September 04, 2006
Cantwell's Campaign Co-Chair Has Some Interesting Friends

Maria Cantwell's much publicized lurch to the left in hiring Mark Wilson and bringing on Dal LaMagna on as campaign co-chair was a telling moment in the campaign. The Wilson hiring garnered more attention for the obvious reason that Cantwell hired her leading primary opponent at an oddly high salary. Yet, I've always been curious about LaMagna since I recall from my own campaign work how important a chair or co-chair can be. In Slade Gorton's last run for the Senate, the late Veda Jellen was chairwoman, and a widely respected figure on the state political scene. My own experience was that Veda's politics were pretty close to Slade's, so La Magna's far-left-of-center work, including progressivegovernment.org, struck me as a curious addition to Cantwell's campaign.

To feed that curiosity, FrontPageMagazine.com supplies this article recounting a recent sojourn by LaMagna to Iraq with some like minded souls. LaMagna joined Cindy Sheehan, Tom Hayden, and various leaders of Code Pink, among others, in meeting with individuals in Iraq "who call terrorism 'honorable national resistance' and say foreign jihadists 'are guaranteed Paradise.'" That's nice.

Code Pink in particular is an interesting group. As the story notes, they "distributed $600,000 in cash and supplies to 'the other side' in the terrorist stronghold of Fallujah." How helpful. They also support efforts to "'reverse the US-imposed de-Baathification'" of Iraq. No doubt the Shiites and Kurds would be thrilled with such an idea.

Nonetheless, traipsing to Iraq this group went, and the participants "referred to this trip as 'diplomatic communication.' Of course, such a trip may well be illegal, violating the prohibition for private citizens to conduct their own foreign policy." Oops.

Once in Iraq, the group met with a collection of characters, including one dignitary who "regards the present Iraqi constitution approved by valiant Iraqi voters as a 'fabrication coming from the occupation forces.'" That would be the constitution approved by the voters of Iraq, written by an interim national government selected by the Iraqi people in an earlier vote, and a constitution which produced an additional election to vote in a permanent national government. "Fabrication." Right.

But, such interesting statements were not left solely to the Iraqis with whom these folks met. Trip attendee Jenni Crisecenzo, a blogger at Daily Kos and candidate for Congress, said "if justice is to ever come to the people of Iraq, the people we call insurgents will have to be recognized as the ones who are actually defending their homeland." Of course, Crisecenzo also said this about her run for Congress:

The Bush cabal is moving full-speed ahead in their plans to establish the Global Empire of Halliburton...Our only chance to stop this nightmare is to take back Congress THIS YEAR. That means winning a majority in November AND making impeachment of Bush and Cheney our first priority.

I was once called a "third-tier commissar in the regime's Directorate of Statist Indoctrination" by a fellow with the John Birch Society who seemed displeased by my day job. Can you imagine what magnificent titles I could hold in the "Global Empire of Halliburton"?

Humor aside, however, there is a more serous problem with the activities of this far-left "diplomatic" mission. Jodie Evans, the co-founder of Code Pink proclaimed this while on their journey:

Let's go back to the Iraq before we invaded, there was a good education and health care system, food for everyone. That system didn't belong to Saddam it belonged to the Iraqi, it belonged to years of creating what a civilization needed. If your parents didn't send you to school they could be put in jail.

Ms. Evans and her fellow liberals seems to have missed the fact there might be a report or two that confirms Saddam Hussein's Iraq wasn't such a jolly place.

In total, the article is rather disturbing, and leads to a series of questions for Senator Cantwell given Mr. LaMagna's involvement in this trip, and place of honor and seniority in her campaign:

1. Do you agree with providing support and material comfort to terrorists (or "freedom fighters" as Mr. LaMagna may prefer) in Iraq?

