Peace Democrats - Now and Then

[red states rule]

It seems the Democrats have not changed much since the Civil War. In fact, it would seem the same Dems in elected office during the Civil War and the same ones in offcie today

In both cases, the Democrats are on the wrong side of history


During the American Civil War, a majority of Ohioans supported the war effort and the Republican Party, although there was a sizable minority, known as the Peace Democrats or the Copperheads, who opposed the conflict. One of the initial reasons for why the Peace Democrats did not support the Northern war effort was that a sizable number of white Ohioans, especially those living along the Ohio River, had migrated to the state from slaveholding states. While these people could not legally own slaves in Ohio, many of these people did have family members residing further south who owned African American slaves. These people oftentimes sympathized with slaveholders, agreeing with many white Southerners that the federal government did not have the power to limit slavery's existence. Some Peace Democrats also feared that President Abraham Lincoln intended to free the slaves. White Ohioans who objected to slavery's end, usually on racist grounds, feared that African Americans would flood the North looking for jobs if they were given their freedom. These white Ohioans did not want to compete with African Americans for employment.

Peace Democrats preferred compromise to warfare as a way of settling differences between the North and the South. Several Ohioans participated in a peace convention during early 1861. The convention was held in Washington, DC, and the delegates hoped to convince President Lincoln to either acquiesce to the Confederacy's demands to get its citizens to rejoin the Union or to simply let the Southern states leave the United States. Lincoln ignored the peace convention's attempt to end the conflict peacefully. Politically, most people who participated in the peace convention affiliated themselves with the Peace Democrats. Their opponents nicknamed them Copperheads, describing the Peace Democrats as poisonous snakes waiting to strike blow in favor of the South. The first reference to Peace Democrats as Copperheads occurred in Ohio in 1861.

Clement Vallandigham was the most well-known Peace Democrat in Ohio. He helped organize a rally for the Democratic Party at Mount Vernon, Ohio, held on May 1, 1863. Peace Democrats Vallandigham, Samuel Cox, and George Pendleton all delivered speeches denouncing General Order No. 38. In April 1863, General Ambrose Burnside, commander of the Department of Ohio, issued General Order No. 38. Burnside situated his headquarters in Cincinnati. Located on the Ohio River, just north of the slave state of Kentucky, Cincinnati had a number of residents sympathetic to the Confederacy. Burnside hoped to intimidate Confederate sympathizers with General Order No. 38.

General Order No. 38 stated:

The habit of declaring sympathy for the enemy will not be allowed in this department. Persons committing such offenses will be at once arrested with a view of being tried. . .or sent beyond our lines into the lines of their friends. It must be understood that treason, expressed or implied, will not be tolerated in this department.
Burnside also declared that, in certain cases, violations of General Order No. 38 could result in death.

Vallandigham so opposed the order that he purportedly stated that he "despised it, spit upon it, trampled it under his feet." He also supposedly encouraged his fellow Peace Democrats to openly resist Burnside and his order. Vallandigham went on to chastise President Lincoln for not seeking a peaceable and immediate end to the Civil War and for allowing General Burnside to thwart citizen rights under a free government.

In attendance at the Mount Vernon rally were two army officers under Burnside's command. They reported to Burnside that Vallandigham had violated General Order No. 38. The general ordered the immediate arrest of the Copperhead. On May 5, 1863, a company of soldiers arrested Vallandigham at his home in Dayton and brought the man to Cincinnati to stand trial.

Burnside charged Vallandigham with the following crimes:

Publicly expressing, in violation of General Orders No. 38, from Head-quarters Department of Ohio, sympathy for those in arms against the Government of the United States, and declaring disloyal sentiments and opinions, with the object and purpose of weakening the power of the Government in its efforts to suppress an unlawful rebellion.
A military tribunal heard the case, and Vallandigham offered no serious defense against the charges, contending that military courts had no jurisdiction over his case. The tribunal found Vallandigham guilty and sentenced him to remain in a United States prison for the remainder of the war.

