Sept. 24-26 Mobilization--DC, LA, SF, & Seattle

[bluenoter]

DC--

Click for info.: United for Peace and Justice activities

(including the Sept. 24 march and rally cosponsored with A.N.S.W.E.R.)







See below for info. on activities in LA, SF, and Seattle (from A.N.S.W.E.R.).

[Monte Smith]

Have fun, Rita! I'll be at a wedding, but maybe I'll catch you on C-Span.

[rollhead]

If i were a cynical man, i might think that Bush is DELIBERATELY trying to make its administration beyond measurement when it comes to incompetence.

Where Stories Go to Die: Page A23
Submitted by editor on September 23, 2005 - 2:04pm.
By Gal Beckerman
Source: Columbia Journalism Review

Okay, you tell us if this isn't big news. Look at this lede from the back pages of the Washington Post today:

"The Pentagon has no accurate knowledge of the cost of military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan or the fight against terrorism, limiting Congress's ability to oversee spending, the Government Accountability Office concluded in a report released yesterday."

It's almost hard to believe, but with the Pentagon budget ballooning more than six-fold in the past three years -- from $11 billion in 2002 to a projected $71 billion in 2005 -- "neither DOD nor Congress can reliably know how much the war is costing and details of how appropriated funds are being spent," according to the GAO's report.

Among other problems, the report found that in 2004 the Pentagon overstated by $2.1 billion the cost of mobilizing army reservists. The GAO also found what they called "inadvertent double accounting" by the Navy and Marine Corps from November 2004 to April 2005, amounting to almost $1.8 billion.

According to the Post, the report has the number of inaccuracies "totaling billions of dollars."

We have two questions.

Why does this story get buried on A23?

More important, why was the Post the only paper to write about the report at all? With worries mounting daily about how to responsibly fund the reconstruction of New Orleans and other Gulf Coast cities, shouldn't pressure be applied on the government to account for all its expenditures? How does the press let such a damning report fall by the wayside, when it could be the trigger for more thorough accounting?

Perhaps newspaper editors have become insensitive to the idea of a few billion dollars misplaced or, worse, just missing. But from the looks of things down south, with New Orleans in ruins and Hurricane Rita barreling toward land with 165 mph winds, the federal government is going to need every cent it can find.

--Gal Beckerman

[groover]

Originally Posted by rollhead

If i were a cynical man, i might think that Bush is DELIBERATELY trying to make its administration beyond measurement when it comes to incompetence.

[bluenoter]

Whereas the DC activities on Sept. 24 (see #1) are being cosponsored by United for Peace and Justice and A.N.S.W.E.R., the following regional activities may be sponsored by A.N.S.W.E.R. only; I'm not sure.

LA--

Click for info.


SF--

Click for info.


Seattle--

Click for info.

[Gordon B]

David Corn, a writer for The Nation, one who Ron Thorne has quoted approvingly, had this to say about A.N.S.W.E.R back in 2002.

Behind the Placards
The odd and troubling origins of today’s anti-war movement
by David Corn

FREE MUMIA. FREE THE CUBAN 5. FREE JAMIL AL-AMIN (that’s H. Rap Brown, the former Black Panther convicted in March of killing a sheriff’s deputy in 2000). And free Leonard Peltier. Also, defeat Zionism. And, while we’re at it, let’s bring the capitalist system to a halt.

When tens of thousands of people gathered near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial for an anti-war rally and march in Washington last Saturday, the demands hurled by the speakers extended far beyond the call for no war against Iraq. Opponents of the war can be heartened by the sight of people coming together in Washington and other cities for pre-emptive protests. But demonstrations such as these are not necessarily strategic advances, for the crowds are still relatively small and, more importantly, the message is designed by the far left for consumption by those already in their choir.

