Is ANSWER controlled by some fucked up people?

[bobwhite]

Read this post. If what it says is true I say fuck ANSWER and the horse they rode in on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1516683&mesg_id=1519178&page=

But maybe it's not true. I'm looking for answers here. Someone out there must know. But I do remember reading a Salon article a while back that raised some serious questions about ANSWER and some of the people in it.

[Tinoire]

1. Did you read those links?

I don't think you did because nowhere in those first three links do I see any mention of ANSWER, the IAC or Ramsey Clark :shrug:

- supported the Chinese government's 1989 Tienanmen Square
massacre
http://www.workers.org/ww/tienanmen.html :shrug: no mention

- supports the "socialist" North Korean dictatorship of Kim
Jong Il
http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/korea0425.php :shrug: no mention
http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/korea0509.php :shrug: no mention

Rush Limbaugh loves those links btw.

Saying ANSWER is a front group for supporters of the Tiennamen Square massacre is like saying that Mother Teresa was a front woman for Opus Dei.



Ramsey Clark is pictured above with Kerry and Vietnam phony vet Al Hubbard Who was head of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War movement- Rush Limbaugh.

Here's some more propaganda for you. Other than the kind endorsement of John kerry, see how much red-baiting and how many lies you can spot in this article:

Ramsey Clark Endorses John Kerry

One of the leading ""America bashers"" on the political scene today has endorsed John Kerry for president. Speaking to reporters after a February 27 Washington press conference to rally support for Haiti''s Marxist President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Ramsey Clark said he''s voting for Kerry because he would take U.S. foreign policy in a new direction.

This is certainly the case. Kerry told the New York Daily News editorial board that he would have intervened ""unilaterally"" with U.S. troops if necessary to save Aristide''s corrupt regime from a popular rebellion. Aristide, who developed a reputation for brutalizing and killing his political opponents, was encouraged by the Bush administration to leave the country.

"I think John Kerry is a great human being,"" Clark told this reporter. ""I knew him when he was I call a youngster in his 20s. I saw him as an extremely caring person, an extremely courageous person, and a person who was deeply concerned for peace and the well-being of other people.""

Clark has been labeled a ""traitor"" for his habit of showing up in countries hostile to the U.S. A lawyer, he has represented accused terrorists and war criminals. He told the Haiti news conference that President Bush should be impeached and the U.S. should pay billions of dollars in reparations to Haiti.

Clark served as LBJ''s Attorney General in the 1960s and then participated in the anti-Vietnam War movement in the early 1970s with Kerry, just back from the war, who accused his fellow soldiers of war crimes and genocide. Clark was a lawyer for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and Kerry was a major leader of the group. A photograph at the time shows Clark on the same stage with Kerry.

Clark traveled to Hanoi, North Vietnam, from July 29 to August 12, 1972, under the sponsorship of the Stockholm-based International Commission for Inquiry, a Communist ""peace"" front. He was taken on a guided tour and denounced the U.S. bombing of North Vietnam. He also visited American POWs held by Hanoi, falsely declaring that they were in good health and their conditions ""could not be better."" Such visits by American figures gave the communists the confidence to continue in the face of defeats on the battlefield.

(snip)

http://www.clipx.net/politics/kerryRamseyClark.htm

[bobwhite]

3. It's not just Limbaugh

Yet Todd Gitlin, author of "The Sixties: Years of Hope and Days of Rage" and former president of the '60s antiwar group Students for a Democratic Society, fears the Oct. 26 protest will be "a gigantic ruination for the antiwar movement."

That's because the politics of the group behind it, the International Action Center, are anathema to most Americans -- including the vast majority of people who oppose a U.S. war on Iraq. IAC opposes any action against Saddam, including containment. "It is the position of the International Action Center that Iraq, as part of its self-determination, has the right to a military force sufficient to defend itself," says a 1999 statement. Its Web site is a cornucopia of empty lefty hyperbole that boils down to the notion that, as Richard Becker, IAC's western region co-director writes, "No one in the world ... has a worse human rights record than the United States."

 Its call for the "workers movement here in the heartland of imperialism" to rise up is not a message that will stir great numbers of Americans. Neither is the ideology of the group behind the Oct. 6 protest, Not In Our Name, which was started and is being run by founders of a New York-based radical activist group called Refuse & Resist, who are closely tied to the Maoist-inspired Revolutionary Communist Party.

Yet as extreme as these groups are, they remain the two most prominent ones organizing large-scale antiwar protests. Though they've been cagey about the fanatical aspects of their agenda -- most of IAC's Iraq organizing is done through a front group called ANSWER -- Gitlin says, "the capacity of this movement to grow depends on what it has to say," and what these two groups have to say may alienate even people horrified by Bush's war mongering.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/10/16/protest/

[bobwhite]

4. more - supporters of the 'Shining Path'?

The RCP's ideology isn't just harmless campus Marxism. It supports Peru's maniacally brutal Shining Path ("Support the People's War in Peru!" screams the RCP Web site), the communist guerrillas who specialized in urban terrorism, and venerates the bloody insurgency in Nepal and lauds the Maoist campaign to "liberate" Tibet.

from the above salon article

[gottaB]

105. The RCP's unflinching support of Shining Path was a turnoff for me

Actually it was the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, and most of what they were about did seem like harmless campus Marxism to me. That was ages ago. I think some people took positions like that just to be antiauthoritarian, in that authoritarian leftist kind of way. Others I wasn't so sure about, but I don't believe that their ideology per se is dangerous.

[Tinoire]

16. Todd Gitlin was one of those who didn't want people

embarrassing the Democratic Party leadership by protesting against the war. Here's a little exchange with Naomi Klein on Democracy Now after Gitlin tried to dissuade people from protesting in New York.


August 26, 2004 (About the protest at the DNC)


(snip)

TODD GITLIN: There's an urgent need, given the fact that we're in a national and, as well, global emergency, to defeat George Bush in the practical way that presidents can be defeated in the United States. And that is by doing everything possible to see that he's defeated on November 2. People who feel called upon to protest or to remember that their protest is taking place not on the streets of Manhattan, but it's taking place everywhere television and the internet reach. Nobody is running for president of Manhattan. To be contemptuous about the people's reactions elsewhere is to live in a cocoon of self-congratulation and not to be doing politics but to be doing performance pieces. If people protest, they should do so exactly as Mailer said, in a dignified way, in a way that does not recruit voters for George w. Bush.

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I certainly agree with Todd that this is an emergency and the headlines that Amy read from Iraq make that very, very clear. Personally, I don't think we have the luxury of waiting until November to oppose the war. We also heard that the protests have nothing to do with the democrats. I would also disagree with that. I think they have a lot to do with the democrats. Precisely because the democrats have really sealed off the possibility of just expressing our opposition to the war by voting. This is not Spain. They are running on a hugely militaristic campaign. They're promising to continue the occupation, even expand the occupation of Iraq. So we need to be in the streets. The other thing I want to take issue with, with Todd, I actually think he's making an unstrategic, unpolitical argument, and that's because there is going to be some disorder in the streets. If it isn't going to be protesters, it's going to be police posing as protesters. We have seen this, we’ve talked about it on this show, it’s happened in Miami and it will happen again. The only way that we can protect ourselves from that is numbers. It's masses of people in the street. I don't believe, with all respect to Professor Gitlin, that the black bloc is his natural constituency. I don't think that they're listening to his advice. I think the people that are listening are actually the liberals who are planning to go out and oppose the use of their city as the backdrop. I'd also like to disagree with Mr. Mailer that the republicans chose New York as a trap. I think they chose New York because they thought they were going to be on a roll. They chose New York because they thought they were going to be able to use the city's grief as a backdrop for their triumph in the war on terror. There’s no moment for triumph. The problem is that Kerry is not willing to point that out because his advisers are telling him that he has to look equally tough. Which means we are the only people who can oppose this war on the streets. And that's why we're going to be there. These warnings actually aren’t working. There's going to be massive numbers of people on the streets.


