"That Woman Is WORTH Paying Attention To": Medea Benjamin Explains WHY She DISRUPTED Obama’s Speech

[Segami]

Less than 24 hours after she interrupted President Obama’s major speech on the future of the secret drone war and Guantánamo, CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin describes why she repeatedly interrupted Obama’s address. Benjamin, the author of "Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control," criticized Obama for failing to explain why a U.S. drone in Yemen killed the teenage U.S. citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in 2011. "I was very disappointed. He said that his policy is to capture, not kill. That’s just not true. I know personally of many incidents where it would have been very easy to capture people, like the 16-year-old Tariq Aziz in Pakistan, who was in Islamabad at a well-known hotel, but instead was killed by a drone strike two days later," Benjamin says. "I think the president is really justifying the use of drones, which will continue to happen under his administration and be passed on to the next."

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: To discuss President Obama’s first major address on counterterrorism strategy since he was re-elected, we’re joined now by three guests. In Washington, D.C., Medea Benjamin is the co-founder of CodePink and author of Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control.

AMY GOODMAN: She repeatedly interrupted President Obama’s speech Thursday in an exchange that ended with him saying, quote, "The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to."

Medea Benjamin, welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about what happened yesterday. First of all, how did you get into the National Defense University for this address? I would assume your face is one of the most famous on Capitol Hill.

MEDEA BENJAMIN: There are some secrets, Amy, that can’t be disclosed. But it was great to get in there. And, you know, President Obama, when I just listened to that segment, he said that I wasn’t listening to him. I was hanging on every single word. And I really expected to hear some major policy changes, and I didn’t know whether I was going to speak up or not. If he had said something like, "To show my commitment to Guantánamo, next week we will start releasing those prisoners who have been cleared," or if he had said, "We’re taking drones out of the hands of the CIA immediately," or, "We’re going to immediately say that signature strikes, where people are killed on the basis of suspicious behavior, will no longer be allowed," if he had said anything like that significant, I wouldn’t have spoken up.

AMY GOODMAN: You told The New York Times, in the piece today, that you don’t like being called a "heckler." Why not?

MEDEA BENJAMIN: I think a heckler is a very negative term, and I think it’s a positive thing when people find the courage to speak up to leaders who are not leading. And I didn’t do what I did to embarrass the president. I did it because I feel that he needs to be pushed more, that it has been over four years now of policies that have been killing innocent people with drones. It has been now over 11 years that innocent people are still being held in Guantánamo and now being force-fed. These are crisis situations, and it requires more from us as citizens.


cont'

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/24/that_woman_is_worth_paying_attention

[snot]

1. K&R'd.

"What a huge debt this nation owes to its 'troublemakers.' From Thomas Paine to Martin Luther King, Jr., they have forced us to focus on problems we would prefer to downplay or ignore. Yet it is often only with hindsight that we can distinguish those troublemakers who brought us to our senses from those who were simply troublemakers. Prudence, and respect for the constitutional rights to free speech and free association, therefore dictate that the legal system cut all non-violent protesters a fair amount of slack."
– Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Papineau v. Parmley, 465 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2006).

[msongs]

2. look, the emperor is not wearing any clothes! nt

[tritsofme]

3. No, she's not.

[Dragonfli]

46. So, do you vehemently disagree with the President's statement, or are you just calling him a liar?

What are you, some kind of teabagging hater suffering from ODS or do you think he was wrong? If you think he is absolutely wrong as your statement implies that is fair I suppose, but I would like to know WHY you think he was so wrong.

[tritsofme]

54. Huh? I support the president, and think this woman is a loony toon.

No doubt Mr. Obama is a much kinder man than I.

[Dragonfli]

61. You disagreed entirely with what he said, is that you supporting him?

Obama: "The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to."
Poster opposing Obama: "No, she's not."

Stop playing games, either you are a hater automatically offering an knee jerk opposing view to his without any stated reason to support your contrary post.

Or you honestly hold an opposite view to his, but again, still didn't bother to explain why. There is no other truth that can be gleaned from the two quotes, so which is it? Or are you just playing a game?

[Number23]

71. Good Lord. You got all of that from "no, she's not?"

[SidDithers]

78. I'll see your googly eyes, and raise you one...

That's a whole lot of crazy inference from three little words.

Sid

[Number23]

80. I mean, sometimes I think some of these folks have simply GOT to be joshing around.

That's the only thing that makes sense. Otherwise...

[Dragonfli]

95. It was a very clear one line reply to the post title, since you speak for the poster,

What did that seemingly quite simple one line reply mean? was it a poem? gibberish? A random thought? or an obvious one line reply to a title of a post like it appears to be.

[Dragonfli]

85. A one line reply to a title of a post? what else did that weird sentence mean?

[sabrina 1]

102. The president is very familiar with Medea Benjamin and at one time when he was running for office

appeared to have a great deal of respect for her. His statement that she is worth listening to, is NOT an odd thing for him to say about her, as far as I recall he always felt that way about her.

So if you disagree with HIM, fine, but he is being consistent regarding his longtime opinion of Medea Benjamin. She has had contact with the WH since he was first elected, and with many members of Congress.

SHE has not altered HER principles, but sad to say, some on the 'left' appear to have forgotten theirs.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

143. I'll take president at his word

And I cuncur whith him, after listening... U not so much.

[Tx4obama]

4. Anwar al-Awlaki's son was NOT the target of the drone, senior Al-Qaeda member Ibrahim al-Banna was

Anwar al-Awlaki's SON grew up OUTSIDE of The USA and he was NOT the target of the drone.