Vallandigham's attorney, George Pugh, appealed the tribunal's decision to Humphrey Leavitt, a judge on the federal circuit court. Pugh, like his client, claimed that the military court did not have proper jurisdiction in this case and had violated Vallandigham's constitutional rights. Judge Leavitt rejected Vallandigham's argument, agreeing with General Burnside that military authority was necessary during a time of war to ensure that opponents to the United States Constitution, in this case supporters of the Confederacy, would not succeed in overthrowing the Constitution and the rights that it guaranteed United States citizens.

As a result of Leavitt's decision, authorities were to send Vallandigham to federal prison. President Lincoln feared that Peace Democrats across the North might rise up to prevent Vallandigham's detention. The president commuted Vallandigham's sentence to exile in the Confederacy. On May 25, Burnside sent Vallandigham into Confederate lines.

Some Peace Democrats resorted to more radical means, including subversion, to protest the Civil War. Some of these men formed a secret society known as the Order of American Knights or the Sons of Liberty. In February 1864, Vallandigham was elected supreme commander of the organization. Ohio government officials estimated that between eighty thousand and 110,000 Ohioans belonged to the Order of American Knights, but most historians discount these numbers as being dramatically higher than the group's actual numbers.

Rumors circulated throughout the North during 1864 that the Sons of Liberty intended to free Southern prisoners at several prisoner of war camps, including at Johnson's Island and Camp Chase, in Ohio. These freed prisoners would form the basis of a new Confederate army that would operate in the heart of the Union. Supposedly, General John Hunt Morgan, who had raided Ohio the previous year, would return to the state and assist this new army. The plot never materialized. William Rosecrans, assigned to oversee the Department of Missouri, discovered the planned uprising and warned Northern governors to remain cautious. John Brough, Ohio's governor, sent out spies to infiltrate the Sons of Liberty's ranks. These men succeeded and stopped the uprising before it could occur. Confederate supporters hoped to capture the Michigan, a gunboat operating on Lake Erie near Sandusky. They would then use the gunboat to free Confederate prisoners at Johnson Island. Union authorities arrested the plot's ringleader, Charles Cole, and squelched any of the other Sons of Liberty's plans.

Rosecrans' and Brough's decisive actions in 1864 helped subdue the Sons of Liberty. Northern battlefield victories in 1864 also convinced many Ohioans, including reluctant or half-hearted supporters of the Union war effort, that the war would end shortly in a Northern victory. As a result of these events, the Peace Democrats began to decline in power.

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=616

[Gaffer]

Maybe order #38 could be resurected for todays war. I kinda like the idea of shipping their dumb asses off to the middle east.

[red states rule]

Maybe order #38 could be resurected for todays war. I kinda like the idea of shipping their dumb asses off to the middle east.

Na, ship them off to red state America. You now, the fly overcountry Queen Nancy does not want to have to stop in and refuel the little jet in

But is funny to see how the Dems have not changed in over 100 years

[5stringJeff]

How is stifling debate about a war productive?

[red states rule]

How is stifling debate about a war productive?

Only when they debate with lies and distortions

i.e. how Pres Bush lied about WMD's and how the Dems were NOT given the same intel reports as Pres Bush had.

Or how Dems say they support the troops but they have a NON BINDING resolution against the reinforcments so they can complete theior mission

[5stringJeff]

I'm saying that an order such as General Order 38 would be counterproductive and against the intent of the 1st Amendment.

[red states rule]

I'm saying that an order such as General Order 38 would be counterproductive and against the intent of the 1st Amendment.




It would be counterproductive only if you are a Dem and want the US to lose the war in Iraq

[5stringJeff]

It would be counterproductive only if you are a Dem and want the US to lose the war in Iraq

No... it would be counterproductive if you believe in free speech and open debate.

[red states rule]

No... it would be counterproductive if you believe in free speech and open debate.

