The politics of the anti-war movement

[cali]

First of all, I want to thank everyone marching in DC today. I've been 3x over the last few years. I'm glad I went. Today, I just went down to a little protest in my town, held at the Veteran's memorial. While there I was talking with a couple of folks about the anti-war movement. The concensus was that it's a shame that ANSWER is the organizing force behind large anti-war protests.

Not one Congress critter is speaking at today's march in DC. The last time I went, several were, along with some other notable folks. Today, the speakers are Ramsey Clark, Cindy Sheehan, Ralph Nader and a few others I've never heard of. It's clear to me, that the vast majority of even anti-war dems don't want to be on the same stage with Nader, Sheehan et al.

For a few years, other anti-war groups like United for Peace and Justice were partnering with ANSWER. No longer.

I'm not sure what can be done to reclaim the anti-war movement, beyond supporting UFPJ, and I realize a lot of people here will disagree with me, but I'd really like to see a large DC protest that isn't dominated by
ANSWER, its agenda, and speakers who don't represent the majority of the peace movement.

Here's a link to UFPJ.
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/

[BayouBengal07]

1. Thank you!

I went out to the DC march today, and those people are CRAZY. The "Party of Socialism and Liberation" was out there!

Do they really think they can convince congress and the American public of the righteousness of their cause by banging on drums and wearing Che Guevara shirts? At least I wore a suit...

[cali]

2. Thank you!

Thanks for being there. It's not so much the drumming that bothers me, it's the ranting speeches about issues that have zilch to do with the Iraq war.

I'd love to hear more about your day in DC.

[BayouBengal07]

4. Well

I decided I didn't want to look like one of "those protesters" so I got dressed up in a button down formal shirt and my slacks. If I'm going to speak my mind I want people to take me seriously.

The main argument I heard from the pro-war people was that we need to stay until "victory." But none of them have defined just what "victory" is. So I made a sign- "When does it end? What is "victory?" It's a Quagmire!"

I passed the pro-war demonstrators- I've never seen so much black leather and American flags. They were just as bad.

I left when I got tired of seeing hippies with bandanas over their faces and Che shirts yelling into bullhorns. That's just not my type.

[cali]

6. I really applaud you.

I can't say I dressed up when I went to DC, but I sure as hell didn't do the bandana over the face thing or where Che shirt. More like jeans and a sweater.

I believe America needs to see itself reflected in protests, so they can relate. Thanks for doing that.

[pinto]

3. UFPJ Rejects Future Work with ANSWER (Dec. 12, 2005)

UFPJ Rejects Future Work with ANSWER

Ending the War in Iraq, Building a Broad Movement for Peace and Justice, And Our Experience with A.N.S.W.E.R.

From the Steering Committee, United for Peace and Justice
December 12, 2005

<snip>

As our coalition moves forward, we try to evaluate our experiences in order to strengthen our efforts and overcome our shortcomings. In recent months, a difficult and controversial aspect of our work has been our engagement with International A.N.S.W.E.R in co-sponsoring the September 24, 2005 Washington, D.C. Rally and March. Following this experience, and after thorough discussion, the national steering committee of United for Peace and Justice has decided not to coordinate work with ANSWER again on a national level. Here we want to share with all UFPJ member groups our summary of this experience and the decisions we have made as a result.

<snip>

In terms of UFPJ’s relationship with ANSWER, our national steering committee has concluded that the latter path
(pursuing different courses) is best for the foreseeable future. We did not have consensus. But by a more than two thirds supermajority we voted on December 4 not to coordinate work with ANSWER again on a national level. We simultaneously recognized that other settings and situations may be different. We make no recommendations or mandates on this issue to UFPJ member groups in local or constituency-based areas, who will continue to decide whether and/or how much to coordinate efforts with ANSWER based on their own experiences, conditions and judgments.


<full statement at>

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3162

[cali]

5. Thanks for posting that.

From that memorandum:

But the souring of the political atmosphere is largely due to ANSWER, which, in our experience, consistently substitutes labels (“racist”, “anti-unity”) and mischaracterization of others’ views for substantive political debate or problem solving – both in written polemics and direct face-to-face interactions.

Beyond all this, the priority given to negotiating and then trying to carry out an agreement with ANSWER hurt rather than helped galvanize the participation of many other groups and individuals in the September 24 activities. In part this is simply a question of where time and resources were directed. But it also stems from the bridges ANSWER has burned over the years with other broader forces in the progressive movement.


Time to end ANSWER's domination of peace movement.

[proud2BlibKansan]

31. That was 2 years ago

They are working together now.

[pinto]

39. I didn't see any new info to the contrary.

:shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

42. Are you on their email list?

[pinto]

45. No. Yet I see you have some clarification. Thanks. Would you post UFPJ's notice?

Apparently, they have not held local/allied chapters to their national decision. It'd be good to get the story straight.

Thanks again.

[proud2BlibKansan]

51. It was made very clear in June at the national assembly

that these two groups are working together. They apparently saw the damage a rift causes. They can see the big picture here, which is ending the war. Wish I could say the same for all here who claim to be 'anti-war'.

I could go back through my notes and see if there was a bulletin issued but what would the point be? I am sure the DUers who would rather gossip would just keep on gossiping.

Here are some pictures I took in Chicago at the assembly.





Now let me make clear that the OP has every right to criticize an organization. But posting false info is just flamebait and incredibly counter-productive. And I will call a post false if I know for a fact that it is false.

[countingbluecars]

66. Todays march was a featured event

on UFPJ website. Looks to me like the two groups are working together against this war.

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/calendar.php?calid=21872

[cali]

72. How could you not notice this?

"Events listed are not necessarily endorsed or organized by UFPJ. This calendar is maintained as a resource for the entire peace and justice movement. For further information about any event listed, please click on the event listing and contact the person and/or email address listed as the contact for the specific event."

[countingbluecars]

75. I did notice that, but

I also noticed the full page "featured event" description below that statement. It appears that the groups can put aside their differences when it comes to ending this war.

[LWolf]

122. I think this is perfectly clear

right on the "About United For Peace And Justice" page of the website:

<snip>

United for Peace and Justice is a coalition of more than 1300 local and national groups throughout the United States who have joined together to protest the immoral and disastrous Iraq War and oppose our government's policy of permanent warfare and empire-building.

We welcome the participation of any and all national, regional and local groups who share our goals and wish to work with others.


http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?list=type&type=16

While that statement doesn't refer to ANSWER specifically, I'm sure we can all agree on the meaning of the word ALL. "Any and all" include ANSWER.

[MadHound]

7. Nature abhors a vacumn

I don't see any Democratic groups, nor others, stepping up to the plate on this one. Therefore you go with what you've got.

What I find shameful is that there are people who are willing to put politics ahead of peace, and damning groups for doing what nobody else will. Get back to me when the Dems launch a nationwide anti-war movement.

[ShortnFiery]

9. Well put MadHound -

Worth repeating: "What I find shameful is that there are people who are willing to put politics ahead of peace, and damning groups for doing what nobody else will."

IMO instead of picking apart groups who have the courage to DO SOMETHING, why don't these hyper-critical people choose to reflect and do something THEMSELVES that may help end this bloodbath?

No, it's more fun for you decide to WASTE TIME picking apart your allies.

Infighting. How productive. :crazy:

[WillyT]

10. And...

"Get back to me when the Dems launch a nationwide anti-war movement."

Don't hold your breath.