Anwar al-Awlaki

In "44 Ways to Support Jihad," another sermon posted on his blog in February 2009, al-Awlaki encouraged others to "fight jihad", and explained how to give money to the mujahideen or their families after they've died. Al-Awlaki's sermon also encouraged others to conduct weapons training, and raise children "on the love of Jihad."
Also that month, he wrote: "I pray that Allah destroys America and all its allies." He wrote as well: "We will implement the rule of Allah on Earth by the tip of the sword, whether the masses like it or not." On July 14, he criticized armies of Muslim countries that assist the U.S. military, saying, "the blame should be placed on the soldier who is willing to follow orders ... who sells his religion for a few dollars."In a sermon on his blog on July 15, 2009, entitled "Fighting Against Government Armies in the Muslim World," al-Awlaki wrote, "Blessed are those who fight against American soldiers, and blessed are those shuhada (martyrs) who are killed by them."

---------------------------------------

Did you catch that? " ... raise children "on the love of Jihad."

He and his SON can not be compared to a average American father and son - the 'teenager' was the son of one of the Most Wanted members of Al Qaeda.

al-Awlaki's son lived in Yemen since 2002 - he was NOT raised like an American, The son was raised 'on the love of Jihad'.

There have been children as young as six years old that have been trained by members of Al Qaeda.

------


AND...

Anwar al-Awlaki's son knew the men he was with in the car were his father's terrorists buddies.
He traveled from the town he was living in to the town/place the terrorists were meeting,
the drone attacked one of the top terrorists after everyone left the building the meeting was being held in, they were in a car.
If he hadn't been hanging around the terrorists at the time of the drone strike he would still be alive.
He was NOT the target of the drone the terrorists were.

TIP: If you don't want to die from a drone strike then do not ride around in a car in Yemen with known terrorists.

------

He was NOT the target of the drone.

Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Another U.S. administration official described Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time", stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki’s son was there" before the airstrike was ordered

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Did you know "the target"

was not even there and is still very much alive?

I will be kind, somebody made a deadly mistake.

The other option is we have a division of pre crime. Given some (more than one or two) of the targeting of military age youth declared enemy combatants on age alone...

On the plus side, I think somebody is finally getting the point through, blowback sucks

[Tx4obama]

6. Who said that al-Banna is alive? Where has it been proven he is alive?

Ibrahim al-Banna is a citizen of Egypt who security officials suspected is a leader in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Security officials have repeatedly claimed to have killed him with missiles launched from unmanned aerial vehicles. An October 2011 claim had al-Banna killed, along with six other individuals, including some who were alleged to have been associated with AQAP and at least one (Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki) who was not.[

-snip-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_al-Banna

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. A couple of the talking heads

But that's ok, as long as a democrat does it...it's fine.

Yes, I am willing to lay good odds at people being more than outraged if this was ordered by Bush.

I find it objectionable...regardless.

[Tarheel_Dem]

112. You're a "journalist", Can you support your claim or not? How do you know he's....

alive? A link, from a reputable source, would be great. Thanks in advance:

[Hissyspit]

13. "He was not raised like an American"

Beside the point. Due process and the killing of innocents is the point.

"Grew up outside the U.S."

So have lots of Americans.

"He and his SON can not be compared to a average American father and son"

Really? Only average Americans have rights? Also: So?

"Anwar al-Awlaki's son knew the men he was with in the car were his father's terrorists buddies."

How do we know that? Just because someone said it?

"TIP: If you don't want to die from a drone strike then do not ride around in a car in Yemen with known terrorists."

Like journalists sometimes do?

[bluestate10]

18. The Left is so desperate to make the son an innocent victim that they ignore any and

all information that indicates that he wasn't an innocent 16 year old looking for his father.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. The left...the horror

Next thing you know they will demand like respect for...civil rights and due process!

I know...the horror!

I will repeat this, if this happened under bush you'd lead the parade. Some of us happen to be consistent.

[dflprincess]

63. +1000

[ConservativeDemocrat]

125. You are wrong in every single respect

There is no such thing as "civil rights" in a war zone, and "due process" is something you only attend to after you have someone in custody.

Also, you're completely wrong about "leading the parade". A small bit of targeting of Al Qaeda did happen under Bush, and I was quite happy with it. After all, they were the ones who hit us on the original 9/11. In fact, IMHO, one of the most unforgivable things Bush did was to gin up the war in Iraq instead of keeping the pressure on Al Qaeda and getting Osama bin Laden.

So I am perfectly consistent as well.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. May I offer you the Geneva Convention

That actually forbids the targeting of civilians in a war zone? Did I mention we are actually signatories of it? Need I translate that as actually having the force of law...U.S. Law?

Go along...yes, there are basic human rights, even in a war zone.

Enjoy the fun...

[G_j]

138. how quaint!

still, bringing it up is a sure fire conversation ender, especially effective if you like the sound of crickets.

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. I like crickets

They are cute.

[Marr]

29. I don't know what's more sickening:

Your casual dismissal of targeted assassinations of US citizens by our government, or your insistence that you aren't right-wing yourself, even as you mock "the Left" for opposing it.

[Dragonfli]

69. casual dismissal of targeted assassinations of US citizens by our government is more sickening

regardless of the often obvious far right political beliefs of that poster, it would be sickening if it came from a flaming liberal. It is just sickening regardless of the politics of the sociopath dismissing such evil.

That is my answer to your hypothetical anyway.

