The Ramsey Clark/ANSWER link to totalitarianism and fascism

[bobwhite]

I got these from two separate posts by fujiyama and robbedvoter.

"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."

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1031-08.htm

The scary stuff about ANSWER? The controlling group, the
Workers World Party:

- supported the Chinese government's 1989 Tienanmen Square
massacre
http://www.workers.org/ww/tienanmen.html

- supports the "socialist" North Korean dictatorship of Kim
Jong Il
http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/korea0425.php
http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/korea0509.php

- and views Iraq's Saddam Hussein as a beacon of
anti-imperialist resistance
http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/iraq0125.html

- defends the genocidal Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic
http://www.iacenter.org/yugo_milosdeligation.htm
http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/larry0228.php
http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/milosevic1108.php
http://shadow.autono.net/sin001/clark.htm

[AntiCoup2K4]

1. How many fucking threads do you need to bash one guy?

You don't like Ramsey Clark? Fine we get that. I have some reservations about the guy myself, but isn't one thread on the topic enough?

[bobwhite]

3. just wanted to answer those who said there was no evidence of a link

anyway this is important stuff.

[Radical Activist]

6. The Unitarian Universalist Church was involved with the coalition too

Does that mean the UU church is controlling the protests and that everyone involved with planning it is a unitarian?

I'm not sure what the point of your red baiting is. The protests ANSWER helped sponsor with other groups were a good thing.

[bobwhite]

8. the protests are good

ANSWER and Ramsey Clark are not good.

[Tinoire]

15. You STILL haven't shown where the link

between Ramsey Clark/ANSWER and the following is:

- supported the Chinese government's 1989 Tienanmen Square
massacre
http://www.workers.org/ww/tienanmen.html - no mention of Clark or ANSWER

- supports the "socialist" North Korean dictatorship of Kim
Jong Il
http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/korea0425.php - no mention of Clark or ANSWER

http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/korea0509.php - no mention of Clark or ANSWER


Nor have you answered how they are the "controlling party" of ANSWER.
Reposting the same links you were asked about in new threads does not an answer make. You can either answer the question here or in your first thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1520898#1520909

Let me know if we can pull the same stunt with the New York Times and the Jerusalem Post because, if so, boy do I have a long list of people & organizations I want to defame!

[Stand and Fight]

2. Just say NO people. Don't feed the animals under the bridge...

Interesting links....
:eyes:

:hi: Oh yes! Welcome to DU by the way! :hi:

[bobwhite]

4. obviously you missed the many long time DUers arguing on the threads

my position is no different from theirs. and David Corn is not a right winger with an agenda. he's a sane rational liberal.

[Stand and Fight]

19. Say what?!?

First off, you'd just posted the thread and I was one of the first to reply to it. In fact, if I recall correctly I was the second, and at that point only one other person had posted in response. Your response came 3 minutes after mine(@3:17am CDT), and I posted my post one minute after the first response (@3:14am CDT). So, pray do tell, what do the many long-time DUers ARGUING (your words, not mine) -- not debating and discussing -- have to do with your DU-baiting posts?

Secondly, what exactly is your position that you claim is no different than many "long time DUers"? I will point out that someone's length of time on the site does not give any indication of expertise, intentions, or even base innate intelligence. If such were the case, then surely there is a case for a big bang in intellect in cyberspace as DU only came into being in 2000. God created the word in six days, but according to Bob folks, by virtue of being a "long time" DUer you've gained superior know-how in the world of general political discussion... Well, zippedy-do-da, sign me up? Do I get a t-shirt Bobby-boy?

Thirdly, from where do you surmise that I have any problem with David Corn or having espoused that he was not a "rational liberal"? I wholeheartedly agreed with his book regarding the lies of Bush, and after researching at length found him -- unlike the man you should be attacking -- right on point in regards to our insidious White House Resident. I find I am annoyed because you attempt to assassinate my words and character without even presenting thorough discourse on whatever it is that your singular position happens to derive from, Bob. I don't see David Corn -- or you for that matter -- taking an active role in attempting to remove that nefarious cancer that has taken residence in our nation's capital. I don't see you in your attempts to discredit Ramsey Clark -- a former Attorney General who actually DID and continues to do something for this country I might add -- calling for or working for the impeachment of George W. Bush and his cronies. No, you are content to instead bash someone who is using their energy in a positive way through juvenile and petty attacks.

Fourth, if Clark is such a toadie of radicals, then why don't you take him on out in the open like a man, and cease and desist with the childish attacks in cyberspace? For that matter, just how up-to-date are you on the many impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors of George W. Bush? You speculate and present your facts against Clark, but why are you so ardent in trashing him, rather than applying your obvious passion toward coming together with those whom you espouse to have so much in common with, the "long time" DUers? Why don't you work toward lobbying your Senators and Representatives to take up an investigation of the actions of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney? How is it that you seem so moved to rip into Ramsey Clark in multiple threads, but you have yet to post -- in the brevity of your time here -- a thread regarding the true treasonous beasts in our country?