It seems the Dems only want their speech to be heard, and the liberal media backs them in their lies

Senate Republican wanted to allow votes on several proposed resolutions while the Democratic leadership wanted debate limited to two resolutions.

You do not hear about this in many sources

It seems the modern day Dems are the genetic descendants of the Civil war Democrats. It at first you do not win the war - quit

[Gaffer]

I'm saying that an order such as General Order 38 would be counterproductive and against the intent of the 1st Amendment.

Yes it would be. Those were desperate times and a lot of civil rights were surpressed out of necessity. Doing it now days would raise a huge uproar.

At the same time, how do you get the liberal media to tell the truth and report on all the facts? How do you stop the undermining of the government by the left? And that IS exactly what is taking place. How do you stop the enabling of the enemy by telling secret information and showing their propaganda on our news programs, disguised as news?

Perhaps a new version of general order #38. Of course I won't hold my breath for it.

[Insein]

Yes it would be. Those were desperate times and a lot of civil rights were surpressed out of necessity. Doing it now days would raise a huge uproar.

At the same time, how do you get the liberal media to tell the truth and report on all the facts? How do you stop the undermining of the government by the left? And that IS exactly what is taking place. How do you stop the enabling of the enemy by telling secret information and showing their propaganda on our news programs, disguised as news?

Perhaps a new version of general order #38. Of course I won't hold my breath for it.

Indeed. Then people could physically feel the union was on the brink of extinction. The feeling was palpable and real among the people. Desperate times called for desperate measures.

Today even though the enemy we face is real, the american people don't feel it as much. They don't think that America could possibly crumble to this enemy. Such an act as 38 would cause way more damage then it would cure.

While i think some democrats words are borderline treasonous, they are merely words. We can't stop people from lieing to the public. We simply have to broadcast the truth louder.

[Gunny]

It seems the Dems only want their speech to be heard, and the liberal media backs them in their lies

Senate Republican wanted to allow votes on several proposed resolutions while the Democratic leadership wanted debate limited to two resolutions.

You do not hear about this in many sources

It seems the modern day Dems are the genetic descendants of the Civil war Democrats. It at first you do not win the war - quit

Northern Democrats opposed the US Civil War from the beginning. What your argument/link leaves out is, at the time, owning slaves was a Constitutional Right, and no legislation precluded any state from leaving the union as freely as it joined. Northern Democrats were correct from a legal standpoint.

Attempting to draw a correlation between US Civil War-era Northern Democrats and the Democrat party today is really reaching.

Lincoln trampled all over the US Constitution, and Burnside just followed suit. General Order # 38 is unConstitutional, period.

Yes, the liberal-biased MSM is a problem. A problem that can be solved by people refusing to pay for their product, or question what they say and/or seek alternate sources of information.

Emulating Burnisde and trampling the Constitution is NOT a viable alternative. Just what the Hell do you think we're fighting for anyway? The ideals that embody the US Constitution that have made this Nation the greatest on Earth.

[Bonnie]

Two questions

1. Why are anti war advocates soooo against war? True only a very small minority have a zeal for war, most people don't like war, but recognize when it is warranted and necessary.

2. Does anyone who is staunchly opposed to war think it's productive or ethical for Democrats to oppose the Iraqi war simply to defeat Bush??? How does that help us defeat the terrorists???

[Gunny]

Two questions

1. Why are anti war advocates soooo against war? True only a very small minority have a zeal for war, most people don't like war, but recognize when it is warranted and necessary.

2. Does anyone who is staunchly opposed to war think it's productive or ethical for Democrats to oppose the Iraqi war simply to defeat Bush??? How does that help us defeat the terrorists???

Some people simply oppose war for any reason, period. They think the world is a nice place and if the US would quit meddling all over the world, there wouldn't be any wars. Those people just aren't all that bright, IMO.

There's more at stake that simply defeating Bush. If we lose in Iraq, we'll listen to at least a decade of "I told you so's." That would include the Dems who originally supported the war and let their opinions change with the wind direction.

