What We're Up Against

After we have pointed and laughed at the weekend “Anti-War” demonstrations held under the ANSWER umbrella, Christopher Hitchens soberly reminds us of what the objects of our ridicule are really aiming for…

"International ANSWER," the group run by the "Worker's World" party and fronted by Ramsey Clark, which openly supports Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and the "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Clark himself finding extra time to volunteer as attorney for the génocidaires in Rwanda. Quite a "wide range of progressive political objectives" indeed, if that's the sort of thing you like.

And notes what they really do not care about....

It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh.

Suddenly, I’m not laughing.

BTW, Cindy Sheehan has been arrested. The show must go on.

(Thanks to The Prejudicial Effect who got it from Drudge)

Comments

[NE]

I saw the pics of Cindy Lightweight being arrested. She had a big smile on her face. "Look everyone, it's ME being arrested!" That woman has become a parody of herself and she's too detached from reality to know it.

[baldilocks]

Maybe. Then again maybe she calculated that this would draw her more sympathy, and she was happy about that.

[Bill O..]

Let me see if I understand you Baldi. You think ANSWER is representative of the anti-war movement? So would it be fair for me to say that the fatwa making Mullah Pat Roberts, Jack Abramoff and the recently exposed profoundly ethically unhindered college Republican leadership are representative of the pro-war movement? I must also add that I am glad to see how open minded you are to agree with avowed card caring socialist party member Chris Hitchens. It is rare to see a Socialist and radical atheist as highly regarded as Hitchens, who as recently as 3 weeks ago publicly confirmed his party membership on stage at Baruch college make a humanistic argument so appealing that right wingers tout his writings. When will he and the MAJORITY of pro-war right start talking about going into Sudan to stop real genocide? Anyway since you’re still big on Hicth might I recommend his essay last month on Slate in which he roasted religion and people of faith as backwards flat earthers who hinder human progress to put it mildly.

[baldilocks]

Nice to see you again Bill, and to see that you're still the Master of the Non Sequitur. I've read Mr. Hitchen's views on religion; however, what do they have to do with this subject?

Are you saying that when one disagrees with another on one subject that they must disagree on every single subject (and the reverse)?

That's silly and childish.

[teal marie]

How nice to have a "peace" movement that is either openly on the side of the vermin, or neutral as between them and the cleanup crew, and how delightful to have a press that refers to this partisanship, or this neutrality, as "progressive."

I envy Hitchen's irony.

[David Foster]

Bill...I think you are arguing that the ANSWER types are 3-sigma outliers, rather than being typical of the protesters.

I'm sure there were lots of different motivations among these individuals, but the general impression I got from the signs and from the behavior was that these are very angry people, and the anger is directed at least as much at the US in general (and at Israel) as at the war in Iraq.

[Justin]

I would tend to agree with Bill--if about 100,000 people really came to the rally, I'm sure only a very small percentage of them were ANSWER types (they are also the ones with the wacky signs that got lots of attention). It has become a staple of conservative arguments to take the wackiest people from the left and put them up as representatives of liberalism, like Ward Churchill (the "little Eichmen" academic), who I still hear conservative bloggers harping about. Banging on about the far left element as represenative of liberal America would be like me saying neo-nazis or people who believe Katrina or 9/11 was god's punishment for evil in the US are representative of conservatives. (People on the left do try this rhetorical trick I suppose, so maybe it's that the right is so much better at it).

I knew a lot of people that went to the DC rally, and they were all your normal middle class professional types.

I do concede that there is an element of the anti-war crowd or whatever you want to call them that Hitch describes, but when 59% of the country thinks the war was a mistake, there are also a lot of fair minded people against the war.

[patd95]

Come see my latest post...your heart will soar!

[teal marie]

That was mighty fine, patd95. Thanks. Quite the antidote to the Sheehan farce.

[baldilocks]

Justin: I would tend to agree with Bill

It would be a nice surprise if you didn't.

All marched in league with International ANSWER. No amount of logic twisting by either of you can change that. Now if you're saying that many were too stupid to pay attention to such things or too naive to understand what ANSWER represents, then I'll buy those suppositions. Many "normal" people don't pay enough attention to with whom they ally themselves.

Perhaps you ought to clue your friends in, Justin. A good friend would do that.

patd95: thanks.

