>In other words,
>please avoid members of the WWP if at all possible,
>and cite individuals who truly are doing PR for
>Hussein, rather than people who just say they think
>war would be a bad idea and thus are objectively pro-Saddam.
But the WWP has gone far beyond saying that war is a bad idea. They don't criticize Hussein's regime, never mention his brutality of his own people, and claim that Bussein represents his peoples views.
They went to Bagdad and joined a government-run anti-US rally, which meant they were melding their views with Hussein's. From the Workers World own newspaper at http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/iraq0125.html:
"Fifty anti-sanctions activists led by International Action Center founder and former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark joined a demonstration in downtown Baghdad at 2 a.m. on Jan. 17 to mark the 10th anniversary of the U.S.-led war of aggression against Iraq. The U.S. delegation joined thousands of protesters chanting "Down, down USA" and "Clinton, Albright, you can't hide, sanctions equal genocide."
and
"Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein put rumors he was ill to rest by delivering a 20-minute address on Iraqi television Jan. 17. He said the war was a confrontation between good and evil, which was continuing till this day. "
Not one critical work contradicting this statement by Hussein picturing himself as the force for good versus US evil.
Here's a challenge-- I can find article after article where the WWP states that Saddam Hussein always follows international law, while they never criticize his treatment of Kurds, Shiites or just the general population.
Given massive denunciations of US policy and praise of Hussein's regime, by what rules of language are the WWP not pro-Hussein? Of course the WWP is doing PR for Hussein. That's been their modus operandi for years.
Nathan Newman