[Tx4obama]

74. The kid was NOT the one being targeted. Al-Banna was the target and he was not a US citizen. n/t

[Dragonfli]

77. He wasn't killed by our drone? I am glad to hear it, I thought we killed a kid! my apologies.

Has he been placed with A foster family somewhere?

Not that I should have answered your post anyway as I never mentioned that kid, so you must have replied to the wrong sub. innocent mistake, I have posted in the wrong place before as well, no need to be embarrassed.

[Tx4obama]

79. You are the one that said our government targeted a US Citizen. Al-Banna was the target ...

Al-Banna was NOT a US citizen.

The key word here is 'target'.

[Dragonfli]

82. Killing is illusion and a word is what is important then? I thought what happened was important

didn't know it was a battle of words and not blood, and we have TARGETED us citizens. So even my words (so much more important than who we kill), were not wrong.

Death has absolutely no meaning to you does it? Who we actually kill is meaningless to you. Only a technical "target" that may not even be somewhere we happen to blow up a wedding or a vehicle. Death is meaningless - the word "target" is all that you get emotional about. Interesting. Look up Sociopath for me will you? I think I met one quite recently...not sure tho..

[Tx4obama]

84. You have no clue what I think or feel, but I do think you're being rude. Have a great weekend. n/t

[Dragonfli]

86. And you kind sir, have a continued compassionate empathic day! You express your grief well!

[Tx4obama]

87. I am a female, not all folks here on DU are male. n/t

[Dragonfli]

89. I apologize Ms TX4, I just thought such callousness was more likely a male trait.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

130. She's being compassionate in a way you cannot possibly comprehend

Al Qaeda's intent is to impose worldwide Sharia. So let me give you a small clue of what the U.S. is saving people from:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14810719

The Afghan government has launched a national media campaign to address the growing problem of self-immolation.

Many try to commit suicide because they are victims of domestic violence and other forms of abuse. Until recently, most cases were clustered in the western Herat province, near the border with Iran, where it has been described as a more common means of committing suicide. Typical cases involve young women who are badly burned by household fuel or cooking oil. Many suffer terrible scarring and in some cases the injuries are fatal.

"During the last year, 22,000 cases of burns were recorded in the hospitals and received treatment," said Dr Suray Dalil, Afghanistan's acting health minister."

Attempted Murder of 14-year-old Schoolgirl In Swat By Pakistani Taliban
http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/attempted-murder-of-14-year-old-schoolgirl-in-swat-by-pakistani-taliban/

SWAT: Tehreek e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) have claimed responsibility of an attack on Malala Yousafzai, the National Peace Prize Winner.

TTP spokesman, Ehsanullah Ehsan said his group was behind the shooting.

“We carried out this attack,” spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan told AFP, speaking by telephone from an undisclosed location. “Anybody who speaks against us will be attacked in the same way.”

You know, there were a lot of NAZI supporters in 1942 who were civilians, yet still died in WW2. I would expect you to be someone who would back Neville Chamberlain, saying "peace in our time", likely with similar sanctimonious outrage. But your perspective might be a little different if you were Jewish.

[Dragonfli]

133. Compassionate killing! Sociopathic "compassion" does not interest me

Next you will claim that blowing up a bus in NYC because one of the passangers may be a Muslim is an act of kindness, and the kids on the bus weren't targets so their deaths are irrelevant. I find your rationalizations rather disgusting, please don't spread that noxious shite at my feet anymore, the stench is rather offensive.

[mythology]

142. What insipid sexist nonsense

[Dragonfli]

146. I'm a real man hater I guess.

I suppose that makes me self loathing.

[hfojvt]

118. it's pretty hard to not distance yourself

from people who are so nutty as to call that kid an American citizen

and not only an American citizen, apparently, but the most important American citizen EVER.

Like I am supposed to be trembling with rage about his death, as if no other 16 year old has ever died in America.

[Marr]

124. You're saying he was not a citizen?

The rest of your post I won't address, as it's just a strawman. I never said any of those things, nor have I seen anyone else do so.

[hfojvt]

136. not in any real sense of the term

as for the "strawman". Well, using his name as some sort of rallying cry is elevating his level of importance, like I am supposed to care somehow that that sonofaterrorist is dead. Like he matters more, somehow, than Ranisha Jones, to give but one example - a name that I use for my own rallying cry. Because maybe her name deserves more recognition than that of an SOT. What about Ranisha Jones? What about Jalisa Reed? THEY were American citizens, and they are dead.

Should we care about them, or should we care more about, talk about, yell the name out, of a person who is only an American citizen on paper and who was apparently in Yemen hanging out with people whose stated purpose is "to kill Americans and American allies"?

Because carrying his picture is like carrying the picture of Chairman Mao, and is likely to motivate someone like me to put on a shirt that says "I am NOT with stupid --->"

[Marr]

144. So he was a citizen then. Thank you.

And yes, by the way, I think any decent human being should care when an innocent person is killed, no matter who they're related to.

People point to this instance not because they consider him a martyr, but because of the overreach of executive authority it represents. A president asserting the right to have US citizen murdered is very troubling-- whether you consider them real people, or real Americans, or not.

[sabrina 1]

103. So you're not part of 'the left'? Then why are you posting here, this is not a right wing

forum, which I assume you must be aware of. The Left has always opposed illegal state sponsored assassinations of anyone, let alone of US Citizens. We opposed them when Bush initiated the vile policy and none of us on the Left have ever altered that POV.

