tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4927240156474434943.post4381179734171911098..comments2024-03-03T05:33:04.854-05:00Comments on CODEPINK Women for Peace: Action Blog: To the Haters...CODEPINKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12059446164054787750noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4927240156474434943.post-76209573338419679542008-09-18T16:53:00.000-05:002008-09-18T16:53:00.000-05:00Yo, Sektor! Actually, Code Pink has made more tha...Yo, Sektor! Actually, Code Pink has made more than one visit to Iraq, bringing our message of Peace to the people our nation has so grievously wronged: Hundreds of thousands killed, over 5 million refugees, 70% of Iraqis without access to clean water, and their nation plunged into bloody sectarianism and criminality (currently ranked the most corrupt nation in the Middle East -- #3 in the world). <BR/><BR/>Funny how some trumpet the troop "Surge" which gave Iraqis and America's troops alike the most deadly chapter of the entire war and resulted in nearly 2.5 million internally displaced Iraqi civilians... and a blast-wall balkanized Baghdad, cleansed of its majority population, the Sunnis. History will not judge us -- or our Shi'ite death squad allies -- very kindly for that chapter of the war!<BR/><BR/>Of course, the violence only really began dropping after we put the insurgency on the U.S. payroll -- $300/month/man to get over 100,000 ex-insurgents to stop shooting at us for a while! (We could have done THAT years ago, instead of letting that knucklehead Bremer fire the lot of them, which created the insurgency in the first place -- what a FIASCO!)<BR/><BR/>But YES, Code Pink has been to Iraq! Though it's not really about self-promotion or the "history books," we have raised funds for Iraq's refugees (over 83% of whom are women and children under 12), and delivered those funds personally, trying to generate some good will toward Americans. <BR/><BR/>And Sektor, I share your concerns about the BLOWBACK America is courting with this immoral, profit-driven policy (starting a war that never had anything to do with al Qaeda or WMD -- wow, the information that's come out since 2003!), so I'm sure you support our goal: Ending the war in Iraq A.S.A.P.! <BR/><BR/>Of course the odds are that you stand with Code Pink and the 70% of our fellow Americans who recognize that this policy has only damaged our interests and helped al Qaeda... so please consider supporting us with more than just your words! Go to our homepage and find out how to contribute!<BR/><BR/>- JO'DCODEPINKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059446164054787750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4927240156474434943.post-43480484388749976312008-09-13T01:09:00.000-05:002008-09-13T01:09:00.000-05:00I think you guys are GREAT! The only thing is tha...I think you guys are GREAT! The only thing is that you guys don’t get much TV exposure. I have a suggestion that will put code pink on the map! I would love to see this on the news: picture this plane full of code pink members fly to Iraq, promoting your message of peace in Iraq. Think about it since the American people don’t want to listen to you. Code pink should take it to the Iraqi people so they can spread the message and go PINK!!!That way they don’t come to America and cause another 9/11. Now that would be GREAT!!!! That will put you guys on the map! Think about it Code pink brings peace to the Middle East! Now that will put you in the history books!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03010909077641309559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4927240156474434943.post-54872530722962274052008-09-11T00:09:00.000-05:002008-09-11T00:09:00.000-05:00Jenn of the Jungle:I've been associated with C...Jenn of the Jungle:<BR/><BR/>I've been associated with Code Pink for some time, and NO ONE here supports the killing of the troops... even in Iraq, where our nation has committed several small war crimes in the midst of one enormous one -- not the fault OR intent of the troops, but a result of the gross miscalculation and indifference of the policymakers, Republican and Democratic alike. <BR/><BR/>(And please stop painting all Muslims with the same hateful brush -- Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11; they never attacked us; they were never planning to attack us; according to UNICEF, under Bill Clinton our sanctions had killed 500,000 to 750,000 of their children under the age of five at the time we declared war on them, killing scores if not hundreds of thousands more... with no cause whatsoever; and yet there were virtually NO Islamic radicals in Iraq prior to our invasion).<BR/><BR/>(I'm not sure why I'm trying to reach you -- I think it's pretty clear that you didn't read my blog, and that you just want to insult us... I hope I'm wrong, but that's what you're conveying in your tone and comments.)