House Democrats Team With Radical Leftists to Criticize Iraq War

Human Events Patrick McNamara July 13, 2006

Anti-war House members teamed up with activist group Code Pink today to denounce the Bush Administration and call for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

“We are proud to join them in expressing our shame and disgust at the Bush Administration’s dishonest, immoral policy,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D.-Calif.).

The congresswoman also said that it is the presence of U.S. forces that is causing the violence and insurrection in Iraq.

Woolsey was joined by other outspoken lawmakers such as Representatives Barbara Lee (D.-Calif.), Maxine Waters (D.-Calif.), Dennis Kucinich (D.-Ohio) and Cynthia McKinney (D.-Ga.) who said, “Those of us who opposed this war from the beginning were right.”

Acting as an emcee of sorts for the press conference was long-time left-wing activist Medea Benjamin, representing Code Pink. The group, whose news release describes it as a “women-initiated grassroots peace and social justice movement,” was there to plug its ongoing hunger strike. Benjamin said nearly 4,000 people have joined the fast in some form.

Woolsey said she joined the hunger strike (for the day) yesterday, because she “wanted to highlight this grave injustice of the Iraq occupation.” She and other speakers likened their own fasts to those of Mahatma Gandhi, Cesar Chavez and Martin Luther King Jr.



9 thoughts on “House Democrats Team With Radical Leftists to Criticize Iraq War

  1. The fact that somebody would write an article suggesting that critics of the Iraq war are unpatriotic increases my perception of an American conservative movement becoming more fascist and authoritarian every day. Our founding Fathers believed that criticizing our government when it behaves irresponsibly was the essense of Patriotism.

    What country are we living in when we can no longer criticize the poor performance of our government without being criticized as unpatriotic? is this Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union?

    As I wrotes before:

    Our occupation of Iraq has been a massive failure and a strategic error of historic proportions. The nation of Iraq is not better off but far worse. Basic utilities like water and electricity are in short supply. Iraq’s oil and industrial infrastructure has been shattered. Civil war has commenced and sectarian violence has resulted in hundreds of horrific deaths every week. The average Iraqi lives an existence of privation and terror.

  2. What country are we living in when we can no longer criticize the poor performance of our government without being criticized as unpatriotic?

    FDR’s kind of country?

    Dean, no one is saying you can’t disagree with or protest the Iraqi War. But for some reason, objectors think they should be able to criticize the war with impunity. Frankly, that isn’t how freedom of speech works.

    You are free to speak your mind, and those who disagree are free to speak theirs. You may not be adored for it, but you’re still free to say it.

    And from my experience, there is only one group of a certain political persuasion that passes quasi-legal thought crime into law.

  3. Dean –

    Why do Dems insist on beating themselves. President Bush has been so blasted wrong on everything, all that is necessary is to quote him back to himself to make him look dumb.

    From the State of the Union address in 2006:

    On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country.

    Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction.

    Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror.

    Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer, and so we will act boldly in freedom’s cause.

    And we are writing a new chapter in the story of self-government, with women lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink, and men and women from Lebanon to Egypt debating the rights of individuals and the necessity of freedom.

    Wow. It makes me choke up just reading it again. Far from ending terrorism, elections in the PA and Lebanon brought terrorists to power officially. Far from respecting human rights and struggling for peace, the terrorists promptly went nuts shilling for Iran and killing Israelis. The Israelis promptly responded with massive force and now we have a bunch of dead children, women, and elderly on both sides with ruined infrastructure and no hope.

    Why can’t the Dems manage to point out the fact that Iraq won’t be any different. The Iraqis after all of the blood and treasure the U.S. pours into the place, will end up with a Hezbollah/Hamas/Iranian style regime that will pump money into groups that hate us.

    I’d bet my life on that. Anyone betting the other way is a sucker. But, that is the Republican stance. “Sure,” the true Bushie says, “Other Arabs when they got the chance to vote went for Islamofascists. But the Iraqis are different! They’re more secular/more reasonable. They’ll found a Democracy which will eschew Arab nationalism or religious fundamentalism and they will keep it, by Allah!”

    Right. And pigs are in flight training.