The Right otoh, were fully supportive of all despicable Bush policies, blindly. As for the individual you just mentioned, he was and remains an innocent person. The President, just fyi it was revealed recently, was shocked according to reports, when he was told about that murder. Too bad people just react instead of learning the facts first. Either the president was wrong to be upset by that killing, or you are wrong to support it.

[G_j]

137. The Left?

so let me understand, you are broad brushing the "left" as so desperate as to
make shit up.

..mmm that sentiment sounds familiar

[rhett o rick]

140. Your denigration of "the left" is counter productive if you are fighting

on the side of the 99%.

If you dont consider yourself as part of "the Left" then what do you consider yourself?

And which issues do you differ from "The Left".

It seems that some are so anxious to justify Pres Obama's drone killing program, they will rationalize that this boy deserved to be killed.

[whatchamacallit]

59. Make up your fucking mind

Essentially, your free-republic-worthy post says "He wasn't the target, but if he was he had it coming". So proud to be a democrat these days

[Tx4obama]

62. I did NOT say 'but if he was he had it coming'. I take issue with your use of quotation marks. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

66. You didn't say it directly

but what's the point of painting the kid as abnormal and under the influence of his dad's jihadist ways if not to imply he had it coming?

[Tx4obama]

67. The point is to state everything known so that a clear picture of the issue can be obtained. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

70. Sure it is...

[SidDithers]

7. Sorry. Code Pink jumped the shark with this stunt...

That little love-in for Rand Paul destroyed any credibility they might have had.

Sid

[iandhr]

10. +1

[Fuddnik]

14. Benjamin-Hamsher 2016!

You keep saying we need a woman for President.

How about two of them who aren't neoliberals.

[Hissyspit]

17. Guilt by association instead of guilt of being wrong?

Paul is an asshole and hypocrite but the drone programs are a disaster and Brennan deserved to be filibustered.

"...Director of the CIA in the first Obama administration over concerns about his support for the use of torture by the CIA under President George W. Bush."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O._Brennan

[SidDithers]

24. Code Pink chose to support Rand Paul...

with a photo OP, a pink heart and chocolates.

That goes way beyond simply agreeing with his position about Brennan.

Rand fucking Paul doesn't deserve that kind of support from anyone who claims to be progressive.



Sid

[mountain grammy]

31. As a long time Code Pink supporter, I agree with you, SidDithers.

[SidDithers]

32. Thank you...

Sid

[babylonsister]

51. Whacked. I'm surprised, too. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

52. As another long-time Code Pink supporter and donor, I agree with you, Sid.

I am so disgusted by her support for Rand Paul while rudely heckling President Obama that I will no longer be a member of Code Pink Los Angeles.

[Dragonfli]

57. They chose to support a filibuster, not an entire agenda of one man, you have

offered nothing but a group's support of a single action, If Durbin wanted to filibuster that Criminal, he would have been thanked as well.

You are a silly man, and it shows, where is your condemnation of Obama for offering Boner a gourmet meal? Does that also prove by association he is a Boehner supporter firmly in his camp? Same logic (or lack thereof) applied by you to imply much more of an association than ever existed.

I consider your obvious tactic a form of lying. Similarly, Does support by Obama of Brennan a proponent of torture and Bush's man prove that Obama is a torture supporter or a Bush supporter? Can you see how silly your belief that supporting one action places one by association in an entire agenda is?

You are indeed silly, to believe what you claim I would have to also believe that Obama is a Boehner supporter, a Bush supporter and a torture supporter.

Smears and guilt by association make for skeevy oily posts. Next you will claim that every Democrat that votes with any Republican on something is obviously a "Republican"

Read the signs in the picture you posted, they opposed Brennan as did many including myself, they thanked the one guy that was filling to filibuster a war criminal, that only makes them guilty of opposing a War criminal, you have shown nothing more and you damn well know it.

[SidDithers]

72. It's hard for me to express how little I care about your opinion of me...

"You are a silly man"
"I consider your obvious tactic a form of lying"
"You are indeed silly"



Sid

[Dragonfli]

88. I think I would be very concerned if you felt any different, I don't want the respect of a silly...,

[dionysus]

127. boom goes the dynamite...

[calimary]

25. My concern is - are they laying the groundwork for a republi-CON to get back into the White House?

It's a big concern.

So what does this do? Poke MORE holes in President Obama? Accentuate the negative? Yes, certainly, the points they make on many issues are spot-on, things that need to be said, but you have to do that with some care and long-term strategic thinking here. Do you heap criticism and objection upon the guy who's on your side most of the time, and sees the world pretty much the way you do, so it weakens him and his allies (probably losing him allies, is more like it)? Do you do things that will weaken him politically, helping his poll numbers go down, so then the media can pile on with narratives like "Obama's losing his mojo," "lame duck President," I mean - you get enough of those and pretty soon it starts to be self-fulfilling prophesy. You grow the perception (here we go with perception management again, but It. Is. TRUE!) that the President is weak, bad, not a leader, duplicitous, secretive, and then that's how people accept perceiving him. That plants suggestions in the back of their heads that this is true. And thus you give aid and comfort to the enemy (as in rand paul)? And all his little teabagger friends whose world view is ANYTHING BUT what Code Pink's is? And while you're helping their cause, you're also weakening the cause of the Democrats - a political party that, for all its faults, is still closer to the Code Pink worldview than the alternatives will EVER be.

As long as we have only two viable political parties, this is what we're stuck with. And while it's easy to say - "well, hey, let's just start a third party!" - we already have a lot of third parties. The teabaggers being one. They're mostly ineffective. Except for the teabaggers in local and regional races. But they're so damned extreme. Their views are just not that popular. A flat-out card-carrying teabagger probably won't ever get past primary season. BUT more of them can side with the next republi-CON, and give that person the edge enough to win.