[ShortnFiery]

12. That's the point! Vietnam ended because of BI-PARTISAN support.

Not the leaders - but with THE PEOPLE taking to the streets MAD AS HELL!

The democrats didn't get us out of vietnam, the people who wished to save their YOUTH forced the politicians to end the war. That right wing talking point is way beyond lame. :shrug:

[cali]

17. There is an alternative to ANSWER

United For Peace and Jutice (UFPJ) is a great organization, focused on ending the war. They're sponsoring protests on Oct. 27th.

[proud2BlibKansan]

33. Better stay home then cause ANSWER is helping with those regional protests.

[cali]

37. ANSWER does not help the active anti-war movement to grow

It turns a lot of people off. A lot.

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. I strongly disagree

It obviously turns YOU off but it sure sounds like they had great attendance at their march today (my friend who is there said the report she heard was 700,000) and the one they held in March was also well attended.

[oberliner]

57. 700,000? Washington Post says about 7,000

My count: 6,850

Marc Fisher reports:

Call it a success, call it a failure, call it what you will, today's anti-Iraq war rally, drew a cheerful and pleasant crowd of 6,850. I counted the marchers who joined the rally from its start point at Lafayette Park and passed through the narrowest choke point on the parade route, the corner of 15th street and New York Ave., N.W.

Because the crowd had to pass through a line of security bollards, this is the easiest point on any protest route at which to gain an accurate count. The march took 28 minutes to pass this point.

The rally is now continuing along Pennsylvania Ave., heading for the Capitol. Police are serving only to block off streets for the march, but have not engaged with the crowd at any point. Unlike the young, activist crowd that assembled early in the day, the overall mix of people as the march moves through the city is a better blend of families and people of all ages.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/?hpid=topnews

[proud2BlibKansan]

62. In January, CNN said "thousands" and FOX said "hundreds"

IIRC, the Wash Post said "thousands".

I was there, and the organizers reported over 700,000.

My friend and I were interviewed by a NY Times reporter at the march in Jan who then misrepresented our conversation with her in a front page article. I blogged about it here at the time.

So do I trust the media to tell the truth about these marches? NO.

[The Magistrate]

81. If His Given Time Is Accurate, Ma'am

Then his count is likely pretty close, depending on the breadth of the column.

Twenty-eight minutes to pass a single point, in a civilian crowd, suggests a column length of one mile to a mile and a quarter, as twenty to twenty five minutes to the mile is a pretty average walking speed. People space themselves out when they are at liberty to about a yard before and behind each individual, so each file in a column of that length would contain something between twelve and fifteen hundred people. If the ranks consisted of six abreast, you would have between seven and eight thousands passing the point. A full four lanes of street would not likely have more than ten in each rank.

[proud2BlibKansan]

83. Were you there, Sir?

When I was at the march in January, there were 30 abreast in each row across the street. We counted. The organizers counted the number of people at the gathering rally on the mall. They can get a pretty accurate count by the length of the mall the crowd fills. There were also aerial photos taken of the crowd. I would imagine they did that today as well.

I am guessing you weren't there in January or today. Or for that matter at other marches in DC. No way is there a yard between people in these marches. More like a foot. We marched together as a DU group last Jan. Many pictures were posted here of our group at the march. I sure don't remember meeting you or seeing you in any of our pictures.

[The Magistrate]

84. Aerial Photographs Will Be interesting To Examine, Ma'am

Some may appear.

People do not walk in voluntary crowds, as opposed to, say, the press to get out of a crowded ampitheater, at a spacing of one foot between individuals front and back: they tend to kick and get kicked when they try, and everyone has a miserable and aggravating time. It is similar with width: measure the chair you are sitting on and add about six inches to allow for shoulder width; you will come pretty close to two feet on average. A lane of traffic accommodates an automobile, or the space two people take up comfortably, or three pressed uncomfortably close. How long does it take you to walk a mile, when you are not doing it at an exercise speed? If the man's report of elapsed time is correct, and telling time is pretty easy, so if it is not accurate it is a deliberate lie, then the rest of it falls reasonably in place. People actually in a crowd do not do a very good of estimating its number: once the perception there are 'lots and lots' is triggered, not much more can be perceived. Organizers of such an event have an obvious interest in exaggerating the number present, since the size of the crowd is the measure of their influence, which everyone wants to be perceived as as great as they can possibly convince others is the case.

You are claiming a count of thirty abreast in January, and say you were at this present march. What were the ranks abreast today, in your estimation, on the street described in the report above?

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[Puregonzo1188]

119. The group is reporting 100,000, which is what I thought when I was there.

They are basing this number based on the fact that PA Ave (which is three lanes) was filled with people shoulder-to-shoulder for a little bit over 10 blocks. When it comes to protest I generally rely either on numbers based on aerial photographs or the number of blocks filled versus size of the road/size of the area. Its the most accurate way of doing so and seems reasonable to me.

There was definately more then 7,000 there, but I wouldn't go as far as 700,000. It was great turn-out and a great day none the less.

[Breeze54]

85. How's that Garden Tea Party going, cali?

Are you all prettied up, with white gloves and patent leather shoes
and being oh, so very polite and demure and lady like? Never raise
your voice now and OMGosh! Never complain outloud! You might not be
thought of as a lady and well, then what would the neighbors think?
Dread the thought!

Isn't life grand on Willowberry Lane?


lemon?

[stimbox]

HAHAHA!!!

:spray:

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. And it's all bullshit gossip anyway

Good grief. Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot.

[movonne]

11. I sure agree with you...we put down the ones working and doing

the work because it is not just like we want it...other groups should go out there and do there thing...not everyone thinks the same, but are on the same page about ending this war...we must try to work together and quit putting down the ones we think go over the top (after all we see a lot of repugs going over the top and they don't seem to go after each other)like some don't like Move On's add and others loved it...

[The Magistrate]

13. Not Really, Mr. Hound

It is quite possible for a particular tool to be utterly unsuited to accomplishing a task. If the task is to mobilize and solidify wide-spread political pressure against the occupation of Iraq, A.N.S.W.E.R. is just such a tool, one that can no more accomplish the task than a saw can hammer a nail....

[MadHound]

14. I am not arguing that ANSWER is the best tool for the job

That's irrelevant. Right now it is the only tool that we have for the job. Sure, there are lots of little peace groups around the country, but no over-arching group like ANSWER who can mobilize people across the country. Until there is, we have to do with what we have. Criticizing such a group, while simultaneously not finding something better to replace it with seems counter productive at best.

When the Democrats or some other less contentious group than ANSWER takes over organizing these events, I'll be happy to help them. But until then, we've got to dance with the one who brought us, either that or have no nationwide anti-war movement at all.

[The Magistrate]

15. Your Mistake, Sir, Is Thinking It Is A Tool for Any Job You Want Done

A.N.S.W.E.R. is a classic Stalinist front organization, interested only in wrecking, in the delusional dream it will come to rule the debris. The 'causes' it takes up mean nothing to its directors; they are simply means to get a few more recruits to the cadre over time, and flesh out attendance to make their 'movement' look larger.

The surest way to destroy political will for withdrawl from Iraq among the voting public would be to pipe the speeches at an A.N.S.W.E.R. rally non-stop into their televisions.

[H2O Man]

18. Every message is going

to reach a group that responds positively, and a group that responds negatively (and there is another group that is tuned out). If I understand you correctly -- and I assume it is the basic message of the OP -- it is that a significant part of the group involved in today's demonstration will have a relatively small positive response, and may have a potentially larger negative response.

