Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Behind the Placards: The odd and troubling origins of today’s anti-war movement
LA Weekly ^ | Nov. 7, 2002 | David Corn

Posted on 12/31/2002 7:22:30 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten

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.

Jonathan H. Miller contributed to this report.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: answer; antiwar; becker; commiefront; communism; mumia; usefulidiots; worldworkersparty; wwd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last
David Corn was on O'Reilly tonight. This article goes all the way back to November but I searched and didn't find it posted here. While this is not suprising news, that communists are behind the anti-war movement in general, and groups like ANSWER in particular, it is now deocumented and in the mainstream.

Workers World is at http://www.workers.org/, ANSWER is at http://www.internationalanswer.org/. I think this is an important story. Does anyone else?

Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins were mentioned in the O'Reilly segment.

1 posted on 12/31/2002 7:22:30 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
David Corn is the guy who was on O'Reilly tonight. I think this is an important, although not unexpected, story.
2 posted on 12/31/2002 7:24:12 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Commie front organization ping.
3 posted on 12/31/2002 7:33:57 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
"“I’m for a nonpartisan, globalist movement. I don’t care who it is as long as they feel the same.” "

Once again, in case you were sleeping, conservatives THINK while liberals FEEL.
4 posted on 12/31/2002 7:34:30 PM PST by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
Truly a bunch of morons.
5 posted on 12/31/2002 7:34:40 PM PST by Sparta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sparta; Texas_Jarhead
I think it is important for people to know that all these feel-good, hollwood liberal, Ed Asner, Susan Sarandon, ANSWER, NotInMyName, "People of Conscience" are, when you scratch the surface, just old fashioned, Castro loving, freedom hating, America destroying, smelly communists.
6 posted on 12/31/2002 7:39:32 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
These guys aren't into political issues - they are into scoring cheap dope (always available at their rallies) and loose women.

That doesn't mean they aren't dangerous, of course.

7 posted on 12/31/2002 7:40:27 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
Fry Mumia!
8 posted on 12/31/2002 7:42:00 PM PST by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

___________________________________________________________

I know of some peacenicks that this applies to.
9 posted on 12/31/2002 7:45:02 PM PST by Sparta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
The idea that anybody against a unilateral attack on Iraq is communist is nothing short of stupid. How did you feel about Komrade Klinton's attack on Yugoslavia?

Maybe I'm ignorant, but I haven't seen the case made yet. I grew up in an America who waxed those who attacked us. I haven't seen evidence of an Iraqi attack yet.

How many enemies are more real? North Korea is an obvious choice.

Your thoughts?

10 posted on 12/31/2002 7:45:39 PM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult
"Fry Mumia!"

BUMP!!!

Justice for Daniel Faulkner!!!
11 posted on 12/31/2002 7:46:18 PM PST by Sparta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jimt
Saddam already hit me with a WMD called Anthrax. It's parking lot time and anybody who disagrees with me is an anti-American outside agitator who should be shipped back to the land of his origin as fast as possible, or to Guantanimo while we process the papers.
12 posted on 12/31/2002 7:47:30 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jimt
(1) I opposed Comrade Clinton's attack on Yugoslavia
(2) Ever heard of the first WTC attack in 1993 and the Oklahoma City Bombing. Those are your Iraqi attacks.
13 posted on 12/31/2002 7:47:55 PM PST by Sparta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jimt
Did I say that anyone against an attack on Iraq was a communist? No I didn't. Does the article make that charge? No it doesn't. What does the article say? It says that ANSWER and IAC are front organizations for the Workers World Party. Did you read the article?
14 posted on 12/31/2002 7:48:44 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
One finds the hand of Ramsey Clark (and the WWP) behind virtually every anti-American movement and demonstration.

Interestingly, almost all of them operate out of a single address: 55 W. 17th St, New York, NY 10011.

Corn has done us all a favor by calling them out. The legitimate left, in particular, has ample reason to be concerned about those with whom it is sharing the nest.