(snip)

NAOMI KLEIN: When I say we don't have the luxury, I mean there is a war going on right now. If we are an anti-war movement, we don't get to choose our strategic moments to oppose a war and ask ourselves how it's going to play in swing states. We oppose wars when they are being waged. And there is an emergency in Najaf right now. People in Iraq are flocking to Najaf, acting as human shields. Sistani just yesterday called for massive peaceful demonstrations. I think, the least we can do is not – I actually resent this idea that protest is infantile. I think it is very politically mature and I think responsible. I think the onus is on Americans because it is their bombs dropping on Najaf, to be in the streets making concrete demands to end the occupation, to end the siege on Najaf, for massive reparations for Iraq. I really believe the arguments that Todd Gitlin is making is really part of a three-pronged strategy to scare people out of the streets of New York. I think part of it, people are afraid of terrorism. They're now afraid of anarchists because it's being whipped up by the tabloids, and I think into this debate is being inserted this false analogy with Chicago 1968 that says to liberals in New York who were really feeling defiant and were planning to show some real courage on the streets that actually you can do more by staying home than being in the streets. I don't think what we’re going to see on the streets is a temper tantrum. I think there's serious, mature opposition to this war and that the onus, all of us who have marched against the war before it started, is to bring those voices from Najaf. You know, I was there. I wasn't in Chicago in 1968, I hadn’t been born yet, but I really feel a tremendous responsibility to the people I met in Iraq, to bring those voices here, because they're being crushed there, and we owe it to them. (snip) The Democrats have systematically sealed off that possibility and I believe pushed people into the streets. And to dismiss that as a symbolic temper tantrum, I think, is quite absurd. I also want to be very clear, Todd, I’m not saying that you are deliberately playing into Karl Rove's hands, but practically I believe that you are. Because what the Republicans want is to dismiss our protests as marginal, to make us look crazy. That’s what they want.

TODD GITLIN: Wrong. Exactly wrong.

NAOMI KLEIN: No, Todd, let me speak. What they want is they want to reduce the numbers. What you are doing, who is actually listening to you and I have talked to many New Yorkers, that -- they're not the people that you are afraid of making trouble. They are the people who are liberals in the city, and -- you know, who were planning to be part of the United for Peace and Justice March on Sunday, who are getting frightened because there isn’t a permit. All the other fear strategies are working. Now they actually have a nice progressive sounding get out of protest free card that says: you know what, go out of town, go on holiday; you're actually helping because you're not playing into the Republicans' hands.

(snip)

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/26/1421204

[bobwhite]

19. no

his whole point was taken out of context - all he wanted was for people not to make fools of themselves on national TV. I can see his point. Luckily many people did take the protest seriously and it came off basically alright.

[Tinoire]

31. Naomi Klein took his point out of context?

How do you take someone's point out of contect when they ask people not to get out and protest because it "the Republicans might use it against us"?

Todd Gitlin has become a joke.

===
Imagine A "young activist" who picks up Todd Gitlin's new book, seeking useful advice from the former president of the premiere antiwar student organization of the 1960s, Students for a Democratic Society. They will be surprised to find that history's two most dangerous people are not members of Bush's cabinet, but rather the Russian revolutionary Lenin and 2000 Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader. (Noam Chomsky comes in a distant third).

Running throughout the condescending prose and sloppy fact-checking in Gitlin's Letters to a Young Activist lies the assertion that any challenge to the Democratic Party is either the product of youthful folly or crazed sectarianism. His central historical contention about the 1960s movements is that everything was going fine until people starting thinking that real social justice required some type of revolution or looked to Lenin--who he describes as an "intellectually dishonest" monster--for ideas.

For instance, Gitlin claims that "the Black Panther Party hijacked the black liberation movement" and slanders the urban Black rebellions that broke out after Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination as "the momentary exultation of looters, arsonists and snipers." Gitlin also harbors a rather ambiguous attitude to the McCarthyite anti-Communist witch trials, which he calls a "mixed blessing."

Having smeared any attempt to challenge U.S. capitalism at its roots, Gitlin staggers on into the realm of the absurd. "If antiwar militancy can take credit for driving Johnson from office in 1968," writes Gitlin, "it must...shoulder the blame for nudging some voters towards Nixon, who proceeded to extend the Vietnam War for five years and expanded it to Laos and Cambodia, killing more than a million people." :wtf:

Playing fast and loose with the facts, Gitlin tells his young activist reader--who he prefers to call a "social entrepreneur"--that had the antiwar movement supported Democrat Hubert Humphrey (who personally helped escalate the war for the five previous years as Johnson's vice president) for president in 1968, "he would have phased out the war." Thus, the lesson is, if you don't vote for the Democrats, you are morally responsible for Nixon and Pol Pot.

After a chapter claiming that racism is fading away and Black students only "proclaim their marginal identity" as a way of filling an existential void, Gitlin attacks activists organizing for justice for Palestinians against Israeli apartheid. In other chapters, he assails anyone who won't salute the American flag, chastises "feminist zealots (who) were sometimes indifferent to children" and calls for the left to join in the war on "Islamic murderers."

(snip)

http://www.counterpunch.org/chretien06212003.html


Well. I think we can dispense with the interesting Mr. Gitlin.

Who do you have next? :)

[radio4progressives]

2. This Tactic is OLD now... Don't like A.N.S.W.E.R?.?

then go on your merry way and work with other people, organizations. Don't do the job of paid operatives that promulgate a bunch of crap about the organizers. Personally I don't have anything to do with these folks in terms of contribution etc, and they're not the only game in town. There are plenty of other organizations such as United for Peace and Justice who were primary organizers of the demonstrations in New York at Madison Square Garden and Wall Street protesting the Republican Convention, the war etc. There's also "Not In Our Name", (NION) etc...


But A.N.S.W.E.R was the first to organize and it's international. Personally, a lot has to be said for that, and i give the organizers a great deal of credit on the international front against the war policies of this administration. We need that. but you don't have to have anything to do with these people if you prefer not to.

[mt1000]

5. ANSWER's contribution

There are many organizations -- but none did what ANSWER did --- step up years in advance and request assembly permits for inaugurations. They play a pivotal role because they go through the hassle of getting the paperwork done in advance of needed actions.

[sandnsea]

6. You pretty much do

Because they're front and center of every large national protest. I never thought much about it until the other day when it was reported that ANSWER got the permit to protest at the inauguration and somebody said they're the best at getting these permits. Hmmmm. Far left group that's offensive to 95% of Americans ALWAYS get the permits???? ALWAYS pictured by the MSM during any protest? I'd question it. Funny how the left can question Skull & Bones but not a group that might actually be doing them harm. Objectivity. Might not hurt.

[thebigidea]

7. 95% of Americans have never heard of them.

75% of Americans would zone out if you droned on and on about commies.

60% of Americans think that Ramsey Clark has something to do with mid 60s pop music.

Madeup statistics are fun!

[sandnsea]

8. Ignoring reality

Doesn't make it not real. America doesn't listen to Limbaugh anymore? He doesn't tell them who ANSWER is? Come on, wake up. This group isn't helpful. I've heard the left call ELF a CIA front. Why not ANSWER? Makes perfect sense to me. It's what I'd do if I wanted to keep track of all the leftists in the country.

[thebigidea]

11. wake up and go to sleep!

Who is "the left," exactly? Don't you mean you've heard several individuals say that?

If I say "the DLC is in bed with Red China in a secret plot to rule Middle Earth" and got a few friends to agree with me, does that mean "the left" has called it such?