On the other hand, there is a congress with a small democratic majority, that is sending a message on the war that appears to likewise have a rather limited positive response from the public, and a much larger negative response.

The question remains: who serves as the voice for the "silent majority" of Americans who do not want to remain in Iraq, but who have concerns about the manner of removing our troops? These are the people who are not going to listen to what they consider the radical left, and who feel frustrated by the failure of congress to listen to them.

What do you, or the author of the OP, see as the best alternatives?

[cali]

19. UFPJ

It's a real alternative to ANSWER. I see them as the best alternative.

[H2O Man]

20. Can you explain

why you think they provide a better alternative for getting the message you think is important across, rather than the group today?

I ask that sincerely; I am not anti- either group. I do think that it is important for people to consider options for communicating their message.

[cali]

21. Sure. Have you been to any of the

ANSWER sponsored protests? They are truly all over the map; from free Mumia to Palestine. The anti-war movement needs to focus on, well, the war. UFPJ does that. ANSWER does not have any appeal for people who want to end the war, but don't know or care about the myriad issues that ANSWER brings into each and every march that they sponsor.

I know you have a lot of respect for Cindy Sheehan, but she's not a compelling figure for most Americans who now oppose the war.

I think the clearest answer to your query, is the first responce to my OP.

[H2O Man]

27. I have not

been to any of the ANSWER sponsored protests. I'm disabled, due to injuries from an auto accident, and am limited in how far/often these old bones can travel. Luckily, my mind is (relatively) okay, and my mind does travel. So I will take a quick mental survey here:

Years ago, I used to attend anti-war rallies in Oneonta. There are two colleges there, and the rallies often attracted a good crowd of students. A group from NYC used to come up, known as the Workers World Party, and I think that ANSWER looks a lot like these folks did. The rallies got little media attention, and the public response was about equal as far as people going by giving us the peace sign or the middle finger.

In Cooperstown, there have been some nice anti-war rallies. The rallies are small, and tend to attract the families that home-school, and people who inhabit libraries and health food stores. The only real media attention came as a result of a reporter finding out that David Dellinger's widow was there, keeping the faith. Many passers-by wave, though most seem not to notice.

In Norwich, the rallies attract people from the Unitarian churches and Quakers. 95% of the group is over 50. For about a year, a pro-war group met weekly across the main street (East Park/West Park) and many drivers going by would toot their horns in support of one side or the other. There was almost zero media attention.

In Binghamton, there were some rallies outside the federal building. Some of my friends were arrested on minor charges. Moderate media attention, but little public reaction.

Also in Binghamton, I attended part of the St Patrick's Four trial and the rallies outside the federal court house. Lots of media attention. Tension and police keeping the pro- and anti-war sides apart. But after a few days, the groups recognized that we are all citizens of the xame country, and that we all are sincerely concerned about the troops. We were able to break bread and talk like friends.

There are many ways to peacefully protest against the war. I am in favor of everyone doing it in the best way they know how. But there are some groups that I feel I have more in common with than others.

[Puregonzo1188]

121. Yesterday was not as all over the map as usual. I've been to

ANSWER protest in the past and they were horrible, horrible, rallies. But ANSWER was not the sole organizer of this protest. Iraq Veterans Against the War played a huge role in organizing it, along with Code Pink and some others. There was a couple of speeches that made me role my eyes, but for the most part I was surprised about how on topic the rally was considering past experiences was ANSWER. I thought it was great (could of done without the Cuban Five or the Israeli-Lebanese war in the 1980s, but everything can't be perfect).

[The Magistrate]

36. My Personal View, Sir

Is that our Democratic majorities in Congress should have been making a greater display of intransigence on this matter. Rather than trying to contrive some compromise that might entice enough of the opposition to beat down a filibuster or over-ride a veto, they should have been repeatedly bringing up propositions that would be filibustered, or vetoed if passed by slim majority. The whole time they were doing this, they should have been strenuously pointing out that the reason the people's will was not being worked was Republican obstructionism. Indeed, there is still time to do this, and a good deal of space for it to have the desired effect on the political climate.

Why this course has not been pressed is an interesting question, and it seems to me the most important reason it has not been done is the loose nature of our Party's coallition, which makes the discipline necessary for such a course difficult to achieve and maintain. This operates on both wings of the Party. There are Senators from 'red' states and Representatives from 'red' districts who feel themselves vulnerable to counter-attack on the typical lines of disparaged patriotism the enemy employs, and so are not willing to stick in such a course for fear they will lose their seats. There are Representatives, generally ensconced in wholly safe 'blue' districts, who will not cast a vote for anything that is not 'whole hog' de-funding or withdrawl, even if by doing so, they are acting exactly as the administration bids its Republican hatchetmen in Congress to act in regard to a particular proposal pushed by the Democratic leadership. A proposal that would hold either one of these groups will peel off the other one, and the result is that dissenting Democrats, for whatever reason, become the cover for the real fact of Republican intransigence. A weapon likely to crumble in the hand is not readily wielded, and unfortunately that is what we have.

The cry in left activist circles that the solution is to attack Democrats as 'enablers' and 'collaborators', and 'hold their feet to the fire' until they 'grow a spine' is more than usually mis-guided in this situation. For it is the left wing of the Party's Congressional delegation that is as much at fault in depriving the leadership of a coherent bloc that could be wielded effectively as it is the right wing of the Party. These efforts do not excoriate 'heroes' of the left wing who 'vote their conscience' against an imperfect Bill pressed by the Party leadership; they only assail those belonging to another faction of the Party, and our Congressional leadership, who must craft Bills that all factions of the delegation might find some grounds to support, and so must necessarily be compromises not wholly palatable to any.

The proper target of all activism and agitation is the administration, the actual authors and steerers of the policy we oppose, and the Republicans in Congress who do the administration's bidding. The only thing that will provide our Party's Congressional leadership with something to cement the fragments of the Party into a functioning bloc is ever-widening and ever louder outcry against the administration. Attacks on the Democratic Party's leadership, office-holders, and candidates, can do nothing to achieve that, and in fact, work effectively against it, and provide cover for the administration. The last resource of the reactionaries has always been the proneness of the left to faction fighting and splinterism, culminating in open political (and on occassion actual) fratricide. They rely on us tearing ourselves apart, while they remain solidly in rank. That is how a numerically smaller group, which the right by the very nature of its desires must always be, succeeds in gaining its will in the teeth of a numerically greater opponent. This is something the right has known, and done, literally for millenia, and it will continue to do it, and succeed at it, until we learn to change our own self-destructive behaviors.

[H2O Man]

98. It appears that

there are a few groups of people who are involved in the anti-war actions. I will start by saying that I think all of the groups are sincere in their concerns, and desire an end to the Bush-Cheney war of occupation in Iraq.

One group is made up of Democrats. They view the administration as the problem, and the republicans in congress as being Bush-Cheney enablers and supporters. Many of the grass roots democrats are expecting the democratic congress to be taking stronger stands than they have. Many also believe that the congress should be doing serious investigations, with consequences for those who attempt to stifle or obstruct them.

There are also many democrats who urge a more cautious route. They believe that the democrats need to focus on the 2008 elections. They believe that pressuring the administration with an investigation of VP Cheney, for example, could backfire and make democrats unpopular.