    President George W. Bush – wrong on everything. Except the need, curiously, to confront Iran which is the linchpin of evil in the region. Problem is, he decided to confront everybody else first, leaving us with few good options.

  4. Dean –

    Did you catch the interview with David Brog on National Review Online. This is classic, he is Jewish and now works for evangelical TV preacher John Hagee. Here are some highlights:

    Lopez: Evangelicals who support Israel really don’t want to convert people?

    Brog: Evangelicals who support Israel most certainly do want to convert people. Evangelicals who don’t support Israel also want to convert people. The mission of sharing the “good news” of Jesus Christ is central to being an evangelical. But it is important to note that this is not about converting just the Jews—Christians want to share their faith with Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and their Christian friends and neighbors who have yet to be born again.

    The important question is this: Is evangelical support for Israel merely a tool in the effort to convert the Jews? Is this merely some scheme to soften the Jews up so that they can better sell Jesus to them? And the answer to this question is absolutely not.

    If anything, the opposite it true. I and others who have worked with Christians in support of Israel all report that no one has ever tried to convert us. In fact, Christians who support Israel tend to know more Jews and to understand their sensitivities better than Christians who do not. Thus, they have learned that Jews find “Jesus talk” offensive, and they tend to leave it out of the dialogue.

    Lopez: What is replacement theology and where did it go?

    Brog: For most of Christian history, the dominant Christian theology towards the Jews was “replacement theology,” which held that when the Jews rejected Jesus as their messiah, God rejected the Jews as his chosen people. The Church replaced the Jews as the “Israel” to whom so much is promised in the Bible. Once the Jews were thus removed from God’s love, the door was opened to man’s hate. And this was a door through which generation after generation of Christians walked.

    But ever since the Reformation, there have been some small groups of Protestants who have rejected replacement theology and who believe—as Jews do—that the word “Israel” in the Bible means the Jews. Under this reading, the Jews continue to be the beneficiaries of God’s love and promises, and the Bible becomes an exhortation to Zionism and philo-Semitism.

    In early 20th-century America, the nascent fundamentalist movement embraced this minority view and rejected replacement theology. As this movement grew and spread throughout America, the number of Christians who adhered to this theology grew as well, to the point that it is the ascendant strain of American Christianity today. Thus fundamentalist/evangelical support for Israel is not a trend, fad, or public relations ploy — it is a bedrock religious belief.

    It is also important to add that, after the Holocaust, the Roman Catholic Church and most mainline Protestant denominations recognized the danger of replacement theology and formally rejected it. But replacement theology under new names and guises is still out there, and it still does theological combat with the more Judeo-centric interpretation that drives the Christian Zionists.

    Lopez: How are Christian Zionists obsessed with the Holocaust?

    Brog: When it comes to the Holocaust, Christian Zionists remind me of Jews. The Holocaust is the point of reference, the great calamity against which all actions and threats are judged. Yet the obsession may even be greater among certain Christians because they feel guilty about the fact that people claiming to share their faith permitted this atrocity. Thus they seize every opportunity to stand up for the Jews and in so doing demonstrate how true Christians behave.

    A longing to make amends for the Holocaust often figures prominently in Christian Zionist speeches and fundraising literature. And the desire not to permit a second Holocaust drives their mounting alarm over Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. No other community — with the possible exception of the Jews themselves — stresses the parallels between Hitler in the 1930s and Iran’s President Ahmadinejad today as do the evangelicals.

    I find this fascinating reading. I’ll probably go out and buy his latest book. It is interesting that he, a Jew, has laid out everything so clearly.

    Evangelicals in the United States form a political and religious 5th Column. They have subordinated the Great Commission to their support for Israel. They have subordinated U.S. interests to that of a foreign state. They have rejected traditional Christian doctrine, and have embraced a Dual Covenant philosophy that completely rejects traditional Christian doctrine with a view the the Bible commands ‘philo-semitism.’

    They also engage in a heft dose of collective guilt over something, the Holocaust, which Americans have no responsibility. Collective guilt for the sins of others used to a liberal trait, but the Evangelicals have made it their own.