2. Do you agree the Iraqi constitution is "a fabrication of the occupying forces"?

3. Do you support reversal of the "de-Baathification" of Iraqi society and government institutions?

4. Do you believe the "Bush cabal is moving full-speed ahead in their plans to establish the Global Empire of Halliburton"?

5. Do you believe in Saddam Hussein's Iraq there was "there was a good education and health care system, food for everyone"?

6. Could you explain why Mr. LaMagna and his out-of-the-mainstream views merit the important position of co-chairman of your campaign? Do you support his politics or not? If not, why is he your campaign co-chair?

The last question in particular, would seem of value to the voters of Washington state who have yet to make up their mind about this fall's election. Mr. LaMagna is clearly to the left of most of America, and associates closely with individuals whose views many voters would find disturbing. Perhaps Senator Cantwell could explain why he holds such a prominent position on her campaign?

UPDATE: Typos in LaMagna fixed.

Posted by Eric Earling at September 04, 2006 10:27 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Sorry, Eric, but you are truly whistling past the graveyard.

This from today's New York Times ("GOP Sets Aside Work on Immigration"):

Since they will not finish the spending bills on time, Republican leaders will have to push through a stopgap measure to keep the government running through the election. But Republicans do hope to advance some nonsecurity measures. The major legislation on the floor in the House this week is a bill that would ban trading in horses to be slaughtered for human consumption.

If that's all y'all have to talk about it's no wonder you're trying to stir up such thin gruel.

Posted by: bartelby on September 4, 2006 11:01 PM
2. 1st two paragraphs of the article Bartelby notes:

"WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 ó As they prepare for a critical pre-election legislative stretch, Congressional Republican leaders have all but abandoned a broad overhaul of immigration laws and instead will concentrate on national security issues they believe play to their political strength.

"With Congress reconvening Tuesday after an August break, Republicans in the House and Senate say they will focus on Pentagon and domestic security spending bills, port security legislation and measures that would authorize the administrationís terror surveillance program and create military tribunals to try terror suspects."

That's a debate I'd love to have, and look forward to seeing it unfold in Congress.

Posted by: Eric Earling on September 4, 2006 11:08 PM
3. "Code Pink in particular is an interesting group. As the story notes, they "distributed $600,000 in cash and supplies to 'the other side' in the terrorist stronghold of Fallujah." How helpful. They also support efforts to "'reverse the US-imposed de-Baathification'" of Iraq. No doubt the Shiites and Kurds would be thrilled with such an idea."

I could be wrong, but this constitutes aid and comfort, doesn't it? Yes, that would sort of be illegal - US Constitution, Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

According to US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, sec. 2381, Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

I could be wrong but this seems pretty cut and dry. They gave aid and comfort - cash and supplies - to our enemies. Time to ready a spot at Guantanamo.

Posted by: Aaron on September 5, 2006 04:06 AM
4. They ddn't go after Hanoi Jane Fonda or Ramsay Clark. Or John Kerry for his visit to Paris during the U.S.-Vietnamese negfotiations. Why should they go after Code Pink? Hell, Clark visited BOTH Hanoi AND Baghdad -- a double dipper, not to mention his offered assistance as a Saddam co-counsel.

Unfortunately, treason and "giving aid and comfort" are no longer enforced. How many young Americans have died and will continue to die because of this treasonous activity?

Posted by: Joe Waldron on September 5, 2006 05:43 AM
5. Eric, I've been following Code Pink for some time now. As an American soldier, their actions are dispicable to me. I've engaged them numerous times outside Walter Reed. I wanted to share something I wrote last week about this very subject and thought you'd be interested. The news isn't reporting WHO this Iraqi delegation is, but it's all laid out if someone wants to know about it. Check it out:
http://www.soldiersperspective.us/?p=1205

Posted by: CJ on September 5, 2006 05:44 AM
6. Code Pink has protested against our troops, in front of Walter Reed Hospital.

This is as sick as protesting at a funeral.