<BR/><BR/>As for your first link: The "lies" supposedly evident in a photograph that's clearly been altered -- OBVIOUSLY for design purposes and NOT to deceive anyone -- are not lies at all, are they? It's just a collage. It's obviously just a collage.<BR/><BR/>As for your second link: One sign outside of a tent, one stray message (an understandable one, considering our illegal occupation and the holocaust we've unleashed), can hardly be construed to represent an entire organization... unless you're looking to distort and hate fellow Americans with whom you disagree (which is what you've done with that fairly innocuous quote of Medea's)...<BR/><BR/>Calling us "Pinkos" is not exactly civil discourse, so maybe the term "Hater" applies to you in this instance, Jenn... <BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, I'm sure we can have a more civil conversation, if you're interested (please start by reading the full blog -- and the entire thread of comments on this page).<BR/><BR/>You're entitled to your opinion. You're entitled to hate us, if that's your pleasure.<BR/><BR/>But you do your country no service when you attack people of conscience by twisting their words and looking for ways to distort their message.<BR/><BR/>We are all Americans. If we practice hate and division, we cannot come together to solve the serious problems we face and defeat our enemies (hint: They're not Iraqi Sunnis or Iranians... both of which would prefer simply to be LEFT ALONE -- OUR enemy is AL QAEDA, no friend to HALF the people we're fighting today... and a good friend of many of the people we're FINANCING today, including THE TALIBAN, to whom the United States has given BILLIONS of dollars since 9/11 through our "ally," Mr. Musharraf, the dictatorial sponsor of the Taliban who funneled U.S. funds to them and freed thousands of them from his jails while jailing thousands more peaceful, political opponents!) <BR/><BR/>Check out the facts: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/<BR/>07/magazine/07pakistan-t.html?<BR/>ref=magazine&pagewanted=print<BR/><BR/>and: <BR/>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19<BR/>/world/asia/19legacy.html?_r=1<BR/>&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin<BR/><BR/>and:<BR/>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/<BR/>2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh?<BR/>printable=true<BR/><BR/>and:<BR/>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18<BR/>/world/asia/18doctor.html?<BR/>pagewanted=print<BR/><BR/>- JO'DCODEPINKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059446164054787750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4927240156474434943.post-30346645762790238942008-09-11T00:07:00.000-05:002008-09-11T00:07:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.CODEPINKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059446164054787750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4927240156474434943.post-3715438511776264142008-09-10T23:59:00.000-05:002008-09-10T23:59:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.CODEPINKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059446164054787750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4927240156474434943.post-59285630690111720872008-09-10T15:08:00.000-05:002008-09-10T15:08:00.000-05:00You pinkos can pretend all you want that you are a...You pinkos can pretend all you want that you are about peace and love, but your actions speak louder than words. <BR/><BR/>In April 2004 your cult leader Medusa Benjamin pretended she doesn't like violent protest then says this:<BR/><BR/>"The main thing is to continue to look for creative ways to take action, to NOT discourage other methods that you personally might not be moved to do....."<BR/><BR/>That's right anarchists of the 2008 RNC Medusa has some great door prizes for you, thanks for coming.<BR/><BR/>You've got your lies:<BR/>http://www.intelligencesummit.org/images/news/CODEPUNK.jpg<BR/><BR/>Then you have your hate:<BR/>http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/code-pink_traitors.jpg<BR/><BR/>Support the Iraqi resistance? You mean support the killing of our own troops??? <BR/><BR/>And EVERYONE else are the hater. sure, OK. <BR/> <BR/>And stop claiming to speak for women. THIS WOMAN is not for you or anything you stand for. Id like peace, pretty much everyone but the Islamic terrorists want peace, but sometimes that's not possible.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04857256432575107386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4927240156474434943.post-75603786459788445502008-09-10T00:31:00.000-05:002008-09-10T00:31:00.000-05:00...and by the way, Lt Nixon, it might be a bit con......and by the way, Lt Nixon, it might be a bit confusing that you are having a conversation with more than one person. I am James O'Donnell, the author of the blog "To the Haters," and the person with whom you've been having the conversation about AQM.