NYTimes article on antiwar movement
jlevich at earthlink.net
Sat Mar 29 22:13:21 MST 2003
Needless to say, I hope you're right. I'm glad to hear the Feb. 15
coalition is hanging together on the ground in Chicago.
But if the UFPJ leadership is being misquoted or misrepresented here, the
whole thing can easily be smoothed over with a mass email denouncing the
misrepresentation and reaffirming solidarity with ANSWER and the rest of us
who are "too left-wing and alienating". The Lerner crisis was dealt with
pretty efficiently in that fashion.
If we don't see such an email within a day or so, I think we can assume the
UFPJ leadership is not unhappy with The Times story. And we should not
underestimate the ability of these people to set the agenda and tactics for
their liberal followers.
Nor should we underestimate the blandishments of the ruling class -- I'd
lay a bet that Pariser, Kagan, et al. are now being tempted to believe
they'll be allowed a place at the Democratic Party table, if only they get
rid of those nasty Reds.
Lou P. wrote:
>The Times and really the whole bourgeois media have been trying to pick
>fights among the various coalitions this whole time; "Lernergate" was a
>recent unsuccessful example. Really the bourgeois media are running the
>COINTELPRO operation of today. That means that we have to be completely
>skeptical when the NY Times prints stuff like "so and so of the UFPJ said
>such and so about ANSWER" and so on. Do I trust that they got the quote
>right, left it in context, etc.? I do not. Do they get the facts right?
>They have Black Voices for Peace as one of the participants in the founding
>"anti-ANSWER" meeting of UFPJ, but they neglect to mention that BVP and
>ANSWER have a good relationship; Damu Smith of BVP spoke at the March 15
>rally. They love this "warring states" picture of the movement, and they
>ignore all the areas of agreement and cooperation.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism