain' of anthrax that was used in the attacks. The Iraqis were denied access to this and had to do with the 'Sterne' and the 'A-3' strains. So who has a weaponised form of 'Ames' anthrax?????

Quote:

But the larger implication was somewhat puzzling. If the anthrax sent to Daschle came from one of three state-sponsored bioweapons programs, and if the former Soviet Union and Iraq are discounted as suspects, that leaves the biowarfare program of the United States, which officially ended its biological weapons program in 1969. At that time, government scientists destroyed their stores of weaponized anthrax, kept in Arkansas and Utah, by putting them through autoclaves, just as Iowa State killed its anthrax collection. Also, the Ames strain wasn't isolated until nearly a decade after the American program was supposed to have ended.

In a sense, Army scientists at USAMRIID have, in recent years, "weaponized" the Ames strain whenever they have tested anthrax vaccines on monkeys. They make an aerosol of the Ames strain, spray it into the monkeys' containment area, and await the results.

0 Replies

Quote:

I mean, being against Nam was one thing, but then the VietNamese never came over here and levelled lower Manhatten

Neither did the Iraqis.

Quote:

or poisoned the US senate office building with anthrax.

Neither did the Iraqis.

Quote:

Being "antiwar" against this one is basically like being against WW-II after Pearl Harbor. I mean, you gotta be kidding.

Yes, it should be that "slamdunk" of thinking style so revered by this administration.

Note to the President:
What you do as President, because you want a war with Iraq so bad you can taste it, is say something like"Saddam's regime continues to blah, blah, blah". (Make sure you use nuclear cloud in there somewhere.) Hint, indicate and extrapolate at every occasion that such action is immediately necessary and absolutely a surety, then sit back and watch the rubes follow along.

Nevermind that you have lost the support of your major allies, except the biggest rube of all - the PM of England, nevermind that while you are wasting three years chasing after WMD rainbows your real enemies are getting a superb breather, (maybe they'll bomb the trains in Spain), nevermind the fact that in the aftermath, the 9-11 commission (which you opposed forming, that you stonewalled against being able to get testimony from your National Security Advisor, that you couldn't attend without your Vice President sitting at your side like your daddy at a PTA meeting), ticks through all your reasons for war with Iraq (including those alleged above) and exposes you as the dimwit you are.

Nevermind, the rubes will continue to follow, especially the kind of people who use the word demmunist, they'll believe anything we tell them.
===

By the way, Iraq wasn't involved in that nuclear weapons triangle. It was North Korea selling them to Libya with the assistance of Iran. You remember Iran and North Korea don't you? The two most dangerous countries in the world which happened to have the wisdom of not trying to kill George's real daddy. We are definitely lucky to be alive and if we get someone in the White House with some competence, some ability to see past his nose, we may stay alive a bit longer.

Joe

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
I mean, being against Nam was one thing, but then the VietNamese never came over here and levelled lower Manhatten

Neither did the Iraqis.

Quote:
or poisoned the US senate office building with anthrax.

Neither did the Iraqis.

You know, aside from the astronomical odds of the first cases of anthrax turning up in the exact neighborhood of the 9-11 hijackers which I mentioned, there is the question of timing. For an American to have executed the anthrax attacks in the manner we observed while taking sufficient precautions not to catch the **** himself, would take a great deal of preparation and a great deal of time. What are the odds that such a plan would come to fruition a week after 9-11, just by chance?

Moreover, granted the overwhelming evidence of involvement of the 9-11 hijackers in the anthrax attack, what reason would they have for having gone to anybody other than Saddam Hussein for the stuff? I mean, they've got the world's best source of the stuff right there in their own neighborhood; why screw around?

What is it you don't like or don't believe in about the llaws of probability, Joe?

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Nevermind that you have lost the support of your major allies, except the biggest rube of all - the PM of England, nevermind that while you are wasting three years chasing after WMD rainbows your real enemies are getting a superb breather, (maybe they'll bomb the trains in Spain), nevermind the fact that in the aftermath, the 9-11 commission (which you opposed forming, that you stonewalled against being able to get testimony from your National Security Advisor, that you couldn't attend without your Vice President sitting at your side like your daddy at a PTA meeting), ticks through all your reasons for war with Iraq (including those alleged above) and exposes you as the dimwit you are.

Jake Shellac, and all those swine taking money from Saddam Hussein are "major allies", Joe?

George Bush is supposed to approve a demmunist witch hunt being conducted by the woman primarily responsible for the single policy most at fault for allowing 9-11 to happen, i.e. Jamie Gorelick's "wall" between our FBI and CIA, intended to prevent any sort of a probe into Chinagate, Joe?

Tony Blair is the "biggest rube of all", Joe?? I mean, on a scale of one to a hundred for erudition, if Blair was a 97, you'd be in negative numbers, Joe. At least judging from your assinine post...

0 Replies

well,, granting that Joe is an idiot (he can't even find "demmunist" in his dictionary) "probablity" is more akin to "possibility" than it is to "fact" and the supremes have not yet ruled on the "law of probability." The nattering nabobs of negativity, aka "bush-bashers" range in thinking from extremist anarchists like meself to staunch conservatives who would like to retain constitutional liberties as offered in the constitution, silly people as they are.

0 Replies

Anti-War Activist Dragged off DNC Floor in Handcuffs

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know