<BR/><BR/>"~d" is "~d" and I understand that your last comment was addressed to his/her comment ...but just for clarity's sake, the tag name of "codepink" is used by several people in this space.<BR/><BR/>(...and, speaking for myself, I really would like to have a substantive, courteous, respectful discussion... <BR/><BR/>...you scumwad -- kidding again)<BR/><BR/>(I promise you I really AM kidding. I don't have anything personal against you. I don't KNOW you. I'm just trying to lighten the tone, so I hope you have a sense of humor... ya' big -- okay, the joke's played.)<BR/><BR/>--JO'DCODEPINKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059446164054787750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4927240156474434943.post-63214516347299564712008-09-10T00:16:00.000-05:002008-09-10T00:16:00.000-05:00Lt nixon: It's unfortunate that you've reverted t...Lt nixon: It's unfortunate that you've reverted to invective. Initially, you did raise a substantive point about AQM. I tried to give it a fair and thoughtful response. I hope our next conversation can be equally productive and does not degenerate... you degenerate (j/k).CODEPINKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059446164054787750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4927240156474434943.post-43081213368386033202008-09-09T22:48:00.000-05:002008-09-09T22:48:00.000-05:00Just a post in support of you outstanding people a...Just a post in support of you outstanding people at Code Pink! <BR/><BR/>Great job, and Thank You! <BR/><BR/>More power to you all, keep up the great work!<BR/><BR/>Peace!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08926620634080037450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4927240156474434943.post-63690587024753243772008-09-09T22:00:00.000-05:002008-09-09T22:00:00.000-05:00All I can say about your comment is that it is inc...All I can say about your comment is that it is incredibly sad and a tragic sign of the times that people in America think this way.Nixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12419569519734310093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4927240156474434943.post-76065718281694650292008-09-09T13:22:00.000-05:002008-09-09T13:22:00.000-05:00lt nixon, is it safe to say you do support attacks...lt nixon, is it safe to say you do support attacks on civilians as long as the U.S. is swinging the club and Iraqis are on the receiving end? That's what it sounds like. The U.S. is the only country that INVADES another country (DO NOT call this war as that implies the need to defend oneself and Iraq did NOTHING to the U.S. for which it needs to defend) and when civilians attempt to defend themselves from our invading forces, the U.S. calls them terrorists. Did you expect them to just lay down and die? I would imagine many, including the the current administration, did considering Iraq was the weakest country in the region, a threat to no one, but I guess the spirit of Iraqis was grossly underestimated.<BR/><BR/>Supporting the troops and supporting peace and supporting the rights of Iraqis to defend themselves are not mutually exclusive. Did we not support the rights of the people of Kuwait against Saddam? Then why wouldn't the Iraqis be entitled to the same rights? Stop pretending to misunderstand the message. Its perfectly clear. If you invade a nation, people will do whatever they have to do to fight back and they have every right. Would you think Americans would do anything less if we were invaded. Would we be concerned with the why? We don't need a foreign military to over-throw our criminals, we can take care of them ourselves and so can they. If there were jellybeans under the Iraq sand, we wouldn't have given a damn what Saddam was doing to his people so let's keep this in perspective. Our military was sent there under total lies and by now is basically told to shoot at whatever moves or feels threatening (which is probably every time the wind blows) and civilian Iraqis are fighting back. The folks that made this decision to invade Iraq are guilty of murder on all counts. It falls under what is commonly referred to in legal-ese as depraved indifference. <BR/>Every Iraqi that fights against invading forces is labeled as an insurgent or a terrorist which translates to anyone who won't let us run rampant over their country. They want us out and that's exactly what we need to be. If anyone is truly concerned about the safety of our soldiers, well there's a really easy way to insure it: Get them home, now.<BR/>Is that clear enough?