As I suspected those attending did not know who the WWP was -- as Tim Robbins did not know according to O'Reilly. Now Robbins is going to be put in the position of damning the communists as a whole. The general public does not know about all the various groups of Marxists. A red is a red is a red as far as Americans are concerned.
Marta
>
>Here's his response. I suppose I'm violating etiquette by sharing
>it, but there doesn't seem to be anything terribly personal in it,
>and I'm not very troubled by my indiscretion.
>
>Doug
>
>----
>
>>Thanks for writing. Since when is the truth bad for the peace movement? I
>>wrote what I did. O'Reilly would have used the piece with or without me. I
>>went on the show knowing that he would try to taint the whole movement with
>>the WWP. I clearly stated that those who attend the WWP rallies do not
>>realize the WWP is the lead organizer and do not share the views of the WWP.
>>And I said--as I argued in my article--that I believed the WWP's influence
>>and involvement is going to be an obstacle to the growth of an antiwar
>>movement. Rallies that include taped addresses from convicted cop-killers
>>like H. Rap Brown--whatever the reason--are not going to lead to a broad
>>movement. I noted that I did not believe that the attendees were dupes, but
>>that both organizers and the protesters were using one another.
>>
>>What is your standard? Should the leadership of a movement not be
>>scrutinized? Should the way the leaders affect the agenda/message of a
>>demonstration not be examined? Should people who believe Kim Jong-Il,
>>Slobodan Milosevic, and Saddam Hussein are champions of the working-class and
>>enemies of US imperialism who deserve solidarity not be challenged simply
>>because you agree with them on the issue of war? Is the enemy of the enemy
>>(in this case, the Bush Administration and various warmongers) always an ally
>>who warrants full embrace? Are you suggesting that all progressive
>>journalists engage in a conspiracy of silence and not write about the role
>>of, as you put it, "a weird Stalinist cult"? Here's a what-if for you.
>>Suppose white supremacists organized an anti-WTO rally via a front group--and
>>that rally focused on globalization, not racial matters--would you encourage
>>people to attend? Would you say that The Nation, the LA Weekly, or The
>>Washington Post should not probe the people doing the organizing? Heck, if
>>Pat Buchanan called an anti-Nafta rally, don't you think journalists should
>>explore why he was doing so and what differences existed between him and
>>other anti-Nafta forces? And how he was shaping the message of the
>>anti-corporate trade resistance? Don't you think a progressive might raise
>>concerns that an anti-Nafta movement led by Buchanan would end up with an
>>ill-chosen, jingoistic, sovereignty-uber-alles message that could be
>>self-defeating for progressives? Do we only care about the truth when it
>>works to our immediate political advantage? Do we believe it is wise to hide
>>differences and problems?
>>
>>What's wrong with telling the people who is in charge and letting them decide
>>whether that matters to them? You can argue that this gives ammunition to the
>>other side, but--guess what?--the ammunition already exists. And when the
>>other side needs to use it, believe me, they will find it on their own. At
>>this stage in the game, they have no reason to be worried about the antiwar
>>movement and, thus, no pressing reason to discredit it. But, if we're lucky,
>>such a day might come. So you want to think tactically? Let's be tactical. It
>>is better to have this discussion first on our terms and to encourage the
>>develop of a movement that has a broader message and is less encumbered with
>>fringe issues than to turn our heads now and later see a WWP-led movement
>>make strategic errors or be discredited by Fox News Channel, at a time
>>when--I hope--more people are marching and more people are watching. But
>>tactical considerations aside, I return--naively, as you might put it--to a s
>>imple premise: why evade the truth? Citizens, be they voters or
>>demonstrators, deserve to know the truth about their leaders. If the WWP role
>>in the antiwar movement is problematic--and you may not believe it is--than
>>how does one justify not confronting it in public?
-- Marta Russell Los Angeles, CA http://www.disweb.org