Here are some archived news tidbits about Washington House of Representatives candidate Alice Woldt.
Alice Woldt concluded that the most effective response to the September 11 attacks was to keep the Taliban in power.
"Christian Aid has warned that this could become 'the worst humanitarian crisis in living memory', with potentially 7.5 million lives at risk" said Alice Woldt, Acting Executive Director of the Church Council of Greater Seattle. Ms. Woldt went on to say that "at a time of such anguish, given the tragedy suffered here in the U.S. and the growingAlice Woldt helped finance Baghdad Jim McDermott's visit to Saddam Hussein in September 2002
catastrophe faced by civilians in Afghanistan, it is heartening to know that so many organizations and individuals in Seattle are taking action."
Alice Woldt, acting executive director of the Church Council of Greater Seattle, said in an interview yesterday: "Yes, we sponsored the trip. If we designated money, it was designated for travel expenses. But none of this came out of our general fund."Alice Woldt is determined to form closer ties with Fidel Castro's regime, even if it means violating U.S. laws:
And now, the 77-year-old Secretary of the local Seattle/Cuba Friendshipment Committee finds himself in trouble in a nationally precedent-setting case. It involves a sister city conference held last February in Cuba, which was attended by some nine Seattle area people, about 160 Americans, and a like number of Cubans. Among the attendees was Alice Woldt, new head of the Church Council of Greater Seattle, and Democratic county councilman Dwight Pelz, along with two county council staff, negotiating for a proposed sister city agreement between King County and Granma provinceFinally, Alice Woldt was Patty Murray's Number 1 defender when Senator Tennis Shoes was criticized for praising Osama Bin Laden's humanitarian efforts:
But there are others in Murray’s corner, including several in Seattle’s anti-war coalition who believe she is right.Mullah Omar, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Osama Bin Laden. Islamist, Fascist, Communist, who cares? As long as they're bloodthirsty dictators who hate America, Alice Woldt will take their side."I would believe that as a fundamentalist, he believes very much in the values of his religion and that he would have been providing charity," said Alice Woldt of the Church Council of Seattle.
Interesting that Alice is always identified as representing the Church Council of Greater Seattle. One can only wonder what church she goes to. Lunatarian?
Anyone who believes that Osama does more charitable work than the US is incredibly stupid. And anyone who believes people fly airplanes into skyscrapers because Osama builds day care centers has dropped beyond the stupid event horizon and collapsed into an incredibly dense mass of idiocy from which thought cannot escape.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna on August 17, 2004 12:59 PMOsama builds day care centers so that women will have an opportunity to go to school and, if they wish, find meaningful employment outside the home.
/sarcasm
I thought even the Left supported the war in Afghanistan?
Posted by: Dean on August 18, 2004 07:52 AM"Alice Woldt concluded that the most effective response to the September 11 attacks was to keep the Taliban in power."
Uh, does it matter to anyone around here if Shark claims someone "concluded" something that they didn't? Probably not.
Posted by: Rabii LNMB on August 18, 2004 09:12 AMDean, the left supported the war in Afghanistan until the US started it. The only thing worse than Taliban oppression was the US ending it.
Oh, and Rabii? Sorry, I can't form an opinion on your comment, the Shark hasn't e-mailed me my talking points yet.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna on August 18, 2004 02:53 PMShe didn't literally say it, but it seems a reasonable conclusion, since she speaks for an organization that protested military action against the Taliban.
About the son, at least his spelling's improved:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=wazhapnen%40aol.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=19980115233200.SAA21346%40ladder02.news.aol.com&rnum=1
"She didn't literally say it, but it seems a reasonable conclusion..."
At least you admit he jumped to a conclusion rather than carrying the burden of facts.
Posted by: Rabii LNMB on August 18, 2004 05:49 PMRabii LNMB, does it matter to you that Alice Woldt could not have been more wrong about 'the worst humanitarian crisis in living memory'?
That doesn't speak well for her judgement now does it? That's the whole point of this post.
Posted by: chum on August 18, 2004 08:10 PM"That's the whole point of this post."
The posts would carry more weight if they dealt with facts.
Posted by: Rabii LNMB on August 19, 2004 07:06 AMWhen Medecins Sans Frontieres, Noam Chomsky, and, apparently, Ms. Woldt said that the United States starting a war in Afghanistan would lead to the deaths of thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands, of Afghans, was that fact? Or was that opinion?
And if the United States did not go to war in Afghanistan, did that not mean leaving the Taliban in power? Or was there some magic wand gesture that would make them go away?
Posted by: Dean on August 20, 2004 07:47 AMDean, there is a difference between opposing the war in Afghanistan and concluding "that the most effective response to the September 11 attacks was to keep the Taliban in power."
It's like saying opposing the war on Iraq means you feel Sadaam was good for the country.
Posted by: Rabii LNMB on August 20, 2004 09:08 AMRabii:
Again, if you oppose war in Afghanistan in 2001, please indicate how that is not supporting keeping them in power.
You can wave your arms as much as you want. Please show how any other course of action was going to topple them.
Yes, in fact, I would also agree that those who opposed going to war in Iraq were essentially saying that Saddam should be allowed to stay in power.
This is especially the case if you have a track record of also opposing the continuation of sanctions (back during the Clinton era).
Oppose sanctions+oppose war=Keep Saddam in power.
YOU add to that the conclusion that this might be "good for the country." That addresses motive, not outcome.
You might believe that keeping Saddam is bad, but as I noted, if you also oppose war, you believe that it is BETTER to keep Saddam in power than to act to topple him.
Did Alice Woldt support or oppose the sanctions? Well, the organization she was with OPPOSED the continuation of sanctions:
http://www.churchcouncilseattle.org/peace.htm
Dean, let's take the premise a step farther.
Opposing the war in Afghanistan = concluding "that the most effective response to the September 11 attacks was to keep the Taliban in power."
Well, I'll have to assume Bush, having not invaded Iran or North Korea, must feel that the most effective response to the September 11 attacks was to keep those governments in power. Same logic.
Posted by: Rabii LNMB on August 23, 2004 06:09 AMRabii:
It'd be easier if you simply typed, "Look, an elephant!"
Regarding Iraq, Alice Woldt opposed sanctions. Alice Woldt opposed war. What exactly would she have seen done about Saddam Hussein?
Regarding Afghanistan, again, I ask the question: What did she expect to have happen? Or are you suggesting that Afghanistan had nothing to do w/ 9-11?
Posted by: Dean on August 23, 2004 07:12 AMDean,
I don't know what Alice Woldt wanted to happen in Afghanistan or with Sadaam.
My point was it's unfounded to say opposing the war in Afghanistan is the same as saying "that the most effective response to the September 11 attacks was to keep the Taliban in power." That's all.
All you are saying is that, after September 11, we should not have gone to war w/ the Taliban.
Which leads to them staying in power.
Thanks for clarifying that.
Posted by: Dean on August 24, 2004 10:16 AM