Lastly, it seems to me that you are seeking to bait DUers -- "long time" DUers as well -- into a pointless squabbling debate and deflect their efforts at reasonable and productive discourse. You are literally diving off a cliff to tear down Ramsey Clark and A.N.S.W.E.R. -- whom I have my own reservations about -- rather than pouring the same passion into anti-Bush fervor. Your energies are commendable, but they would better serve the cause through proper and better thought out direction. Ramsey Clark and company aren't perfect, but they sure as hell are on our side in regards to ripping the cloak of deception that Bush and the Neo-Cons have thrown upon international and domestic policy...

[Radical Activist]

5. Red baiting comes to DU!

Hooray!

A lot of people were involved with planning the various protests International ANSWER hosted with other groups. I'm not aware of any group that has organized larger protests against the war without involving ANSWER so I guess we better tear them apart for being too extreme. Liberals certainly can't do anything well without finding a reason to divide and splinter before long.

I'm not prepared to defend Clark's whole career but our entire legal system is based on the idea that EVERYONE deserves a competent defense. Even people we despise like Milosevic and LaRouche. That's part of what it means to be a lawyer. I won't criticize Clark for upholding that value on the international stage. Attacking Clark because he has taken on the defense of horrible figures is a cheap shot. Someone had to do it.

[bobwhite]

7. I respect and admire criminal defense attorneys

But if you read David Corn's article you'll see the Clark is much more than that.

[Radical Activist]

10. The article accuses Clark

of saying Iraq wants to be left alone and that we don't need sanctions. Well, since there were no WMD's I'd say that's a pretty reasonable position to take. The article makes other accusations against WPP but not Clark. The article also refuses to consider circumstances where Clark may have been representing the views of his client to the public rather than his own in his role as a lawyer.

David Corn doesn't like that a lot of the speakers at the ANSWER rally spoke about other topics. Tough shit. The idea that we should restrict the peace rallies to one topic is small minded and self defeating.

My question about the whole issues is, so what? If no one else is getting the job done, why should I care if ANSWER is tied to the WWP? I didn't become a member because I participated in their protest and it didn't hurt my ears to hear some people I disagreed with. So what?

[Stand and Fight]

24. There's a fine example in history of that...

One of our greatest patriots and past presidents did precisely what you are defending here. I commend you for your perception and sense of the right of EVERYONE to have legal representation. Whom do I speak of as having defended horrible figures in American history? Why, none other than the second President of the United States of America, John Adams. He took the case of defending the British soldiers accused of a massacre of "defenseless" colonists in the lead up to our country's august and esteemed founding. Did it make him any less of a patriot, a radical, or a man of genuine wisdom who recognized the rights of all men for due process and legal representation of the law? I prefer to think that he was somewhat of a Renaissance figure in having equal mixes of all of those characteristics in his character. While Ramsey Clark is no John Adams, I do think the comparison is up to par given his courageous efforts to speak out for those whom the majority would perhaps drag outside the city gates and stone... Thank God we've deepened our Christian sentiments and have the likes of George W. Bush to show us the way in being true compassionate conservatives... :eyes: Oh yeah, one more random thing to add -- Ramsey Clark is far closer to being a man of the caliber and distinction of the likes of John Adams than George W. Bush ever was or ever will be!

[jonnyblitz]

9. we go through this "ANSWER are commies" shit every protest

this is getting fucking OLD. we have heard it all before, over and over and over! NOBODY CARES. ANSWER doesn't hold any power, they organize PROTESTS! Trash people in power, preferably to the RIGHT of us please.

[Tacos al Carbon]

11. I disagree

I care. ANSWER does hold significant power and they're trying to get more. It's not old as long as people keep sticking up for those idiots.

And kick.

[nashville_brook]

16. i totally agree! ANSWER is Johnny on the Spot for organizing...

the folks who don't like thier extended affiliations can always get in the biz of organizing...

this is like Pearl Jam boycotting TicketBastard -- it just isn't wise at this time if you want to continue holding events.

[deutsey]

25. When you go to an ANSWER protest, they spray you with mind-controlling

chemicals that turn you into Maoist zomby slaves.

Everybody knows this. :eyes:

Seriously, I don't like ANSWER all that much, but I do like that they were the only ones there for a long while organizing anti-war and anti-Bush protests. A lot of people like me who attended these rallies and marches didn't believe in ANSWER's larger agenda; we just wanted a way to come together en masse and resist the Bush junta. God knows the Democrats weren't resisting for us, and few other groups were able to put together the large scale protests that ANSWER does.