[Justin]

Baldilocks--ANSWER is always going to show up to anti-war demonstrations, which leaves people who want to protest the war, but aren't anti-American, in a tough position. But I think there is merit in the position that one should think twice about who you are aligning with in a demonstration. Before the war, I never went to any anti-war rallies because of groups like ANSWER.

But in any event, ANSWER has been roundly denounced by many liberals, including The Nation, who has blasted the group. ANSWER is hardly representative of liberals or the main stream left, just like Republicans/conservatives who thought that 9/11 was God's repudiation of America's evil ways are not representative of the mainstream right.

[teal marie]

Piffle. ANSWER doesn't just show up. It's their party. They'll let any fool in. They need fools and cowards. BDS makes you ripe for the plucking.
So get plucked, but dont cry about the mean old anti-Americans spoiling the purity of your anti-Bush hatefest. It was stinking rotten already.

[Justin]

Teal--I didn't realize you came back from North Korea. How was it?

[V the K]

On, Sunday, Cindy Sheehan whines, Jan Brady style, that she isn't getting enough attention. ("It's all about Rita! ... Rita! Rita! Rita!"

On Monday, she goes out and gets herself arrested.

Coincidence, or desperate cry for help? You decide.

And International ANSWER didn't just "show up," at the demos, they were the organizers. Also, to the best of my knowledge, Code Pink, the other left groups, and the Sheehanistas haven't repudiated Int'l ANSWER.

[Kobayashi Maru]

The protestors version of 'peace' seems to be narrowly limited to the concept of standing armies with guns. Silent armies of Baathist or Taliban gestapo that come in the night to torture women and children, or ragtag armies of cowardly truck bombers that know no creed of restraint don't seem to fall under the same set of rules or expectations.

[Justin]

Also, to the best of my knowledge, Code Pink, the other left groups, and the Sheehanistas haven't repudiated Int'l ANSWER.

You're right, they should denounce ANSWER. Even from a tactical standpoint--if your goal is to affect public opinion, being assoiciated with a bunch of Stalinists can't help your cause.

[Steve]

ANSWER:

http://www.discoverthenetwork.com/
groupProfile.asp?grpid=6147

excerpts:

International A.N.S.W.E.R. (often, simply ANSWER) is a front group for the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party (WWP), which uses the anti-war movement as the vehicle by which it promotes Communist ideals and condemns American society, American foreign policy, and capitalism.

Such speakers include prominent members or leaders of various activist and Communist organizations; celebrities and entertainers; and politicians - often members of the Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus.

Since the early 1990s Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General under President Lyndon Johnson, has worked closely with the Workers World Party - through the WWP-founded International Action Center (IAC).

As of February 2004, it included the following organizations, all of them on the far left of the political spectrum: the Stalinist International Action Center (IAC) and its two sub-units, the Korea Truth Commission and the Partnership for Civil Justice Legal Defense and Education Fund; Bayan - USA / International; the Free Palestine Alliance; the Middle East Children's Alliance; the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organizing (IFCO) /Pastors for Peace; the Nicaragua Network; the Mexico Solidarity Network; the Kensington Welfare Rights Union; and the Muslim Student Association of the U.S. & Canada.

---------------

Code Pink:

http://www.discoverthenetwork.com/
groupProfile.asp?grpid=6149

During the last week of December 2004, Medea Benjamin announced in Amman, Jordan that Code Pink, Global Exchange, and Families for Peace would be donating a combined $600,000 in medical supplies and cash to the terrorist insurgents who were fighting American troops in Fallujah, Iraq. This news was reported by Agence France Press but was picked up by only two small news outlets. In an article dated January 1, 2005, the leftist online publication Peace and Resistance reported that Rep. Henry Waxman had written a letter addressed to the American ambassador in Amman, Jordan to help facilitate the transport of this aid through Customs. Fernando Suarez Del Solar - an antiwar activist whose son, a 20-year-old Marine, was killed in Iraq on March 27, 2003 - carried Waxman's letter.
---------------------
The few statements that have been made by so-called "right-wingers" about 911 being due to sinful Americans. Or, Pat Roberts statement concerning Hugo Chavez (which he apologized for) do not compare with the quantity, banality, and the influential positions held by the people that have been covered in blogs such as this one of these "leftist".
--------------------
I do have something for Christopher Hitchens, and anyone else for that matter, to think about when talking about religion. Cindy Sheehan got a standing ovation in a New York Presbyterian Church. A church that may have, by now, begun a process of divestment from Israel along with other "Christian" denominations. Cindy Sheehan then got an ovation at St. John the Divine Cathedral in New York City.