I mean, rand paul?????????

For the Love of GOD!!!!!!!

Are they OUT OF THEIR FRICKIN MINDS???????????????????????

If Code Pink thinks for even a nanosecond that somebody like rand paul is on their side, or going to be open to their ideas and their idea of America (a lot of which, frankly, I support) then they're more deluded than the Pox Noise audience.

But I worry, seriously, that this kind of thing undermines any strength our side has. And YES, I look at it that simplistically a lot of the time - our side versus theirs. In this context, the "our side" being Dems, liberals, and progressives. The "theirs" being republi-CONS and teabaggers and wrong-wingers and the like.

I feel this sense of urgency that Democrats be able to keep the White House.

There's just too much at stake. And regardless how the population's turning more open-minded, accepting and tolerant, and in effect, liberal, or how young people reject the policies of the so-called "right," AND how Dems got one million more votes in 2012 than republi-CONS did, but that didn't help us get back the House of Reps. It didn't keep majorities of republi-CONS from taking over governors' mansions and at least one or both houses of the state legislatures - in a majority of states. We've seen how finagling and conniving and sneaking and cheating has STILL allowed them to maintain some dominance - REGARDLESS of social trends and demographic shifts. We can look forward to far more of that, since the GOP always seems to be better at tilting the playing field so they do better - than our side does. And when they get desperate, they truly will stop at nothing - not to mention all the koch brothers and other money they have on their side, advancing their interests.

So I grow VERY concerned when even "our side" is PERCEIVED as falling away from President Obama. You let that narrative take hold, and the next three years - AND BEYOND - are gonna be miserable.

If Code Pink thinks this is all terrible and Obama is horrible and the administration sucks, how would they like a rand paul Presidency? How'd THAT work out for 'em? Believe me, they'd find that FAR more unpalatable. The teabagger/republi-CON idea of America is hardly what Code Pink would be able to stomach. They'd truly be cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

[mountain grammy]

33. You said it better than I could.. thanks.

[Kolesar]

35. That was really good

I think Medea is intellectually deficient.
I wonder if she ever writes any articles. It would be easy to poke holes in her chop logic.

[vanlassie]

60. Wikipedia is your friend.

Articles??? Are you kidding?

[Jamaal510]

81. +1

[Bobbie Jo]

90. +1000

Nailed it.

[Raine1967]

106. +1

I'm going to say this:

outrage addiction makes money.

Code pink cannot exist without a reason to exist. I say this with heavy heart -- but learning that Code pink supports Rand Paul is too much. I am disappointed.

[Cha]

111. Thank you, calimary! Oh, they could stay real BUSY Protesting

rand paul. Isn't that what they're about? Professional protesters?

[calimary]

120. Gotta say I saw that photo of Code Pink valentines to rand paul, and I immediately

unsubscribed from their emails. That was IT. On top of heckling the President, that rand paul smoochie-poo was the last straw. I don't think I want to hear anything more from them for awhile. And I'm certainly not interested in sending them any money. I don't believe in rewarding bad behavior. I learned that from being a parent.

[Initech]

117. They're setting the stage for a Koch tool like Rand Paul to enter office.

I tell you if he even has the slightest chance of becoming president, I am going to take a serious look at declaring citizenship in another country. That would be it for me, Rand Paul would make George W. Bush look like Lincoln by comparison.

[vanlassie]

121. Setting the stage? Code Pink??

Because they're so powerful?

[uponit7771]

123. ***SHOULD BE ITS OWN THREAD***

[SidDithers]

132. Really, really well said...

Sid

[Marr]

30. Wait-- I thought finding common ground with political opponents to achieve specific

policy goals was the height of pragmatic, Serious© politics.

That only applies to Third Way Democrats working with corporate interests and Republicans?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

53. Just a ton of naivete in that picture

It's like the women who send The Night Stalker marriage proposals. These folks are not cut out for politics.

[idwiyo]

73. You should be ashamed of yourself for implying that agreeing with Rand Paul on filibuster

means agreeing with Rand Paul on everything. That's very slimy tactics typically employed by the likes of Carl Rove & Co against their opponents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O._Brennan

Brennan withdrew his name from consideration for Director of the CIA in the first Obama administration over concerns about his support for the use of torture by the CIA under President George W. Bush.[3][6] Instead, Brennan was appointed Deputy National Security Advisor, a position which did not require Senate confirmation.[3][6][9]

President Obama nominated Brennan as his next director of the Central Intelligence Agency January 7, 2013.

According to your logic, President Obama supports torture.

[SidDithers]

75. It's funny. Hearing you tell me I should be ashamed...

The ones who should be ashamed are right here:



Sid

[idwiyo]

96. Supporting RPs filibuster against torturer is shameful but supporting torture is OK.

By your own logic you are supporter of torturers and torture. Guilty by association.

[Dragonfli]

97. He knows, he knows, he is a joker playing his usual game

What else can one expect from a non Democrat that never voted for a Democrat that identifies with a clown that has a colonic fetish? (Even he won't deny he never voted for a Democrat in his life)

[idwiyo]

114. I know. :)

Just in case: I am British and its unlikely I will ever vote in US. In UK My vote goes to MP who is anti-war, pro- Universal Human Rights (without any qualifiers), anti-torture, pro-labour. I am going to move my residence before the next election to make sure my vote will go to the most viable MP that supports my values.