A loss is a major political victory for Democrats and a major setback for Republicans. The fence-sitters will go with the winner, and in this day and age, the fence-sitters represent the swing vote.

[Bonnie]

Some people simply oppose war for any reason, period. They think the world is a nice place and if the US would quit meddling all over the world, there wouldn't be any wars. Those people just aren't all that bright, IMO.

There's more at stake that simply defeating Bush. If we lose in Iraq, we'll listen to at least a decade of "I told you so's." That would include the Dems who originally supported the war and let their opinions change with the wind direction.
A loss is a major political victory for Democrats and a major setback for Republicans. The fence-sitters will go with the winner, and in this day and age, the fence-sitters represent the swing vote.


Spot on Mark....That's my point, we don't have the luxury to allow the Democrats to bolster their party at the expense of our country's demise....

One dirty bomb gets thru, and nothing else matters.....do those people realize that???????

[jillian]

Spot on Mark....That's my point, we don't have the luxury to allow the Democrats to bolster their party at the expense of our country's demise....

One dirty bomb gets thru, and nothing else matters.....do those people realize that???????

"Those people" would prefer that our resources were used actually increasing our security to prevent that dirty bomb from getting through. If the Repubs were so concerned about protecting us, they'd have implemented the 9/11 Commission recommendations, secured our borders, our waterways, our nuclear facilities.

Now why is it that the neo-cons, who are luckily less than 1/3 of the U.S. are so invested in pursuing the occupation of a country which has descended into chaos and civil war, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, which has no measurable security benefit to this country?

Hmmmmmmmmm... I wonder....

And I, for one, am not staunchly opposed to war, just this particular misadventure.

Welcome aboard, Bonnie. :)

Cheers.

[red states rule]

Dems ran on making all of the 9-11 commission recommendations law

Pelosi broke that, and other promises

as far as Iraq, the liberal media is "reporting" only their verison............


Couric Touts (Slight) Opposition to Funding Surge, Skips Even Split on Iraq Resolution
Posted by Brent Baker on February 12, 2007 - 20:41.
A new CBS News poll, released Monday night, determined that Americans are almost exactly evenly split on whether Congress should “pass a non-binding resolution against sending additional troops to Iraq” with 44 percent in favor and 45 percent opposed. But in highlighting how the Senate on Tuesday “will begin a three-day debate on a non-binding, symbolic resolution stating its disapproval of President Bush's Iraq troop build-up,” CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric ignored that finding of an evenly-divided nation. Instead, she focused on how “a total of 53 percent say Congress ought to block funding for additional troops or for the war entirely.”

In offering up that number, which combined two answers, she obscured the poll question’s real news: A piddling 8 percent wish to “block all funding” for the war in Iraq. As an on-screen graphic showed, to get to 53 percent Couric and CBS producers combined the 8 percent with the 45 percent who want to “block funding for more troops” -- a percent only slightly higher than, and within the three-point margin of error, the 42 percent who want to “allow all funding.” CBS’s graphic did not include the 42 percent result.

Couric read this short item on the February 12 CBS Evening News:


“Tomorrow the House will begin a three-day debate on a non-binding, symbolic resolution stating its disapproval of President Bush’s Iraq troop build up. But our new CBS News poll shows a majority of Americans wants Congress to go even further. A total of 53 percent say Congress ought to block funding for additional troops or for the war entirely.”
The PDF of the CBS News poll, conducted February 8-11, reported:

The war in Iraq continues to take a toll on opinions of the President, but when it comes to what Congress ought to do about the war in Iraq, the public remains divided, much as it was last month. A slight majority thinks Congress ought to either block funding for more troops or block funding for the war entirely.

