The Deranged Divas of Code Pink (Pt. 2 of 2)

Ms. Benjamin is trying to cast her little intra-liberal banana war – or what I like to call “blue-on-blue” – as proof that Code Pink is not beholden to any political party.

Of course it isn’t. No sane Democrat or Republican would ally him or herself with these nutniks.

According to Nibit, Benjamin was invited to come on a bunch of Right-wing talk radio shows after her group’s squabble with mainstream Democrats. She later claimed she was able to “make a lot of friends” within the conservative crowd.

But Erick Erickson, editor-in-chief of the right-wing blog RedState is having none of this. “They haven’t changed,” he said of Code Pink. “They still hate America. Which is why they won’t get any conservative support. They’re against the bailout because they hate capitalism.”

Erickson went on to say that the antiwar group is only relevant to the extent that Republicans can use it to “tar and feather Democrats.”

Not so fast, Mr. Erickson, if that is your real name!

”Democrats might have something to say about that,” Libit writes. “The organization has never held much sway over the Democratic
establishment, even when the two have shared positions on Iraq.”

“I don’t think the Democrats ever fully embraced Code Pink,” said Rebecca Kirszner, former communications director to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “Code Pink was always a little more extreme than the establishment.”

And establishment Democrats aren’t the only ones in the Liberalisphere who think the Code Pinkers are a bunch of shrieking hyenas in bad makeup. As Libit puts it, “Even outside Washington, other left-leaning groups have viewed the rosy ring of peaceniks with incredulity, if not contempt.”

“Code Pink has never been more than a nuisance — an ineffective, self-indulgent, obnoxious and tone-deaf organization,” said Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas. “It was never relevant before, and it certainly isn’t relevant today,” he adds. “I’m sure their antics make them feel good about themselves, make them feel as if they’re accomplishing something, but in reality they’ve done nothing but piss off everyone around them, including potential allies.”

Ouch! If an annoying Left-winger like Moulitsas says he can’t stand you, then you must be really unbearable!

Ivan Eland, a libertarian and a staunch opponent of the Iraq war, also weighed in, saying the antiwar group suffers from the nonprofit version of the bureaucratic politics theory, “where the organization becomes the end goal.”

If the Code Pinkers want to be taken seriously, then they need to do two things.

First, they need to present their arguments in a rational, adult manner, and not engage in childish and distasteful antics like grandstanding at Congressional hearings with “Impeach Bush” T-shirts and using dead and wounded soldiers as publicity fodder.

Secondly, the Code Pinkers need to come up with realistic alternatives to our government’s policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Get out!” is not a real solution. Actions have consequences and we as a nation need to make sure that the situation we leave behind in those two countries is not worse than the one we found when we went in.

To be fair, Code Pink has offered some solutions beyond total withdrawal, but none of them have any grounding in reality. The group’s website features two statements denouncing the Obama administration’s plans for the Iraq and Afghan wars, one released at the end of February and the other at the end of March.

The February statement criticizes the president’s decision to leave a residual force of 50,000 troops in Iraq until December 2011 and says the U.S. government should “increase efforts in diplomacy, humanitarian aid and refugee resettlement.”

And how, pray tell, are we supposed to give out all of this humanitarian aid and help refugees resettle if we don’t have troops on the ground to provide security and stability? And what good is diplomacy going to do us if the democratic government we are trying to create over there gets overthrown by Islamic radicals?

The March statement is similar to the February one. After blasting Obama for deploying thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan and increasing the budget for the war over there, it goes on to call for “tireless diplomatic engagement with Afghan and Pakistan governments.”

If the president were to pull all of our troops out of Afghanistan tomorrow, the country would descend into utter chaos and the Taliban would almost surely regain power. Not a lot of opportunity for “tireless diplomatic engagement” there. Also, a renewed and invigorated Taliban government in Afghanistan could make our situation in Pakistan even worse than it is now, and possibly help facilitate a successful Islamic revolution in that country – a nightmare scenario given Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

Make no mistake about it: Former President Bush dropped the ball in Afghanistan by shifting his entire focus to Iraq and his splendid little war there proved to be a disastrous move and a strategic blunder for the U.S. Clearly, the man did not consider the consequences of his actions.

So Bush and the Code Pinkers have something in common after all. The difference between the two, of course, is that the effects of Code Pink’s actions are merely irritating.

But President Obama can’t afford to make this mistake. And unlike certain deranged divas, our commander-in-chief is taken all too seriously by many people.