http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13873-2003Feb15.html
After recycling the usual stuff about WWP, Milosevic, Kim Jong Il, etc., the Post continues:
"Yet over the last several days, ANSWER's politics have created a rift within the leadership of the antiwar movement that demonstrates the difficulty in having such a small, radical group play a prominent role in organizing the peace effort.
"The problem was exposed when Rabbi Michael Lerner, one of the nation's most prominent liberal Jewish leaders and editor of the San Francisco-based magazine Tikkun, went public to complain that he was "banned" from speaking at the Sunday rally here, because ANSWER objected to his positions on Israel. "
The article goes then cites the joint statement by the four coalitions, and a statement by Richard Becker, denying Lerner's accusations, but:
'But many national leaders of the antiwar movement refuse to accept the San Francisco coalitions' explanation. In a letter on the Web site Commondreams.org, more than 150 of the most notable progressive writers and intellectuals in the country, including Howard Zinn, Barbara Ehrenreich, Stanley Aronowitz, Jack Newfield and Frances Fox Piven, strongly protest the refusal to allow Lerner to speak and they take direct aim at ANSWER: "We believe this is a serious mistake, and that it exemplifies ANSWER's unfitness to lead mass mobilizations against war in Iraq." '
Of course this reverses the order of events, and ignores the fact that the petition was posted on February 10, the Joint Statement was issued on the evening of February 11, and all of these signatures were collected before the Joint Statement and other refutations were circulated.
LP
Note: it would be appropriate for readers of this who are convinced that the article has it wrong to e-mail a letter to the editor. You have to guess as to the address, though - the page on their site that is supposed to tell you how to do it is blank.