The House of Bishops in England has demanded an apology from Tony Blair for his role in removing Saddam Hussein, which Tony refuses to do. The Vatican (Jean-Marie Benjamin) and the Orthodox Church of Russia were both recipients of oil-for-food contracts. The United Methodist Church and the National Council of churches were involved in Bill Clinton's pardon of the Cuban Intelligence controlled Puerto Rican terrorist group The Macheteros. It is the National Council of Churches that has over the last 5 decades funded "left wing" militias around the world. It is the Presbyterians that met in Lebanon with Hezbollah in October 2004. It is many of these "left wing" "Christian" groups that appear to be "jihading", or "crusading", for the "Holy Land" by hooking up with many terrorist affiliated Muslim groups.

The knock on "religion", or the "religious", does not have to be a blow that the "right" has to feel should be taken exclusively by themselves.

[teal marie]

Viking the Kitten!! Clever as ever, Witty Kitty. I'm very glad to see you. :-)

[baldilocks]

Justin: ANSWER formally coordinated these demonstrations and didn't "just show up" as others have pointed out. They trumpeted this on their site. However, don't believe us rightwingers.

Take heart. You have inspired a post.

[Bill O..]

Once more:
So Baldi, according to your logic since Hitch is a Socialist and you both are vociferously pro-war/pro-occupation you must also be a Socialists or at least not mind the ideals of socialism, atheism, etc. And you must also be in accordance with Hicthen's interesting notion that the war we are in is best served by a president unencumbered by reflection and intelligence. Ironically when Hitch is interviewed on British radio last week he ridicules President Clown Time's Katrina response as a result of his stupidity.

You do realize that Hitchens pro-war/pro-occupation stance comes purely out of his Socialist principles. Read his hero Orwell's account of his time fighting on the side of the socialists during the Spanish Civil war against Prescott Bush's business partners.

But if someone wants to have a disussion about who oganizes what lets start with mega-millionaire televangelist diamond mine owner Mullah Pat Roberts and his organization of the religious rights pro war seniment and how the majority of your side can't seem to fully repudiate his statements about 9/11, assanination and his support of genocidal African maniacs, etc. He has a much bigger reach than international ANSWER can ever dream of - he has his own TV network for issueing fatwas. Either that or you must think that nearly 60% of the American public is being controlled by ANSWER. Yes I think it is silly too.

[baldilocks]

No Bill. That's according to your logic.

[baldilocks]

Bill: It is you who believes that because two people agree on one subject that they must agree on all others. That's why you keep pointing out something that anyone who know anything about Hitchens knows: that he is a staunch atheist.

There are many atheists on my blogroll. Obviously, we agree on somethings, not on others. That's the way it is with any two humans. Try a bit more human interaction outside of being a contrarian on a blog and you'll notice this.

Ever been married?

BTW, who's Pat Roberts? Whoever he is, I don't follow a religion that has him as its head.

[V the K]

The lefty obssession with Pat Robertson continues to baffle me. The guy has a smaller audience than Al Franken... and that's pretty small. (But still larger than MSNBC)

The Republicans are not like the Democrats. When a Republican who represents the fringe runs for president and loses every primary, he gets put out to pasture. When a fringe Democrat does the same thing, they put him in charge of the party.

Perhaps, that is the root of their confusion. And hi, Teal.

[Kyle Hasselbacher]

Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not.

You can always tell someone's views on a subject by the statements they haven't made about it. Everyone have their denouncements of stealing pens from work in order? How about ritual hamster sacrifice?

[baldilocks]

Kyle, under normal circumstances you'd be correct. I was at one of the demonstrations, however, and these protesters are demonstrating against the deployment of the enemies of jihad; that is, the US Military and its Coalition partners. There is no doubt about that.

None of them held up signs saying things like "I'm against jihad, but there's a better way."

So should we give the protesters the benefit of the doubt about whether they are for or against jihad? And what would be the consequences in either case?

[teal marie]

How about ritual hamster sacrifice?
You volunteering, Kyle? I'll denounce it. Afterwards.
Dang it, my irony is rusted. I actually meant that.

[Kyle Hasselbacher]

Nuance does not befit a protest poster.