15 posted on 12/31/2002 7:49:34 PM PST by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
No doubt about it . It's all commie inspired. Destroy from within.
16 posted on 12/31/2002 7:50:46 PM PST by dix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01; jimt
Thanks okie01, this is precisely the point. It's the old story, lots of Alphabet Soup names, but all traceable back to a single point of origin. This game has been going on for a very long time. And Ramsey Clark is indeed scum. Interestingly, most if not all of the alums of the LBJ administration are also lowlifes, Bill Moyers and Jack Valenti are two names that come immediately to mind.
17 posted on 12/31/2002 7:52:28 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dix
Not much has changed since Hiss and Wallace and the Rosenbergs, has it?
18 posted on 12/31/2002 7:55:02 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
Clark is also a member of the International Committee To Defend Slobodan Milosevic

Can one of you good people help me out here? Clinton and Kosovo was why I turned to the internet for news, the national news was so lacking, but at the time I wasn't glued to the net like I am now.

Was Milosevic that evil? I don't know.

Since I've started to keep a heads up I've seen Muslims concoct massacres for international support, I know the news media will twist everything for a leftist bent and to support the bent one, and that Kosvo was overtaken by Muslims after their Albanian ponzi economic scheme failed, they decided to move to someone elses land and declare it their own. (Much like they plan to do the rest of the planet.)

Can someone give me links to the real Milosevic? Is he true evil or just PC evil??? I really don't know.

19 posted on 12/31/2002 7:55:29 PM PST by lizma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimt
"...but I haven't seen the case made yet."

There are two cases against Iraq. One is the very legal, but somewhat technical, case of his flaunting the terms of the UN Armistice after Gulf War I. There is every legal reason to pursue hostilities on this basis. Though I suspect that you, as well as I, don't find it compelling -- on its own merits.

But as to the second case...

Truly, it hasn't been made. Yet. In public.

But where do you think the anthrax came from...???

20 posted on 12/31/2002 7:55:34 PM PST by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
I wasn't directing my comment at you specifically, just picked your entry to relpy to. I totally agree with exposing pinko commie bastards. All marxist ideologies are ideologies of destruction, death, and slavery.
21 posted on 12/31/2002 7:56:21 PM PST by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lizma
Great question, lizma. Clinton attacked Milosevic but Ramsey Clark defended him. Stalin had Trotsky exiled and later assasinated. So what does that make Trotsky? The people who gained most from that attack on Serbia was the KLA and the albanians, radical islamists who also happen to be very much involved in large scale drug activities among other things.

I am never going to say that Milosevic was a boy scout, but I certainly am very sceptical about clinton and the left's motives for going after him. I also happen to think that the average Serbian suffered as a result of our attack on their country but I guess this is always the case, isn't it?
22 posted on 12/31/2002 8:01:58 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Texas_Jarhead
Agreed.
23 posted on 12/31/2002 8:02:47 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
America is soooo antiwar that they elected:

President Bush

Speaker Haster

Leader Fisk

Am I missing something or is America behind the REPUBLICAN PARTY?!?!

24 posted on 12/31/2002 8:07:27 PM PST by Porterville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten

Thirty years ago, on 29 December, 1972, the last Linebacker II mission
was flown in NVN. After only 11 days of continuos firepower, with no off
limits targets except our POW locations, the NVN agreed to what is now
known as the "Paris Accords" on 23 January, 1973. Lyndon Johnson died
the day before on the 22nd

I had a good view of the action on the 29th, leading the last fighter
flight (9 Sandy A-7Ds, one Jolly Green HH-53, and one HC-130) out of
Route Pack VI. The other Jolly was shot down 14 miles from the SW edge
of "The City". We were able to get the damaged Jolly across the Black
River where it made an emergency landing an transferred all crew members
to the remaining Jolly.

A year later the Watergate affair castrated the executive branch of our
government; Nixon left, and the "V" violated the "Paris Accords" by
entering Saigon in April of '75 thereby demonstrating once again that
totalitarian regimes live by the sword, not the pen.

The piece next under picks up the story, and reflections, of NVN Colonel
Bui Tin who was in Saigon on the 30th of April, '75 to accept the
Unconditional Surrender of the SVN Government. I think it is important to
note that the "V" demanded the Unconditional Surrender of their foe,
while not being held to such a strict standard in Paris.

Since then, I have visited Hanoi and Saigon, as well as Korat -
Interesting stories, but for another day.

Now the "Vs" perception of the war:

In a recent interview published in The Wall Street Journal, former
Colonel
Bui Tin who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese Amy and
received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30,1975,
confirmed the American Tet 1968 military victory: "Our loses were
staggering
and a complete surprise. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military
defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when
Johnson
agreed to negotiate and did not run for reelection.