<BR/>~dCODEPINKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059446164054787750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4927240156474434943.post-79472817157744102602008-09-08T02:51:00.000-05:002008-09-08T02:51:00.000-05:00“So does Code Pink support people killing American...“So does Code Pink support people killing American troops or not?” <BR/><BR/>Of course not. I said “I DON'T like” that they're attacking our troops... How you can construe that as “support” for such attacks, I don't know. <BR/><BR/>I was trying to make a technical distinction: If the target is civilian, then the action is “terrorism;” if the target is military, the action is warfare (even if using unconventional tactics). It's ludicrous to suggest that the Sunnis we overthrew should come out and fight us “like men” on the battlefield. With our technological advantages, we would slaughter them in a matter of minutes! Our enemy is simply applying tactics that increase his advantage. (When George Washington made analogous adjustments in our war with the British, they called him... a “terrorist.” They too were wrong. It's warfare, plain and simple.) <BR/><BR/>But for clarity's sake... I don't think the insurgents are George Washington, I hate what they're doing, I hate that it has succeeded, and I hate that so many U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians have died, and that we're still in this stupid war. <BR/><BR/>As to your second point, the reason I wrote that the U.S. is giving money to AQM is that the majority of the Sahwa councils are composed primarily from ex-AQM forces (per the Baghdad government, per members of the Awakening Movement itself, and per several U.S. military sources quoted in dozens of reports over the last year+). According to all of the above, “at least 50%” of the Sons of Iraq are formerly members of a broad Sunni insurgency that American politicians and media have sloppily referred to as “al Qaeda in Mesopotamia” (mostly for political reasons... because -- think about it -- if our enemy in Iraq isn't al Qaeda, then that would mean we diverted resources from Afghanistan in order to launch a war that created scores of thousands of enemies that we DIDN'T have on September 12, 2001... scores of thousands of potential allies to bin Laden... so they just HAD to be al Qaeda -- in Mesopotamia! -- even though they weren't...). <BR/><BR/>More accurately, the majority of the people we've been fighting in Iraq are IRAQIS. <BR/><BR/>They are Sunni insurgents, irregular military forces, some of whom eventually partnered with newly minted al Qaedists, like Zarqawi; others of whom were imprecisely lumped into AQM by the IUG, the U.S. military, the media and politicians... because that's how we referred to ALL our Sunni enemies... even though most of them never embraced al Qaeda's tactics or their cause. <BR/><BR/>The reason why this conversation is so confusing is that AQM itself is almost entirely a fiction! The foreign element in Iraq, however violent, has NEVER been more than 2-3% of the insurgency. <BR/><BR/>In fact, to make a broader (but relevant) point, practically NONE of the people we've been calling “al Qaeda” in recent years have had ANY real affiliation with the group led by Zawahiri and bin Laden, in or out of Iraq (which explains why John McCain got so confused a couple months back, referring to “IRAN's” support for “al Qaeda!” He simply meant “insurgents”). <BR/><BR/>The problem is we've simply taken to calling everyone we don't like a “terrorist” or “al Qaeda” or an “Islamofascist” (in some cases just because they oppose our presence in their country, or our support for terrorists or dictators in their region). <BR/><BR/>The fact that we do so confuses Americans -- including our leaders -- about WHO our enemies actually are. This kind of conflation is dangerous and can have real, detrimental effects on our war against al Qaeda (the REAL al Qaeda, not every Tahm, Dique, and Hahhri with a gripe and a gun -- the fact is, most of the people we are fighting in the world today, especially in Iraq, Somalia, Iran, and Algeria, had NO interest in pointing their guns toward us... until we targeted THEM... because 9/11 enabled the “empire”-minded, “force-projection” fans to put U.S. interests and resources and troops in all kinds of places in the world where we weren't welcome before (neither local governments or the American public would have tolerated it... prior to 9/11). <BR/><BR/>(I'm talking about the Cheneys, McCains, Albrights, Rumsfelds, and Bidens, now... the neocons and morons at PNAC and a dozen other think tanks). <BR/><BR/>Consider Algeria, which previous to 9/11 had an insurgency (against a brutally oppressive, dictatorial government), an insurgency comprised of Islamists with NO affiliation to al Qaeda and NO hatred of the U.S. -- until we drove them into the arms of al Qaeda and gave international terrorism -- and al Qaeda -- a HUGE boost! Check it out: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01<BR/>/world/africa/01algeria.html?