In a telling sign of the organizers’ priorities, the cause of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the taxi driver/radical journalist sentenced to death two decades ago for killing a policeman, drew greater attention than the idea that revived and unfettered weapons inspections should occur in Iraq before George W. Bush launches a war. Few of the dozens of speakers, if any, bothered suggesting a policy option regarding Saddam Hussein other than a simplistic leave-Iraq-alone. Jesse Jackson may have been the only major figure to acknowledge Saddam’s brutality, noting that the Iraqi dictator “should be held accountable for his crimes.” What to do about Iraq? Most speakers had nothing to say about that. Instead, the Washington rally was a pander fest for the hard left.

If public-opinion polls are correct, 33 percent to 40 percent of the public opposes an Iraq war; even more are against a unilateral action. This means the burgeoning anti-war movement has a large recruiting pool, yet the demo was not intended to persuade doubters. Nor did it speak to Americans who oppose the war but who don’t consider the United States a force of unequaled imperialist evil and who don’t yearn to smash global capitalism.

This was no accident, for the demonstration was essentially organized by the Workers World Party, a small political sect that years ago split from the Socialist Workers Party to support the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. The party advocates socialist revolution and abolishing private property. It is a fan of Fidel Castro’s regime in Cuba, and it hails North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il for preserving his country’s “socialist system,” which, according to the party’s newspaper, has kept North Korea “from falling under the sway of the transnational banks and corporations that dictate to most of the world.” The WWP has campaigned against the war-crimes trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. A recent Workers World editorial declared, “Iraq has done absolutely nothing wrong.”

Officially, the organizer of the Washington demonstration was International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism). But ANSWER is run by WWP activists, to such an extent that it seems fair to dub it a WWP front. Several key ANSWER officials — including spokesperson Brian Becker — are WWP members. Many local offices for ANSWER’s protest were housed in WWP offices. Earlier this year, when ANSWER conducted a press briefing, at least five of the 13 speakers were WWP activists. They were each identified, though, in other ways, including as members of the International Action Center.

The IAC, another WWP offshoot, was a key partner with ANSWER in promoting the protest. It was founded by Ramsey Clark, attorney general for President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s. For years, Clark has been on a bizarre political odyssey, much of the time in sync with the Workers World Party. As an attorney, he has represented Lyndon LaRouche, the leader of a political cult. He has defended Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic and Pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, who was accused of participating in the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Clark is also a member of the International Committee To Defend Slobodan Milosevic. The international war-crimes tribunal, he explains, “is war by other means” — that is, a tool of the West to crush those who stand in the way of U.S. imperialism, like Milosevic. A critic of the ongoing sanctions against Iraq, Clark has appeared on talking-head shows and refused to concede any wrongdoing on Saddam’s part. There is no reason to send weapons inspectors to Iraq, he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “After 12 years of brutalization with sanctions and bombing they’d like to be a country again. They’d like to have sovereignty again. They’d like to be left alone.”

It is not redbaiting to note the WWP’s not-too-hidden hand in the nascent anti-war movement. It explains the tone and message of Saturday’s rally. Take the question of inspections. According to Workers World, at a party conference in September, Sara Flounders, a WWP activist, reported war opponents were using the slogan “inspections, not war.” Flounders, the paper says, “pointed out that ‘inspections ARE war’ in another form,” and that she had “prepared party activists to struggle within the movement on this question.” Translation: The WWP would do whatever it could to smother the “inspections, not war” cry. Inspections-before-invasion is an effective argument against the dash to war. But it conflicts with WWP support for opponents of U.S. imperialism. At the Washington event, the WWP succeeded in blocking out that line — while promoting anti-war messages more simpatico with its dogma.

WWP shaped the demonstration’s content by loading the speakers’ list with its own people. None, though, were identified as belonging to the WWP. Larry Holmes, who emceed much of the rally from a stage dominated by ANSWER posters, was introduced as a representative of the ANSWER Steering Committee and the International Action Center. The audience was not told that he is also a member of the secretariat of the Workers World Party. When Leslie Feinberg spoke and accused Bush of concocting a war to cover up “the capitalist economic crisis,” she informed the crowd that she is “a Jewish revolutionary” dedicated to the “fight against Zionism.” When I asked her what groups she worked with, she replied that she was a “lesbian-gay-bi-transgender movement activist.” Yet a May issue of Workers World describes Feinberg as a “lesbian and transgendered communist and a managing editor of Workers World.” The WWP’s Sara Flounders, who urged the crowd to resist “colonial subjugation,” was presented as an IAC rep. Shortly after she spoke, Holmes introduced one of the event’s big-name speakers: Ramsey Clark. He declared that the Bush administration aims to “end the idea of individual freedom.”

