Ruckus has recieved a piddling $25,000 or so from Tides in the last five years, hardly enough to fund anything beyond a shack with a single light bulb in the ceiling, and a drop in the bucket the Post says Tides is getting from the Kerry family. And I would hardly call "involved in" anything to get worked up about in regards to WTO protests, since the Seattle police were also "involved" in it--because they were busy keeping the peace.
As to Peaceful Tomorrows being pro-Saddam, as is the NY Post's insidious implication, I offer you the complete CNN transcript from which the quote was skillfully lifted.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/08/otsc.brahimi/
The meat of it:
BRAHIMI: There have been quite a few groups of peace that have come into Iraq to demonstrate some form of solidarity with the Iraqi people. One of them -- which arrived Tuesday -- is called [September 11 Families] for Peaceful Tomorrows. They include four Americans who are relatives of victims of September 11 attacks.
Now they've been meeting with Iraqi families that are said to be relatives of U.S.-led bombings in Iraq and families here who've lost people in the 12-year United Nations trade sanctions against Baghdad.
They plan to go later Wednesday to the Amriyah air raid shelter, which is a shelter that was bombed in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and in which [Iraq says] many Iraqis seeking shelter were killed, including many women and children.
Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz has been meeting with some of the peace delegations that have come into town, calling the visit a "very important international development."
How horridly anti-Bush and anti-American.
I also offer you
the transcript of a speech written by one of the traitorous delegates:
Last January, I was part of a Peaceful Tomorrows delegation to Iraq. Deciding to go was difficult. I was definitely no supporter of Saddam Hussein. Indeed the entire time I was in Iraq, I was deeply distressed by the memory of my government’s support of Hussein’s regime during the 1980s – when Amnesty International and other human rights organizations were publicizing abundant evidence of his human rights atrocities.
When I was in Iraq, I was angry too that there was no real opportunity for free dialogue with the civilians we met. They lived in a repressive society. We traveled with government minders. So what we learned was a complex message to interpret. Mostly the Iraqis were angry that their relatives – innocent civilians – had died in the 1991 Gulf War and they feared yet another round of killings. Sometimes, in quiet meetings we simply grieved together about our common pain.
Many Iraqis told us they feared that war would lead to increased terrorism. American aggression and occupation of their lands by foreign troops, they warned us, would make it much easier to attract young men to terrorist training camps.
The Peaceful Tomorrows delegation returned to the U.S. hopeful that our voices could help stave off a devastating war, hopeful that we could inspire our national leaders to use the wealth, power and intelligence of the United States to work for non-violent change to increase justice in Iraq and through-out the world. An unprecedented international peace movement was forged to prevent war in Iraq. It is painful to acknowledge that even in the face of the strength of that movement, the United States went to war anyway. But it is crucial that we keep that movement alive. Its work is not done.
The lesson? Know your sources. A NY Post editorial, or any editorial, is not a source. It is an opinion. And, as I hope I have demonstrated, opinion does not always have a firm connection to reality. Especially when it is a partisan hit piece. Peaceful Tomorrows was not remotely against toppling Hussein. They were merely against violent resolution. Blood does not wash blood, in their opinion.
Yet, to hear the NY Post tell it, Kerry was somehow Pro-Saddam. Funny how you walk away from the article with that impression, isn't it?
Isn't it?
Oh, but I've got one more for you. Let's go back to Peaceful Tomorrows "demanding" $20 million dollars for the victims.
They created a form letter which you can find
here. It's the standard kind an interest group whips up for its members to send to Congress.
The pertinent section, from which the NY Post so helpfully interpreted a "demand" of $20 million dollars:
"I believe it is the right thing to do for our government to create a fund to
help these innocent families. Afghan relief organizations suggest an average
grant of $10,000 to rebuild homes, restock possessions, secure adequate
medical and psychological care, or compensate for the loss of breadwinners
and caretakers. Assuming 2,000 families seek compensation, this would amount to
$20 million, which is less than one day’s military expense during the
bombing campaign."
How cheeky of them, don't you think?
The NY Post editorial is shit.
Edit: No offense meant to you, Glad. My ire is directed wholly at the NY Post and its partisan ilk.