[11] Feb. 16 - Washington Post uses petition to attack ANSWER

LouPaulsen LouPaulsen at attbi.com
Sat Feb 15 23:33:54 MST 2003


[11] On February 16, after 7 million protested the war, the Washington Post
publishes this article, "Antiwar Organizer's Politics Cause Rift" (Note:
they don't mean Lerner, they mean ANSWER):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13873-2003Feb15.html

After recycling the usual stuff about WWP, Milosevic, Kim Jong Il, etc., the
Post continues:

"Yet over the last several days, ANSWER's politics have created a rift
within the leadership of the antiwar movement that demonstrates the
difficulty in having such a small, radical group play a prominent role in
organizing the peace effort.

"The problem was exposed when Rabbi Michael Lerner, one of the nation's most
prominent liberal Jewish leaders and editor of the San Francisco-based
magazine Tikkun, went public to complain that he was "banned" from speaking
at the Sunday rally here, because ANSWER objected to his positions on
Israel. "

The article goes then cites the joint statement by the four coalitions, and
a statement by Richard Becker, denying Lerner's accusations, but:

'But many national leaders of the antiwar movement refuse to accept the San
Francisco coalitions' explanation. In a letter on the Web site
Commondreams.org, more than 150 of the most notable progressive writers and
intellectuals in the country, including Howard Zinn, Barbara Ehrenreich,
Stanley Aronowitz, Jack Newfield and Frances Fox Piven, strongly protest the
refusal to allow Lerner to speak and they take direct aim at ANSWER: "We
believe this is a serious mistake, and that it exemplifies ANSWER's
unfitness to lead mass mobilizations against war in Iraq." '

Of course this reverses the order of events, and ignores the fact that the
petition was posted on February 10, the Joint Statement was issued on the
evening of February 11, and all of these signatures were collected before
the Joint Statement and other refutations were circulated.

LP

Note: it would be appropriate for readers of this who are convinced that the
article has it wrong to e-mail a letter to the editor.  You have to guess as
to the address, though - the page on their site that is supposed to tell you
how to do it is blank.





~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list