Most of the protesters, I assume, were oblivious to the WWP’s role in the event. They merely wanted to gather with other foes of the war and express their collective opposition. They waved signs (“We need an Axis of Sanity,” “Draft Perle,” “Collateral Damage = Civilian Deaths,” “Fuck Bush”). They cheered on rappers who sang, “No blood for oil.” They laughed when Medea Benjamin, the head of Global Exchange, said, “We need to stop the testosterone-poisoning of our globe.” They filled red ANSWER donation buckets with coins and bills. But how might they have reacted if Holmes and his comrades had asked them to stand with Saddam, Milosevic and Kim? Or to oppose further inspections in Iraq?

One man in the crowd was wise to the behind-the-scenes politics. When Brian Becker, a WWP member introduced (of course) as an ANSWER activist, hit the stage, Paul Donahue, a middle-aged fellow who works with the Thomas Merton Peace and Social Justice Center in Pittsburgh, shouted, “Stalinist!” Donahue and his colleagues at the Merton Center, upset that WWP activists were in charge of this demonstration, had debated whether to attend. “Some of us tried to convince others to come,” Donahue recalled. “We figured we could dilute the [WWP] part of the message. But in the end most didn’t come. People were saying, ‘They’re Maoists.’ But they’re the only game in town, and I’ve got to admit they’re good organizers. They remembered everything but the Porta-Johns.” Rock singer Patti Smith, though, was not troubled by the organizers. “My main concern now is the anti-war movement,” she said before playing for the crowd. “I’m for a nonpartisan, globalist movement. I don’t care who it is as long as they feel the same.”

The WWP does have the shock troops and talent needed to construct a quasi mass demonstration. But the bodies have to come from elsewhere. So WWPers create fronts and trim their message, and anti-war Americans, who presumably don’t share WWP sentiments, have an opportunity to assemble and register their stand against the war. At the same time, WWP activists, hiding their true colors, gain a forum where thousands of people listen to their exhortations. Is this a good deal — or a dangerous one? Who’s using whom?

“Organizing against the silence is important,” Bob Borosage, executive director of Campaign for America’s Future, a leading progressive policy shop in Washington, said backstage at the rally: “This [rally] is easy to dismiss as the radical fringe, but it holds the potential for a larger movement down the road.” Borosage did add that the WWP “puts a slant on the speakers and that limits the appeal to others. But history shows that protests are organized first by militant, radical fringe parties and then get taken over by more centrist voices as the movement grows. They provide a vessel for people who want to protest.”

That’s the vessel-half-filled view. The other argument is that WWP’s involvement will prevent the anti-war movement from growing. Sure, the commies can rent buses and obtain parade permits, but if they have a say in the message, as they have had, the anti-war movement is going to have a tough time signing up non-lefties. When the organizers tried and failed to play a recorded message from Al-Amin, Lorena Stackpole, a 20-year-old New York University student, said, “This is not what I came for.” And an organizer for a non-revolutionary peace group that participated in the event remarked, “The rhetoric here is not useful if we want to expand.” After all, how does urging the release of Cubans accused of committing espionage in the United States — a pet project of the WWP — help draw more people into the anti-war movement? (In a similar reds-take-control situation, the “Not in My Name” campaign — which pushes an anti-war statement signed by scores of prominent and celebrity lefties, including Jane Fonda, Martin Luther King III, Marisa Tomei, Kurt Vonnegut and Oliver Stone — has been directed, in part, by C. Clark Kissinger, a longtime Maoist activist and member of the Revolutionary Communist Party.)