WHAT SHOULD CONGRESS DO ABOUT FUNDING FOR WAR?
Block all funding: 8%
Block funding for more troops: 45
Allow all funding: 42

77% of Democrats want Congress to block funding for additional troops or for the war entirely, while 69% of Republicans think Congress should allow all funding for the war. 44% would like to see Congress pass a non-binding resolution against sending additional troops to Iraq. Nearly the same percentage -- 45% -- oppose the resolution.

These views are highly correlated with partisanship. 57% of Democrats think Congress should pass a non-binding resolution against sending more troops to Iraq, while 65% of Republicans think they should not do so. Independents are divided.

http://newsbusters.org/node/10786

[Grumplestillskin]

Two questions

1. Why are anti war advocates soooo against war? True only a very small minority have a zeal for war, most people don't like war, but recognize when it is warranted and necessary.

2. Does anyone who is staunchly opposed to war think it's productive or ethical for Democrats to oppose the Iraqi war simply to defeat Bush??? How does that help us defeat the terrorists???

I'm against particular wars like the one in Iraq. Unnecessary and not worth one US/British life. Afghanistan was worth it if only to get rid of the Taliban and the terrorists they were helping to train.

Which democrats ONLY oppose the war to defeat Bush? You can defeat terrorists as well as call Bush to account, after all, he's not doing any of the fighting so it would not affect terrorist outcomes one way or another..

[Grumplestillskin]

Spot on Mark....That's my point, we don't have the luxury to allow the Democrats to bolster their party at the expense of our country's demise....

One dirty bomb gets thru, and nothing else matters.....do those people realize that???????

And what if the guy on the border who let the bomb through a card-carrying Repub? :mm:

[Gunny]

"Those people" would prefer that our resources were used actually increasing our security to prevent that dirty bomb from getting through. If the Repubs were so concerned about protecting us, they'd have implemented the 9/11 Commission recommendations, secured our borders, our waterways, our nuclear facilities.

Now why is it that the neo-cons, who are luckily less than 1/3 of the U.S. are so invested in pursuing the occupation of a country which has descended into chaos and civil war, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, which has no measurable security benefit to this country?

Hmmmmmmmmm... I wonder....

And I, for one, am not staunchly opposed to war, just this particular misadventure.

Welcome aboard, Bonnie. :)

Cheers.

Are you EVER going to get over using false percentages? Conservatives make up over half the country, and you know it as well as I do. It's proven every time they are galvanized to vote.

The 9/11 Commission Recommendations are about as useful as full-cavity searches at airports. If Bush had implemented them, you KNOW you'd be calling them ineffective, stupid, and just another Bush failure.;)

[Gunny]

I'm against particular wars like the one in Iraq. Unnecessary and not worth one US/British life. Afghanistan was worth it if only to get rid of the Taliban and the terrorists they were helping to train.

Which democrats ONLY oppose the war to defeat Bush? You can defeat terrorists as well as call Bush to account, after all, he's not doing any of the fighting so it would not affect terrorist outcomes one way or another..

Any Democrat who places partisan politics above the good of the Nation. Let's don't try an act like they don't exist.

[jillian]

Are you EVER going to get over using false percentages? Conservatives make up over half the country, and you know it as well as I do. It's proven every time they are galvanized to vote.

The 9/11 Commission Recommendations are about as useful as full-cavity searches at airports. If Bush had implemented them, you KNOW you'd be calling them ineffective, stupid, and just another Bush failure.;)

The percentages aren't false. You seem to think I was rooting for Bush to fail. I have a vested interest in the success of anti-terrorism measures IN THIS COUNTRY as do we all, but particularly those of us who live in target areas. I was rooting for him to succeed. Unfortunately, he didn't and dropped the ball.

And in case you've forgotten, the 9/11 Commission was bi-partisan. No one should object to its recommendations because of political affiliation.

[Gunny]

Spot on Mark....That's my point, we don't have the luxury to allow the Democrats to bolster their party at the expense of our country's demise....

One dirty bomb gets thru, and nothing else matters.....do those people realize that???????