[sandnsea]

91. Why so defensive?

I don't get it. I'm just one person with a suspicion about A.N.S.W.E.R. There's no friends sitting behind me telling me what to type. Are there with you? :crazy:

[thebigidea]

93. yes, I'm Sally freakin' Field in Cybil

I operate under strict instructions from the Soviet Union. It doesn't matter that they don't exist, they do to me and my genocide-supporting split personalities intent on rekindling the embers of tragedy from here to eternity and back again.

[chascarrillo]

13. No, we don't need ANSWER

Look into the organization and their support of Milosevic. Then ask yourself why on earth Democrats should support these wankers.

Yes, they are the first to organize. That's how they earn notoriety. That's how they get honest folks like you to stick up for them. But, if we want a progressive movement filled with the ideas that liberals hold close, then we have to get rid of this cancer.

[thebigidea]

14. but if we can temporarily ally with paleocons and the like to bring down W

... why not a few occasionally nutty types on the other side of the spectrum?

[chascarrillo]

I will not ally with those that defend genocide

If you want to, you feel free to see if you can sleep at night.

[thebigidea]

50. all along I thought my insomnia was caused by Dubya...

... when in reality, it was attending 2 protests organized by ANSWER that was doing it.

I managed to miss the "huzzah for genocide!" and "racial cleansing? fuck yeah!" signs, though.

[bobwhite]

20. support Milosovic?

These types don't see that it is possible to hate both the Bushies and people like Saddam and Milosovic too? Some people just aren't advanced enough to realize that, they don't have the imagination to see that the two sides of the same coin. So instead they just hate America and take the sides of brutal thugs. I'm sick of those kinds of people, fuck them.

[thebigidea]

22. isn't there a difference between hating the Bush admin and hating America?

[bobwhite]

25. of course

I think you can hate Bush and love America. But you can also hate Bush and hate Saddam and his types too. Unfortunetaly some can't make that intellectual leap, yet.

[thebigidea]

33. well, we're all waiting for you to guide us over the chasm

take my hand, kind sir - guide me to the promised land, where there are no scruffy leftists, no wild-eyed idealists, no slightly goofy socialists... just clean, scrubbed, blowdried centrists with easily categorized beliefs.

Its kinda silly smearing hundreds of thousands of people with such facile generalizations.

Or have you taken a survey?

The "saddamloving/not-sufficiently-hating-saddam" thing is getting really old. I doubt you'll find much support for El Moustache around here, or at any given ANSWER rally for that matter.

But to tell you the truth, I'm dying to giggle at his prison poetry. Apparently it involves Bush.

[bobwhite]

39. dislking Saddam does not equal centrist

IT'S CALLED FUCKING REALISM - it's called seing complications in the world. It's called going beyond a knee jerk black and white view of the world. It's called realizing that while Bush has set us on a dangerous course and he's a warmongering fucknut, some of the people we are fighting are just as brutal and evil. In fact, they need each other. AQ feeds of Bush like he feeds of them. Right wing violence memes, on any side, are the real enemy.

[thebigidea]

42. who said that it did? I just thought centrists might offend you less.

and who said that I didn't think Saddam Hussein was brutal, etc etc?

That's such a tired old strawman. Go put it in somebody else's field, because that was worn out back in 2002.

Though i'll be sure to consult you if I need further hackneyed cliches and faded conventional wisdom.

If you keep this up, your realism might reach Kissingerian levels.

[bobwhite]

48. you've gone so far afield from the original point

you're debating shadows in your own mind. so let me get it back on track. it appears there are some controlling elements in ANSWER and NION who think that America is so bad that it has no right to even try and contain people like Saddam, etc. in fact, some even go even further per that Salon article. I'm saying those kinds of people are scary. and I want no part of that karma nor should anyone imo.

[thebigidea]

56. I had no idea you got to set the parameters of this discussion

round and round, but I managed to get you to downgrade "evil" to "bad."

Maybe by morning you'll actually use actual quotes instead of pure fiction... but I'm somehow lacking the school spirit to withstand your same 3 sentences slightly reconfigured for much longer.

Next time you're looking for answers you already have, say so in the original post and you'll save a lot of time.

Anyway, I've got to go have wet dreams about Slobodan. His receding hairline makes me so hot.

Nightie night, Mr. Reality.

[bobwhite]

58. you refuse to debate any facts

I posted an article from Salon.com and you refuse to even touch anything stated in that article. You bobbed, danced, weaved, split hairs, did anything you could to avoid the issue. And now you run off to bed.

[Tinoire]

34. LMAO! You're cute for a "non-collective Leftist" ;)

It's funny. You came in here with a question. An agenda. And your own answers.

Could you explain to me, you cute little "non-collective Leftist" you, why someone who introduces themselves this way:

I instinctively get uneasy when people start talking about 'community values' and 'mutual responsibility'. I practice those values in my life, but when I hear it get mixed up in policy it makes me feel kinda strange. I don't like participating in protests or mass movements or any of that kind of stuff. I don't trust mobs of people chanting anything.

immediately jumped to demonizing ANSWER and saying "So instead they just hate America and take the sides of brutal thugs. I'm sick of those kinds of people, fuck them."

Most amusing ;)

[bobwhite]

41. exactly, I have a problem with collectivist leftists

who make bad decisions and support governments like China or North Korea. but if you read my post it really has nothing to do with that. it has to do with framing issues in an individual rights way.

so you didn't 'get me'. you didn't 'catch me'. in fact I think it's humorous that you think you did in some way.

[Tinoire]

45. Get you? What on earth do you mean?

I simply find you very amusing.

[eridani]

129. Leftists support China?

Was it leftists that sold half our our national debt to China, or who did the cheerleading for China;s entry into WTO?

[Radical Activist]

99. No, we have to get off our butts and do something

if we want an effective progressive movement. That's what ANSWER did. I'm willing to abandon them when another group comes along that gets the job done, but for now ANSWER is doing something while other people are sitting around at their computer or talking about how we don't want to offend too many mainstream americans with big protests or making some other excuses for inaction.

[sherilocks]

103. The only reason ANSWER gets the job done

as you put it, is that ANSWER is the only face of the the anti-war movement that gets publicity. And that's exactly the face the right-wing wants you to see and that's why ANSWER gets the "job done." All the other anti-war groups get little or no media attention.

If you want to encourage mainstream Americans that oppose the war to participate more actively, and they are in the majority, you can't allow ANSWER to be the premiere spokesperson. They are off the wall leftists, not "progressives" in any sense of the word.

I do go to protests. I traveled to NYC for the repug convention protest. It was huge (500,000 people) and that's because they managed to move ANSWER into the background. I, personally, will not go to any protest where ANSWER is the prime mover.

[Tigress DEM]

115. What ARE better groups then?

Which Anti-War groups really represent a progressive agenda and not off the wall leftist agenda?

Because I see a lot of poetntial with the progressive movement if it's really moving toward something and not just tromping over the repubs and anyone else that gets in the way.

I'm more of a centrist because I believe in tolerance as a way of life not only with other nations, but with people in our own Nation who are intolerant and it seems unintelligent.

I'm really worried about the Propoganda vs True Press. I feel I can't expect the mainstream viewer to sort fact from fiction if all they have is fiction. They could look harder, though, I did.

[sherilocks]

117. Here's a few links

to additional groups. There are many. I've been following these groups for my information on protests.

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/ and http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=7

Also you could browse through the links at these websites and find additional links to news sources that may help you find the truth. However, some of the alternative news sources have as much propoganda as the MSM. If you follow DU regularly, look through the links provided. As you go along you will find a number of DUers who do some excellent research.

http://www.linkcrusader.com/antiwar.htm

http://www.grandmothersforpeace.org/links/anti-war.html

[Tigress DEM]

121. Thanks!

[Malikshah]

118. Spot on-- the old kill the messenger ploy

Tiresome, although effective, alas, for some.