Another group of sincere anti-war people is neither democrat, nor republican. Many are socialists, greens, or un-attached to any particular group identity. They tend to see Bush and Cheney as representative of a system that is corrupt, and willing to invade and occupy a country like Iraq, in order to exploit its #1 resource -- oil.

They do not see a huge difference between the corporate identities of the national leadership of either party. They have found the lack of democratic action in congress to be frustrating. They believe that it is important -- even urgent -- that American citizens demonstrate their demands that the government stop the US war of occupation in Iraq.

As we approach the 2008 election season, the cautious democrats are urging people to move away from the people engaged in the public actions, including ANSWER, MoveOn, Code Pink, and Cindy Sheehan. They believe that being identified with these groups/individuals will harm the party in the public eye.

I'm not so sure about that. If the democratic party wants to expand its vote, it needs to attract new and active participants. It needs to be more than calling people like me every three months and asking for another donation to help democrats running for congress. It must involve a relationship other than sending me 30 envelopes a month, requesting another check to help "end the war." Fund-raising is important, but it reinforces the image of the democratic party as being a bureaucratic corporation out of touch with people like me.

I have two sons and more than a dozen nieces and nephews who are young adults, registered voters, and who participate in anti-war demonstrations. From their point of view, the republican party wants them to go to Iraq to kill people for oil; the democratic party wants access to their bank accounts to finance future elections; and there are a collection of groups out demonstrating against the war. As a member of the democratic grass roots, I am convinced that the party cannot afford to let this divide grow larger. The sad truth is that not only is the national party not communicating with a significant portion of the young people very well, but they have turned a deaf ear towards older folks such as me.

Hence, while I am invested in the democratic party, I recognize that the national leadership is responsible for the growing discontent within the ranks of anti-war members of the party.

[The Magistrate]

106. Your Taxonomy Is Excellent, Sir

But my inclination is to take exception to some of your characterizations.

First, it is not my view that the people of A.N.S.W.E.R. are sincere in their activities regarding the course of events in Iraq. Their purpose is recruitment to their fantasies of wide-spread revolution, and this issue, like any other they take up, is to them merely a tool to this end. If it seemed to me there was any practicality to a program of global revolution, let alone revolution in the United States, my attitude towards this might be different, but as matters stand now, it is nonesense, and it renders what they do wholly ineffective as a means for focusing and hardening to greater political effect the widespread opposition among the people of our country to the administration's course in Iraq. The fact that this is not really their purpose shines through the events they manage any degree of controlling influence over or within. To the A.N.S.W.E.R. people, success is measured by signing up a few more subscribers and potential cadre, not by any actual or immediate effect on the actions of the government, moving them in some desired direction.

Second, it is not a question of urging people to move away from the groups and figures you have mentioned. Rather, it is that some of these groups and figures have themselves commenced to expend their energies attacking the Democratic Party, and thus made their relation to it explicitly hostile. This has been the case from the start with A.N.S.W.E.R., a body conceiving itself engaged in the preliminaries of revolution against the whole current economic and political order of the world, and lately has become the case with 'Code Pink' and Ms. Sheehan. It is their own actions that have made Democrats of all stripes 'move away' from them: the fact is, they have 'moved away' from Democrats, and cannot expect any more friendly regard from Democrats than they show towards Democrats.

Third, what you call caution strikes me in many instances more as consideration of what is practical, and understanding that the enemy is not an inert object but an active and competent foe, who will effectively oppose, and effectively strike back, where opportunity offers. The recent brouha over the Move-On advertisement is an example. The rhyme of Betray Us with Petraeus is priceless, and a sound piece of agit-prop, but it is more suited to a 'viral' campaign than a leading head in a piece printed in the Times. Appearing in that venue, it did nothing but give the enemy an opportunity for distracting attention from the real event of testimony before the Congress that was supremely assailable as fraudulent.

[H2O Man]

110. While there are

some areas where we may not be in complete agreement, I am glad that the democratic party has room for both of us.

[The Magistrate]

111. Indeed, Sir: It Is Always A Pleasure To Cross Paths With You

Best wishes to you and yours!

[MadHound]

70. Wow, I don't know where you get that from, personal bias perhaps?

I'm not so scared or threatened by Communists of any stripe, I recognize them for what they are, agree with some of their positions, disagree with others. This comes from actually interacting with them on a personal level, getting to know them, exchanging information and becoming friends. I also recognize that historically Communists have made positive contributions to this country both in the labor and civil rights movements of the twenties and thirties. In fact Communism wasn't demonized in this country until after WWII.

If there are other groups out there(and apparently there are starting to be a few) who can take over what ANSWER is doing, more power to them. But until then what do you propose? That the war continue grinding on until a politically perfect group is found to front it. Sorry, but I don't feel like throwing away that many lives.

[The Magistrate]

77. What An Interesting Reply, Sir

Rather densely packed with guess-work and preconceptions about the person you are addressing, to the point of rendering unnecessary any engagement with your opening salvo....

The difficulty you seem to labor under here is the idea that the sort of thing A.N.S.W.E.R. puts together has the slightest utility in moving the mass of the voting populace to a greater and stronger opposition to the occupation of Iraq. What they do has no such capability or potential: the course events take will continue absolutely un-influenced by the actions of that group, save to the small degree that they make it necessary for a number of people to say, "well, I think we ought to get out of Iraq, but I'm not one of those 'hate America' types you see on tee-vee...."

Groups like A.N.S.W.E.R. have been plugging away for decades, pressing always the same shrill and bankrupt line, and the result has been nothing but the increased marginalization of the left in the nation's political life. If what they did had any capability for mass appeal, and any utility in mass organizing, the results would have been very different. To call what they do counter-productive, even, would be to over-rate the help it has been, and is, to pressing any left or progressive program in the nation's political life as it actually is.

[cali]

16. Did you even bother reading the thread?

There's a link to UFPJ right there. It's not a democratic group, but it is an organization that's been doing yeoman's work against the war for years. They are an alternative to ANSWER. I support them. I don't support ANSWER, though I certainly support the folks marching today i DC. UFPJ is holding protests on the 27th of Oct.

[MadHound]

73. Yes, I am a fully literate adult, thanks for your concern

And yes, I saw the link to UFPJ, and am fully cognizant of who they are and what they've been doing, long before you posted this thread.

That being said, they still aren't the big dog organizers of peace rallies, ANSWER is, whether you like it or not. I'm not a fan of theirs, but neither am I threatened or annoyed by them as some around here seem to be. I tend to regard them as you do, supporting the people I'm working with and leaving ANSWER's political leanings by the wayside. Yes, they tangent off into unrelated topics, but that has been a factor in major anti-war rallies since the sixties(back then it wasn't free Mumia, it was women's rights and civil rights that were the tangents:shrug:) So you take the good with the bad and go on your way. I see no need to get worked up over it as so many seem to do.

If UFPJ starts taking over the show, more power to them. What I certainly don't hope for is some sort of hostile internal split in the anti-war movement between the supporters of ANSWER and supporters of UFPJ. This is why I find threads like this both foolish and counterproductive. Eye on the prize you know, and don't let your own personal prejudices stand in the way of bringing the troops home ASAP.

As far as Sheehan, Nader and others go, I know that they aren't popular here in the insular world of Democratic politics, but this world isn't the real world or the entire world. Both people have large followings out there and are effective at both speaking to and rallying the anti-war movement. Again, don't let your own personal prejudices stand in the way of the larger goal.