    Fine, there are anti-Semitic Arab Christians. But guess what? They aren’t dangerous. They have no power. The Evangelicals, on the other hand, are inside the power structure working hand-in-hand with other American Zionists for the purposes of promoting the subservience of the U.S. to the agenda of a foreign power.

    The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches are the only major churches that still adhere to traditional Christian dogma. That means they are the only anti-dote to this, yet even here, I see Orthodox posters on this site beat up our own Church over anti-Semitism. That isn’t the real problem, not in the U.S. The opposite is true here, and we either need to wake up and see this or we are going to regret it.

  5. Note 5. Interview from National Review Online:

    Lopez: How are Christian Zionists obsessed with the Holocaust?

    Brog: When it comes to the Holocaust, Christian Zionists remind me of Jews. The Holocaust is the point of reference, the great calamity against which all actions and threats are judged. Yet the obsession may even be greater among certain Christians because they feel guilty about the fact that people claiming to share their faith permitted this atrocity. Thus they seize every opportunity to stand up for the Jews and in so doing demonstrate how true Christians behave.

    The psychological explanation probably has some sociological validity, but it only answers the question of why some Evangelicals are motivated to cast their lot with Israel. It doesn’t answer any larger question about how and why the Holocaust occurred.

    Pope Benedict is the first religious leader I’ve heard that, in my view of things, explains the Holocaust. The elimination of the Jews was an effort to remove the memory of the God of Abraham from the face of the earth. Christianity was compromised in many areas, and the next step was to uproot the trunk.

    Now it is true that some Evangelicals, as is their custom, respond to the deeper things in a highly subjective and emotionalized way. It is not true however, that because the do, the Holocaust has no greater repercussion than this emotive outpouring. (I would include Stalin’s Gulags here as well.) The Holocaust (and Gulags) represent the fracturing of Christian culture; the remergence on the one hand of the pagan Teutonic myth (abeit industrialized), and the implementation of the Marxist myth of a technological utopia on the other.

    This cultural weakening has opened the door to Muslim expansion. And while some of the criticism of Bush is deserved in my view, the opposite notion that somehow the US can avoid conflict with the Muslim world strikes me as naive. We can argue about the best way this threat is to be met, but we don’t live in a pre-Wilsonian world any more.

    Evangelical ignorance of history and the tendency to subjectivize all religious matters don’t sum up the real nature of what is fast becoming a global conflict. Criticism of Zionist Evangelicals, while deserved in cases, doesn’t provide any clear directive on how to engage that conflict.

    So yes, while America shares no collective guilt over the holocaust (although we did, on occassion, refuse Jewish refugees thereby signing their death warrant), the fact remains we cannot escape the cultural ramifications of what the Holocaust and Gulags represent. We are in this conflict whether we like it or not.

  6. Father –

    Hayek explained the Holocaust in terms of national socialism attacking Jews for their perceived place as capitalists par excellence. In other words, it was class warfare with an ethnic component.

    This is plausible, as is the theory put forward that the goal of the Holocaust was to implicate the entire German nation in a crime so monstrous that no one could dare bolt the NAZI regime knowing the punishment that would have to await.

    Then again, the NAZIs were also out to destroy the Slavs. Was that an attempt to destroy the God of Abraham? According to the racial theories of the NAZIs, my own wife was fit for nothing but the gas chamber.

    How does the idea of killing Slavs fit into the ‘destroying the God of Abraham’ theory?

    Probably, all of these ideas put together play some part in explaining the Holocaust. You have to remember, of course, that Stalin’s Ukrainian famine and the ‘Great Leap Forward’ in China claimed way more lives than the Holocaust.

    Yet, interestingly, all of those victims of Socialist engineering gone amuck a simply forgotten, tossed aside by history. The NAZIs were pagan socialists who worshipped the state. The fracturing of Christian consciousness certainly did play a role in their rise, but I don’t think that the Theology of the Catholic Church is responsible for the anti-Semitic component anymore than it was responsible for the anti-Slav.