[genius]

9. ANSWER is anti-war. A former Dem AG controls the group.

It is opposed to oppression everywhere but also opposed to imperialism. It was opposed to the was in the Balkens where du was used and millions are still suffering the effects. This is why Wes Clark needs to take a stand against du. The ANSWER people don't like Dean but they do like Kucinich and everything Kucinich stands for. In fact the only Democrats would could bring in the millions of members in ANSWER is Dennis Kucinich.

BTW, the AG is Ramsey Clark.

[bobwhite]

10. they oppose even a 'containment' policy against Saddam

They see America as being so evil that we can't even enforce some basic standards. I mean seriously, we can try and at least contain some countries who are ruled by brutal thugs.

[thebigidea]

12. who is "they"? all of ANSWER? all who attend their protests?

who said that, exactly?

And you're going to need to find a quote to back up "They see America as being so evil that we can't even enforce some basic standards" - that's pretty preposterous.

[bobwhite]

15. check the Salon article above

[thebigidea]

17. can you point out the "so evil" part?

I can't seem to find that anywhere but your post.

[bobwhite]

23. you're just splitting hairs now

you're evading the central issue.

'worst record on human rights in the world' = evil...or something close to it...

[thebigidea]

24. if i'm splitting hairs, you're making stuff up out of whole cloth

if you mean that, say that. don't put words in people's mouths.

[bobwhite]

27. what am I making up?

they think america is so bad/evil/human rights abuser (however the fuck you want to put it) that it can't even try and contain or work against the likes of Saddam and Milosevic...

that's what it says in that Salon article - if you don't agree with it, then tell me how and why that article is wrong.

[thebigidea]

30. you made up ""They see America as being so evil..."

bringing up a human rights record is quite a bit different than using a word like "evil."

You made that up, and its not a synonym.

Just as criticizing American government when it does wrong is not hating America.

When Newt Gingrich & Co. piled on Clinton, were they hating America?

[bobwhite]

32. you're afraid to debate the issue

what are you afraid of?

'worst human rights record in the world'= evil...

THEY SEE AMERICA AS THE WORST COUNTRY ON THE PLANET!!!!!!!

[thebigidea]

36. er, no. They never used the word evil.

Who is "they"? Who in ANSWER specifically sees America as the worst country on the planet?

Who do you see as the worst country on the planet?

Is there a grading system?

Are you afraid to debate these pressing issues?

ANSWER is an unruly alliance of many different people with many different opinions, ideas, etc.

This goes doubly, triply, quadruply so for the protests - where a big chunk probably doesn't even know who or what ANSWER is.

[bobwhite]

44. well they think America is such a human rights abuser

that it can't try and contain anybody else in the world. that's just not reasonable. and I'm not talking about everyone who marches in those protests. what I'm concerned about is some of the controlling elements behind the scenes. so please read that article and tell me what you know about them, if anything. I'm tired of debating meaningless generalities with you.

[thebigidea]

46. but I'll never tire of your strawmen, illusions, and slander.

"that it can't try and contain anybody else in the world."

who else do we have to contain? You didn't answer Tinoire's post down below. Put on your realist cap and give us a lesson is stark, bleeding realpolitik if you're tired of generalities.

" what I'm concerned about is some of the controlling elements behind the scenes."

controlling elements with links to the soviets, maybe?

what are they controlling, exactly? protests and rallies? font size on flyers?

[bobwhite]

51. their ideologies piss me off

nor would I want to be associated with them. their ideologies are totalitarian. fuck that. I can't believe any so-called 'Democrat' would defend such fuckin' kooks

[eridani]

131. It's the most powerful and the most dominant

Lots of people see domination as bad per se. Even if it isn't all bad all the time, it damned well isn't sustainable, and it is not in the long term interests of the general population, which would be better served by throwing all spare resources into inventing the post-oil economy instead of kicking the rest of the world in the teeth in a last ditch squabble over the remaining oil.

We have 50 per cent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality . . . we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation.

--George Kennan, US Cold War planner, 1948 NSC-68 document
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/nsc-68/nsc68-1.htm
--Source: Naval War College Review, Vol. XXVII (May-June, 1975), pp. 51-108. Also in U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: > 1950, Volume I.

[Tinoire]

18. Which countries for example? n/t

[thebigidea]

21. this should be fun.

I'm sure Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, and Russia will get a pass as usual.

[eridani]

130. Geez, giving him billions in loan guarantees is 'containment'?

Where were those precious 'standards' in the 80s?

[chascarrillo]

28. More about AG Ramsey Clark

He's a member of the organization the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic: http://www.icdsm.org/

Sounds like a wonderful chap.

[bobwhite]

29. Ok here's where I'll say one thing

there is a difference between providing a legal defense, and providing a moral defense in the court of world opinion. I suspect he is doing both, as he specifically sought him out to defend.

[11cents]

37. LOL. No. ANSWER controls the "former DEM AG"

Ramsey Clark has been a pathetic pawn of political cults for ages now. And for god's sake, he was Attorney General *forty years ago.* To continue to describe him as a "former Attorney General," as of that confers some prestige on him, is honest only in the most technical sense. He's spent the decades since he was AG licking the aromatic asses of the likes of Milosevic and the Rwandan genocidists and pronouncing them sweet. Shameful.

I marched in a big antiwar parade in San Francisco before the war started.... When we got to the end we were greeted by an ANSWER harridan who was shrieking, SHRIEKING, about the glories of suicide bombing. And hurling contempt at us, the people who'd turned out. Living in the Bay Area one becomes all too familiar with these kinds of left-cult political parasites. They're entirely beyond reason, they're trained to show up at meetings and events and SHRIEK until nothing else can get done, and they're damn near inhuman.

[Tinoire]

43. LMAO! That was probably me and an entire contingent of DUers

"left-cult political parasites" "shrieking, SHRIEKING... and hurling contempt at you".

Yes every Saturday we go "to show up at meetings and events and SHRIEK until nothing else can get done" with dark Communist pinko forces to learn how to be "damn near inhuman".

LMAO! You obviously haven't paid any attention to Ramsey Clark if you think "He's spent the decades since he was AG licking the aromatic asses of the likes of Milosevic and the Rwandan genocidists" and would you kindly provide a few quotes to the fact that he was "pronouncing them sweet"?

This is really too hilarious.

[thebigidea]

47. apparently I've missed all the "Free Slobodan" rhetoric at rallies

for all the talk of Milosevic, you'd think people actually cared about him these days.

[chascarrillo]

55. Burying your head in the sand

Why dismiss ANSWER's position on Milosevic just because they don't publicize it much? Why do you defend them?

I don't know bob's rationale for posting, but I know mine. It's creeps like ANSWER and Ramsey Clark who hinder the progressive movement by coopting antiwar protests. They are riding our coattails solely because they're first in line at the permit office. The left needs to take control of our message and not leave it to these fascists.

[thebigidea]

59. well, let me know when they do and I'll come along.

maybe we could screen all the protestors, weed out the ones that look bad on CSPAN. Remember, its quality - not quantity.

[chascarrillo]

63. I'm not talking about protestors, I'm talking about organizers

It's because of ANSWER that more people don't show up. Their completely reprehensible ideology scares away people who otherwise would show up.

If we want to get somewhere with protests, we must take the reins away from neo-fascist groups like this.

[thebigidea]

67. so the protestors aren't responsible for supporting genocide?

I've only been to two of them - why am I responsible for allowing the embers of tragedy to flare up again, then?

[chascarrillo]

69. Because you're making excuses for ANSWER

It only takes good people to look the other way.

[Tinoire]

90. More people don't show up?

Jesus. Millions show up.

Neo-fascists. Nice language there with all that rubbish.

Just what people are "scared" to show up? YOU?!

There are children and old ladies in wheel-chairs at ANSWER marches. Cynthia McKinney isn't afraid to show up! Nor is Harry Belafonte or Jews for Peace. Entire families show up.

