Before I bother to wade through more of this BS can you tell me if any of this actually relates to ANSWER or is it more of this "ANSWER has a brother who has a friend who's sister's baby-siter once had an email from someone who had been to Iraq" sort of stuff?

It's interesting how those who put such a lot of effort into attacking the leading peace group aren't exactly too upset about the prospect of the coming war isn't it?

Do any of these articles even accuse ANSWER of any form of wrong doing whatsoever? I gave up reading after the first four didn't.

Depends on how you define "wrong doing"? The whole WWP (whose leaders staff and run ANSWER) was formed as a split from the Trotskyist movement specifically to support the USSR invasion of Hungary. And they've continued that tradition in applauding the murder of Chinese students in the streets of Tianemen. And they have been organizing against war crime trials for Milosevic and denying that any mass murders happened in places like Srebernica-- essentially the equivalent of holocaust denial.

I think of that kind of political organizing as "wrong-doing" of a pretty high order.

I thought I made it pretty clear what kind of answer I meant. I don't care about statements saying that one out of the eleven groups on the steering committee of ANSWER might have links to yet another group whose politics you disagree with.

I really think its time critic's (if I can even call you that) of ANSWER put up or shut up. Have you any evidence - are you even suggesting - that ANSWER has even mentioned let alone supported any of the positions that you hotly demand are so awful?

David, I've worked with the WWP in various coalitions. You may not know how front groups work, but when the web site was created by, the office is run by, and the main spokespeople are all from a single group like the WOrkers WOrld Party, it is fair to characterize the group as being derived from that group.

And as a member of the leadership of the National Lawyers Guild, which has endorsed ANSWER (against my vote) and who has key people doing their legal work, I know pretty well the role of the WWP in organizing this stuff.

Read through any of the materials, particularly the Nation article or the Z article, which are not unsympathetic to working with ANSWER, but none of them are naive enough to suggest that the WWP is not pulling the strings here.

The Left rightly criticizes Trent Lott for associating with ex-White Citizen Council types and segregationists. Why shouldn't the Left take responsibility for its associations with supporters of mass murderers?

Are you claiming that ANSWER is telling people to support "mass murderers" [your phrase] at its marches for example?

By the way do you actually oppose a war in Iraq?

Of course I oppose the war, but you are being obtuse in ignoring the relation between the WWP and ANSWER. If the main group leading ANSWER supports mass murderers, those working with them have some responsibility for disassociating themselves from those views.

The Left has rightly condemned Trent Lott for his association with neo-confederate racists. The same principle applies to the Left not casually ignoring its own association with supporters of authoritarian butchers.

Nathan replied by email but I'd rather keep this here because it is here that Nathan is attacking a well known antiwar organisation. He writes:

"You seem to be being obtuse, I can't tell if on purpose. The concept is front group-- the WWP which created ANSWER are the ones who encourage
people to support mass murders, from Chinese butchers to Milosevic in Serbia. You
may like both those groups, I don't know, but that's the point I'm making."

According to dictionary.com "front" means (in this context),

"a) A group or movement uniting various individuals or organizations for the achievement of a common purpose; a coalition.

b) A nominal leader lacking in real authority; a figurehead.

c) An apparently respectable person, group, or business used as a cover for secret or illegal activities."

But perhaps YOU are being obtuse here Nathan. I've asked three times already if you have any specific evidence of ANSWER doing anything wrong. Clearly the answer is "no". A "front" implies that ANSWER would be a cover for disreputable activities -- but you don't say there is anything disreputable going on at all.

A "front" would also suggest that the participation of those you criticise was secret -- but it's right there on ANSWER's list of eleven steering committee members and of course the leaders and speakers don't hide who they are.

So ANSWER is NOT a "front", has done nothing wrong and you are attacking a major antiwar group. Unless as I say you are simply being obtuse as to what "front" means and implies, you appear to be lying about it to do so.

Perhaps your real "criticism" is guilt by association. That seems like an odd thing to insist on when you participate on the Stand Down blog -- the idea of which is that groups who disagree with each other politically on various issues come together on the issue of the war in Iraq. Sounds exactly like what ANSWER is doing.

David, I've said repeatedly that the Workers World Party has done things wrong, very wrong, to the extent of being morally reprehensible and therefore not fit to associate with. And since they are the main coordinators of ANSWER, it raises the question of whether associating with ANSWER is a moral act.

And what makes ANSWER a front is that not only is the WWP on the steering committee, but a number of the other groups on the steering committee are also controlled by WWP members. It looks like different groups are controlling ANSWER, but most of them are WWP in different organizational guises.

You keep asking me for evidence-- I posted a long line of links and related my own experience and inside knowledge. You can disagree with the evidence of all the writers and activists who have noted their experience of ANSWER as a WWP Front, but I can just reverse it-- what is your evidence that ANY of the groups on the ANSWER steering committee are not controlled by the WWP?

As for the Stand Down blog, I early on raised the issue of whether the whole single-issue blog was morally viable, if other real issues were ignored that made such association problematic. See here.

I have made it a point to not particpate in any protest if the leadership of the protest represents organizations whose values have nothing in common with progressive ideals. It is deeply disturbing to me that intelligent progressive people would support any demonstration organized by the WWP. Forming coalitions with groups like the WWP should not be acceptable to any progressive group or individual. Actually it is worse than forming a coalition with the WWP or its front group ANSWER since really WWP/ANSWER actually dominate and control the coalition. It really is not a coalition. Rather it is WWP with its barbaric agenda getting groups which are opposed to war in Iraq sign on to "no war in Iraq"not even knowing who the real organizers are. When I ask most people, particularly young people, if they know that the demonstation was organzed by the WWP they usually deny it thinking I am some kind of Red Baiter. And most people do not know what the WWP. If they knew of all the atrocities the WWP supports, they would be horrified. What to do though as the WWP seems to be the only group that can pull off a large demonstration. That is, of course, no reason, to support such as demonstration. Just as I would not support a demonstration called by the KKK even if they KKK for some reason was against the war in Iraq. Alexander Cockburn believes that it is fine and dandy to get behind the WWP/ANSWER demonstrations as they are the only ones organized to pull it off. I am frustrated because I have no way to voice my protest without joing a front group for the WWP which I, of course, refuse to do. Tula Jaffe

I like reading your blog. Thanks for the great site.

Viagra online Any comments? Please
email me at contactus411@yahoo.com

pissing
dripping
wet see through bikinis
see through
wet t-shirt
wet t-shirt contest
t-shirts
wet t-shirts
t-shirt
70 t-shirts
funny t-shirts
caught
wet pants
underwear
mens underwear
men in underwear
boys underwear
mens underwear
piss
peeing
girls peeing
women peeing
pee
watersports
wet t-shirt
wet
wet pussy
wet t shirt
wet see through bikinis
wet t-shirt contest
wet panties
wet t-shirts
wet t
wet shirt
wet tshirt
wet girls
wet t shirts
wet t shirt contest
wet pants

pissing
dripping
wet see through bikinis
see through
wet t-shirt
wet t-shirt contest
t-shirts
wet t-shirts
t-shirt
70 t-shirts
funny t-shirts
caught
wet pants
underwear
mens underwear
men in underwear
boys underwear
mens underwear
piss
peeing
girls peeing
women peeing
pee
watersports
wet t-shirt
wet
wet pussy
wet t shirt
wet see through bikinis
wet t-shirt contest
wet panties
wet t-shirts
wet t
wet shirt
wet tshirt
wet girls
wet t shirts
wet t shirt contest
wet pants