Peace:hi:

[sandyd921]

8. UFPJ is sponsoring a National Mobilization on Oct 27th

that will involve major demonstrations in 10 cities. I am planning to go to the one in Boston. I think this is a really good idea. It will allow lots of folks (for whom getting to Washington is difficult) participate in large demonstrations that are closer to home. Plus UFPJ doesn't have the baggage that ANSWER has in the minds of many (no offense meant to ANSWER supporters--they have done a lot of good work in organizing these large Washington demonstrations).

[Crabby Appleton]

22. I agree with you, cali. nt

[stimbox]

23. Wow, nice talking point Cali

I think someone else posted the exact same scree earlier today.

At least A.N.S.W.E.R. is organizing something!

[cali]

24. So is United For Peace and Justice

October 27th. 10 cities.

Or is there work, and break with ANSWER just a "talking point"?

[stimbox]

25. And so is ANSWER

Got a flyer right here from ANSWER that I picked up at Beach Impeach 3 for the 27th too.

Is UFPJ doing anything today? Or are they sitting this one out with all of the DLCers?

[cali]

26. That's such a content free and idiotic comment

it's not worth a substantive response.

[stimbox]

28. Well? Are they?

Looks like they are.
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/calendar.php?calid=21872
We are all in the anti-war movement together.
So we may not all agree on all of the other issues, we can all agree that the occupation has to be ended.
To do that we need numbers. Stop trying to divide us.
I'll march in any anti-war and impeachment protest, even with you. :)

[cali]

30. Let me repeat for about the 6th time on this thread,

and that is no exaggeration. UFPJ is organizing a ten city protest against the Iraq War on October 27th. They used to be in a partnership with ANSWER, but broke off with them for a myriad of reasons. The third post in this thread links to an explanation as to why UFPJ wants nothing to do with ANSWER.

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. UFPJ helped promote the march today; there is no rift

This thread is just flame bait.

[cali]

41. From UFPJ:

In recent months, a difficult and controversial aspect of our work has been our engagement with International A.N.S.W.E.R in co-sponsoring the September 24, 2005 Washington, D.C. Rally and March. Following this experience, and after thorough discussion, the national steering committee of United for Peace and Justice has decided not to coordinate work with ANSWER again on a national level.

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3162

And no, it's not flamebait. If you think it is, then I'm sure you'll alert. I'm hopeful that the mods will not agree with you. I'm trying to make a point; that point being that ANSWER is not a good "face" for the anti-war movement, if it hopes to grow protests.

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. Check the date

"From the Steering Committee, United for Peace and Justice December 12, 2005"


So like I said, this was TWO YEARS AGO. And like I said, at the UFPJ national assembly in June of 2007, both organizations made it clear they had healed the rift.

[cali]

56. OK. I believe you. Now please provide something

in writing to back up your assertion. I don't see it on their website.

[proud2BlibKansan]

58. They made a statement at the national assembly

I didn't realize I would need to tape it. And just think, if you had been there, you would have heard it too.

[cali]

60. We can't all be there. Great that you could. As I said

there's nothing on the website.

Now, have you read what I posted about Clark? I posted it twice, and notice that you have conspicuously not responded to it.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[Roland99]

99. Organizing what? A melange of unorganized and marginalizing acts?

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. UFPJ helped promote the march today; there is no rift

I am a member of UFPJ and get regular emails from both UFPJ and from ANSWER. I also went to the UFPJ national assembly in June in Chicago. ANSWER was there and announced plans for the march today. And ANSWER helped plan the UFPJ regional marches on Oct 27.

You are creating a problem where none exists. No one is forcing you to support either of these organizations but it's also not right for you to stir up shit just to stir up shit. Sheesh. :eyes:

[cali]

34. UNFP and ANSWER have had major disagreements

If you're a member, you're surely aware of that.

ANSWER should NOT be the face of the anti-war movement. There's a reason that their speaker line up didn't include any anti-war dems today.

[proud2BlibKansan]

40. TWO YEARS AGO - they have since come back together

You are obviously very misinformed. As I said, I was at the national assembly; I take it you didn't go. You really don't know what you are talking about and I, as a committed anti-war activist who regularly participates in both local and national marches (at more than minor expense) resent you trying to stir up a problem where none exists.

Gee I wonder who DUers will believe . . .

You also have no idea if Dems were invited to speak today and declined. It was a Saturday and most reps go home on the weekends. We invited 2 Dems to speak at our march today and both declined due to prior commitments. Gee, by your logic, I guess that means they didn't support what we did today? And it diminishes the message we sent?

Please think about what you are doing. Do you want to end the war or to you want to gossip about the organizations involved in the anti-war movement? Which is more productive?

[cali]

44. It's not gossip.

And yes, UFPJ has had an on again off again relationship with ANSWER.

Yes, I want to end the war, and as I said, I want to grow the protest movement. Look at how many people on this thread, at DU, which is far further to the left than the majority of Americans, agree with me. Read the first post on this thread.

And as for it being a Saturday. I've been to DC marches within the past few years, and as I recall at least two of them were on Saturdays, and there were dem there. If you think that Ramsey Clark, Cindy Sheehan and Ralph Nader are people that dems like Bernie want to share a platform with, think again.

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. Oh so this is about Cindy Sheehan now?

Good grief. Better run along and dig up some dirt on Ramsey Clark now.

[cali]

50. I don't have to dig up any dirt on Clark

His words- and Sheehan's- speak loud and clear. And neither of them represent the majority of those who are against the war. At all.

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. So I guess they should just go home and shut up

since you disagree with their involvement in the movement.

I will take every voice who wants to speak out. The big picture here is ending the war. Sorry you don't see that.

[cali]

55. This is worth posting again.

How anyone can defend this is beyond me:

When he flew to Belgrade to support Slobodan Milosevic during NATO's campaign, there was no word about the siege of Sarajevo, the massacre at Srebrenica or the million homeless refugees from Kosovo -- and even less of those olfactorily eloquent mass graves that NATO is now uncovering. But then, urging Belgrade to resist NATO, while he was there picking up an honorary degree, he told his hosts, "It will be a great struggle, but a glorious victory. You can be victorious."

In Grenada he went to advise Bernard Coard, the murderer of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop. Other clients include Radovan Karadzic, the indicted Bosnian Serbian war criminal whom he defended in a New York civil suit brought by Bosnian rape victims, and the Rwandan pastor who is accused of telling Tutsis to hide in his church and then summoning Hutus to massacre them, and then leading killing squads.

His willingness to accept dubious clients is defended by some attorneys. After all, everyone needs a defense. Others say he has crossed a moral line by defending Karadzic and overlooking events in Kosovo. But looking at his legal arguments, one must question the wisdom of his legal counsel, not just his morals. A prominent international lawyer explains, "He's not really very well up on international law -- I remember he was asking for help in some of his early cases."

In his defense of Rwanda genocide indictee Pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, for instance, he played to U.S. isolationist sentiment, and -- somewhat ironically for a case originating in Texas, the capital of capital punishment -- said his client faced execution if extradited. A moment's research would have established that the international tribunals set up by the United Nations do not have the death penalty, because most countries, unlike the United States, regard executions as barbaric. But even then it seems odd that someone who regards this country so balefully would seek to exempt it from the clear international law expressed by the tribunal. With a foretaste of his blas頡ttitude over Kosovo's ethnic cleansing, he said that it was "unconstitutional" to extradite someone to the "illegal" international tribunal. "The international tribunal for Rwanda is an extension of colonial power in Africa, which can threaten every African leader. The tribunal is foreign power intervention taking sides to maintain its control over the majority Hutu through Tutsi surrogates."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/21/clark/print.html

This isn't exactly a secret. And it certainly isn't something I'm about to excuse. I want nothing, repeat nothing, to do with Clark.