Mike Farrell shows up.
Martin Sheen shows up and pushes Ron Kovic's wheelchair.
Jackson Browne shows up and plays.
Brian S. Willson shows up with his one leg.
Granny D shows up.
Cynthia McKinney shows up.

And those are just the ones I've seen!

So what kind of "scared" people are you so concerned about?

[Tinoire]

82. What exactly is ANSWER's position on Milosevic?

Do you even know? Since it seems to upset you so much, I'm sure you can explain it.

And I'm LMAO at your your contention that ANSWER is riding your coattails!! Wow. I ANSWER and Vets for Peace were protesting the first Gulf War, the injustices in Palestine and the illegal war against Yugoslavia WAAAAAY before most people decided to join them in protesting this latest bi-partisan war against the Middle East.

How can ANSWER be "hindering the progressive movement by coopting antiwar protests" when ANSWER was out there denouncing PNAC and the coming wars way before it was "fashionable". Which fascists are riding whose coat tails here? Which fascists are you talking about? The ones that continually vote for Democratic politicians who voted for IWR and the Patriot Act or the ones who have been warning against just those things for over 12 years?

[robbedvoter]

106. Ramsey wants to free him:

http://www.icdsm.org/files/members.htm

[Tinoire]

68. I missed them too lol

Go figure :shrug:

All this is redolent of the people who keep blaming Bush's failure in Iraq on "Saddaam-loyalist insurgents". It's funny how these alleged loyalists have never once called for Saddaam's release ;) My God, enemies of the state everywhere! Behind every tree!

I did quite a bit of research on the demonization of ANSWER today. It's hysterical to see people using the same language, tactics and arguments.

Do you remember all the threads right before the war started from all sorts of "reasonable" people who haven't been seen since warning us about the dangers of ANSWER and begging people to keep away from the protests?

With the drum beats getting louder to go beat Iran to a pulp, these posts are going to increase. You'd think that in the 5 years that "reasonable" people have been bitching about ANSWER they would have formed their own antiwar organization instead of beating up on the loudest, most successful, antiwar voice out there.

ANSWER = communist
UPJ = communist
Code Pink = comunist

I guess we're granola-crunching yoghurt-slurping commie pincko faggots!

[chascarrillo]

72. How dare you

How dare you question my integrity. How dare you say that I'm a part of a campaign to ruin the anti-war movement. All so that you can defend a group of people who coddle folks like Milosevic.

You have no shame.

[Tinoire]

94. Did I put that shoe on your foot or did you?

But let me know if it fits, especially considering that post wasn't addressed to you.


But now you're getting hysterical again with those wild accusations of "coddling Milosevic". You certainly seem hung up on that.

But yes, I do have shame. I am ashamed of people who choose to demonize the strongest, most organized and successful antiwar voice out there and whine about how ANSWER is hindering the progress of the antiwar movement by riding on "our coat tails" . Very ashamed of people who accuse the one movement that's consistently been fighting the new fascist wave of state terrorism sweeping the world of being "fascists".

[thebigidea]

76. no kidding...

"Do you remember all the threads right before the war started from all sorts of "reasonable" people who haven't been seen since warning us about the dangers of ANSWER and begging people to keep away from the protests?"

not only that, but I remember posting on those threads with you - rekindling the embers of tragedy and stuff.

"With the drum beats getting louder to go beat Iran to a pulp"

Strange that they're following the same exact playbook - you'd think they'd revise it a little. We got the weapons stuff, the sudden shrieks about human rights abuses which somehow don't bat an eye in Saudi Arabia, etc.

I betcha in the next few weeks we'll hear how the Iranians are working with Al Qaeda. You heard it hear first.

I must admit, though - I'm almost charmed by the communist charges. I thought I missed out on that antiquated idiocy - apparently not.

[Tinoire]

96. I should go revisit those threads!

I remember posting with you but didn't remember that particular area.

I've been really amused by the McCarthyesque red-baiting too and would be laughing hysterically if people weren't dying.

Like clock-work these posts start. I guess the war is closer than I thought. How sad for us.

Iranians? Al-Qaeda... Check this out... It's already there...

USA Today

12/12/2004
Iranians convicted for al-Qaeda ties

TEHRAN (AP) — Iran acknowledged for the first time Sunday that it has convicted some Iranian nationals of supporting al-Qaeda, saying the number was fewer than five.
The United States has accused Iran of harboring al-Qaeda operatives, with some U.S. counterterrorism officials alleging hard-line elements within the Iranian regime may have developed working relationships with some senior al-Qaeda officials who fled to Iran after the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. Iran has rejected the accusations.

"A few pro-al-Qaeda Iranian nationals have been tried and convicted," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters.

Their number, he said, is less than "the fingers on one's hand," he said, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency.

He did not give details, including when they were convicted, what sentences they had received or what sort of support they had provided Osama bin Laden's terror network.

(snip)

Many al-Qaeda operatives are believed to have fled to Iran, entering through the two nations' long, remote and porous border, after the overthrow of the Taliban regime in neighboring Afghanistan in late 2001.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-12-12-iran-alqaeda_x.htm

Iran Al-Qaeda link arrested in Kuwait: Radio

Thu. 13 Jan 2005



Iran Focus

Tehran, Jan. 13 - An Iranian agent was arrested in Kuwait in connection with the latest spate of Al-Qaeda-related attacks in the Middle East.

Sawa Radio reported that the unnamed individual was arrested by Kuwaiti security forces after recent intelligence implicated him as a cell in communication with the Al-Qaeda network with prior information on the attacks in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1225

[bobwhite]

77. why can't you address the specific facts raised in that Salon.com article?

Salon.com is fair group. There are some unsavory elements in ANSWER. Just admit it. Why refuse to even admit this fact is beyond me. It's kinda scary actually. If you think Salon is wrong then tell me why.

[thebigidea]

81. you're saying that the Horowitz articles Salon published are just as fair?

[bobwhite]

84. MICHELLE GOLDBERG IS A DEM, A LIBERAL!!!

She's also a good reporter for Salon.com.

But there you go again. You know that Horowitz was only there for awhile, and was explicitly there as a conservative voice on an otherwise liberal website.

Once again you hide from the real issue.

[thebigidea]

86. well, if you meant Michelle Goldberg...

... you should've said Michelle Goldberg.

Salon has published a lot of crap, they're not God's Word or something.

[bobwhite]

87. you can't be real

I don't think you are.

[thebigidea]

89. all liberals are supposed to worship at the altar of salon?

and yes, I'm not real.

actually, I'm the little elf that lives in your skull. You've been arguing with a figment of your imagination all this time.

"submitted for your approval... a man on a quest to get answers he already knows about Answer faces his inner demons in an excruciatingly public way... in... the twilight zone."

cue theme, fadeout.

[Tinoire]

97. The Light Infantry Division of the Anti-Antiwar Movement

Ah yes, dear Michelle... a Full Bird Colonel starring in:

The Light Infantry Division of the Anti-Antiwar Movement

(snip)

When it became clear that determined opposition to the war program was actually resonating with millions, a new force jumped into the fray--with the same target, but reaching into the antiwar audience. Writing in fashionably liberal venues like Mother Jones , Salon.com, L.A. Weekly , and the Washington Post , authors like Mark Cooper, Todd Gitlin, David Corn, Michelle Goldberg, and Christopher Hitchens now joined in warning that the new antiwar movement was being organized by communists like C. Clark Kissinger. Rather than denouncing the antiwar movement per se , however, these writers called instead for purging the leadership of the movement so that it could become "more effective."

