Liberal Dems Send money to Saddam's Lawyer

[FORD]

Originally posted by McCarrens
Ford, it's the new year. I'm reinventing myself.

As a spammer?

[ODShowtime]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FORD
McCarrens, I'm truly disappointed in you. This was as lame as a Cook or Dipshit Den thread. Seriously..... [/QOUTE]

I'm not convinced that the Mcmorons has graduated high school yet. Seriously...

[lucky wilbury]

one of saddams lawyers is the founder of the "anti war" group answer ramesy clark

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
one of saddams lawyers is the founder of the "anti war" group answer ramesy clark

Oh no! Against this war! He must be a FOOL! LOL

[McCarrens]

Nickdfresh, draw the lines. Pretend you are smart. One of the leading antiwar lawyers in the country is now representing Saddam.

You don't see anything strange with that?

It certainly is blurirng the line DC or JesusFord or someone brought up about there being a difference between being against the war and being for Saddam being in power.

[lucky wilbury]

he was representing saddm BEFORE the was.

[McCarrens]

Wilbury, I'm sorry I misunderstood what you were posting.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by McCarrens
Nickdfresh, draw the lines. Pretend you are smart. One of the leading antiwar lawyers in the country is now representing Saddam.

You don't see anything strange with that?

It certainly is blurirng the line DC or JesusFord or someone brought up about there being a difference between being against the war and being for Saddam being in power.

I don't need to "pretend," you make me look like a genius. And we'll put that one in "SO-FUCKING-WHAT?" category. Is this some sort of conspiracy to get Saddam a fair trial? FUCKING LIBERALS do it every time! You know, like the Nuremberg Trials. Maybe we should adopt your Stalinist attitude and just kill him extra-judicially. But I don't think that would look good historically speaking.

[lucky wilbury]

here are a few articles on the "antiwar" movement:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/21/clark/

Ramsey Clark, the war criminal's best friend


The former U.S. attorney general has become the tool of left-wing cultists who defend Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and Rwandan torturers as anti-imperialist heroes.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Ian Williams


June 21, 1999 | In the most morbidly literal way, NATO forces are "sniffing out" more mass graves than alliance spokesman Jamie Shea ever suspected. Dog-eaten sticks of bone poke from putrescent pits on television screens. So it is not surprising that on July 31 New York will see the opening of a commission of inquiry for an international war crimes tribunal. What may surprise some is that its target is NATO's war crimes.

Those who know him will be less surprised that the inspiration for this circus is former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, whom one long-standing colleague described as "a good man gone ga-ga -- at least 25 years ago." Many liberals and leftists cut Clark a considerable degree of slack. For a start he is almost the only person the American left has had in high public office since World War II, even if it was a retrospective success, since his long march leftward only began afterward. His views as the former attorney general are listened to with a respect that would be accorded to few others with such eccentric opinions. As a revered spokesman of the left, he is a perfect symbol for its near-impotence in American politics today.

Everyone who has dealings with Clark uses the word "nice" to describe him. But he often sides with people whom no one with a full deck would call nice. (Clark did not respond to a Salon News interview request.) Many former friends, more in sorrow than in anger, trace his present positions to the company he keeps: the International Action Center, which proclaims him its founder but seems entirely in the thrall of an obscure Trotskyist sect, the Workers World Party. Whoever writes his scripts, there is little doubt what Ramsey Clark is against now -- any manifestation of the power of the state he once served at the height of the Vietnam War.

At the end of 1998 Clark attended a human rights conference in Baghdad, Iraq, where in his keynote speech he pointed out how "the governments of the rich nations, primarily the United States, England and France," dominated the wording of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which showed "little concern for economic, social and cultural rights." The social and cultural rights claimed by his Iraqi hosts include the right to hang opponents in public at the airport, or poison thousands of Kurds and torture and execute any opponent of the regime. And on the legality of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the silence is deafening.