The reasons should be obvious.

[cali]

53. Can you even begin t defend this?

From Salon, 1999:

<snip>

When he flew to Belgrade to support Slobodan Milosevic during NATO's campaign, there was no word about the siege of Sarajevo, the massacre at Srebrenica or the million homeless refugees from Kosovo -- and even less of those olfactorily eloquent mass graves that NATO is now uncovering. But then, urging Belgrade to resist NATO, while he was there picking up an honorary degree, he told his hosts, "It will be a great struggle, but a glorious victory. You can be victorious."

In Grenada he went to advise Bernard Coard, the murderer of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop. Other clients include Radovan Karadzic, the indicted Bosnian Serbian war criminal whom he defended in a New York civil suit brought by Bosnian rape victims, and the Rwandan pastor who is accused of telling Tutsis to hide in his church and then summoning Hutus to massacre them, and then leading killing squads.

His willingness to accept dubious clients is defended by some attorneys. After all, everyone needs a defense. Others say he has crossed a moral line by defending Karadzic and overlooking events in Kosovo. But looking at his legal arguments, one must question the wisdom of his legal counsel, not just his morals. A prominent international lawyer explains, "He's not really very well up on international law -- I remember he was asking for help in some of his early cases."

In his defense of Rwanda genocide indictee Pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, for instance, he played to U.S. isolationist sentiment, and -- somewhat ironically for a case originating in Texas, the capital of capital punishment -- said his client faced execution if extradited. A moment's research would have established that the international tribunals set up by the United Nations do not have the death penalty, because most countries, unlike the United States, regard executions as barbaric. But even then it seems odd that someone who regards this country so balefully would seek to exempt it from the clear international law expressed by the tribunal. With a foretaste of his blas頡ttitude over Kosovo's ethnic cleansing, he said that it was "unconstitutional" to extradite someone to the "illegal" international tribunal. "The international tribunal for Rwanda is an extension of colonial power in Africa, which can threaten every African leader. The tribunal is foreign power intervention taking sides to maintain its control over the majority Hutu through Tutsi surrogates."

<snip>
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/21/clark/print.html

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. I will accept any voice in this movement

It's a big tent.

[cali]

61. Sickening.

So if David Duke joined your big tent, you'd defend him.

I. Am. Aghast.

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. I doubt David Dukes would come out against the war

Are you aware of him wanting to join our movement?

[The Magistrate]

78. Actually, Ma'am, He Has, And Has Been for A Long Time

It would not be proper to put up a link to his site, but here are a couple of milder excerpts from it, by way of illustration....

As my listeners and readers know, I have been saying for quite a while that Israel and the Jewish Neocons want a destabilized Iraq even if it harms American objectives there and even if it furthers terrorism against Americans around the world. The Zionists don’t want a pro-Iran, united Iraqi regime to emerge from the occupation, for that runs counter to Israeli strategic interests.


Yes, they want to divide and conquer a potential rival, Iraq, regardless of the danger this poses to America. Of course they thoroughly led the push for the Iraq War in the first place, a war that only serves Israel and only hurts the security, economic and strategic interests of the United States. They also have been the architects of opening the borders of Europe and America to the Third World and increasing multiculturalism, a divided nation that they can, as Steinlight points out, “divide and conquer.” Read the article and gain some insight into the dynamics of Jewish supremacism

–David Duke

[stimbox]

69. Strawman alert.

Now you are grasping at...

[cali]

71. Bullshit. Ramsey Clark is reprehensible.

All the more so because he was once an honorable man. I'd love to see you try and defend what he's said and done over the last 20 years or so.

Not that I'm holding my breath.

And there was no strawman there. I don't want to be associated with David Duke, and sadly I don't want to be associated with Clark. For much the same reason.

[stimbox]

76. Total strawman.

Throwing out David Duke like that.
Like he would be involved in the anti-war movement.
Hyperbole much?

[oberliner]

79. Except that he is

From CNN's interview with David Duke:

Pearl and people like Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, Kristol, Abrams -- we can go on and on. It sounds like a Jewish wedding. They have set American policy and they have hurt American interests in the Middle East. Just as I have said for years, as Walt and Mearsheimer of Harvard have said, it's a fact. And we are dying right now in Iraq because we're there for Israel's interests. We've gotten no oil out of this war. I said -- I went around the world, around the country before this war, and said there were no weapons of mass destruction.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/13/sitroom.01.html

[stimbox]

82. HAHAHA!!!! Nice try, but no cigar.

He may be anti-Iraq war for his own anti-semetic reasons but he is not a member of the anti-war MOVEMENT that we are talking about.
Duke hates the lefties as much as the jews and would not be welcome.

[The Magistrate]

86. Actually, Sir

Duke, and some others of his ilk, view elements of the present left opposition to the occupation of Iraq as a potential recruiting ground, feeling that some of its rhetoric, in some instances, has a certain overlap with their own base views.

This exchange began with two claims, that anyone who opposed the war was welcome, and that Duke did not oppose the war. You have acknowledged he opposes the war, and stated you would not welcome him at an anti-war rally.

Thus, you would seem to be in agreement all around with the people you are arguing against, particularly that there are persons whose opposition to the war should not be grounds for welcoming them into a peace movement that hopes for wide influence among the people of our country. A great many people who oppose the invasion and occupation of Iraq feel exactly the same way about the re-tread Stalinists and careerist agitators of A.N.S.W.E.R., and some of the speakers they engage....

[stimbox]

88. Duke and his ilk would not be welcome.

Sorry, but that dog don't hunt.

[The Magistrate]

91. What Dog Would That Be, Sir?

You have not seen me say he would be welcomed, only that he opposes the war, and feels he can recruit some left opponents of the war to his base views.
And even those comments were only occassioned by another's declaration above both that anyone who opposed the war would be welcome, and that Duke did not oppose the war.

[stimbox]

92. Let me clairify

Anyone from the center to the left would be welcome. Far right nazi klan types would not.
So what if he opposes the war, he is not a part of the coalitions that make up the anti-war movement.
Trying to lump him and his kind in with the anti-war crowd is dishonest.
What kind of motive would you have for doing such a thing? Trying to discredit the anti-war movement?

[The Magistrate]

93. Again, Sir

My comments here were occassioned by two statements made by another person previous to our exchange. Those statements were, first, that anyone who opposed the war would be welcomed in the movement, and second, that David Duke did not oppose the war. It has been demonstrated beyond dispute he does oppose it, and it is a fact he and others like him think they can recruit new followers among some elements of the radical left.

Since you state you would reject such persons, we have no quarrel on that particular subject, as we share the view they should not be included in legitimate protest against the war. My invitation to you is to consider, in assessing the A.N.S.W.E.R. organization, that many on the left view rump Stalinists of the late Workers World Party as pretty nearly so distasteful as we both agree Duke and his ilk are. Further, it is my view that the interest of the A.N.S.W.E.R. people is not the interest of most people who oppose the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq, and that to describe their efforts as merely counter-productive to the goal of hastening U.S. withdrawl from Iraq would be an unwarranted kindness to them.