Unfortunately, NEITHER party seems to be doing much about securing our borders, and that dirty bomb could EASILY get through right now while the media is busy covering Anna Nicole Smith and the politicians on both sides are breathing sighs of relief the border got back-burnered.

[Gunny]

The percentages aren't false. You seem to think I was rooting for Bush to fail. I have a vested interest in the success of anti-terrorism measures IN THIS COUNTRY as do we all, but particularly those of us who live in target areas. I was rooting for him to succeed. Unfortunately, he didn't and dropped the ball.

And in case you've forgotten, the 9/11 Commission was bi-partisan. No one should object to its recommendations because of political affiliation.

The 9/11 Commission was chaired equally by dumbasses from both parties. President Bush hasn't failed because you don't agree with his decision.

How many terrorist attacks have we suffered on US soil since 9/11? More than a couple have been thwarted. Something must be working.

And you KNOW the percentages you keep trying to sell are false.

[Gunny]

The percentages aren't false. You seem to think I was rooting for Bush to fail. I have a vested interest in the success of anti-terrorism measures IN THIS COUNTRY as do we all, but particularly those of us who live in target areas. I was rooting for him to succeed. Unfortunately, he didn't and dropped the ball.

And in case you've forgotten, the 9/11 Commission was bi-partisan. No one should object to its recommendations because of political affiliation.

BTW .... I was just wondering how you feel about being a Civil War-era Northern Democrat? Y'know, the topic of this thread?

[jillian]

BTW .... I was just wondering how you feel about being a Civil War-era Northern Democrat? Y'know, the topic of this thread?

Was that the topic of the thread? I hadn't noticed. ;)

[Grumplestillskin]

Any Democrat who places partisan politics above the good of the Nation. Let's don't try an act like they don't exist.

And there aren't Repubs out there doing the same??

[manu1959]

And there aren't Repubs out there doing the same??

let me see if i have this one....since the people you hate are doing something you hate it is ok for you to do it?

[Gunny]

And there aren't Repubs out there doing the same??

That wasn't your question; although, I anticipated this response.:poke:

Of course there are.

[jillian]

The 9/11 Commission was chaired equally by dumbasses from both parties. President Bush hasn't failed because you don't agree with his decision.

How many terrorist attacks have we suffered on US soil since 9/11? More than a couple have been thwarted. Something must be working.

And you KNOW the percentages you keep trying to sell are false.

Bush failed because he failed....

There were 7 years between the two trade center attacks. Terrorists are patient. But given your logic, does that mean Bill Clinton kept us safe for all that time? Let me anticipate your answer.... thought not.

The millennium plot was thwarted also - on Clinton's watch. That's a function of intel... not a function of a pointless war. And even if you think the war serves a purpose, you think you're getting bang for your buck?

[Grumplestillskin]

let me see if i have this one....since the people you hate are doing something you hate it is ok for you to do it?

I don't hate them at all. But you know, what is someone supposed to do? A group of people have a certain type of behaviour that affects you adversely. Do you sit there and take it or reply in kind? What's your answer?

[manu1959]

I don't hate them at all. But you know, what is someone supposed to do? A group of people have a certain type of behaviour that affects you adversely. Do you sit there and take it or reply in kind? What's your answer?

so you are ok with the invasion of iraq to help out the iraqi people that saddam was killing.....well good for you.

[Grumplestillskin]

so you are ok with the invasion of iraq to help out the iraqi people that saddam was killing.....well good for you.

To which I say when do the invasions of:

China
Burma
Liberia
Uzbekistan
North Korea
Iran
Pakistan
Sudan
Sierra Leone
Kuwait
Oman
Saudia Arabia
and the dozens of other dictatorships begin..:cow:

[manu1959]

To which I say when do the invasions of:

China
Burma
Liberia
Uzbekistan
North Korea
Iran
Pakistan
Sudan
Sierra Leone
Kuwait
Oman
Saudia Arabia
and the dozens of other dictatorships begin..:cow:

wow!....you are quite the superhawk.....do you think they will reinstate the draft?.....i sure hope bambam and the shemale will wage war for ya....