Forget your "protestor" label for a moment and ask a less biased question: should we give Americans the benefit of the doubt about whether they are for or against jihad?

There's a lot more going on here than merely "jihad" or "no jihad". If I want spiders out of my house, does that mean I'm in support of flies? If I want war to end, does that mean I'm in support of problems that some others believe war solves (but I don't)?

So, as to your questions, yes, I think we should give the protestors the benefit of the doubt. Assuming that they support our enemies with such scant evidence results in further alienation on both sides of the debate (regardless of whether it's true). As it is, you're arguing against a phantom and opening yourself up to the obvious criticism that implies. If you don't assume they support our enemies, the only down side I see is that maybe they "get away with it." In that case, you can just wait until their support is explicit and argue against it then. If you're in a hurry, ask them what they think and have the debate that results.

[Kyle Hasselbacher]

I might negligently allow our hamsters to escape or die mysteriously or even kill each other, but when we want to get rid of one, we just give it away.

(So, just to be clear: NO to hamster sacrifice.)

[jeff]

ANSWER is not just "showing up", it is sponsoring the bulk of the "antiwar" demonstrations. If NAMBLA, the national organization of pedophiles, sponsored a gay rights rally, it would say something about the people who show up & say "oh, I'm just here to support gay rights."

[SomeChick]

I think some folks are missing Baldilock's point.

What if, for example, the KKK were to sponsor a rally against the war. Would you condone those who attended in the same way? Would you, as Baldilocks suggests, question their motives for collaborating with the KKK in ANY way? Would their hostility towards the war and Jews, in general, be different if the KKK's agenda were involved?

If there were non Socialists/Communists groups and individuals in attendance, they were free to organize another protest, at any time and day of their choosing. These people chose to attend a rally/event sponsered by a communist organization who wishes to overthrow our system of government.

If these "other" individuals and groups are willing to share the stage with communists and other enemies of the U.S., what does that say about them? That's all. Some believe it doesn't say much. Others believe it says a mouth full.

[Synova]

Good point, Jeff.

Also, Kyle is right about needing to keep the message simple at a protest. (Not something the anti-war protests seem to have much success at, judging by Smash's accout.)

But should the protestors be given the benifit of the doubt? Do we have good reason to suspect that they are (or many of them are) pro-war but on the other side? Well, there's the militant costumes of the anarchists. There's the posters advocating violence against Bush or Cheney which are a bit hard to ignore. There's the context of statements by certain celebrities such as Michael Moore and that Churchill guy.

But alongside the obvious anti-US, anti-capitalism, hope-we-lose sorts are those who maybe haven't thought it through. They think that if we can just end this that everything will be fine. They close their eyes, willfully, to the human cost in non-American lives if we abandon Iraq. They close their eyes, willfully, to the foreign relations nightmare that would be caused by proving that we *will* cut and run, that we can not be trusted to support our allies (or else, fix what we break, if you'd prefer.) They've got their fingers in their ears going "la la la la la la". Should they not be called on it?

Let *them* explain how withdrawl can happen without surrender and how surrender doesn't mean victory for the people we fight against. Maybe some of them have never actually formed the thought in their head, but what they *want* is for us to lose and the jihadists to *win*.

Not that saying so will likely convince anyone since even a sophisticate like Kerry *still* doesn't see any connection to the US anti-war movement and the perseverance of the North Vietnamese or the relationship of what happened in SE Asia after we left and our leaving.

[Justin]

ANSWER is not just "showing up", it is sponsoring the bulk of the "antiwar" demonstrations. If NAMBLA, the national organization of pedophiles, sponsored a gay rights rally, it would say something about the people who show up & say "oh, I'm just here to support gay rights."

Jeff, I actually think that's a fair point, and anti-war demonstrators are always going to have to wrestle with this. But, it's neither fair nor correct to paint all anti-war protesters with the same "crazy anti-American leftist" brush. A lot of "normal folks" are going to these rallies too, and calling anti-war protesters terrorists or communists is getting a little old. But I'll admit, all the off message Palastine and free Mumia signs don't help their cause (and don't really help my argument either).

To add to Kyle's point--people at these protests are protesting the US occupation of Iraq, with the hope of influencing public opinion and policy (I think these protests may have the opposite effect, but that's another matter). They are not protesting islamic jihad, not because they like islamo-facsists, or aren't against terrosism, but because holding up signs saying you don't like terrorists is, uh, pointless--does anyone think a sign denouncing jihadists is going to deter al quada or make them change their policy?