On January 20, I went to the DC Anti-War Network rally at Malcolm X Park and, frankly, I was glad for this alternative to ANSWER's rally. However, I'm damn glad ANSWER was out there too.

And speaking of the DAWN rally: there were anarchists and groups holding large red Communist flags there. I don't belong to or even agree with these groups, but as a democrat (small d) I've come to accept that democracy makes for strange bedfellows sometimes.

[nashville_brook]

27. having gone to these things for 20 years i am ALWAYS amazed

at the old-school marxists, maoists, communists, etc.

who knew these guys were still around! it's always been in the back of my head that it would be great psy-ops to inflate these groups -- but then i dismiss that way too cynical.

btw -- i've noticed the cutest guys always hang with the marxists! :)

[Radical Activist]

12. Do you happen to run a blog from Knoxville Tennessee

and work at UT, do you? Just asking.

[Kipepeo]

13. Thread upon thread attacking one of the primary

protest groups.

I have to wonder, why the coordination??

In any case...I perused your links that were duplicated from at least 2 other threads tonight and couldn't find anything shocking or indicting about ANSWER while there. Can you highlight a few scathing sentences for me to make it easier, please? Thanks.

[fujiyama]

18. ANSWER

is being used by the Workers World Party. That's the main problem. Personally I don't care if a group is filled with democratic socialists but when they start allying themselves and defending nutcase dictators like Kim Jong Il, Milosevec and Saddam (not to mention defending the Chinese Govt during the Tieneman Square Massacre), well I have to question how sane the group really is. I know that I don't want to be associated with those that defend murderers, be it Bush, Saddam, or any other psychopathic dictator.

Hey, protests are a good thing and it's disappointing that other liberal groups haven't become more effective in countering ANSWER.

[lindsayg]

14. Don't like Ramsey Clark or ANSWER?

Simple solution. Don't associate with them. Problem solved.

And, if you don't like them representing the anti-war movement, by all means, feel free to start your own organization!

[theresistance]

17. Can someone click Alert for this one?

[Stand and Fight]

20. I already have...

And I have responded to "bobwhite." You can see my post above...

[theresistance]

21. Good

There's another thread by bobwhite along similar lines. Its along the same lines bashing Ramsey Clark and shit like that...We can debate and disagree but for someone to join on one day and launch such explosive rockets into the place is I think strange. I'm relatively new myself but jeez...

[Stand and Fight]

23. I don't judge people on here...

I don't judge people on here by the brevity of their membership, but on the content and tone of their posts. "bobwhite" is completely suspect of having apparently dubious aims in my view, as he has spewed so much vitriol as to make it seem all the rage. (Pun not intended...) However, the posts of your's that I have come across seem those of one in possession of sound reason and a secular wit. And I truly mean this:

:toast: A hardly welcome to DU and I am glad to have you here! :toast:

[theresistance]

28. Did you notice?

our friend bobwhite has already been tombstoned!

[Stand and Fight]

22. From your post:

You directed the readers here to this site with the following words:
- and views Iraq's Saddam Hussein as a beacon of
anti-imperialist resistance
http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/iraq0125.html

I cannot find one thing that smacks of Clark heralding Hussein as a "beacon of anti-imperialist resistance," yet nonetheless I even have a problem with your premise. I cannot see what would be so bad about someone who seeks to fight against the onslaught of an imperialist aims. Can you tell me, Bobby-boy, what PNAC stands for and what it is all about? Furthermore, on that line of thought, Clark seems to have been somewhat prophetic, and I quote from the link you directed us to:

In a meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, Clark denounced U.S. policy toward Iraq. "This is genocide," he said. "The progress that Iraq has made must not be lost at 12 noon on Jan. 20 when George Bush is inaugurated. Inspections teams and the oil-for-food program were both frauds from the beginning. There is no justification for the sanctions. They are a war by other means."

Seems, if anything, he and a great deal of other Americans are a great deal more astute and mindful of the Neo-Conservative agenda under Bush than those who would paint Clark in a bad light... People like yourself. Go ahead, try to flame away.

[sherilocks]

26. Bob also directed you to another link

From Common Dreams:

Published in the November 1-7, 2002 issue of LA Weekly
Behind the Placards
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.

<snip>

How would you respond to this? I agree with David Korn, except that the number of people opposed to the war has grown considerably since last November. Democrats should be in the forefront of the anti-war movement, not ANSWER. Clearly Bob is as concerned about this as I am. ANSWER does not speak for me, nor should it speak for Democrats who oppose the war, but have no "hard left" agenda. It will not bode well for the future of our party.