[Grumplestillskin]

wow!....you are quite the superhawk.....do you think they will reinstate the draft?.....i sure hope bambam and the shemale will wage war for ya....

I was more hoping for Superman and Wolverine myself....:boom2:

[Gaffer]

"Those people" would prefer that our resources were used actually increasing our security to prevent that dirty bomb from getting through. If the Repubs were so concerned about protecting us, they'd have implemented the 9/11 Commission recommendations, secured our borders, our waterways, our nuclear facilities.

Now why is it that the neo-cons, who are luckily less than 1/3 of the U.S. are so invested in pursuing the occupation of a country which has descended into chaos and civil war, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, which has no measurable security benefit to this country?

Hmmmmmmmmm... I wonder....

And I, for one, am not staunchly opposed to war, just this particular misadventure.

Welcome aboard, Bonnie. :)

Cheers.

We need to do all that, and take the fight to the enemy on his turf. The best defense is a good offense. That has always been the case. Just sitting back and building up defenses does not defeat the enemy.

[manu1959]

I was more hoping for Superman and Wolverine myself....:boom2:

nah......storm and wonder woman

[Grumplestillskin]

nah......storm and wonder woman

I was talking about saving the world, not who you wanted to do the horizontal bop with - if that were the case it'd have to be Ms Marvel and Rogue...

[Insein]

I was talking about saving the world, not who you wanted to do the horizontal bop with - if that were the case it'd have to be Ms Marvel and Rogue...

Supergirl and batgirl in a 3 way. Save the world? Pfft who cares.

http://www.patfullerton.com/superman/pix/supergirl/supergirl-batgirl.jpg

[red states rule]

The media in the US is overwhelming liberal

Here is another example of their "support" for the US, the US military, and how they view the war on terror


CNN’s Cafferty Draws Moral Equivalence Between Iran and United States
Posted by Scott Whitlock on February 12, 2007 - 17:50.
During the Monday edition of the "Situation Room," Jack Cafferty discussed U.S. allegations that Iraqi militants are killing American soldiers with weapons provided by Iran. At the conclusion of the "Cafferty File" segment, the CNN host engaged in the always reliable media tradition of moral equivalence, comparing Iran’s action to U.S. support of Afghan rebels in the 1980s. Apparently, the fact that America was opposing the brutal Russian regime, whereas, in this case, Iran is the oppressive entity, makes no difference. Cafferty and "Situation Room" host Wolf Blitzer also exhibited skepticism about the United State’s timing in making these accusations:

Jack Cafferty: "So here is the question: ‘When it comes to Iran’s alleged involvement in Iraq, who do you believe?’ E-mail your thoughts to CaffertyFile@CNN.com or go to CNN.com/Caffertyfile. Reminiscent, Wolf, of the war in Afghanistan, when Russia invaded. It seems to me we were– The United States was supplying weapons and intelligence and things like that to the Afghan rebels."

Wolf Blitzer: "The Mujahideen, a lot. Through the CIA, through the Saudis, Those shoulder-fired missiles which brought down a lot of Soviet helicopters."

Cafferty: "So, that was okay but it's not okay if Iran-- I'm, I’m confused, Wolf."

Blitzer: "Well, you know, later we will talk to Michael Ware about the timing, why the U.S. is releasing all this information right now since it's been out there at least for a year, maybe two."