<BR/>fta=y&pagewanted=print<BR/><BR/>Since 9/11, George Bush has magnified this counterproductive behavior beyond all measure... which is why we're LOSING the Global War on Terror! (bin Laden's strategy is to bankrupt us and discredit us morally before the eyes of the world -- not kill us on the battlefield! We should be cognizant of our enemy's strategy, no?) <BR/><BR/>(That's why I think our corrupt government and the military industrial complex must be part of this discussion: they are unwittingly aiding our most serious adversary with their greed and graft!) <BR/><BR/>But back to IRAQ... <BR/><BR/>The Bush crowd needs to make it seem that we're primarily fighting “terrorists” in Iraq, rather than IRAQIS. They NEED the insurgency to be made up of “terrorists,” because the phrase “Iraq is the Central Front in the War on Terror” became a political necessity for an INCREDIBLY political administration with a VERY unpopular war on its hands... which they have totally mismanaged. <BR/><BR/>Nearly six years in, they are STILL linking Iraq to 9/11 with the “T” word, when all along we have primarily been fighting IRAQI SUNNI INSURGENTS who don't give a crap about al Qaeda or their cause! <BR/><BR/>These are the SAME PEOPLE we started off fighting nearly six years ago! Baathists, ex-Saddamists, and plain old Sunnis who got screwed when we invaded their country and gave it to Iran! <BR/><BR/>That's who “AQM” really are!<BR/><BR/>General Petraeus and others have said all along that AQM is indigenously comprised and foreign led (...but even that overstates the role that foreign jihadis have played in this insurgency: SMALL). <BR/><BR/>Most Iraqi Sunnis HATE the foreign element, and they are all too happy to finally be eliminating those bloody bastards from their country. (And if we weren't paying them to chill, they'd still be targeting US... because they don't want us there, and they hate us for what we've done to their country.) <BR/><BR/>THAT is who we're paying today, and THAT is who we've been fighting all along! The “Sons of Iraq,” the “Awakening,” the “Concerned Local Citizens” (whatever you want to call them) are the same folks we've (sloppily) been calling “al Qaeda in Mesopotamia” for the past several years.CODEPINKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059446164054787750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4927240156474434943.post-44794236193627440652008-09-07T23:48:00.000-05:002008-09-07T23:48:00.000-05:00I don't like the fact that they're attacking our t...<I>I don't like the fact that they're attacking our troops any more than you do, but they're not, technically, "terrorists"</I><BR/><BR/>So does Code Pink support people killing American troops or not? I can believe that you don't support terrorism directed at civilians in Iraq, but are you supportive of IEDs, indirect fire, and other irregular warfare tactics that have killed our troops in Iraq? There isn't much room for gray area on this subject. <BR/><BR/>You've described the payment to the Sahwa councils, and, yes, some of them were members of the Sunni insurgency. But you've highlighted the difference between the Sunni insurgency that is being paid and Al-Qaeda (foreign-led). So why the hell did you write that the US is giving money to Al Qaeda Mesopotamia?Nixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12419569519734310093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4927240156474434943.post-8860245233414272072008-09-07T12:31:00.000-05:002008-09-07T12:31:00.000-05:00Nice work, as usual, James, although I do not reco...Nice work, as usual, James, although I do not recommend including older posts. The 'hate' issue is quite disturbing, as is the over-personalization of politics and policy. Our political system is clearly over-focussed on personalities, and virtually all of the media is more than willing to discuss things in that framework. It is, after all, much easier to talk about who you want to have a beer with than too try and have a rational discussion about policy. Pretty sad, but we work with it the way we can. For me, I'll do it in PINK!!<BR/>peace,<BR/>jimJimPrestonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00469874247503422959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4927240156474434943.post-43649433894281390202008-09-07T11:58:00.000-05:002008-09-07T11:58:00.000-05:00This is the first time I've read somewhere that an...This is the first time I've read somewhere that anyone is calling these so-called "good Christians" on their hypocrisy. The Bush Administration is full of people who call themselves "good Christians" and yet break the Commandments on a daily basis, particularly the "thou shalt not bear false witness." Now, it doesn't matter to me if you break the Commandments. Want to commit adultery (McCain and Giuliani, among others)? Fine, by me. Want to lie and cheat (the entire Bush administration, McCain, Palin and Giuliani and probably most politicians across the world)? Fine by me. Just don't turn around and tell me how righteous and morally superior you are and how your viewpoint is the only acceptable viewpoint.