When he flew to Belgrade to support Slobodan Milosevic during NATO's campaign, there was no word about the siege of Sarajevo, the massacre at Srebrenica or the million homeless refugees from Kosovo -- and even less of those olfactorily eloquent mass graves that NATO is now uncovering. But then, urging Belgrade to resist NATO, while he was there picking up an honorary degree, he told his hosts, "It will be a great struggle, but a glorious victory. You can be victorious."

In Grenada he went to advise Bernard Coard, the murderer of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop. Other clients include Radovan Karadzic, the indicted Bosnian Serbian war criminal whom he defended in a New York civil suit brought by Bosnian rape victims, and the Rwandan pastor who is accused of telling Tutsis to hide in his church and then summoning Hutus to massacre them, and then leading killing squads.

His willingness to accept dubious clients is defended by some attorneys. After all, everyone needs a defense. Others say he has crossed a moral line by defending Karadzic and overlooking events in Kosovo. But looking at his legal arguments, one must question the wisdom of his legal counsel, not just his morals. A prominent international lawyer explains, "He's not really very well up on international law -- I remember he was asking for help in some of his early cases."

[lucky wilbury]

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/50/news-corn.php

The odd and troubling origins of today’s anti-war movement
by David Corn


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.

[lucky wilbury]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29524

Has anti-war movement been hijacked?
Terror alliances, radical politics
revealed at forefront

By Sherrie Gossett


While publicly promoting non-violent protest and humanitarian causes, some key leaders and prominent groups that organized and participated in the recent anti-war demonstrations at the U.S. Capitol and San Francisco are staunch supporters of terrorist groups and dictatorial regimes worldwide.

In fact, critics now charge that the "new" anti-war movement is being "hijacked" by this dominant network whose organizational power is increasing and whose political agenda is anathema to most Americans.

The Saturday, Oct. 26 rally, which focused on opposition to a U.S.-led war against Iraq and drew 100,000 protesters, featured speeches by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Al Sharpton, actress-activist Susan Sarandon, singer-songwriter Patti Smith, as well as a host of lesser-known figures. The protests also served as a platform for Democratic Party campaigning, as top politicos hobnobbed with the elite of the anti-war movement.

The large turnout signals an invigoration of the "new" anti-war movement, which has been increasingly dominated by the international A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition, an organizational front group formed by the International Action Center. Closely allied with IAC is the World Workers Party, a quasi-Stalinist organization that supports authoritarian regimes and communist dictatorships. The World Workers Party created the IAC in 1992, and put Ramsey Clark, now kingpin of the anti-war movement, at the head of it.

Also at the forefront in the weekend demonstration and current anti-war protests was the "Not In Our Name" campaign. NOIN spokesman Clark Kissinger represents that movement to the public and is an integral part of Refuse and Resist, an organization with close ties to the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, of which Kissinger is a member and writer for its newspaper.

The controversial ties of IAC remain almost completely unreported by the mainstream media, but increasingly are being exposed by a handful of enterprising journalists, including Michelle Goldberg of Salon.com, Ian Williams, United Nations correspondent for The Nation; Michael Tremoglie, Edward Immler and David Horowitz of FrontPage Magazine and Christopher Hitchens, a 20-year veteran of The Nation magazine, now writing independently.

The controversy has now spread to the commentary pages of Mother Jones and also has Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com crying foul while bemoaning San Francisco's "Baghdad-by-the-Bay" protest experience.

"Pathetic" is how Raimondo described the protest, complaining that those in charge of the demonstration "weren't about to brook any criticism of either their ideology or their methods: this was the only show in town, and they weren't about to give it up."

Now, a small but growing number at both ends of the political spectrum, as well as libertarian activists and writers, are accusing the organization's elite of being sellouts to foreign dictators while giving lip service to humanitarian concerns. Some warn that this "patina of morality" obfuscates a surreptitious political agenda: the armed overthrow of the American republic.

Leading critics from both left and right now charge the leaders with supporting the very things against which they claim to be protesting.