Let’s be real: A Washington demonstration involving tens of thousands of people will not yield much political impact — especially when held while Congress is out of town and the relevant legislation has already been rubber-stamped. (The organizers claimed 200,000 showed, but that seemed a pumped-up guesstimate, perhaps three or four times the real number.) The anti-war movement won’t have a chance of applying pressure on the political system unless it becomes much larger and able to squeeze elected officials at home and in Washington.

To reach that stage, the new peace movement will need the involvement of labor unions and churches. That’s where the troops are — in the pews, in the union halls. How probable is it, though, that mainstream churches and unions will join a coalition led by the we-love-North-Korea set? Moreover, is it appropriate for groups and churches that care about human rights and worker rights abroad and at home to make common cause with those who champion socialist tyrants?

At the rally, speaker after speaker declared, “We are the real Americans.” But most “real Americans” do not see a direct connection between Mumia, the Cuban Five and the war against Iraq. Jackson, for one, exclaimed, “This time the silent majority is on our side.” If the goal is to bring the silent majority into the anti-war movement, it’s not going to be achieved by people carrying pictures of Kim Jong-Il — even if they keep them hidden in their wallets.

As yet another WWP-in-disguise speaker addressed the crowd, Steve Cobble, a progressive political consultant, gazed out at the swarm of protesters and observed, “People are looking for something to do.” Good for them. But they ought to also look at the leaders they are following and wonder if those individuals will guide them toward a broader, more effective movement or toward the fringe irrelevance the WWPers know so well.

[Gordon B]

I'm disappointed that Rita would march with ANSWER, especially since she knows that they banned Tikkun editor Michael Lerner, who was slated to speak at an anti-war rally that ANSWER sponsored in early 2003. He attributed it to anti-semitism.

For those who missed the first thread where I printed Lerner's op-ed, here it is.

ON THE LEFT

The Antiwar Anti-Semites
Peace protest organizers tolerate no dissent.

BY MICHAEL LERNER
Wednesday, February 12, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

SAN FRANCISCO--Imagine my surprise when I found out that I am banned from speaking at a peace rally here this Sunday. As editor of Tikkun, the largest-circulation liberal Jewish magazine in the world, I have been an outspoken critic of the proposed war in Iraq. I have also unequivocally condemned Saddam Hussein's brutality and called for the world community to bring him to justice for crimes against humanity. But we at Tikkun do not believe that this war--in which thousands of Iraqi civilians are likely to die--will bring democracy to the Middle East. Instead, it is bound to increase the threat of terrorism to American citizens and provoke more violence. It will also fuel American fantasies of world economic and political domination.

So why was I being blackballed over the peace rally?

My sin was publicly criticizing the way that A.N.S.W.E.R., one of the four groups sponsoring the San Francisco demonstration, has used the antiwar demonstrations to put forward anti-Israel propaganda. An A.N.S.W.E.R. spokesperson, speaking on the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC, said that they didn't want a "pro-Israel" speaker at their rally.

The other groups have said that while they disagree with A.N.S.W.E.R., they will honor an agreement giving each group an effective veto on speakers. Yet it is inconceivable that these antiwar coalitions would let A.N.S.W.E.R. ban a speaker if he accused that group of racism, sexism or homophobia. Why should anti-Semitism be treated differently, as the acceptable -ism?

It is outrageous that those of us who wish to protest against what we see as a fundamentally unjust war must be subjected to a barrage of slogans and speeches that are one-sidedly hostile to Israel. That is just as outrageous as some in the Jewish community claiming that our opposition to war makes us champions of Palestinian groups which use terror and violence against Israeli civilians.

There is a huge difference between criticism of Ariel Sharon's repressive treatment of the Palestinian people and a refusal to accept the fundamental legitimacy of Israel's existence. For years, those of us who want democratic rights for Palestinians have been dubbed "self-hating Jews" by right-wingers in the Jewish world. Now, some on the left insist that if we support human rights we must also uncritically support the violence of some Palestinian "freedom fighters" who make no secret of their desire to overthrow the Zionist enterprise.