<BR/><BR/>Whether your facts are correct, or not, is immaterial. Often times we are fed only the facts that those in power think "we can handle," "won't make them look bad," and/or "will support their viewpoint." It has been proven time and again that these so-called "good Christians" lie and cheat and are more concerned with their ego-centric, self-obsessed wants and needs than the U.S. citizenry. It is hard for me to believe that God is o.k. with going to church on Sunday and then being the same lying, cheating, hate-filled schmucks on Monday. Ponder that.arlenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17036444219753047233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4927240156474434943.post-92150846873034895052008-09-07T05:56:00.000-05:002008-09-07T05:56:00.000-05:00...and so far as Code Pink's visit to Iraq, please......and so far as Code Pink's visit to Iraq, please examine the record and you'll see it was about humanitarian aid to war-ravaged Anbari civilians, including women and children (not arms to terrorists, as has been portrayed by some). Also, your comment confuses resistance to occupation with terrorist activity... understandably (the pols and media have been telling us for years that everyone that attacks our troops is a "terrorist," which is how the Sunni insurgency, scores of thousands of Iraqis who we had knocked out of power, were initially lumped into the umbrella term of "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia." I don't like the fact that they're attacking our troops any more than you do, but they're not, technically, "terrorists" -- they're the people we declared war on five-and-a-half years ago, and the target of the majority of their attacks has been a MILITARY target: Us!) It has been very confusing to a lot of Americans the way the pols and media have spun this. Actual al Qaeda representatives -- foreign al Qaeda -- have been limited to a few thousand, at best... and most of them have come from Saudi Arabia and Africa. They've never been behind most of the attacks on our troops (they've been behind most of the attacks on civilians, especially Shi'ite civilians and foreigners)... and the Awakening groups weren't "stood up" -- they stood up themselves, MONTHS before the Surge was even discussed. Iraqi Sunnis were sick of the foreign jihadis, their bloody tactics and intimidation of the local populace, so they decided to clean house... because after the '06 midterm elections in the U.S., they figured (correctly, I would say) that it is only a matter of time before the U.S. leaves.CODEPINKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059446164054787750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4927240156474434943.post-46322982469438162542008-09-07T05:33:00.000-05:002008-09-07T05:33:00.000-05:00It nixon -- this is not some controversial fact or...It nixon -- this is not some controversial fact or mystery: The U.S. military, the Iraqi Unity Government, and the Awakening Council leaders have all as much as said that today's Awakening is composed of yesterday's insurgency. They began in late 2006 taking out the foreign jihadis -- because they saw the handwriting on the wall after the 2006 U.S. elections, so far as the U.S. occupation, and they didn't need the foreign element anymore. MONTHS later, the U.S. started paying them to quit attacking us, and today over 100,000 Awakening members are now on the U.S. payroll ($300/month/man). This has been reported by every cable news channel and major newspaper that I can think of... it is merely DOWNPLAYED (the MSM's chosen narrative is "Surge Success" -- not paid off insurgency...).CODEPINKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059446164054787750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4927240156474434943.post-47615704945859330422008-09-07T04:55:00.000-05:002008-09-07T04:55:00.000-05:00I have no idea where you are getting that the U.S....I have no idea where you are getting that the U.S. is giving Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia money. The Awakening groups were stood up to fight Al-Qaeda in insurgent strongholds. But even if the U.S. was funding terrorist activity in Iraq, one of your founders was so adamant 3 years ago in her support of the brave "<A HREF="http://www.alternet.org/story/22308/?page=2" REL="nofollow">Iraqi resistance</A>" that was brutalizing civilians and our troops. Seems like you ladies would be onboard with the idea!Nixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12419569519734310093noreply@blogger.com