"The International Action Center and the Revolutionary Communist Party [USA] aren't just extremists in the service of a good cause," says Michelle Goldberg, a writer with Salon.com. "They are cheerleaders for some of the most sinister regimes and insurgencies on the planet."

"Once people realize this," Goldberg adds, "it could easily discredit any nascent anti-war movement, unless a more rational group comes to the forefront."

Sock puppet for Saddam?

The founder of the IAC and director for A.N.S.W.E.R. is Ramsey Clark, who is introduced at IAC rallies as the former attorney general under the Lyndon Johnson administration. No mention is made of the fact that Clark, in his current occupation, has been retained by the State of Iraq to serve as legal counsel for the regime.

Not surprisingly, criticism of Saddam Hussein is not aired at IAC/A.N.S.W.E.R.-controlled protest events. No mention is made of Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, invasion of Kuwait, murder of an estimated 1 million of his own people, environmental terrorism, imprisonment, torture or execution of political prisoners.

The suffering of the Iraqi people is blamed solely on the United States, just as the suffering of Palestinians is blamed solely on Israel.

IAC/A.N.S.W.E.R leaders have aligned themselves exclusively with pro-Arafat groups. The only Jewish people truly embraced as "brothers and sisters" are those who equally denounce Israel or deny Israel's right to exist. A.N.S.W.E.R's pro-Palestinian march in April was regarded by many, in fact, little more than a thinly disguised public display of anti-Semitism masquerading as a "pro-Palestinian" march. Frequent mention was made at the march of a "supposed holocaust," and of a "genocide" in Jenin, despite the fact that New York Times reporters allowed into the area had already discredited such reports as erroneous.

The "genocide" claims dominated the rally, even though fatality estimates had already been downgraded from 500 down to 56-90, most of which, according to media reports, were said to be terrorists.

Clark represented PLO leaders in a suit brought by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, the elderly tourist who was shot and thrown overboard from the hijacked Achille Lauro cruise-ship by renegade Palestinian terrorists in 1986.

And while accusing the Bush administration and Israel of Nazi-like war crimes, Clark fails to mention his former client Karl Linnas, an ex-Nazi concentration camp guard in Estonia, where he had overseen the murder of some 12,000 resistance fighters and Jews. Linnas was at that time being deported from the U.S. to the U.S.S.R. to face war-crimes charges. Clark lost the case, but went to bat for his client in the public arena. According to media reports, Clark said that he questioned the need to prosecute Nazis "forty years after some god-awful crime they're alleged to have committed."

While consistently denouncing the American and Israeli "terrorist states," IAC leadership, headed by Clark, have defended dictator Slobodan Milosevic in the International Criminal Court. They also leapt to the aid of genocidal Hutu militias as the U.N. wrote up war-crime charges against their leaders for ordering the slaughter of half a million Tutsi civilians in 1994.

Clark client, Rwanda genocide indictee Pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, was accused of telling Tutsis to hide in his church and then summoning Hutus to massacre them. The genocidal leader later led killing squads in the "hell on earth" that Rwanda quickly became.

Elsewhere in the media:


The WWP supported the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre of protesting students and workers, who were conveniently labeled "counter-revolutionaries."

Clark and his backers also were quick to cheer on the brutal Chinese repression of the indigenous culture in Tibet (which sent the Dalai Lama and 80,000 refugees packing).

The WWP has wooed the Democratic Party, and supported Jesse Jackson's presidential bid in 1984. In New York, the WWP made alliances with the left wing of the Democrats in order to establish a strategic foothold in key trade unions.

Clark has defended convicted war criminal Radovan Karadzic, in a New York civil suit brought by Bosnian rape victims. The suit, brought by the National Organization for Women and the Center for Constitutional Rights, charged Karadzic with ordering mass rape and war crimes.
Serbia also has retained Clark as counsel. Accordingly, no outrage over Serbian ethnic cleansing or rapes will ever be heard at an IAC/A.N.S.W.E.R. rally. Nor will mention be made of the siege of Sarajevo, the killings at Srebrenica or the million homeless refugees. Clark and the IAC make no mention of the notorious tortures held at the Serbian police station on Cacak Street in central Pristina.