That's why we recently created a new national organization supporting a "progressive middle path" that is both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian. We call for an end to the occupation, the creation of a Palestinian state and reparations for Palestinian refugees. But we also call for reparations for Jews who fled Arab states, and for Israel's admission into NATO--or some other equally powerful military alliance--to give the Jewish state genuine security.

The most painful thing has been watching other antiwar groups make unprincipled compromises with A.N.S.W.E.R. As a result, there is support on the left for self-determination for every group in the world except the Jewish people. Fellow progressive Jews, some anxious to speak at these rallies, have urged me to keep quiet about anti-Semitism on the left. After all, they say, stopping the war against Iraq is so much more important.

Why should we have to choose? Tikkun will be bringing thousands of our supporters to the demonstration Sunday. But just as we fought against the sexism and homophobia that once infected the left, we will challenge anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing on the left, even as we say "no" to a war with Iraq.

Rabbi Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine and www.tikkun.org, is the author of "Healing Israel/Palestine," to be published in July by North Atlantic Books. He is rabbi of the Beyt Tikkun synagogue in San Francisco.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

I'm disappointed that Rita would march with ANSWER, especially since she knows that they banned Tikkun editor Michael Lerner, who was slated to speak at an anti-war rally that ANSWER sponsored in early 2003. He attributed it to anti-semitism.

1. A.N.S.W.E.R. and the other three sponsoring organizations attributed Lerner's exclusion from the speakers' list (not "banning") to other causes. Their rebuttal (and disavowal of anti-Semitism, FWIW) is in this press release issued on Feb. 11, 2003:

Statement From Feb. 16 Anti-War Coalitions Re Rabbi Michael Lerner

2. Lerner urged the Tikkun delegation to participate in that 2003 march/rally/whatever anyway, and they did. From the Lerner piece you quoted: "Tikkun will be bringing thousands of our supporters to the [2003] demonstration Sunday."

3. I'm not marching with A.N.S.W.E.R.; I'm marching with United for Peace and Justice.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Have fun, Rita! I'll be at a wedding, but maybe I'll catch you on C-Span.

Yeah, right. But Monte, you're in luck! Click on the link in #1 to read about the activities scheduled for Sept. 25 and Sept. 26 (and sponsored by United for Peace and Justice alone).

[jeff54]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

1. A.N.S.W.E.R. and the other three sponsoring organizations attributed Lerner's exclusion from the speakers' list (not "banning") to other causes. Their rebuttal (and disavowal of anti-Semitism, FWIW) is in this press release issued on Feb. 11, 2003:

Statement From Feb. 16 Anti-War Coalitions Re Rabbi Michael Lerner

2. Lerner urged the Tikkun delegation to participate in that 2003 march/rally/whatever anyway, and they did. From the Lerner piece you quoted: "Tikkun will be bringing thousands of our supporters to the [2003] demonstration Sunday."

3. I'm not marching with A.N.S.W.E.R.; I'm marching with United for Peace and Justice.

Either way your marching with an organization that apparently doesn't allow any dissent, how enlightened.

Disavowing anti-Semitism doesn't mean their not anti-Semitic. How many people that you consider racist would not disavow racism?

Excellent points, Jeff!

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by jeff54

Either way your marching with an organization that apparently doesn't allow any dissent, how enlightened.

Disavowing anti-Semitism doesn't mean their not anti-Semitic. How many people that you consider racist would not disavow racism?

You're drawing some very questionable assumptions from a brouhaha in 2003. A.N.S.W.E.R. and especially United for Peace and Justice are coalitions of a wide variety of groups. Among them, and among the vast number of marchers who are affiliated with neither coalition, a hundred flowers will bloom.

[jeff54]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

You're drawing some very questionable assumptions from a brouhaha in 2003. A.N.S.W.E.R. and especially United for Peace and Justice are coalitions of a wide variety of groups. Among them, and among the vast number of marchers who are affiliated with neither coalition, a hundred flowers will bloom.