[Dragonfli]

116. I know, I just like to remind him (since the time he argued against single payer HC here)

He went around ridiculing us for thinking what he had in HC was superior to Insurance company mandated expensive coverage that comes with deductibles and co-pays that are too expensive to use unless one were "comfortable". It's his hypocrisy while enjoying what he ridiculed us for desiring that makes me believe he is a conservative. If you went around talking like Thatcher I would tease you as well, but you never have, you speak as an ally, those I always welcome.

I am still waiting for him to move here to enjoy the uniquely American Insurance companies he finds so superior to Canadian single payer, any day now I'm sure. I live directly across the river from Ft. Erie Canada, the Canadians I know are great, nothing like him, I assume he is a conservative living in a conservative oil town area somewhere, but who knows.

[idwiyo]

141. I can bet you a £100 Sid is never going to emigrate. :) He is "do as I say, not as I do" type.

[Dragonfli]

145. I believe you have a word for what he is and how he acts here

Typing it straight out got a post of mine hidden once, but if I understand the term correctly, he is a G*bsh$te!

[idwiyo]

147. That's a damn great description!

[SidDithers]

99. Staging a photo-op to show your love for Rand Paul...

is so much more than supporting a filibuster. But you keep spinning it however you need to.



Sid

[idwiyo]

113. "Staging a photo-op" to show support for filibustering a torturer's nomination as a head of CIA is

is obviously something you seriously disagree with.

Thank you Sid! Without your example of logical thinking I would never think that Obama supported torture simply because he chose to nominate two war criminals as head of the CIA.
I was willing to give him a benefit of the doubt. Like maybe he honestly didn't know how much dirty Petraeus was, maybe there were some important reasons why he chose these two and no one else. I will do so no more, all thanks to you!

According to your logic:

President Obama supports torture because he nominates war criminals and supporters of torture.
President Obama supports Republican policies because he "stages" photo-ops playing golf and having dinners with Republican congressmen, repeatedly.

It also means you support torture and GOP policies, because you support President Obama. Which makes you a troll who advocates for Republican Party here on DU. Which is a TOS violation. Meaning you should be PPRed, ASAP. Same as everyone else who supports President Obama.

Guilty by association.

[Cha]

109. How stupid.

[KoKo]

9. K&R...So many on Dem Site who want to trash Activists...and call them "Naderites and Haters."

NOT TRUE... It's the Opposite when one has been involved in Politics for many Decades.

[bluestate10]

20. A democrat is only a democrat IF that person agrees with your viewpoints? nt

[iandhr]

22. +1

[Dragonfli]

49. Like agreeing with that criminal Brennan? or Signature strikes? Or a double tap terrorist strategy?

I think you make a good point, disagreeing with you on these things should not make one automatically not a Democrat. I don't think disagreeing with you on Brennan makes someone a libertarian either.

Just follow your own advise, it was actually good advise!!!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. I question whether she is worth paying attention to.

In the first paragraph, she asserts that it would have been easy to capture Tariq Aziz, rather than killing him with a drone, and omits to mention that since he wasn't the target of the drone strike that killed him, that is entirely irrelevant.

That pretty much proves that either her integrity is *severely* flawed, or her diligence and judgement are at least questionable.

[GoneFishin]

15. Bullshit he wasn't a target.

My opinion is that the son, as a U.S. citizen who was acknowledged not to have been charged with any crimes, might have gotten an attorney and started poking around for answers as to why his father, also a U.S citizen, was executed without a trial. It would have been a mess. He was a loose end.

[calimary]

26. Welcome to DU, GoneFishin!

Glad you're here! Another controversial point that we kick around here. And some of us certainly get kicked, too!

[WillyT]

16. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[flamingdem]

19. Concerns me some that ALL causes will use her tactics

and this will be a way to create chaos when Obama speaks in public.

Her goals are not the only worthy goals out there and yes in this case it worked, but next time?

[woo me with science]

23. K&R

Thank you, Medea.

[burnodo]

27. K&R

[wildbilln864]

28. K & R! Thank you Medea. You are a brave & true patriot! eom

[stevenleser]

34. Was happy to have Medea on my show a few weeks back. I dont agree with everything she says

or does, and I certainly think the association with Rand Paul is a mistake, but Medea and Code Pink's hearts are definitely in the right place. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lesersense/2013/02/11/making-sense-with-steve-leser--drones-the-week-in-review

[Kolesar]

36. She is intellectually deficient ... eom

[HoosierRadical]

42. You lack courage

of your convictions.

[Kolesar]

44. Whatever that means

Is that something you read on a sugar packet?

[SidDithers]

47. Heheh...

Sid

[chillfactor]

37. sorry...I know I am in the minority here...

but there are ways to get your point across as an activist without acting like an idiot.....

she was indeed heckling .. she was rude and very disrespectful and as far as I am concerned she did more harm to Code Pink than anything she tried to accomplish

millions marched against Monsanto today across the globe..peaceful while making a point...seems a much better way to make your prescence and ire felt...

[HoosierRadical]

41. You are NOT sorry...

a REAL activist speaks truth to power, a REAL activist is more concern about justice, than with being "polite". To President Obama's credit, he was not dismissive of her, because he knows she is right.

P.S. I wasn't aware there was a global march against Monsanto today, but I know there was a citizen confronting her president about the use of drones.

[Zoeisright]

108. How the fuck do you know how she feels?

Grow the fuck up.

BTW, heckling someone isn't speaking truth to power. It's heckling.

[HoosierRadical]

148. Take your own advice

BTW expand your vocabulary.