A transcript of the February 12 segment, which aired at 4:08pm, follows:

Jack Cafferty: "A war of words, Wolf, heating up between the United States and Iran. U.S. officials yesterday showing off what they call a growing body of evidence that Iranian weapons are being used to kill coalition soldiers in Iraq. They say that Iran is making the violence worse there by providing Shiite groups with technology, money, and training. The officials are focused on something called EFPs or explosively formed penetrators that can punch through heavily armored vehicles. The U.S. says these weapons can be traced back to Iran and have killed 170 coalition forces. An Iranian official calls the U.S. allegations all lies saying the administration has made mistakes in Iraq and they want to use Iran as a scapegoat. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also denied that his country is supplying weapons to Iraqi militants. He said there will only be peace in Iraq when foreign forces leave there. So here is the question: ‘When it comes to Iran’s alleged involvement in Iraq, who do you believe?’ E-mail your thoughts to Caffertyfile@CNN.com or go to CNN.com/Caffertyfile. Reminiscent, Wolf, of the war in Afghanistan, when Russia invaded. It seems to me we were– The United States was supplying weapons and intelligence and things like that to the Afghan rebels."

Wolf Blitzer: "The Mujahideen, a lot. Through the CIA, through the Saudis, Those shoulder-fired missiles which brought down a lot of Soviet helicopters."

Cafferty: "So, that was okay but it's not okay if Iran-- I'm, I’m confused, Wolf."

Wolf Blitzer: "Well, you know, later we will talk to Michael Ware about the timing, why the U.S. is releasing all this information right now since it's been out there at least for a year, maybe two."

Cafferty: "And Iran, arguably, is probably not the only country with vested interest in what’s going on going inside Iraq. All of the nations around in immediate area, including Saudi Arabia, have a very vested interest in the outcome of what is happening in that country."

Blitzer: "A lot of people do. All right, Jack. Thanks very much."

http://newsbusters.org/node/10784

[Gunny]

Bush failed because he failed....

Problem is, Bush hasn't failed at anything yet. You just keep attempting to perpetuate a premature judgement.

There were 7 years between the two trade center attacks. Terrorists are patient. But given your logic, does that mean Bill Clinton kept us safe for all that time? Let me anticipate your answer.... thought not.

That was not the question. The question was how many attacks SINCE 9/11 on US soil? Zero, that's how many. Hard to call that a failure.

Unlike your attitude toward President Bush, I have never blamed Clinton just because he's Clinton, and I defy you to find on this board, or the previous one ONE instance where I have.

The fact is, there were several terrorist attacks during Clinton's tenure.

Again, unlike you, I'm not pointing a finger at anyone but the terrorists. OBL got his nuts in an uproar because "infidels" were on Arab soil during the First Gulf War, and it was THEN that he declared jihad against the US.

So maybe we should have just left Kuwait to Saddam's butchery so we wouldn't piss off OBL?:uhoh:

The millennium plot was thwarted also - on Clinton's watch. That's a function of intel... not a function of a pointless war. And even if you think the war serves a purpose, you think you're getting bang for your buck?

Nope. I'd have won it already and REALLY given you libbies something to squeal about.:poke:

[Bonnie]

"Those people" would prefer that our resources were used actually increasing our security to prevent that dirty bomb from getting through. If the Repubs were so concerned about protecting us, they'd have implemented the 9/11 Commission recommendations, secured our borders, our waterways, our nuclear facilities.

Now why is it that the neo-cons, who are luckily less than 1/3 of the U.S. are so invested in pursuing the occupation of a country which has descended into chaos and civil war, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, which has no measurable security benefit to this country?

Hmmmmmmmmm... I wonder....

And I, for one, am not staunchly opposed to war, just this particular misadventure.

Welcome aboard, Bonnie. :)

Cheers.

Well there we agree, I too believe our borders should be closed, but let's not put that squarely on the Republicans shoulders, I see even worse ideas coming from Pelosi and company...Must be all those illegal nannies they like to hire :)

Point about Iraq is that we are there, and have been for three years, what a waste if we pull out, leave that country to implode. It sends many terrible messages to the terrorists that we have no stomach to stand up to them in the propaganda arena, and to other countries like Iran that may be festering an internal coup to oust their looney leader, it tells them we the U.S. will cut and run, not to be counted on...And I beg to differ that a friendly Irag has no strategic benefits to us....

BTW thanks for the welcome :)