What qustionable assumptions did I draw? The article you posted as a defense of the coalitions actions vis-a-vis Michael Lerner stated

"One of the first agreements that was made between the groups organizing the Feb. 16 anti-war protest was that none of the coalitions would propose rally speakers who had publicly attacked or worked to discredit one of the coalition groups"

I read that as one of the very first things the "groups" did was to stiffle disent by saying no one who critisizes any of us gets to speak. It obviously was a priority with them to be one of the first things they decided. Why do you think they made that one of their first rules???

It's also interesting that they never say which came first the rule that they made up or the supposed critisizem from Rabbi Lerner of ANSWER. If the Lerner's statement came first then it seems it was made up with him in mind.
I tried to do some reserach on this and looked for the supposed attack on ANSWER in the NY Times just to get the date and I could find no such attack.

I also don't see why it matters that "among the vast number of marchers who are affiliated with neither coalition" you already stated that you are marching with UFPJ didn't you?

"So tell me what am I supposed to be?
Another goddamn drone?"

[bluenoter]

DC--

http://www.opceasefire.org/

Sept. 24

WASHINGTON MONUMENT 2PM TO 1AM - RAIN or SHINE

The Operation Ceasefire performer schedule is as follows:

2:05 PM - Machetres

2:30 PM - Living Things

3:18 PM - Joan Baez

3:50 PM - Wayne Kramer and the Bellrays

4:41 PM - Steve Earle

5:31 PM - The Coup

6:23 PM - Sweet Honey in the Rock

7:09 PM - The Evens

7:54 PM - Ted Leo+Pharmacists

8:50 PM - Head Roc

9:37 PM - Thievery Corporation

10:59 PM - Pure Belly Dance

11:27 PM - Bouncing Souls

12:12 AM - Le Tigre

The following speakers will appear between the musical acts: host Jello Biafra, Co-Founder of Gold Star Families for Peace Cindy Sheehan, Representative Lynn Woolsey, Washington Wizard Forward Etan Thomas, Former State Department Officer Ann Wright, national radio commentator Jim Hightower, Fernando Suarez del Solar of Gold Star Families, Reverend Graylan Hagler, Cindy Corrie, Mother of peace activist Rachel Corrie who was killed in the West Bank, Code Pink and Global Exchange Co-Founder Medea Benjamin, the DC Guerilla Poets, Investigative Journalist Greg Palast, Iraq Vets Against the War Co- Founder Michael Hoffman, Anti-Flag drummer Pat Thetic and more.

[jeff54]

Gee Rita where are the " wide spectrum of diverse and opposing views regarding Israel and Palestine, and those views will be heard" that the statement from the anti war coalitions claimed? Maybe you can post some after the march.

I would still like to know what "very questionable assumptions" I drew. Are you going to tell me?

[bluenoter]

Jeff--

I'm sorry, but I'm just not interested in discussing those issues in this thread (or any other thread, really). You're conflating a 2003 rally with the events beginning today (Sept. 24).

To be literal, I'm marching with members of DC for Democracy and Democracy for America, if I can find them. Y'all come!

Meeting Place--11:00 a.m.

And at some point I hope to visit the Code Pink delegation or booth.

But also to be literal, I don't expect to have enough energy to do much marching.

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

Although infoshop has it's own fair share of shit politics on it, this looks accurate enough:

www.infoshop.org/texts/wwp.html

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

Doesn't look all that dissimilar to the SWP's RESPECT project, which has seen them line up with both tankie Galloway (forgetting all those neckshots no doubt), and pandering to reactionary Islam in a opportunistic attempt to cash in on racial and religious tension in areas with a high proportion of muslims.

The SWP got into trouble recently inviting Israeli anti-zionist saxophone player Gilad Atzmon to speak at their Marxism conference - not a popular move when it was discovered he'd been distributing materials by holocaust deniers.