Code Pink is simply with out class:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1670291/posts


Cantwell should be ashamed. Very Ashamed

Posted by: Patrick on September 5, 2006 05:54 AM
7. Bartleby's comment is an example of Ignoratio Elenchi. As I said in my post on that particular logical fallacy, we should recognize that attempting to change the subject, as Bartleby did, is a tacit confession of defeat. So we can take it that Bartleby agrees that this Cantwell co-chair has a dubious past.

It is time for Cantwell to explain why someone with this history is helping run her campaign. (And perhaps for other Democrats to explain why Dwight Pelz's support for the Castro regime does not disqualify him for his current position as head of the state's Democratic party.)

Posted by: Jim Miller on September 5, 2006 06:22 AM
8. Moron. You can't even spell LaMagna's name correctly.

Posted by: ivan on September 5, 2006 07:54 AM
9. "Let's go back to the Iraq before we invaded, there was a good education and health care system, food for everyone." - Jodie Evans - Code Pink.

Don't tell me, let me guess. Evans was one of the hordes on the left that screamed repeatedly before the invasion that US sanctions, (they always called them US rather than UN sanctions), were killing thousands of Iraqui children, leaving them without food and medicine.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 5, 2006 08:02 AM
10. Moron. You can't even spell LaMagna's name correctly.

Another perfect example of Ignoratio Elenchi.

Thanks, Ivan.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 5, 2006 08:09 AM
11. These people aren't anti-war; they're on the other side. Never forget that.

Posted by: jimg on September 5, 2006 08:52 AM
12. "Let's go back to the Iraq before we invaded, there was a good education and health care system, food for everyone." - Jodie Evans - Code Pink.

After actually talking to the Iraqi people, in Sadr City and elsewhere, while I was over there I would have to say that is not the Iraq they told me about.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on September 5, 2006 08:56 AM
13. "Let's go back to the Iraq before we invaded, there was a good education and health care system, food for everyone." - Jodie Evans - Code Pink.

After actually talking to the Iraqi people, in Sadr City and elsewhere, while I was over there I would have to say that is not the Iraq they told me about.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on September 5, 2006 09:01 AM
14. I see. My post is ignoratio elenchi, and this entire diary isn't?

The point is not who a Cantwell supporter might or might not be associated with, and what conclusions the right-wing fringe might draw from that.

The point is that your candidate is a lame drunk insurance b------d, he is not getting any traction, and he could not and will not beat Maria Cantwell with a gun. And attempts such as Eric's to throw the brown stuff against the wall to see if it will stick are made even more ridiculous by spelling the guy's name wrong.

So get out the butter, Bill, because your boy, and your politics, are toast in this state.

Posted by: ivan on September 5, 2006 09:27 AM
15. Moron. You can't even spell "iban" correctly ;'}

Posted by: alphabet soup on September 5, 2006 09:42 AM
16. iban - you sound especially peckish this morning. Haven't they been feeding you your bananas? Or maybe the tourists have been pounding on the glass again?

Posted by: alphabet soup on September 5, 2006 09:45 AM
17. And remember, alphabet soup, these people aren't angry and unhinged at all!

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 5, 2006 10:05 AM
18. I love how Iban can claim it doesn't matter who you "might or might not" be associated with even though the libs wanted to tar and feather any R's who "might or might not" have been connected to Abramoff. Not to mention he wants to call McGavick a drunk yet wasn't it Teddy Kennedy who actually left a girl to die and what about Patrick Kennedy decidng that a barricade in DC looked like a great place to park his car. If Iban's "prophecies" are so certain why is he so angry?

Posted by: TrueSoldier on September 5, 2006 10:32 AM
19. Ivan obviously never heard the old saying "you are known by the company you keep".

Lefties get especially angry when we expose who they really are. They spend so much time saying they're "mainstream", "progressives" and "centrists". When we demonstrate that they are really America-hating socialists they get hot.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 5, 2006 10:51 AM
20. Haha, I'm not angry. I am rubbing my hands with glee at the whipping that we are going to deliver to you in November.