[PDittie]

38. My Petition for Obama to Invite Medea Benjamin to the White House for a Beer

http://my.firedoglake.com/edwardteller/2013/05/24/we-petition-obama-to-invite-medea-benjamin-to-the-white-house-for-a-beer/

(Because I need more of DU to put me on 'Ignore".)

[olddots]

40. I signed the petition

and would like to have her meet a lot of people on DU also -

[Kolesar]

45. Or a valium ... eom

[xtraxritical]

39. Just keep terrorizing AQ/Taliban and Anwar Alwaki's too.

Flame me, I'm glad the President is doing this without boots on the ground and ten year wars.

[BlueCaliDem]

94. + 1 eom

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. The ACLU and Amnesty International agree with her.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/24/obama-drone-vetting-kill-courts

Zeke Johnson, director of Amnesty International USA's Security with Human Rights Campaign, said: "What's needed on drones is not a 'kill court' but rejection of the radical redefinition of 'imminence' used to expand who can be killed as well as independent investigations of alleged extrajudicial executions and remedy for victims.

"The president was right to call for repeal of the 2001 authorisation for use of military force, but he doesn't need to wait for Congress to act on this. He can unequivocally reject the 'global war' legal theory today, once and for all, and put an end to the indefinite detention, military commissions and unlawful killings it has been used to justify."

This view was echoed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which welcomed new restrictions against so-called 'signature strikes' on suspicious groups but warned the notion of legal authority for targeted assassinations remained deeply flawed.

"To the extent the speech signals an end to signature strikes, recognises the need for congressional oversight, and restricts the use of drones to threats against the American people, the developments on targeted killings are promising," said ACLU director Anthony Romero. "Yet the president still claims broad authority to carry out target killings far from any battlefield, and there is still insufficient transparency. We continue to disagree fundamentally with the idea that due process requirements can be satisfied without any form of judicial oversight by regular federal courts."

[SidDithers]

48. Did they deliver chocolates and a giant pink heart to Rand Paul too?...nt

Sid

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Did Northrup Grumman deliver drones to Obama?

[Dragonfli]

64. Sending chocolate in support of opposing a torturer is deadly and evil you know

Sending drones on our tax dime to kill children is a helpful and benevolent gift in support of signature strikes silly.

[ProSense]

68. Actually,

"The ACLU and Amnesty International agree with her."

...the Amnesty and the ACLU did not claim the son was a target in their statements. What's the purpose of trying to create the impression that the son was a target?

USA: Amnesty International Responds to President Obama's Speech on National Security

President Obama was right to reaffirm the need to close Guantanamo, address the need for greater transparency, and acknowledge the troubling issues surrounding his killer drone program. Now it's time for him to take immediate and further action and get the job done.

Transfers can and must resume today, and all detainees must either be fairly tried in federal court or released. President Obama was right not to endorse the concept of indefinite detention, but his proposal to restart unfair military commissions in the mainland U.S. should be rejected as both unlawful and unnecessary.

What's needed on drones is not a "kill court," but critically, much more transparency regarding the legal basis for the drones program, including the release of the newly approved presidential guidance as well as independent investigations of alleged extrajudicial executions and remedy for victims.

There's no need to wait to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. The Obama administration should immediately end reliance on the flawed "global war" legal theory at the heart of indefinite detention, military commissions and the killing of terror suspects and civilians alike.

Congress must stop hindering reform. Elected officials should repeal the remaining legislative obstacles to closing the detention facility and make the Senate report on CIA torture public.

President Obama is right that the country is at a crossroads. It's time for the path not chosen over a decade ago. It's time for human rights.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/usa-amnesty-international-responds-president-obamas-speech-national-securit

ACLU Comment on President’s National Security Speech

Below is a statement from Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, on President Obama's national security speech today:

"President Obama is right to say that we cannot be on a war footing forever, but the time to take our country off the global warpath and fully restore the rule of law is now, not at some indeterminate future point. Four years into his presidency, President Obama has finally taken the first steps to jumpstart his administration's effort to make good on early campaign promises to close Guantánamo and recognized the human cost of failing to act. These are encouraging and noteworthy actions.

"To the extent the speech signals an end to signature strikes, recognizes the need for congressional oversight, and restricts the use of drones to threats against the American people, the developments on targeted killings are promising. Yet the president still claims broad authority to carry out targeted killings far from any battlefield, and there is still insufficient transparency. We continue to disagree fundamentally with the idea that due process requirements can be satisfied without any form of judicial oversight by regular federal courts.

"We are particularly gratified that President Obama embraced our recommendations to use his authority to allow prompt transfer and release of Guantánamo detainees who pose no national security threat and that have been cleared by the military and intelligence agencies. We also applaud his appointment of a high level official to supervise the process for closing Guantánamo once and for all.

"But there are other problems that must still be addressed. The unconstitutional military commissions must be shuttered, not brought to the United States. While the president expressed appropriate concern about indefinite detention, he offered no clear plan for ending this unconstitutional policy for those who have not been tried or cleared for release.

"President Obama's efforts to repair his legacy in the eyes of future historians will require that he continue to double down if he is to fully restore this nation's standing at home and abroad. The ACLU realizes that Congress has thrown significant barriers in closing Guantánamo. But in some areas Congress has been more progressive, having recently demanded legal memoranda that claim to authorize the illegal killing program. The ACLU stands ready to work with, and if necessary do battle with, those elements of government that impede our nation's obligations to honor the rule of law and to protect our values while safeguarding our security."