[stimbox]

94. Subject field must not be blank

Take it up with the other poster then. I think she will tell you the same thing.
I have no problem with A.N.S.W.E.R. nor do I have any problems with anyone on the left.
I may not agree with everyone of them, but that's just me.
RWers, nazi, klansmen and their ilk, I have no use for.
I think we are done. Have a great night. :hi:

[The Magistrate]

95. A Pleasure To Make Your Acquaintance, Sir

Fanatics are the problem, whatever their proclaimed orientation: those on either extreme have more in common with one another, when all is said and done, than they do with the rest of us....

"They believed nothing they could not prove, and could prove everything they believed."

[oberliner]

87. Unforunately, he is involved in the anti-war movement

I don't want to give his web site any hits, but you can do a google search and reach the cached stuff if you are interested.

[stimbox]

89. Now your getting into Frontpage Mag territory

Trying to link the antiwar movement with david duke.

Sorry, but no.

[oberliner]

90. All I am saying is that there are nasty people who have their own reasons

for being against the Iraq war.

ANSWER does not do enough to distance themselves from those types in my opinion.

I agree with some of the OP's concerns about that particular organization.

[Blue_In_AK]

38. I agree with you, Cali...

I was at the September 2005 march and the January 2007, and the latter was by far a more favorable experience, at least for me, although I'm happy to march anytime anywhere. By fortunate happenstance, we will be in San Francisco on October 27 for the UFPJ march, and I can't wait.

[cali]

46. Thanks, Blue

Good luck in SF next month. Hope it's huge.

[Blue_In_AK]

49. I am looking forward to it so much.

I lived in San Francisco back in the late '60s and early '70s, and demonstrated fairly regularly against the Vietnam War, including one really HUGE march in either 1969 or 1970, I forget exactly when it was, but it was awesome. We'll be marching this time with my best old friend from those days. I'll probably get all emotional.

[Joanne98]

54. Gawd bless anybody who stands up!

[proud2BlibKansan]

65. Amen

[paulk]

67. I agree

ANSWER is detrimental to the Iraq anti-war cause.

I've only been to one of their sponsored rallies - I'll never go to another. It was embarrassing and seemed designed to drive anyone but the most extreme elements away.

That's not what we need.



ed for sp.

[alcibiades_mystery]

68. What can be done to counter ANSWER?

Organize your own damn protest and stop going to theirs.

I don't really see the problem. These people have their own diverse agendas. Nobody is forcing you to show up for the protest that THEY called for, THEY organized, THEY shelled out cash for, THEY set up, THEY got the permits for, and THEY built the stage for. And, quite frankly, I'm a little sick of DUers riding the back of the ANSWER protests while bashing ANSWER. It smacks of showing up at a party and insulting the host. You don't like ANSWER? Set up your own fucking protest. No more laziness. No more free-riding. Do it your goddamn self.

[ShortnFiery]

74. I think the people who "love to trash" ANSWER, Code Pink and MoveOn.org, don't participate ...

or participate much. I've been to two ANSWER Anti-War Marches and there's an entire spectrum of people and interests there.

Gee, being Anti-War does not mean that you must be homogeneous.

If you folks who love to "pick apart" those on your side - with very similar goals would spend less time evaluating their dress or <shriek> potential socialist agenda, and DO YOUR OWN ACTIONS, it would be greatly appreciated.

I'm not a socialist but if socialists want to join with us to end the war, :wtf: does that have to do with any damn thing negative?

You folks must just love to LIVE IN FEAR of the big, bad media spin machine. I say, figuratively "lock and load" ... we don't have much to lose and the lives of our soldiers at stake. :shrug:

[cali]

97. Well, you're wrong.

I've been to DC for protests 3 times- since this war began. And I don't live anywhere near it. Twice I took a bus leaving at night and arriving in the morning. And I don't care a hoot what anyone wears to a protest- except for people that cover their faces. My criticism is aimed at the organizers. I suggest you read post 1 in this thread. I don't completely agree with the writer- as I said, wear what you want, but that poster is not alone. I'm all for street theatre at Protests; hell, I marched in the Bread and Puppet contingent at the protest right after Wellstone died.

Oh, and I try not to "trash" ANSWER or Sheehan or Clark. Their own words speak for them.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[cali]

102. That's just silly.

I support many liberal groups. And the one group I don't support, ANSWER, is NOT a liberal group. Do I think groups I DO support make tactical errors? Sure, and MoveOn's Betray Us ad, was, I thought, a tactical error. I still support them strongly. Do I think that CodePink often makes tactical errors? Yep. And I still support them when they do things like disrupt the Heritage Foundation meeting with O'Hanlon last week. But because I don't support every idea that you support, you have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of not being a "good liberal".

What an odiferous and steaming pile.

[ShortnFiery]

105. I'm not seeing it here ... therefore, that's what we're seeing - factual.

But keep on with the "false outrage" because you are almost as entertaining as my right wing neighbors down the street when they, IMO, "go off" on those EVIL LIBERALS. :-) :hi:

[cali]

108. Still maintaining how civil you are, and how you never attack

others? It's fascinating to watch.

You just compared me to your right wing neighbors and insinuated that I go off on "evil liberals". I hate to break it to you, but that's an attack. You characterized my sentiments as "false outrage". And that isn't an attack how? At least I'm honest about the fact that I'm contemptuous of your comments. You ought to try that sometime- honesty I mean.

You are clueless.

[ShortnFiery]

112. No, I'm just suggesting that you can spend your time more wisely than attacking

groups who may be "more flaky" or "more left" than you BUT espouse the *exact same* GOAL, i.e., to end the Iraqi Occupation. :wow: Yes, it floors me how much you choose to attack these people. As you know, I don't start these threads - either pro or con. :shrug:

p.s. I know that I can be too blunt. However, I do try to go out of my way not to make blatant insults to members. Yeah, I came "up to" the line on my last post out of frustration. I'm sorry. However, I respect you, the person, yes really! :hug: - but think you are wrong about the above topic. ;)

[Blue_Tires]

126. +1

[oberliner]

80. More on this topic at DKos

Some comments raise similar points.

Here's one example:

Just got back from the protest...

ANSWER completely screwed up the protests. COMPLETELY.

This is why:
Tons of random speakers
Tons of random messages (including "Out of Palestine" and "Black Power")
2 HOURS LATE in starting the march
Utter dilution of the anti-war message

GW protested (this protest) by walking away from the stage and, unfortunately, many of the less moderates among us left.

This was a huge missed opportunity.

http://dailykos.com/story/2007/9/15/131140/632

Many other comments on ANSWER in that thread.

[leftofthedial]

96. there are hardly any mainstreamleaders of the "democrats" nationally

who oppose the illegal occupation of Iraq

most of them are in favor of continuing it

[cali]

100. I guess it depends what you mean by mainstream leaders

but there are dozens of strongly anti-occupation dems in the House, and at least A dozen in the Senate.


Seventy dems have signed on to this letter:
Text of July 19 letter to President Bush: No more funds for War
July 20, 2007
Dear Mr. President:

We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.

More than 3,600 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq. More than 26,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into a sectarian civil war and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $500 billion, despite assurances that you and your key advisors gave our nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March, 2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and be paid from Iraqi oil revenues.

We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military operations in Iraq, and believe it is unwise and unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose these staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently and for generations to come.