    That would be, in my mind, the same as saying that the injunction to give to the poor caused the Bolsheviks to seize the means of production and kill the rich. But, the wholesale blaming by Evangelicals of traditional Christian Theology for the Holocaust has led to the emergence of a defective Christian Theology that represents a fundamentally deformed faith. This is a Trojan Horse which threatens the entire uniqueness of the Christian faith, and leads towards a Dual Covenant Theory which is inherently dangerous.

    I have no problem meeting the Muslim threat, properly put in its context. The primary threat represented by Muslims is their push into Western societies in which their voting strength and cultural unity can allow them to do what Muslims have been doing for 1,400 – invading advanced societies and forming a parasitical class which eventually kills the host and leaves it a lifeless husk.

    This tendency of Islam is not going to be reversed by Democratic voting, anymore than the West’s cultural slide will be reversed by Democratic voting. The solution is Christ.

    Now as far as the Muslim nutcases in the Middle East such as Iran, I have no problem confronting them. But, I insist on confronting only those global situations which impact U.S. interests, and all solutions should be crafted specifically to benefit us. If it helps Israel at the same time, that’s all well and good, but the fact that so many Evangelicals owe their primary allegiance to Israel is treason. You can call it whatever else you like, but holding the interests of the United States hostage to a foreign power is exactly that, whether you are serving the Soviets or the Israelis is of no consequence.

  7. Glen: Pat Buchanan goes as far as to accuse the Bush adminitration of “subcontracting U.S. policy out to Tel Aviv, thus making Israel the custodian of our reputation and interests in the Middle East.”

    In a blistering condemnation, Pat Buchanan writes:

    The Lebanon that Israel, with Bush’s blessing, is smashing up has a pro-American government, heretofore considered a shining example of his democracy crusade. Yet, asked in St. Petersburg if he would urge Israel to use restraint in its air strikes, Bush sounded less like the leader of the Free World than some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights.

    What Israel is up to was described by its Army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz when he threatened to “turn back the clock in Lebanon 20 years.”

    Olmert seized upon Hezbollah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers to unleash the IDF in a pre-planned attack to make the Lebanese people suffer until the Lebanese government disarms Hezbollah, a task the Israeli army could not accomplish in 18 years of occupation.

    Israel is doing the same to the Palestinians. To punish these people for the crime of electing Hamas, Olmert imposed an economic blockade of Gaza and the West Bank and withheld the $50 million in monthly tax and customs receipts due the Palestinians.

    Then, Israel instructed the United States to terminate all aid to the Palestinian Authority, though Bush himself had called for the elections and for the participation of Hamas. Our Crawford cowboy meekly complied.

    The predictable result: Fatah and Hamas fell to fratricidal fighting, and Hamas militants began launching Qassam rockets over the fence from Gaza into Israel. Hamas then tunneled into Israel, killed two soldiers, captured one, took him back into Gaza, and demanded a prisoner exchange.

    Israel’s response was to abduct half of the Palestinian cabinet and parliament and blow up a $50 million U.S.-insured power plant. That cut off electricity for half a million Palestinians. Their food spoiled, their water could not be purified, and their families sweltered in the summer heat of the Gaza desert. One family of seven was wiped out on a beach by what the IDF assures us was an errant artillery shell.

    Let it be said: Israel has a right to defend herself, a right to counterattack against Hezbollah and Hamas, a right to clean out bases from which Katyusha or Qassam rockets are being fired, and a right to occupy land from which attacks are mounted on her people.

    But what Israel is doing is imposing deliberate suffering on civilians, collective punishment on innocent people, to force them to do something they are powerless to do: disarm the gunmen among them. Such a policy violates international law and comports neither with our values nor our interests. It is un-American and un-Christian.

    But where are the Christians? Why is Pope Benedict virtually alone among Christian leaders to have spoken out against what is being done to Lebanese Christians and Muslims?

    Where Are Bush’s Critics Now?strong>

  8. Dean –

    See my other post in which I put part of an email from my friend Ashor in Beirut. Ironic, isn’t it? Assyrians who fled to Lebanon for safety are now getting bombed.

    By they way, isn’t it a strange world when liberals agree with Pat Buchanan?

    I’m not criticizing it, I love Pat and always have. (Except on protectionism.) I just find it amazing that liberals are coming to appreciate his views.

Comments are closed.