<HTML>. From: Jake NYTimes article on antiwar movement The renewed attack on ANSWER is really a coded attack on the entire left wing of the movement, as the Times piece shows. Years from now UFPJ types will try to say ANSWER left the movement in a fit of radical pique, whereas it's clear that ANSWER is now being deliberately purged. What we'll see everywhere now is a call for a ceasefire followed by a UN-administrated division of spoils (and internationally coordinated aggression against other Middle Eastern states) So the predictable attempt to purge the Left from the antiwar movement is in full swing. What disturbs me is how quickly and efficiently the liberals wheeled to the right, in lockstep, just  as soon as the war started.  I instantly found myself isolated within the University antiwar group I helped found -- an anti-imperialist message was no longer welcome. For the most part the "global justice" types seem more comfortable with the liberals than the radicals. How the hell did they get the new exclusionary liberal line out so effectively? Or was is just the gut instinct of every liberal to start waving the flag when things got tough? jake > > >Antiwar Effort Emphasizes Civility Over Confrontation >By KATE ZERNIKE and DEAN E. MURPHY > > >The week before the war began, another major coalition, United for Peace >and Justice, declined to join in sponsoring a rally put on by >International Answer, a group whose names stands for Act Now to Stop War >and End Racism, saying its message was too left-wing and alienating.... > >full: >http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/29/international/worldspecial/29PROT. </HTML>