<DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> Nathan, you're living in never-never land. You have a Trotskyist's confidence in the Power of the Correct Line: if we just get THAT right we'll be invincible! "My strength is as the strength of ten because my heart is pure" -- get real, fella. I think that it is now clear that only the threat of social unrest on a level comparable to that faced after the invasion of Cambodia, if that, would have had any hope of stopping the last war, and if you believe we could have generated that just on the strength of a pure line, you've been smoking crack. So you end up blaming the people who part helped organize the (to my mind pretty damn impressive) antiwar movement we had, calling them complicit in murder (!) -- I mean, Nathan, you're a  lawyer, that's strong language; it implies intent to kill -- instead of thanking them for their good work. And you have an absurd overestimation of the political sophistication of the American people. As if they knew what ANSWER was, who said who was allegedly behind it (the WWP), and what that who supposedly believed in. Hell, I was just talking to my successors at the court, bright, highly educated (Harvard, Chicago, Northwestern), well-informed young lawyers who are quite progressive and (I guarantee you) far more informed than your average Joe or Jane, and they haven't a clue. Most of the American people believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. You're not dealing with people who say, I can't support you your because your march was organized by a  Stalinist front group. That level of specious objection is waaay beyond where folks are at. They have no idea what a Stalinist front group is, They think the Quakers are Saddam-lovers because they oppose Shock and Awe. Surely you know this. jks   Here's my bottom line-- I think the ANSWER-style left helped murder Iraqis in the last couple of months by making the moral argument of the antiwar forces look implausible, so those looking to a moral solution could be convinced by the Bushies. And I think those who stay silent in the face of the repression of the Cuban people are helping to assist an invasion of Cuba-- which is partly what the letter itself said about Castro himself. Only a left that clearly identifies with democracy in Cuba will have the credibility to propose and advocate for a non-violent route to that goal. So those signing that letter are the ones who will be able to fight a Cuba invasion if it comes to it-- not the folks being silent as gross human rights violations and executions happen there. -- Nathan Newman ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailsig/*http://tax.yahoo.com">Yahoo! Tax Center</a> - File online, calculators, forms, and more