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-comment-presidents-national-security-speech

UN expert in human rights and counter-terrorism welcomes US President’s speech

GENEVA (24 May 2013) – United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, Ben Emmerson, today welcomed US President Barack Obama’s speech, and the publication of policy principles governing counter-terrorism operations, including targeted killings.

“This extremely important speech breaks new ground in a number of key respects. It affirms for the first time this Administration's commitment to seek an end to its armed conflict with Al Qaida as soon as possible; it reminds the world that not every terrorist threat or terrorist attack can be equated with a situation of continuing armed conflict; it sets out more clearly and more authoritatively than ever before the Administration's legal justifications for targeted killing, and the constraints that it operates under; it clarifies, and proposes improvements to, the procedures for independent oversight; and it sets out the steps the President is now resolved to take in order to close Guantanamo Bay.

“The publication of the procedural guidelines for the use of force in counter-terrorism operations is a significant step towards increased transparency and accountability. It also disposes of a number of myths, including the suggestion that the US is entitled to regard all military-aged males as combatants, and therefore as legitimate targets.

“I will be engaging with senior Administration officials in Washington over the coming days and weeks in an effort to put some flesh on the bones of the announcements made today.

“The President’s historic statement today is to be welcomed as a highly significant step towards greater transparency and accountability; and as a declaration that the US war with Al Qaida and its associated forces is coming to an end. The President's principled commitment to ensuring the closure of Guantanamo is an utterly essential step.

“His acknowledgement that the time has come to tackle not only the manifestations of terrorism but also its social, economic and political causes around the world - to seek long term solutions - signals a shift in rhetoric and a move in policy emphasis towards promoting a strategy of sustainable and ethical counter-terrorism, consistent with Pillar I of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy*.”

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13355&LangID=E

[patrice]

55. She still needs to speak against unregulated Assault Weapons trade to earn my respect on the drone

issue.

[idwiyo]

58. Why don't you ask her?

Here is a link to contacts page for Code Pink:

http://www.codepink.org/contactus.php

[idwiyo]

56. K&R

[Hell Hath No Fury]

65. K&R

[Tx4obama]

76. Has she issued an apology yet to President Obama yet for being rude and disrespectful?

I have no use for anyone that supports Rand Paul.

[Marr]

83. You know, the one nice thing about having a Republican President...

is that we'll suddenly all agree that policies like these are bad again. I won't expect the 'politics as sport' crowd to keep their moral compasses calibrated after the elections, of course-- but still.

[Bobbie Jo]

91. Simplistic, condescending nonsense.

This holier than thou shtick beyond ridiculous. I haven't seen such abject snobbery since high school.

[Marr]

92. You can name call all you like.

The fact is that nobody here would be arguing that the President should have the authority to assassinate a US citizen if Bush was still the president, and you know it.

[Bobbie Jo]

93. Whoosh

Carry on....

[Marr]

98. You know, people generally say "whoosh" to imply that

a point has gone over someone's head. You made no real point-- just a sort of general hissing sound. The "whoosh" seems rather misplaced.

[Bobbie Jo]

100. Obtuse to the bitter end

Insight doesn't appear to be your strong suit.

[Marr]

101. What was the subtle point that I missed? I'd like to know what went over my head.

Don't just do your usual, offering a vague insult and then disappearing in a puff of bullshit.

[Bobbie Jo]

104. OFFS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2902617

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2902684

In response to your usual superior attitude.

[Marr]

105. Yeah, thanks for that.

I'm done. Clearly you don't have anything.

Whoosh, indeed.

[Bobbie Jo]

110. Introspection,

get some. Seriously.

Now we're done.

[Zoeisright]

107. I do not support anyone who

supports that asshole Rand Paul.

[eridani]

115. Petition the White House to have a beer with Medea

Or iced herbal tea or whatever.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/invite-medea-benjamin-white-house-beer/9KHr2H9w

Petition the obama administration to: Invite Medea Benjamin to the White House for a beer.
On May 23, 2013, President Obama gave an important address at the National Defense University. Near the end, indefatigable peace activist, Medea Benjamin, pled with the President to consider important issues he had not addressed directly in his speech. The President stated, "The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to."

We the undersigned believe the same. We encourage President Obama to invite Ms. Benjamin to the White House for a beer or two, so that he may redeem his pledge.

[dkf]

119. Okay she is a loony..she thinks Pakistan will help us capture someone? Crazy crazy woman.

I'm sorry but I can no longer take her seriously based on that sentence.

[grahamhgreen]

122. Yes, when the President admits it, it's time to listen to us.

[Savannahmann]

128. This post broke the unwritten but always applied rule.

Thou shalt not speak ill of President Obama, no matter what or why.

I'm not surprised that the flurry of hostile responses came out. I hope you aren't surprised either. For many here, it's always party over principle, no matter what the principle is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

129. In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place. - Gandhi

[ZRT2209]

131. she has changed from an advocate to an attention/disruption junkie

[Dragonfli]

134. You appear to know her well, when was the last time you spoke?

You do realize that she has always been against torture (and by extension criminals like Brennan), Gitmo, and Bush drone policy, tell me, how does continuing to consistently speak out against the same things make one suddenly different simply because another party continues the things one speaks against?

When I discussed Bush with her she made no attempts to hide her contempt, but she actually spoke well of the guy you crush on - Obama. That was last summer, I imagine you speak to her often and I will admit my discussion with her was fairly brief and a one time deal.

[bvar22]

135. Uh-oh... NOW you've done it.

I was against it when Bush did it,
but I'm for it now.