Writing in The Nation and in Counterpunch, Alexander Cockburn aptly tagged this crew as the "anti-antiwar movement, Light Infantry Division." None of these people who expressed such concern for the antiwar movement had lifted a finger to help organize resistance to the juggernaut of war and repression. Rather, they became agitated when that movement began to grow.Goldberg, for example, posing as an "inquiring journalist," called through a list of prominent signers of the Not In Our Name statement to ask them if they knew that communists were among the organizers of that initiative. (They did, and they were not particularly alarmed.)

Most of this crew then thrashed about trying to find some alternative to the growing movement of resistance that would neither challenge the underlying policy of the current administration nor compromise the Democratic Party for its complicity.

Communists Painted as "International Terrorists"

As events moved toward a U.S. attack on Iraq and with the mass antiwar outpourings of February and March 2003, the next wave of attacks was taken up by rightwing web sites like David Horowitz's FrontPage.com and Joseph Farah's WorldNetDaily.com. The new theme was that the communists leading the antiwar movement were supposedly directly linked to and financed by "international terrorism" and/or Saddam Hussein.

(snip)

This charge that domestic opposition was tied to terrorism and/or Saddam Hussein's forces soon grew to a whole new level. Articles like "Iraqi Spies Behind Anti-War Protests?", "Anti-war Groups Supporters of Terrorism?" and "Not in Our Name and the World Wide Terrorism Web" began to appear. (snip)

(snip)

Among Horowitz's many projects is his annual rightwing retreat called "Restoration Weekend," held at a Florida resort hotel. Among those who have attended are Tom DeLay (House Majority Leader), Grover Norquist (president of Americans for Tax Reform), Kathleen Harris (former Florida Secretary of State and election fixer), Edwin Meese (former Attorney General), and James Woolsey (former CIA director). Invited as an all-expense paid panelist was Michelle Goldberg from Salon.com--which gives a glimpse at the growing relationship between the networks of the far right and those engaging in red-baiting "journalism" aimed at progressive audiences.

(snip)

http://www.dirtworld.com/community/sucks/treplies.asp?message=444

[bobwhite]

98. nice source you got there

you're not afraid to scrape the bottom of the barrel and believe everything you find there.

[Tinoire]

101. Oh LMAO!

Can't dispute the facts so you go after the source. Now where have I seen this tactic before?

[chascarrillo]

49. Nice selective quoting you got there

Next time, don't misrepresent another DUers position.

As for quotes, I already posted a link to Ramsey Clark's defense of Slobodan Milosevic. You might want to check it out.

[Tinoire]

100. Selective quoting? That was the essence of the ENTIRE post

Pray tell what was mispresented!

BOO!

Don't forget to check under your bed before going to sleep. You never know, Milosevic might have escaped and be hiding there ;)

Never mind that getting rid of Milosewic was PNAC's step 1 towards world domination. Here's some light reading from the Princes of Peace before you go to bed.



September 11, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing out of deep concern for the plight of the ethnic Albanian population of Kosovo, many thousands of whom, having been driven from their homes and farms by the latest Serbian offensive, now face the possibility of a winter of starvation. Over 15 percent of the Kosovo population is already homeless. It is inexplicable to us that the West simply watches as this disaster grows daily after watching similar disasters unfold in Bosnia between 1992-95.

Stopping the carnage in Kosovo is essential and requires decisive action by the West. But this will not by itself provide a solution to the continuing Balkan conflict.

Mr. President, the events of recent months, when added to the history of the conflict since 1991, lead to one inescapable conclusion: There can be no peace and stability in the Balkans so long as Slobodan Milosevic remains in power. He started the Balkan conflict, and he continues it in Kosovo. He has caused untold suffering to millions; he has severely damaged his own country. We must face the facts.

We understand that the United States has sought and on occasion achieved Milosevic’s cooperation in carrying out the Dayton settlement; and there is no guarantee that a successor to Milosevic will be significantly more committed to peace. Nevertheless, we believe the time has come for the United States to distance itself from Milosevic and actively support in every way possible his replacement by a democratic government committed to ending ethnic violence. Our “pact with the devil” has outlived whatever usefulness it once had.

At a minimum, the United States should lead an international effort along the following lines:

• First, the humanitarian crisis needs to be addressed urgently. Milosevic must order his police and military forces to stop all violence immediately. However, the crisis cannot be ended without an agreement on a new political status for Kosovo. And that will require massive Western pressure on Milosevic.

• Second, the administration should seek, and the Congress should approve, a substantial increase in funds for supporting the democratic opposition within Serbia.

• Third, the U.S. and its allies must do everything possible to tighten the economic sanctions on Serbia to help undermine Milosevic’s ability to maintain his power in Belgrade.

• Fourth, the administration should cease attempting to strike diplomatic bargains with Milosevic.

• Finally, the U.S. should vigorously support The Hague tribunal’s investigation of Milosevic as a war criminal.

Mr. President, we are under no illusion that the steps we recommend are easy or guarantee success. We are certain, however, that after seven years of aggression and genocide in the Balkans, the removal of Milosevic provides the only genuine possibility of a durable peace. We urge you to act forcefully in this crisis, and we offer you our full support should you do so.

Sincerely,


Morton I. Abramowitz Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage

Nina Bang-Jensen Jeffrey Bergner George Biddle John R. Bolton

Frank Carlucci Eliot Cohen Seth Cropsey Dennis DeConcini

Paula Dobriansky Morton H. Halperin John Heffernan

James R. Hooper Bruce P. Jackson Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

Lane Kirkland Jeane Kirkpatrick Peter Kovler William Kristol

Mark P. Lagon Richard Perle Peter Rodman Gary Schmitt

Stephen Solarz Helmut Sonnenfeldt William Howard Taft IV

Ed Turner Wayne Owens Paul Wolfowitz Dov S. Zakheim

http://www.newamericancentury.org/kosovomilosevicsep98.htm

===

And just to clarify:

The Balkan Action Committee

Today's NY Times has an ad sponsored by a group calling itself the Balkans
Action Committee calling for Nato ground forces in Yugoslavia. It is signed
by an odd mixture of neoconservatives and "leftists" including Bianca
Jagger and "Rabbi" Michael Lerner, the portly editor of Tikkun and
erstwhile 1960s radical. Lerner was "spiritual adviser" to the Clintons for
a brief time about 5 years ago, urging "communitarian" values upon the
thuggish Arkansas president and his wife.

They are window-dressing, however. The real forces behind Balkans Action
are the hardline anticommunists who emerged during the Reagan era. This is
the executive committee, as announced on their website (www.balkanaction.org).

Morton Abramowitz
Saul Bellow
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Richard Burt
Frank Carlucci
Dennis DeConcini
Paula Dobriansky
Geraldine Ferraro
Robert Hunter
Philip Kaiser
Max M. Kampelman
Lane Kirkland
Jeane Kirkpatrick
Peter Kovler
Ron Lehman
John O'Sullivan
Richard Perle
Eugene Rostow
Donald Rumsfeld
Stephen Solarz
Helmut Sonnenfeldt
William Howard Taft
Elie Wiesel
Paul Wolfowitz
Elmo Zumwalt

Except for Geraldine Ferraro, this is basically the same group that made up
the Committee on the Present Danger, which was chaired by the atrocious
Jeane Kirkpatrick and flourished under Reagan. It promoted Star Wars,
intervention in Central America, Afghanistan and Angola and all sorts of
other militantly counterrevolutionary adventures. The point is that the war
in the Balkans is not a "progressive's" war. The most important sector of
reactionary opinion in the United States is represented by this executive
committee and should remind us that the war is a continuation of the
anticommunist crusade launched by Reagan 20 years ago.


Louis Proyect

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tinoire]

122. Aw.... What a colorful tirade

My heart just bleeds for your distress. ANSWER supporters shrieking about the "glories of suicide bombers" indeed :eyes:

Yawn... These hysterics are not only dishonest, they're boring as hell. It's too bad isn't it, that you can't control ANSWER's message and just steer them towards the nice little causes YOU agree with?