The scene was discovered by British paratroopers and the media, who described "a bed, with leather straps, its ratty yellow mattress plunged through with bayonet and bullet holes, and clothes of its victims piled in the corner." Reporter Laura Rozen described it as a "house of torture" still reeking of "rotting human flesh" where Kosovo Albanians, many of them teen-agers and children, were brutally raped, beaten and killed. Stashed on the scene were all manner of torture instruments, as well as violent pornography.

Nevertheless, at the Oct. 26 rally, IAC staff introduced Clark to an adulating crowd as a "man of extraordinary principles and conscience."

'The war criminal's best friend

Detractors from both the left and the right denounce Clark for his "straightforward dishonesty," calling him the "tyrant-in-chief," a "traitor" and "the war criminal's best friend."

Overall, the IAC-WWP-A.N.S.W.E.R. triaxis, firmly at the helm of the anti-war movement, unequivocally supports Iraq, while instructing protestors that the U.S. is the foremost terrorist threat to the world. In addition they claim that Osama bin Laden was the victim of an imperialist American plot. Brian Becker, member of the secretariat of the World Workers Party, national co-director for the IAC and a member of the national A.N.S.W.E.R. steering committee, is admired by the North Korean dictatorship for his loyalty to their state as well. At a press conference in Pyongyang, Becker denounced the U.S. for "mercilessly killing innocent people." In May of 2001, FBI Director Louis Freeh labeled the World Workers Party a potential threat to U.S. national security – a status certain to be explained by the WWP/IAC (as is most criticism) as a conspiratorial smear by warmongers.

WorldNetDaily asked Larry Holmes, co-director of IAC and spokesperson for A.N.S.W.E.R., to comment on Clark's retention as counsel for the state of Iraq. Holmes replied, "He's just a spokesman." When WND indicated that Clark was in fact the founder of IAC as well as the director of the international A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition, Holmes deferred comments to Clark, who was unavailable for an interview.

Asked to comment on what detractors call the "Pro-Saddam" slant of the IAC and its failure to criticize Iraq or Saddam Hussein, Holmes responded: "We live in America. We have to take some responsibility for what the government is trying to do in our name. I think it’s wise for us to stay focused. It’s U.S. foreign policy that we must be responsible for."

He added, "There's an effort to vilify Iraq and its government and not on an honest basis … but as a very conscious effort to demonize a government for the purpose of making it easier to move forward with war." Asked whether he would support war on Iraq if it attacked first, Holmes evaded the question, indicating it would be the U.S.' fault for planning a pre-emptive strike.

Pressed to answer the same question in a scenario where Iraq attacked after the U.S. gives up plans for a pre-emptive strike, Holmes still declined to answer: "That's just a hypothetical," he said. "I don't think that Iraq poses a threat to this country – it's a transparent search of pretexts for war. No one talks about oil, and the geopolitical reasons for invading the country. Media is not saying that this is really the reason they're going to war. Government and corporations want to occupy Iraq for oil."

Holmes added that the idea of Iraq attacking the U.S. was as ridiculous as Jamaica or Haiti attacking.

'Peace Congress' to undo U.S. Congress?

The next move for the IAC is to convene a "Peace Congress" the weekend of Jan. 18 and 19, coinciding with Martin Luther King’s birthday.

"Congress rushed and rubber-stamped the war issue," Holmes complained. "It's time to expose the very serious fact that Congress was not listening to the people." There will be delegations from every state, as well as from labor unions. "They will pass resolutions concerning how the budget should be used – for jobs and education," Holmes explained. In addition, there may be marches on Monday, Jan. 20 as well.

WND asked Homes to explain the logic behind saying the American people were "not heard," since the U.S. has a representative form of government and it was elected officials that voted.