Sincerely,

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA); Rep. Barbara Lee (CA); Rep. Maxine Waters (CA); Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA); Rep. Rush Holt (NJ); Rep. Maurice Hinchey (NY); Rep. Diane Watson (CA); Rep. Ed Pastor (AZ); Rep. Barney Frank (MA); Rep. Danny Davis (IL); Rep. John Conyers (MI); Rep. John Hall (NY); Rep. Bob Filner (CA); Rep. Nydia Velazquez (NY); Rep. Bobby Rush (IL); Rep. Charles Rangel (NY); Rep. Ed Towns (NY); Rep. Paul Hodes (NH); Rep. William Lacy Clay (MO); Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR); Rep. Albert Wynn (MD); Rep. Bill Delahunt (MA); Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC); Rep. G. K. Butterfield (NC); Rep. Hilda Solis (CA); Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY); Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY); Rep. Michael Honda (CA); Rep. Steve Cohen (TN); Rep. Phil Hare (IL); Rep. Grace Flores Napolitano (CA); Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL); Rep. James McGovern (MA); Rep. Marcy Kaptur (OH); Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL); Rep. Julia Carson (IN); Rep. Linda Sanchez (CA); Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ); Rep. John Olver (MA); Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (TX); Rep. Jim McDermott (WA); Rep. Ed Markey (MA); Rep. Chaka Fattah (PA); Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (NJ); Rep. Rubin Hinojosa (TX); Rep. Pete Stark (CA); Rep. Bobby Scott (VA); Rep. Jim Moran (VA); Rep. Betty McCollum (MN); Rep. Jim Oberstar (MN); Rep. Diana DeGette (CO); Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA); Rep. Artur Davis (AL); Rep. Hank Johnson (GA); Rep. Donald Payne (NJ); Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (MO); Rep. John Lewis (GA); Rep. Yvette Clarke (NY); Rep. Neil Abercrombie (HI); Rep. Gwen Moore (WI); Rep. Keith Ellison (MN); Rep. Tammy Baldwin (WI); Rep. Donna Christensen (USVI); Rep. David Scott (GA); Rep. Luis Gutierrez (IL); Peter Welch (VT); Lois Capps (CA); Steve Rothman (NJ); Elijah Cummings (MD); and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).
http://pdamerica.org/articles/misc/2007-07-20-07-59-11-misc.php
None of them spoke at the march yesterday.

Feingold, Sanders, Leahy and other Senators are also against any future funding. They didn't speak yesterday either.

[Anita Garcia]

104. Then show up with your mission statement on board and protest

If you would really like to see a large DC protest that isn't dominated by ANSWER, its agenda, and speakers then show up with your mission statement on board and protest at the same time.

Bring all of your friends that agree with you, dress the same, carry the same signs and walk side by side.
That way, when we see you on TV we'll know that you and your friends "represent the majority of the peace movement".

Until I see you and your like-minded friends protesting, I'll just continue with my naive belief that all of "those people" that showed up were anti-war and therefore "represent the majority of the peace movement" that want peace and not war.

I appreciate that you disagree with the agenda of the people that spoke and ANSWER.
But, I question the real motives of your post.

Sounds like censure of free speech and thought.
Sounds like approval of "free speech zones" and Bush administration protest tactics.

Why not just say that you are bummed that ANSWER had a lot of people show up and you and your like minded friends can not do the same?

[cali]

107. I've been to ANSWER sponsored

protests in DC in the past. I may go in the future. So don't give me the bullshit about "when I see you there".

[libnnc]

109. Well then quit bitching and organize.

I'm sick of hearing it.

[cali]

113. Tough shit; I'll criticize ANSWER as much as I wish

That you don't want to hear it, is hardly on the top ten list of my concerns.

[libnnc]

114. Okay. You were given a solution and you still choose to whine.

There's one in every crowd.

[cali]

115. That's ridiculous.

You have no way of knowing what I do. Just to inform you, this summer I helped organize an anti-war fund raiser for AFSC. My P&J group frequently brings anti-war speakers to my town. I've been to DC 3x to protest, and many more times to my state capitol.

ANSWER is a problem for the anti-war movement. I choose to address it, rather than stick my fingers in my ears and loudly sing.

[libnnc]

116. Well then you should shut them down.

Instead of focusing energy on ending the war.

You should focus your concern on shutting them down. Forever. Figure out how to do it. Shut them down. Once and for all.

I've fucking had it with whiners and hand wringers. Do something or shut the fuck up.

[cali]

118. As I've made clear I am doing something. How about you?

And calling criticism whining is just a way to try and shut down criticism. I don't give a fuck about shutting down ANSWER, I do give a fuck about their being the "face" of the anti-war movement. And broadcasting my concerns known on a message board is valid- in my book. And as I said, I couldn't give a shit whether you object to it or not.

Eat it. And have a, well, whatever day.

[libnnc]

120. See that's the point in all this...you care more about

the presence of some quacked up splintered group than the message itself. I couldn't give a flying fuck about ANSWER either. They were in DC in '05. I was there too. But so were hundreds of thousands of other people who didn't care about them. All those hundreds of thousands of people cared about was ending this god damed war. I don't give a shit if ANSWER takes a crap in the middle of Constitution Ave. What matters is throngs of people are protesting. Why waste time crying about ANSWER? There are bigger fish to fry.

And the ugly truth is--YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER "WHO" IS THE FACE OF THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT.

NONE OF US DO.

[Puregonzo1188]

117. Ralph Nader and Cindy Sheehan are not the reasons United for Peace and Justice does not

work with ANSWER as they work with those two all the time. As a matter of fact, the Green Party and Ralph Nader's organization Democracy Rising are members of United for Peace and Justice. So please, don't pin those on those two.

As far as no "Congress critters" being involved I would say that was because of the die-in and act of civil disobedience organized by Iraq Veterans Against the War. There have been similar things like that in the past I know, but the organizers really put a focus on that. I doubt any Congress people would want to be associated with people getting arrested (especially if it got out of hand). That's why not congress people were there.

And just as a heads up, in the past (particularly after the September 05 rally and the March on the Pentagon) I have been very critical of ANSWER. Yet, I think yesterday's protest was great, particularly the rally (something I never dreamed I'd say about an ANSWER rally!). There was a heavy focus on Iraq Veterans Against the War which is where it should be. So I'm sorry there were not enough politicians there for your liking, but I would rather have IVAW anyways.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

123. "They're putting themselves on the line to protest war crimes, but...

they're dressed all wrong and I don't like their friends."

That's what you're saying, isn't it, cali?

I had parent duty that day, or I would have been out at my local demonstration, and I would have been delighted to see ANYONE and EVERYONE who took their Saturday morning off to show their disgust with an unprovoked illegal invasion and occupation of another country.

That's what it's about, cali.

Your concerns about the protesters' clothing and affiliations come off as petty quibbling, given the evils that they're protesting against.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

124. There are no particular "politics" of the anti-war movement.

There are people against the war that range from libertarians (American sytle) to conservatives to moderates to liberals to socialists to communists to anarchists. They may have differing views on why they are against the war, how to stop it, or what the results may turn out to be.

Not only that, but there are a variety of people who are against the war for non-political reasons.

Burdening the anti-war movement with some sort of political correctness is not needed. No matter who wants to do so. Whether it's ANSWER or the Democratic Party or any other group or individual that demands some sort of litmus test.

[libnnc]

125. No one has control over the face of the anti-war movement

No one group ever will.

The OP does not understand that.