The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect,
mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the
fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to reestablish our presence, but
we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the
American forces had not
begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us
severely. We suffered badly in 969 and 1970 as it was."

On strategy: "If Johnson had granted Westmoreland's requests to enter
Laos
and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war. It
was
the only way we could bring sufficient military power to bear on the
fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge
effort involving tens of thousands of soldiers, drivers, repair teams,
medical stations, communication units, etc. Our operations were never
compromised by attacks on the trail.
At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so
much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong
the war always came out the bottom. If all the bombing had been
concentrated at
one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in
slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of time
to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of
rice
ready to feed the people for months if a harvest was damaged. The Soviets
bought rice from Thailand for us.

And the left: "Support for the war from our rear was completely secure
while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would
listen to
world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar
movement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General
Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in
the
face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a
red
Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of
American actions in the war and would struggle along with us ... those
people
represented the conscience of America ....part of it's war-making
capability, and we were turning that power in our favor."

Bui Tin went on to serve as the editor of the People's Daily, the
Official
newspaper of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Disillusioned with the
reality of Vietnamese communism Bui Tin now lives in Paris.
25 posted on 12/31/2002 8:12:28 PM PST by Jumpmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
They remembered everything but the Porta-Johns.

a-yep. Smelly communists. A good friend of mine is mixed up with these people. Real smart lady too, other than her inability to tell socialist agitprop from reality. Jes*s.

I can't wait til her lefty husband, who is a straight-up ISO socialist, shows up in Philly, as he surely will one day, to protest about Mumia. I work about one block from the courthouse and City Hall where they hold their shoutfests. I'll ask him if he'd like to take a little stroll and see where Mumia blew the cop's brains out. It's not far. Can't wait to see the look on his face - very few if any of the Mumiacs realize how close they are to the crime scene when they come to center city to do their little charade. In the meantime, I will content myself with asking other Mumiacs the same question - if I can get close enough to ask the question (see above). Try it - it's fun!

26 posted on 12/31/2002 8:13:13 PM PST by redbaiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
The article tars everybody against an Iraqi war as in league with commie nutsacks like the WWP.

Communists and their "progressive" ilk are against a war with Iraq.

That isn't the question. The question is whether it's right or wrong, not the commies' viewpoint.

You've posted a thought provoking article, and I thank you for it.

My point is, if we're going to give up on hanging Osama from the nearest light pole, we should really consider if we want an aggressive war or not. By aggressive, I mean an aggresive war on people where we're lacking evidence of an attack on us.

Personally, I'm very much in favor of killing all those who've attacked us. Clearly, Bin Ladin and his buddies.

Saddam is a horrible guy. But compared to Kim Il Sung and his progeny there's no comparison in depth of evil.

Sorry, I'm not credulous. Why Iraq? Why now? Why not North Korea?

I served in South Korea. The north Koreans are rabid and evil nutsacks. They're also a much tougher target. Are we attacking Saddam (sh*t be upon him) because he's an easier target, while we ignore the extreme evil in North Korea?

Inquiring minds want to know.

To the punks who want to accuse me of being un-American, this voluntary US Army veteran says "Think again."

27 posted on 12/31/2002 8:17:31 PM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten; lizma
"I am never going to say that Milosevic was a boy scout, but I certainly am very sceptical about clinton and the left's motives for going after him. I also happen to think that the average Serbian suffered as a result of our attack on their country but I guess this is always the case, isn't it?"

There were three reasons -- and three reasons only -- for the US to attack Serbia over the Kosovo issue.

1. The recent impeachment.

2. The Cox Report.

3. Juanita Broaddrick.

The Clinton administration desperately needed a major distraction for the media and the public, who might otherwise have chosen to linger on the above three items.

And that is, in my estimation, the only reason that we attacked Serbia: Bill Clinton's ass needed saving. Note that one of the major lobbyists for a Balkan War was CNN, who were totally duped (perhaps willingly so) by the staged "massacre" at Racek.

Serbians (and Kosovars) died so that Bill Clinton's political career could survive.

I have never been so ashamed of my country's policies as I was in this affair.