"It failed," Homes said. "That's the problem. At a time when anti-war sentiment was going through the charts, late September for example, when Congress had calls and e-mails 40-1 against the war – they very quickly and cowardly and sheepishly voted so the issue would go away."

'The really beautiful thing'

Especially prominent at the Oct. 26 rally was the "Not In Our Name" campaign, which ran a large ad in the New York Times and whose slogan was central to IAC speakers. At least one member of the media labeled the campaign a "really beautiful thing."

Represented by Clark Kissinger, the ad campaign was lauded by Hartford Courant writer Frank Rizzo, who quoted the activist as saying: "People have been longing for this. It's a statement that basically repudiates the whole direction of things. It's about American empire-building."

FrontPage Magazine writer Michael Tremoglie laments Rizzo's failure, however, to inform readers of the details behind Kissinger or his organization: "The same journalists who will be more than happy to tell their readers that a group is related to, or receives funds from, say the NRA or the Christian Coalition or the dreaded Scaife Foundation, will never mention the relationship of a liberal group with communist organizations – even if such organizations are labeled terrorist by the FBI," says Tremoglie.

Kissinger's Refuse and Resist runs information releases from the Revolutionary Communist Party USA on its site. The following are some of the goals and ideologies of the party as expressed in the party's newspaper, "Revolutionary Worker," for which Kissinger writes. They give an indication of what leader Kissinger and associates plan for the U.S.


Its ideology is Maoist/Leninist/ Marxist communism, and its capstone program for the U.S. is called "Create Public Opinion – Seize Power."

Party members are being told to prepare and plan for "a future armed uprising" leading to a "civil war" in the U.S. primed by "a major crack in the system" – a destabilizing event that will enable the RCP to "seize power" in a violent insurrection that replaces the American government with a "Communist proletarian dictatorship." Says RCP, "We are preparing minds and organizing forces for the time" – the time when "revolutionary crisis breaks out."

RCP officials say they are "doing everything to help bring about, as quickly as possible, the conditions where we can begin the highest form of the struggle – the fight for power over society … when, 'all of a sudden,' millions are starting to bust loose. When there is a great upheaval throughout society. … Then it is time to strike – and to hold back nothing – time to take power by force and arms. … That time is coming, and we must get ourselves and others ready for it."
Central to this plan is a stated effort to convince Americans that their government is illegitimate and therefore can and should be overthrown and its institutions seized. At the Oct. 26 rally, Clark referred to President Bush's foreign policy as "criminal offenses, they are high crimes, they are indictable offenses, and they are impeachable offenses."

Repeated throughout the rally was the notion that the American government as a whole had lost its legitimacy, and leaders called on protesters "to seize all the major institutions," "to take democracy back" and "occupy the Capitol," a clarion call with obviously widely different meanings for different groups:


The RCP expects the armed uprising to follow along Leninist lines in the confrontation of "economic relations with employers" or "immediate exploiters and oppressors."

They have been working to "spread our influence through society, especially where people are protesting or rebelling." To this end RCP advises its members to spread out like "seeds" and plant themselves into other organizations, so that the RCP's cohesive plan is harder to detect and define, while its influence spreads.

Agitation and manipulation of those at the lowest levels of society is key. It's noted that these people generally feel they have "nothing left to lose" and will be most likely to take up arms in order to facilitate the leaders' power grab. Key is convincing them of a victimhood status where those who have more personally owe them something. From there the thinking is developed to convince the unfortunate to steal others' material effects by force of arms. But it’s clear that the real intent is to use the lower class for personal gain.

The eruption of an "actual crisis" is anticipated as the pivot point for the activities of the RCP. This is where "the authority of the ruling class and both its right and its ability to rule are called fundamentally into question." It adds that the "crisis will be marked by sharp divisions within the ruling class itself, reaching into its major pillars of power, including the armed forces."