Here's the SWP's statement (with an addition from Atzmon) about it:

http://www.swp.org.uk/gilad.php

However, just because Trotskyists have shit politics and tactics shouldn't stop Rita from going on anti-marches their front groups organise.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

Whereas the DC activities on Sept. 24 (see #1) are being cosponsored by United for Peace and Justice and A.N.S.W.E.R., the following regional activities may be sponsored by A.N.S.W.E.R. only; I'm not sure.

LA--

Click for info.


SF--

Click for info.


Seattle--

Click for info.

I infer from this post that if ANSWER were the solo sponsor of the DC March, you would still be going.

Am I mistaken?

[jeff54]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

Jeff--

I'm sorry, but I'm just not interested in discussing those issues in this thread (or any other thread, really). You're conflating a 2003 rally with the events beginning today (Sept. 24).

Well I'm sorry too Rita, when you posted a rebuttle to Gordon's post it looked to me like you were interested discussing those issues. I'm not confusing the 2003 rally with the rally today. The 2003 incident was just one example of the true nature groups like ANSWER (who from what I've seen so far on C-SPAN are clearly running the show today), they haven't changed and bringing it up is still relevent.

But hey you know what, this is the JC where you are entitled to speak or not speak as you please. I mean after all this board isn't run by some hypocritical, authoritarian, tyrannical, Trotskyites like ANSWER. Lois can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

3. I'm not marching with A.N.S.W.E.R.; I'm marching with United for Peace and Justice.

I got curious. Who is "United for Peace and Justice?" I went to their website. Below is the current membership of their steering committee. Draw your own conclusions.

The list of member groups of United for Peace and Justice is too large to print so I'm linking to the list. I'm not sure if there's a dime's worth of difference between this group and ANSWER. Do they part on any issues?
Member groups of UPJ

United for Peace and Justice Steering Committee

Elected at the UFPJ National Assembly, February 2005

Baltazar (Bal) Pinguel, American Friends Service Committee-National
Joseph Gainza, American Friends Service Committee-Vermont
Virginia Rodino, Baltimore Anti-War Coalition
Felicia Eaves, Black Voices for Peace
Maleena Lawrence, Black Voices for Peace - Oakland
Gael Murphy, CODEPINK: Women for Peace
Judith LeBlanc, Communist Party - USA
Prasad Venugopal, Detroit Area Peace with Justice Network
Chuck Fager, Fayetteville Peace With Justice
Denise Thomas, Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition
Medea Benjamin, Global Exchange
Fernando Suarez del Solar, Guerrero Azteca Project
Bryan Proffitt, Hip-Hop Against Racist War
Van Gosse, Historians Against the War
George Friday, Independent Progressive Politics Network
Amy Quinn, Institute for Policy Studies
Christopher Harrison, Iraq Veterans Against the War
Susan Wenger, Lancaster Coalition for Peace and Justice
Ann Roesler, Military Families Speak Out
George Martin, Milwaukee Coalition for a Just Peace
Siu Hin Lee, National Immigrant Solidarity Network, PeaceNoWar Network
Sobukwe Shukura, National Network On Cuba
Jessica Marshall, National Youth and Student Peace Coalition
Leslie Kielson, UFPJ NY
Cristina Martinez, No Militariacion de los Jovenes
Efia Nwangaza, Not In Our Name (NION)
Michael O'Gorman, PeaceRoots Alliance
Lisa Fithian, Root Activist Network of Trainers (RANT)
Kelly Campbell, September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows
Sophie Bloch, Students for Change
Brenda Allen, Teaneck Peace and Justice Coalition
Liz Rivera Goldstein, Teen Peace Project
Rahul Mahajan, Third Coast Activist Resource Center
David Meieran, Thomas Merton Center
Kymberlie Quong Charles, US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
Nancy Romer, US Labor Against the War
Alona Clifton, Vanguard Public Foundation
Michael T.McPhearson, Veterans For Peace
Bob Wing, War Times
Jacqueline (Jackie)Cabasso, Western States Legal Foundation
Saundra Addison-Britto, Women To Women Ministries, Inc.
Cliff Suk-Jae Lee, Young Koreans United (YKU) of USA

[lynn]

The ghost of J Edgar Hoover is haunting this board.