The difference, of course, between Teddy Kennedy and Mike McGavick is that Teddy Kennedy will be in the U.S. Senate in January and Mike McGavick will not.

Posted by: ivan on September 5, 2006 10:57 AM
21. Wow, I expect those on the left to be angry and ignorant, but Ivan deservers praise for taking this to a new level.

Ivan's basis for argument is that he gets to decide the "point" on any argument. Fallacies? You bet, where do we start:

Ad Hoc: As no matter what argument Eric proposes, Ivan will adjust it to his liking. Ad Hominem: To Ivan, Mike McGavick in an "insurance b_____d." Appeal to Authority: Ivan's authority to decide the argument. Appeal to fear: Why should McGavick run, according to Ivan, he's already "toast." And, Straw Man, where Ivan sets up the fallacy that any argument Eric makes is wrong, because he mispelled LaMagna's name.

There's basically nothing rational about what Ivan has stated here. Like Jim Miller, I take Ivan's comments as an immediate concession.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 5, 2006 11:13 AM
22. You may be right about the election ivan. I'm not one to go making those kinds of predictions.

It may help Cantwell in Seattle to bring the likes of LaMagna into her campaign. I doubt that it will help her in the rest of the state once people find out what a moonbat he is. One look at his progressivegovernment.org will do the trick. Best nominee for the "progressivegovernment" cabinet? Got to be Cynthia McKinney for the Department of Homeland Security-Fema. Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 5, 2006 11:21 AM
23. When Ivan Weiss babbles, consider the source:
http://www.34dems.org/Photos2006/Aug06-Weiss-Hannigan.jpg
Ivan is the fattest of the 2 fat guys.
A picture says 1000 words....or in ivan's case, a picture says 10,000 calories per meal!
Ivan focuses on spelling??
The lunatic left is in big trouble...per usual.

Posted by: ugh on September 5, 2006 12:13 PM
24. WOW, ERIC talk about MISINFORMATION!! "distributed $600,000 in cash and supplies to 'the other side' in the terrorist stronghold of Fallujah." I thought the 'other side' was Hezbollah and not Lebanese civilians who actually received the aid. So do you support killing innocent civilians who have nothing to do with terrorism?

Posted by: Jacob Carver on September 5, 2006 12:23 PM
25. Yeah, I know who Ivan is.

I can't imagine the chairs of any of the Republican districts in the state engaging in the sort of "dialogue" Ivan displays here.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 5, 2006 12:26 PM
26. Fallujah is in Lebanon?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 5, 2006 12:31 PM
27. I doubt Eric supports killing innocent civilians, but clearly Hezbollah does, and that's the reason why support for terrorists, or any of their affiliated quasi-government entities is simply wrong. How do we assure that the money given to the Lebanese leadership does not go directly to Hezbollah, or to Iran, etc.? There's nothing legitimate about the way these governments operate, nor is there any auditing or accounting.

Furthermore, Hezbollah is well documented for having located their rocket launchers directly amongst Lebanese civilians, and used any resultant deaths for maximum political propaganda advantage.

It appears that those on the left are simply unwilling to rationally connect the dots between terrorism, governments who sponsor terrorism or at least look the other way, and the ties to accepted and practiced Islamic Sharia which is also the foundation for the Theocracies of the Middle East. In short, terrorism is an insitutional problem that has to be addressed at the larger level of its general acceptance by Islamic society.

The oppression of the Middle Eastern peoples in not fundamentally the result of whether or not they have received any specific Western or UN granted foreign aid. The oppression is the fundamental failure of using Islamic Sharia as a basis for governance.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 5, 2006 12:37 PM
28. Jacob Carver #24 If there are Lebanese people in Fallujah they are not civilians they are terrorists that must have come to Iraq (because that is where fallujah is)to help the terroirst insurgency.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on September 5, 2006 01:47 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?