While the RCP promises that this civil war will usher in a "global community of freely associating individuals," whites will not have the same rights of association as minorities. The program calls for allowing "people of color" to "just live around other people of their race" if they desire, but a similar allowance will "not be [made] for white people," who are seen as particularly untrustworthy. This, in spite of the fact that the RCP’s leader, Bob Avakian, is a white male. (Whites are seen as the least likely to submit to the RCP revolution.) According to media reports, Avakian is now in France, hiding out from the FBI.

While the Associated Press reported that the Maoist guerilla-led insurgency in Nepal left hundreds dead, the RCP called the bloody uprising "glorious" – a far cry from the anti-violence rhetoric of the big rally in the nation's capital.

In addition, the RCP supports the brutally violent "Shining Path" of Peru. The RCP website boasts of killings perpetrated by Shining Path members and notes "rulers in Peru fear the Maoist People's Party." The approved killings include those of police, army personnel and any civilians who disagree with the Shining Path.
In a Workingforchange.com article, writer Geov Parrish recalls Kissinger, identified as a "core member" of the RCP: "I still have vivid memories of Kissinger explaining calmly to me why when the RCP took over it would be necessary to shoot everyone who didn't agree with them."

Despite the murder/mayhem tactical line of the RCP, Kissinger ironically called President George W. Bush a "blood-stained executioner" and the Republican National Convention the "Executioners Ball."

Kissinger also publicly vilifies Homeland Security head Tom Ridge as "really scary" because Ridge supports the death penalty for murderers.

WND asked Larry Holmes, co-director of IAC and spokesperson for A.N.S.W.E.R., whether he foresees an armed uprising, should January's "Peace Congress" and all other efforts fail to overturn the U.S. Congress' vote.

"That’s nothing that we can get involved in," said Holmes. "We can have dramatic and creative protests, though."

When asked to comment on the RCP’s support for armed uprising, Holmes said, "I don't know that that's what they're planning." When told that taking up arms against the U.S. government was indeed a stated key part of RCP's plan, and asked whether he and the IAC support that plan, Holmes responded, "That sounds just like rhetoric," and added: "We have to be very careful now, not to be talking about these things – with the Patriot Act and all, you know, Attorney General John Ashcroft is just looking for excuses to pick people up, detain them, and throw them into prison for no reason at all. We don't want to give the FBI or feds a pretext to move against them [the RCP]."

WorldNetDaily attempted to contact Revolutionary Communist Party national spokesman Carl Dix, but his two phone numbers had been disconnected. No one was answering phones at the RCP Publications PR office and a message left was not returned.

9-11: 'Nothing personal'

IAC associate Lynne Stewart, labeled by detractors as "the terrorist lawyer," is also an influential presence at IAC events. A civil-rights attorney, Stewart was recruited by Clark to defend the "blind Sheik" Omar Abdel Kahman, later convicted as being the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings and the planner behind the proposed bombings of New York City landmarks, including the Lincoln and Holland tunnels.

In April of this year, Stewart was handcuffed outside her Brooklyn apartment and indicted on two charges of lying to the government and two charges of aiding a terrorist organization. The charges stemmed from recorded conversations between Stewart and her client. Attorney General Ashcroft charged that Stewart knowingly participated in aiding the sheik in communicating with an Egyptian terrorist organization.

Stewart denied the charges, portraying herself as the victim of a frightening police state, run by a power-mad administration. But the activist’s reputation was badly damaged when the supposedly sealed affidavit for a search warrant was leaked to Court TV and somehow wound up posted on The Smoking Gun website.

Included were transcripts of the wiretaps that revealed Stewart knowingly allowed the sheik, in violation of federal law, to dictate information to be passed to terrorists. That information passed to an Egyptian terrorist organization included an order to end a cease-fire and the message to "to fight the Jews and kill them wherever they are."

Later, after a meeting of Stewart supporters was canceled, she would voice concern to New York Times writer George Packer, over "Jewish and Zionist supporters" of the radical associations she is involved with. Perhaps they were driving her supporters away, she worried.