To mirror Jeff's good point, it's kind of like asking people at a gay rights rally to hold up signs denouncing pedophile. And if they don't do it, they must clearly be for pedophilia.

[V the K]

should we give Americans the benefit of the doubt about whether they are for or against jihad?

Code Pink gave half-a-million dollars in aid to the jihadis. That pretty much settles the issue for me.

I think jeff and Some Chick are right on. I mean, look at the hundreds of pictures taken at the rally. Read the slogans on the signs. Consider the language directed against Bush and Cheney (violence and hate) and contrast it with the language they use when describing how to deal with terrorists (peace, love, and understanding). It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that these people favor the jihadis over our own government.

[Bill O..]

Baldi said:
>>There are many atheists on my >>blogroll. Obviously, we agree on >>somethings, not on others.

Hey I agree with that. This is why I find it problematic that you are so eager to tar the entire anti-war movement by focusing on the unpopular aspects of ANSWER. or that you focus on the clothes and slogans of affected 19 year old hipsters but not the flight suit, cod piece sporting commander and chief telling the terrorist and the world to "bring it on" while not sending enough troops to fix the mess he created.

[baldilocks]

They tarred themselves, Bill and some are honest enought to admit it. See post entitled, oddly enough, "Tar Baby."

[Kyle Hasselbacher]

What if, for example, the KKK were to sponsor a rally against the war.

I hear what you're saying, but this still sounds a lot like "guilt by association" to me. It's assigning same attitudes to people because they're standing near each other, doing the same thing.

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I never heard of ANSWER before today. I notice that the Wikipedia article about it says, "Most who attend the group's protests know nothing about their actual political leanings and merely wish to express their opposition to war in Iraq." I don't see why that's hard to believe.

You could argue (as some have) that people attending the protests have some responsibility to know who's organizing it and consider that before they show up. The only reasons I can see to worry about this are: (1) fear of judgement "by association" or (2) fear of indirectly supporting something undesirable. In this case, I don't think I'd be too worried about either one, but I could understand other potential protesters making the choice a different way.

[Bill O..]

Getting off the train last week some older man wearing a Sunday suit handed me a flier. It said "protest against the war in Iraq". It had bus times to D.C. and a really bad graphic but said absolutely nothing about international ANSWER or Kim Jong IL. I agree with Kyle. I doubt very many people said "I wonder if ANSWER is organzing this?" or even know who that is.

[V the K]

And when the protesters got to the rally, they saw the banners for socialism and violent revolution, saw the signs advocating violence against Bush ... and they stayed anyway.

[V the K]

Looking at it a different way, if Bill and Kyle think it's possible that protesters could have looked around at 10,000 posters advocating socialism and revolution, and heard speaker after speaker spew hate at Bush and America ... and not conclude from that they were in the midst of a throng of raging anti-Americanism, then I guess that they share my opinion of the cognitive faculties of the average protester.

[Steve]

To V the K,

Bully Bully (as with Teddy Roosevelt).

[Kyle Hasselbacher]

I've seen a few folks saying that the protest was "unfocused." V the K seems to imply that it was focused on "socialism and revolution" and "hate at Bush and America." Which is true? It's an honest question, since I wasn't there, but I should say up front that I don't expect a unbiased answer. I expect everyone has an agenda and is most likely to highlight the most extreme elements present.

And if people did show up, find it to be something other than expected, I'm not surprised that they stayed. I've sat through some pretty awful movies without leaving, and protesters have more invested in being there than any ammount I've paid for a movie ticket.

Again, standing next to a communist doesn't make me a communist too.

[baldilocks]

Depends on what you and the communist are doing, Kyle--together or separately.

[SomeChick]

ANSWER was also the underwriter for NION ("Not in our Name"). They've been in the news a lot for last 4 years. Those in the anti movement know exactly who they are.

Answer is a well-known sub department of the Socialist Worker.

I'm sorry. I just don't care if someone doesn't know that they are attending a rally underwritten by communists attempting to overthrow our system of government and give aid and comfort to the enemy.

If someone shows up and they didn't know that (even after seeing other OBVIOUS socialists on the stage) then one of the following applies:
1. He or she is a Useful Idiot.
2. He or she IS a socialist/enemy of the U.S. and he/she is lying about it.

Ignorance isn't innocence.