Sorry for the lack of love we're showing Sharon. Right-wingers and oppression just aren't in vogue this decade, nor are regimes that are collaborating with the Bush regime while they go about their own nasty business. :nopity:

By all means, send your complaints about the presence of people "shrieking" about the "glories of suicide bombers" to the following organizations that coordinate and participate with ANSWER :shrug: They'll probably be just as amused.

Jewish People’s Liberation Organization
Jewish Voices Against the Occupation
Jewish Women’s Committee to End The Occupation
Jews Against Zionism
Jews for a Free Palestine
Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel
A Jewish Voice for Peace

PS. And make sure you don't forget to sign that letter "Fuck you" too so that they can get the full gist of your unhappiness in case since your vocabulary seems a bit... limited.

[bobwhite]

52. lol

I've never seen that. But I can imagine the types. I would want nothing to do with such fuckin' kookery. Quite frankly people like that scare the hell out of me.

[T Town Jake]

54. Sounds about right - that's ANSWER on the job, for sure...

... :eyes:

I often suspect that many of the ANSWER "operatives" are really freepers deep undercover and in disguise, so ridiculous are their charades - none of which do anything other than cast progressives in a bad light. And I have similar suspicions about their ardent defenders here...

[bobwhite]

61. remember 'seventhson'

I used to have an account here until I asked to get banned so I wouldn't spend so much time in here. But 'seventhson' was one of the kookiest fuckers on this site and he had people who passionately defended him and agreed with him!!!! And he was a fuckin' freeper who outed himself on election night!!!!

[thebigidea]

62. banned before, huh? There's a surprise.

well, enjoy your second stay here. May it be as lengthy.

[bobwhite]

66. I did. I asked the admins in ATA to 'stone' me

I specifically said I wanted my account terminated. And they terminated it.

I had several thousand posts.

[Tinoire]

123. Wonder if he/she asked to be 'stoned' this time too lol n/t

[T Town Jake]

71. Since "seventhson" is not around to defend himself...

...I'm not going to comment on him specifically. But I will say that I see many of the same posters whom vociferously embraced, loved and hung on "seventhson's" every word before he was tombstoned right here in this thread, posting their usual disruptive horseshit.

[bobwhite]

75. well seventhson was tombstoned

and rightly so.

but I didn't know that some of his defenders are right here in this thread. interesting.... but for the record I don't have any reason to suspect anyone in this thread is anything but misguided in their refusal to just admit that some of the people behind ANSWER are pretty kooky.

[T Town Jake]

83. Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you...

...just not going to offer up my opinion of someone who is no longer in a position to defend themselves against anything I might have to say about them in this forum.

As for his "defenders" in this thread - PM me if you want details.

[thebigidea]

79. who would that be, exactly?

I was a CIA disinformation agent to him and used to love tormenting him.

[Sparkly]

26. YES.

People will dazzle you with bullshit, cut/pastes and simplistic insinuations that "this is bad" and "this is good," drink the koolaid -- but imo the answer is more simple and more complicated. ANSWER does and says some truthful things in a powerful, positive way. It also has some people affiliated with it who are so far left that they're actually rightwing in defending genocidal murderers.

[bobwhite]

35. no doubt

they're are some real wierdos wrapped up in that group. most of the people who march are not even aware of it. so on balance the marches are usually pretty good. but it's the people behind the scenes that spook me. some of these life-long activist types who are just as zealous and scary as any neocon or any Nazi.

[thebigidea]

40. well, let me know when those life-long activist types...

murder millions of Jews, Poles, Gypsies, etc. in concentration camps and I'll buy your Nazi comparison.

hell, I'll settle for hearing about how one of them manufactured phony evidence to start an illegal war.

Then we can compare Clark to Wolfowitz.

But seeing as I've had family gassed and grandparents tortured by Nazis, allow me a moment of disgust at your comparison.

[chascarrillo]

57. And I'm disgusted...

And I'm disgusted that, having known tragedy, you are allowing the embers of it to flare up again.

These people glorify Milosevic, who perpetrated genocide in the Balkans. How much more info do you need?

[thebigidea]

60. I had no idea I was responsible for the embers of tragedy flaring up

I thought I was a filmmaker. Oh well, these things tend to sneak up on you.

One minute you're editing, the next - millions are being oppressed because of it. That's entertainment.

[chascarrillo]

65. You're making excuses for genocide defenders

So yes, you are responsible.

[thebigidea]

70. well, get me to the Hague posthaste.

who knew that all it took was a few devil's advocate posts at 3am to make you responsible for rekindling the embers of tragedy.

If I tend to it, perhaps I can start a brushfire of tragedy. I'll settle for a slight smoldering of tragedy in a pinch...

If one race were partially exterminated as a result of my posts tonight, it will have all been worth it.

Good night Budokan - Cheap Trick says good night!

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thebigidea]

78. was I supposed to take your charges of ember-kindling seriously?

I'm sorry, I kind of interpreted it as an especially pathetic joke from someone desperate to claim some kind of moral high ground.

Well, feel free to spit on me from those lofty heights. That's what I'm here for, to help others feel smug.

naughty, naughty me and my black humor. I should be grim, perhaps with a pained expression indicating deep seriousness or mild diarrhea.

The Polish side of my family tells some pretty dark jokes. Being fucked with for centuries tends to do that.

[Leilani]

80. Since your family has experienced such tragedy

I wouldn't think you'd approve of Ramsey Clark, who has defended Nazis & also defended the killers of Leon Klinghoffer, the elderly Jewish man in a wheelchair, killed on the Achille Lauro.

[thebigidea]

85. to tell you the truth, I don't think about him much at all.

His impeachment talk was pretty useless, and I certainly don't endorse each and every one of his views. Hell, I don't even know what most of them are.

But that doesn't make me want to call the hundreds of thousands of people who attend those protests commies and genocide-supporters.

[T Town Jake]

38. In a word: YES

(n/t)

[Clarkie1]

53. From what I saw during the inauguration protest: Yes.

Look, I'm as disgusted as anyone by red-baiting, but it looked to me like some of them were the real thing. That doesn't make them evil, but they certainly don't share my values. I was disappointed that the only anti-Bush rally on saw on C-SPAN was led by this group, since it is not representative of the diversity of people who oppose the Bush regime. I watched their rally for about an hour on CSPAN-2 and was not inspired.

I didn't watch any of the events that Bush took part in during the inaugural, so perhaps there were other protesters I did not see that were not part of the A.N.S.W.E.R. group.

I certainly hope so.

[Carolab]

92. Yes, there were others shown on Democracy Now. n/t

[Tacos al Carbon]

64. Yes, absolutely

EOM.

[Lexingtonian]

73. yes

Saw/met some of them at an anti-Ashcroft protest. If those are our friends, we don't need enemies.

They lost me in their business about Michael Lerner and the Tikkun people (during the 2003 antiwar protests). Their pro-Palestinian absolutism is deliberate moral blindness; the reductionism of people to their animal interests, which is they way they view/interpret that conflict, is appallingly uncivilized. They don't apologize for it, either. They live in some political hazy ether of 1900-1920, or thereabouts. You know, when Communism was rad and chic.

[Kipepeo]

88. Have you been to an ANSWER sponsored rally?

Have you heard the speakers and seen the kids taking up donations?

Please. This is a bunch of right-wing-sponsored propaganda.

[robbedvoter]

107. I was. I heard. No more. From now on United For peace& Justice

Code Pink - and we have some local good anti-war groups.
It took a while, but people who can't stand IAC's extremism like me got a way to protest war too.
And, yeah, I find it very strange that it's them having the monopoly on DC protest permits. Why would BFEE prefer IAC over say, unions, churches, Green Party, Dem Reps, schools, United for peace (these being some of the groups also asking - also anti-war?). We are FORCED to protest under the IAC umbrella, then vilified for THEIR extremism. Pretty ingenious, I say.

[Carolab]

95. Here's some good background.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSWER

Apparently, last year a faction of the WWP split off to become teh Party for Socialism and Liberation. The SLP posts a link to ANSWER on their website.

[jdots]

102. the old fart is jumping in now

flame me I'm old and have been protesting war and the war profit jerks since around 1964.Yes Bob there are some jerk offs in Answer and the circle of politics does seem like the ultra left butts up agaisnt the ultra right,This is an old Mort Saul joke that makes sence. Answer is organized and in any organized group there is a pecking order,egos,cultys,glommers and even celebrity sociopaths.What is your motive or intent here ? We all have reactions and there are people that are Answer members that are power hungry putzs because they are fighting against a very well funded and organized machine on the right side of the circle.Everybody is frustrated unless they aren't paying attention.
So a few days ago in L.A. there was an Answer organized rally at the fed building,they pulled the permits and did the grunt work,security,stage and all the protest rally stuff that is there but no one pays attention to.The speakers were not all Answer members and some of them are not big fans of Answer but things went off without a hitch considering there were thousands of people and alot of them are real pissed off with what is going on in the world.No there was no mention in the media,it was boring and not news worthy enough to sell product.No body got paid to be there except the police and watchers.No one hit alert,no one yelled freeper,stick around this site is real and the people actually transend the short comings of cyberspace.

[robbedvoter]

108. Yet, when I post WWP links mentioning Ramsey, I am told "they are biased

towards ramsey Clark"

[theresistance]

104. Why the hell is there so much infighting...

This is the second thread along these lines by "bobwhite". Ramsey Clark is fighting against Bush and the Iraq war and that's good enough for me. I don't have to agree with everything he says or does. He defends Milosevic for one reason - the NATO war against Yugoslavia in 1999 was wrong as was the invasion of Iraq. Clark is right about this. Why are you pushing your disruptive lines here bobwhite?

I had a similar argument on another thread about people bashing Noam Chomsky, someone who should be a great ally of DUers!

NO WONDER THE DEMS ARE LOSING ELECTIONS! DO RETHUGLICANS HAVE SIMILAR INFIGHTING? (no seriously that's a real question, do they?)

[robbedvoter]

109. Because it's designated so. Not every Bush enemy is my friend.

I can be fiercely anti-war and not want anything to do with WWP. Except if I want to do it in DC - good luck. BFEE only allows WWP to obtain licence protest. WHY?

[sherilocks]

110. ANSWER may be one of the reasons DEMs are losing

ANSWER does not represent the Democratic Party and does a good job of providing rethuglicans with plenty of ammunition to shoot us down. Criticizing ANSWER is not infighting, it is trying to reclaim the anti-war movement from their grasp and return it to Democrats who want to participate, but can't stomach the ANSWER rhetoric.

[Q]

112. Reclaim the 'anti-war movement'? Hahahaha...

If it were left to Democrats to organize an anti-war movement...they'd have about a dozen moderates show up with signs asking Bush to please be nice to them.

I watched the rally on CSPAN2...and not ONCE did anyone speaking even mention the Democratic party. I think they would probably be ashamed to associate themselves with their weakness and collaboration with Bush.

It's disturbing to watch so many who claim to be Americans criticize and smear any group that has enough energy and courage to get off their big fat lazy asses and brave the cold and RWing anger to protest what everyone knows is an illegal, immoral war.

[sherilocks]

114. I was responding to another post

from theresistance and the following statement was made regarding ANSWER.

"NO WONDER THE DEMS ARE LOSING ELECTIONS! DO RETHUGLICANS HAVE SIMILAR INFIGHTING?"

While CSPAN 2 covered the ANSWER rally in toto, they neglected to show all the other groups who did get off their "big fat lazy asses and brave the cold and RWing anger to protest what everyone knows is an illegal, immoral war... " leaving a lot of less informed viewers to think that this radically left group was the protest.

[theresistance]

125. Just to clarify

My post was expressing anger/surprise at the original message. bobwhite started another thread along the same lines and at least one other person agreed with me that it was a disruptor. They hit the Alert. And guess what - good old bobwhite has already been tombstoned!!! Suck eggs bobby. bobwhite joined on the 22nd (or there abouts) and straightaway launched these flaming rockets into DU. I knew he was bogus.

[sherilocks]

126. I did not regard bobwhite's posts as disruptive

or "flaming rockets." They raised some serious questions that I, and apparently others, have about ANSWER's role in the anti-war movement.

I leave the decisions about tombstoning bobwhite and others to the moderators. Until and if they tell me why, I can only say I don't know why they did so. Was it because of anything that he posted in those two threads? None of his posts were deleted, nor were his threads locked.

The alert used in this manner, assuming that what you say in your post is what you did, is a non-productive way to squelch a very relevant subject: the impact of the antiwar movement and its future direction.

[theresistance]

127. Okay fair point

I absolutely want to encourage free debate and certainly not "squelch" debate. We'll just have to disagree about that original post. It just seemed bobwhite joined up with a mission to hit ANSWER. Two threads started in one day and the word "fucked" in the subject line? Sheez...there could have been a more civil way to start a discussion point.

[sherilocks]

128. The word sure caught my attention

(Fucked, that is) but your point is well taken. Just didn't want to put it in the subject line again. :)

[Q]

111. Like clockwork...

...every time there are anti-IRAQ- war protests...we see threads like this on DU. The very vagueness of the thread and the 'innocent questions' it poses makes one suspicious.

The warmongers, chickenhawks and their enablers might as well 'get used to it'. Millions of Americans are against the Iraq invasion, occupation and slaughter.

They haven't and won't fall for the WH propaganda that it's all about liberation and freedom.

We've seen this very divide and conquer tactic used since the Vietnam war: question the sponsors or leaders of an anti-war rally and distract from the facts they were protesting. In this case the facts speak for themselves.

[sherilocks]

113. I was very active in the anti-Vietnam war movement

and it wasn't run by anything remotely resembling ANSWER. If you have information to the contrary, please provide it.

Nor am I in any of the categories that you would like to pigeon-hole me in like "warmongers, chickenhawks and their enablers ".

Don't detract from the discussion by throwing around a few negative labels. Just the facts, please and as you put it facts "do speak for themselves."

[Q]

133. The only reason you know who runs protests today...

...is because of the internet. I'd be willing to bet that you didn't even know who was running the show in the 60s and 70s. In fact...it's a better bet that back then no one was running the show except a few small groups who got the word out mostly by word of mouth. Many just saw crowds and showed up.

The police and national guard were hard on protesters back then...but the media wasn't a monopoly and state-controlled yet and there wasn't a state of emergency where everyone was considered a potential enemy/terrorist. Many Americans are too afraid to protest or become activists because of these factors.

Americans should be glad that groups like ANSWER are putting forth the effort. I believe you and a few others are 'offended' because they and the other sponsors brought up concerns other than Iraq. Many Americans seem isolated from these events...as if it doesn't concern THEM...but they need to know what their country is doing in their name all around the world.

If you don't like how these groups handle activism...then organize your own protests and then YOU can call the shots. Until then...they are all we have to keep an opposition going against the Bush junta...especially since the loyal opposition is nowhere to be found.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tigress DEM]

116. If Leaders want to go to war, they should, but leave US out of it.

If the President of the US and of another country had a difference of opinion, I think they - the leaders - should get in a ring and duke it out. Leave the rest of the country in peace. That way only those who really sincerely believed in toppling a dictator would start a war and it would be over in about 72 hours.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

124. I Have A Question

How much of an impact does ANSWER have on the governing process?

[CWebster]

132. The organization that has done the most to organize

and protest against the Bush junta and his brigades, and how easy y'all make it for the Bush boys to get away with their crimes by doing their dirty work and defining the enemy....as us.