In addition, Stewart joked on tape that she should get an acting award for fooling prison guards into thinking she was engaged in a legal lawyer-client conversation.

At the recent Washington, D.C., rally, Stewart gleefully joined protesters in a chant of "Ashcroft sucks! Ashcroft sucks!" She again portrayed the attorney general as a prominent threat to America, denouncing his Patriot Act as a profound and unforgivable violation of civil rights.

A few protestors called for Ashcroft’s death and the hanging of Bush administration officials.

Ironically, according one writer, "The social and cultural rights claimed by [Ramsey Clark's] Iraqi hosts include the right to hang opponents in public."

In addition to speaking at IAC-led protests advocating "non-violent" resistance, Stewart had this to say in a 1995 New York Times interview: "I don't believe in anarchist violence, but in directed violence. That would be violence directed at the institutions who perpetrate capitalism, racism and sexism, and the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions."

In a recent New York Times article, author George Packer wrote about Stewart's attitude toward 9-11: "When the towers fell, she felt that her city had been violated and her own life disrupted. But this warm-hearted woman took the slaughter of innocents with a certain cold-bloodedness. The Pentagon was a 'better target'; the people in the towers 'never knew what hit them. ... They took it personally. And actually, it wasn't a personal thing.'"

Packer continued, "As for civilian deaths in general: [Stewart said] 'I'm pretty inured to the notion that in a war or in an armed struggle, people die. They're in the wrong place. ... So I have a lot of trouble figuring out why that is wrong, especially when people are placed in a position of having no other way.' Stewart doubts the government's version of Osama bin Laden, nor does she find him too 'repugnant' to represent.'"

Writer and novelist Michael Tremoglie comments, "Obviously, Stewart's worldview meshes seamlessly with that of Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, the blind Sheik and Osama bin Laden. And with that of ... Brain Becker, Ramsey Clark and the World Workers Party."

He adds, "There are many legitimate defense attorneys who provide legal defenses for clients with whom they do not themselves sympathize. Lynne Stewart, Ramsey Clark are not among them."

If convicted, Stewart faces up to 40 years in prison.

A 'hijacked' movement?

Michelle Goldberg of Salon.com writes of the "hijacking" of the "new" anti-war movement, and contends that the political views of the anti-war protest leaders are "anathema" to most Americans.

Libertarian Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com agrees, but still feels there’s hope for the movement: "The people who came to these demonstrations – 100,000 in Washington – don't share the politics of the organizers. Indeed, there aren't many people on earth – save in North Korea – who share the politics of the organizers. I won't go into a long tirade about those politics – the 'International A.N.S.W.E.R.' 'coalition' is, in reality, a front for a group of particularly kooky leftists, the Workers World Party."

"Suffice to say that I'm not alone in my criticisms," says the activist, "and that dissatisfaction with having admirers of Kim IL-Sung representing the antiwar movement has bubbled up from the rank-and-file."

Indeed, some have expressed deep concern that they not be "painted with the same brush."

"Here, at this solemn moment, as the nation teeters on the brink of a disastrous war," Raimondo adds, "and rational arguments are called for, what do we get? 'Rah rah, sis-boom bah! Hooray for us, and [expletive deleted] the rest of the country.'"

"The only relief from tirades against capitalism came when a few Democratic party politicians trooped to the microphone, telling us how we need "regime change in Washington" – so as to give the Other War Party a chance to prove its warmongering bona fides," he said.

"The movement has been hijacked by a bunch of neo-Stalinists," complains Raimondo, "who, oddly enough, utilize their hopped-up 'radical' rhetoric in the service of the most conventional Democratic Party politics imaginable.”

"It was a revealing moment, and a truly disgusting sight,” he said.

'Extremist Islamic backings'

"The Pull," a "hacktivist" with the infamous "Cult of the Dead Cow" hacking group, told WND: "I find that [they] generally are extremely biased and they operate as a cult. While there are communist backings behind them, there are also extremist Islamic backings ... and many of their 'liberal' ideas were first found amongst Neo-Nazi cults."