[moneyp]

Guys, chill. Rita's marching for a cause, not a group. Have fun, Reets!

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Hey, I'm against Bush's war too. Go kick ass, Rita!

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by mone peterson

Guys, chill. Rita's marching for a cause, not a group. Have fun, Reets!

Mone, if there was a march for "Woman's Right to Choose" co-sponsored by the American Nazi Party and somebody you knew was planning to march, you wouldn't look askance at your acquaintance's decision to march?

[Paul B]

Mone, if there was a march for "Woman's Right to Choose" co-sponsored by the American Nazi Party and somebody you knew was planning to march, you wouldn't look askance at your acquaintance's decision to march?

I'm sure Rita or anybody else would never march if that were the case. But the folks on the list you did us the favor of posting are certainly not Nazis. So why make such a preposterous statement? Is to be against Bush (and your lower tax rates) to be a Nazi?

[Captain Hate]

http://www.forgetfoo.com/?blogid=4627

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Paul B

I'm sure Rita or anybody else would never march if that were the case. But the folks on the list you did us the favor of posting are certainly not Nazis. So why make such a preposterous statement? Is to be against Bush (and your lower tax rates) to be a Nazi?

It's not preposterous at all. If Mone thinks it's ok to march alongside communists if Rita agrees with the cause (anti-war) then to be consistent he should think it's ok to march alongside Nazi's if she agrees with the cause (pro-choice).

Bush and taxes have nothing to do with anything here. I see you've apparently declined my invitation to debate tax policy on its own thread.

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

It's not preposterous at all. If Mone thinks it's ok to march alongside Stalnists if Rita agrees with the cause (anti-war) then to be consistent he should think it's ok to march alongside Nazi's if she agrees with the cause (pro-choice).

1. ANSWER is a Trotskyist front group, not a Stalinist front group.

2. UFPAJ appears to be a coalition, not a front group - hence why all the groups are posted in that list - you'll not find a similar list on the ANSWER website (or at least I couldn't).

2. Is there a "Nazi party" in the US? Or are you talking about different fascist and ultra-nationalist parties that don't necessarily identifiy with Nazism.

I'm concerned that you don't appear to be able to accurately identify either of the groups or ideologies that you're attacking and lumping together. Doesn't make for useful debate, and it looks like you're trying to paint anyone as anti-war as a "stalinist", and potential fascist, sympathiser.

[Gordon B]

Yes, there is a party called the American Nazi Party.
Stalinist or Trotskyist, the meaning of my question is the same. I will revise my comment to Paul. Mone indicated that Rita was marching for a cause and that he didn't care who else was in the march. I asked if that would be true if Nazi's were marching with her (instead of communists).

Your last comments are both selective and unfair. You took offense with my use, apparently incorrect of Stalinist instead of Trotksyist, but not Paul B illogical assertion. Did you like Paul B's post, that spurred my response?

Nowhere did I imply that anti-war = fascist or Stalinist. Your inference is illogical. If a Democrat becomes a Trotskyite by marching alongside one then the Trotksyite becomes a Democrat by marching alongside one. Thus, the Trotskyite and the Democrat become Democrat-Trotskyites. This is complete nonsense because the ideology of Trotskyites is completely incompatible with those of the Democratic party.

Originally Posted by Nathaniel Catchpole

1. ANSWER is a Trotskyist front group, not a Stalinist front group.

2. UFPAJ appears to be a coalition, not a front group - hence why all the groups are posted in that list - you'll not find a similar list on the ANSWER website (or at least I couldn't).

2. Is there a "Nazi party" in the US? Or are you talking about different fascist and ultra-nationalist parties that don't necessarily identifiy with Nazism.


I'm concerned that you don't appear to be able to accurately identify either of the groups or ideologies that you're attacking and lumping together. Doesn't make for useful debate, and it looks like you're trying to paint anyone as anti-war as a "stalinist", and potential fascist, sympathiser.