> I'm forwarding an email which I got today from the Nicanet email list, which
> shows how ANSWER responds to these criticisms by suggesting that all of the
> critics are cut from the same cloth as Corn, Gitlin, Cooper, and Lerner.
> Notice how the language accuses Lerner's supporters of "defaming" the
> anti-war MOVEMENT (notice the singular use of the word).
Is it still early in the morning there? Did you have a long night? You still seem to be having some trouble with reading comprehension. The ANSWER e-mail you quote reads:
> [W]e at A.N.S.W.E.R. have been
> taken by surprise by a campaign initiated by Michael
> Lerner and furthered by David Corn (a reporter for the
> Nation and Fox News) and others that has sought to deceive
> the anti-war movement and to misdirect its energies to
> instead focus on claims of victimhood by Michael Lerner
> because he was not asked to speak at the San Francisco
> demonstration this Sunday. This attack has now been picked
> up by pro-war forces in an effort to defame the movement.
The e-mail says that the campaign was initiated by Lerner and furthered by Corn. As to your statement that ANSWER says that all its critics are like Corn, that's in your head. (I don't think McReynolds, for example, is like Corn. I don't think Howard Zinn is like Corn. But I think some of these people are insufficiently on guard against getting duped by whatever slander appears at thenation.com or on the Common Dreams site.)
Furthermore, the language does not accuse Lerner's supporters of 'defaming the movement'. It says that the attack was PICKED UP BY PRO-WAR FORCES, David Horowitz for example, in an effort to defame the movement.
Furthermore, there is nothing behind-the-scenes about this.
I think jks and Doug were right earlier. Let's get back to stopping the war.
LP