The Cult of the Dead Cow, former bad-boy hackers, now use their skills to work through underground channels to help members of oppressed populations gain access to state-forbidden Internet information – most notably Western news sites, human-rights websites, and "gay" and lesbian organizations.

To this end they pass hacking tools to members of Communist and radical Islamic countries – tools designed to enable citizens to break through firewalls, in order to gain freer access to such information. In addition, they are outspoken opponents of communist dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. They also have the distinction of being banned by the United Arab Emirates.

Commenting on the controversial elements of the anti-war leadership, "The Pull" added, "Two of their [mentors] … have a history of supporting ruthless dictators and slaughters," referring to Noam Chomsky and Edward Said. "Chomsky has covered up Sudan and the slaughters behind the Soviet Union. His works are full of extremely biased errors," he said.

"If these fellows [key leaders] are shown to be extremist communists and paid by Iraq, many of them will have a trained response" said "The Pull," such as that one should be interested in a person's points, not his personal life.

"They are obviously supporting a ruthless dictatorship against the U.S. in their fight," he said. "It is not with wonder that Iraqi-Americans turned out to counter-protest these groups."

"The Pull" was referring to a tiny counter-demonstration of about 200 people, held on a capitol street corner, organized by "Freepers" sporting "Tyranny Response Team" T-shirts. "Freeper" speakers challenged current leadership of the anti-war movement, accusing them of being sycophants in the service of brutal dictators. Among the "Freeper" speakers was former Clinton administration official Notra Trulock.

Trulock is former counter-intelligence chief for the Department of Energy, and a well-known whistleblower on national security counter-intelligence failures. He shot to fame as the target of FBI harassment meant to intimidate and silence his revelations. ("Freepers" are supporters of the Free Republic Network).

Their Iraqi guests, who addressed the crowd in both English and Arabic, spoke of atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein and pleaded for Americans to intervene militarily. For some, it was personal. Several of the Iraqi-American community members present said they had lost family members to Saddam Hussein's regime through execution or imprisonment.

Days after the event, Trulock told WorldNetDaily, "The mainstream media's coverage of last Saturday's 'anti-war protest' was a disgrace. Attorney General John Ashcroft ought to be looking hard at the degree to which the hard-left, 'hate America' crowd was driving this protest and how it was funded." Trulock currently is affiliated with Accuracy in Media, a journalism watchdog group.

'Morally tainted leadership'

Todd Gitlin, author of "The Sixties: Years of Hope and Days of Rage," also agrees with Goldberg's assessment.

Currently a Columbia University professor, the former president of Students for a Democratic Society fears the hypocrisy will result in a "gigantic ruination of the anti-war movement." Gitlin prefers peaceful and informative debates and "teach-ins" where all are allowed (and expected) to present honest, rational arguments for their views.

"They should be holding debates," contends Gitlin, "not rallies of the faithful."

"Clark and others of his mindset are not only morally tainted," adds the professor, "they're doomed. And the anti-war movement is doomed if they're allowed to lead it."

"This will not play in Peoria," warns Gitlin, "It does not deserve to play in Washington."

[lucky wilbury]

and i have other stuff other "antiwar" sites that rip on clark and his group answer.

[Nickdfresh]

You mean like the CNN-Time-Gallup Poll that shows that 56% of Americans are against the War?

[lucky wilbury]

so the founder of an antiwar group with ties to a communist party, n korea, saddam hussien,milosovhic etc etc etc is ok with you? why don't you read those articles. and thats not what the poll says

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
so the founder of an antiwar group with ties to a communist party, n korea, saddam hussien,milosovhic etc etc etc is ok with you? why don't you read those articles. and thats not what the poll says

Because they mean nothing! If you are against the war, you are a commie?. Is that what dipshit is saying? Is there some sort of hierarchical, monolithic anti-war movement?

NO!

By the way, true communists, like the North Koreans and the Chinese love the fact that we are pinned down in Iraq!