In my view, Milosevic was "no Boy Scout", as you say. But he and the Serbs had every right to defend themselves against a brutal ethnic insurgency. This was totally a domestic matter. Moreover, only twelve years prior, the New York Times (!!!) was demanding assistance to the embattled Serbian minority in Kosovo.

28 posted on 12/31/2002 8:17:49 PM PST by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
...the demonstration was essentially organized by the Workers World Party, a small political sect that years ago split from the Socialist Workers Party...

"Splitters!"

29 posted on 12/31/2002 8:22:26 PM PST by lorrainer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lorrainer
Good one.
30 posted on 12/31/2002 8:23:37 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Porterville
And your point is precisely what?
31 posted on 12/31/2002 8:24:29 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
During the depression there was a communist led group called the WOBBLIES that femented civic uprisings on the west coast docks and sawmills. Some of them died of lead poisoning here in Eureka. I do believe wobbly comes from World Workers Party of that era.
32 posted on 12/31/2002 8:24:51 PM PST by tubebender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
But where do you think the anthrax came from...???

okie01

Please don't tempt me into unrealistic conspiracy theories. I've heard zip for evidence that it came from the Iraqis. With these disgusting bio-weapons, they could have come from lots of places. Believe me, I'm not like Tom Clancy's mythical president, Jack Ryan. If somebody BIO'd us, I'd be real hard pressed not to nuke them.

But you and I, as citizens, haven;t been offered diddly as proof. Sure, some of that is protecting intelligence sources, but in this case, some compromise would equal universal backing.

Sorry, our goobermint has not re-earned my trust.

33 posted on 12/31/2002 8:29:48 PM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jumpmaster
Great comments and the more that I learn about Vietnam, the more convinced I am that it was the resignation of LBJ in 1968 that led to our eventual defeat and the communist victory. LBJ resigned due to his deteriorating health, his faltering spirit, his political loss to McCarthy in the NH primary and the success of the (communist led and inspired) anti-war movement at home. LBJ was known as a ruthless politican with a killer instinct who could either win over or run over someone who got in his way. But at the critical moment in his life and in the life of the nation, he wasn't equal to the task. Another in a long string of failed democratic American presidents.
34 posted on 12/31/2002 8:30:08 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: redbaiter
Great comments and Great screenname!
35 posted on 12/31/2002 8:31:02 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
FRY MUMIA
36 posted on 12/31/2002 8:31:04 PM PST by Doctor Raoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten; harpseal; river rat; sneakypete; Travis McGee; Squantos; AnnaZ
Here we go again. Commies are so annoying. Can we play with the ones down here please? They do smell rather bad though and may carry diseases. I guess we will have to shoot them.
37 posted on 12/31/2002 8:34:07 PM PST by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimt
Thoughtful comments and thank you for your service.

I am for the Iraq war. You are obviously yet to be convinced.

The merits of the war (as far as this particular discussion go) are beside the point. My only point in posting the article and I think the author's point in writing it was to merely show that ANSWER and IAC are fronting for WWP. And WWP is a hardcore, oldline, stalinist communist organization.

I have no problem debating the merits of the impending war, which I think basically go to whether or not you trust the current administration. But that is really a one off issue, as far as this article is concerned, IMO.

Thanks again, for your service.
38 posted on 12/31/2002 8:35:48 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jimt
FBI Theory On Anthrax Doubted; Evidence Points to State Sponsor
39 posted on 12/31/2002 8:38:13 PM PST by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jimt
Maybe I'm ignorant, but I haven't seen the case made yet. I grew up in an America who waxed those who attacked us. I haven't seen evidence of an Iraqi attack yet.

First I would like to agree with you, you are ignorant.
Iraq has been firing upon British and U.S. jets for the last eleven years, and don't forget the attempted assassination of Bush 41.
There is also quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that Hussein has been supporting various terrorist groups.
That is enough evidence for me - to act against anyone who supports Hussein in any way.
40 posted on 12/31/2002 8:38:53 PM PST by Crusader21stCentury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
That all the anti-everything movements are not significant, that they are only butressed by the media; basically nobody cares what they have to say but CSPAN and CNN. They are so worthless that they drive people away from rational discussion to dismission. Wouldn't you agree??
41 posted on 12/31/2002 8:39:27 PM PST by Porterville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tubebender
During the depression there was a communist led group called the WOBBLIES that femented civic uprisings on the west coast docks and sawmills. Some of them died of lead poisoning here in Eureka. I do believe wobbly comes from World Workers Party of that era.

Having been somebody who grew up there, I can verify what you said. But I moved to Texas, and we don't love commies here.

But opposing unilateral attack on Iraq is NOT communist. It seems common sense to me, at least so far.

If there's truly a nation-state guily of 9-11, let's not just attack them with conventional weapons - let's make 'em a glass parking lot.

But let's see some PROOF.

42 posted on 12/31/2002 8:43:42 PM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: okie01
I basically agree with your analysis okie. I too was dismayed by the attack against Serbia and felt that the motives were primarily political. I'm open to the suggestion, however, that there may have been a confluence of factors (which is often the case) such that clinton's political needs dovetailed nicely with other, geopolitical needs that may be harder to ferret out. Oil pipeline politics? Internal NATO politics? The interests of Bob Dole who had ethnic ties and had been pushing for the Kosovo cause for a fairly long time? Tony Blair was a passionate advocate for the Serbian war. Sure, Blair's a lefie, but it was not his ox being gored by impeachment. What was in it for him?

But, basically I agreed with your case at the time and still do. Look at all the lefties and dems in congress who are now so vehemently anti-war (Daschle, Biden, others) who were pounding the table and wanting to bomb Serbia back to the stoneage.

It sure was a strange, almost parallel universe time. The bombing of the Chinese embassy, and the excuse that it was due to old maps (when you could go to yahoo or mapsquest and see the embassy in its present location) was one of the weirdest episodes of the whole affair. You can never go wrong saying this, but I do think there is much we don't know about it all! I do know that the impeachment evidence that was in the Ford building is still under lock and key. Another weird episode was Bush 41's speech to 100 Senators in Executive Session, behind closed doors, asking them to spare clinton's sorry ass.

Nice post.

43 posted on 12/31/2002 8:44:12 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Porterville
That all the anti-everything movements are not significant, that they are only butressed by the media; basically nobody cares what they have to say but CSPAN and CNN. They are so worthless that they drive people away from rational discussion to dismission. Wouldn't you agree??

OK, I'm going to hazard a guess that you are under, say 40, so would not have been paying much attention in the 1960's when the anti-war movement brought down two American presidents, led to a communist victory in Viet Nam, changed the course of history forever, and has impacted in a fundamental way American foreign policy and the perception of America both home and abroad for the past 30 years?

44 posted on 12/31/2002 8:48:47 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: jimt
"The article tars everybody against an Iraqi war as in league with commie nutsacks like the WWP."

No. It most assuredly does not.

The article is specifically designed to separate the WWP nutballs from those who are against war on Iraq for more defensible reasons (as Corn himself is).

Corn is an anti-war leftist (The Nation magazine), who rightly wants no association with the WWP.

45 posted on 12/31/2002 8:49:09 PM PST by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
What, you mean in the spririt of Gramsci how the Socialist have used our own foundation to try and undermind our very base??? Or do you mean the fact that you have no idea who Gramsci or the other Liberal icons are??? Age is not a requirement for understanding the ways of the world my young friend.
46 posted on 12/31/2002 8:51:23 PM PST by Porterville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: tubebender
A "Wobbly" was a member of the Industrial Workers of the World, and were properly of the "anarcho-syndicalist" persusasion.
47 posted on 12/31/2002 8:52:04 PM PST by willyboyishere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Raoul
Do you think this will ever happen (fried mumia, that is?) My guess is that mumia has immunized himself from his just desserts by changing his name from Wesley Cook and grabbing his more than 15 minutes of fame by becoming a college mascot, almost like a Georgia bulldog or Texas longhorn.
48 posted on 12/31/2002 8:57:16 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: willyboyishere
Incidentally, the Wobblies predated the depression, going
all the way back to 1905, being started by Big Bill Haywood, through the auspices of the Western Federation of Miners. They still maintain their antiquated website iww.org,
and haven't become any more sophisticated in their rhetoric in the intervening 97 years.
49 posted on 12/31/2002 8:58:13 PM PST by willyboyishere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Porterville
Age is not a requirement for understanding the ways of the world

Not a requirement but in many cases it helps a great deal. Thanks for answering my question :)

50 posted on 12/31/2002 9:00:45 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson