Daily Kos

ANSWER: Not in my name

Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 10:29:22 PM PDT

ToqueDeville is right: "By blatant neglect, we allowed ANSWER et al. to put a radical, extremely controversial, and politically disastrous face on the otherwise increasingly mainstream opposition to this war."

I attended the march in Washington on Saturday.  While I was inspired by the immense turnout of people of all ages and walks of life, I was appalled at the manipulative and fundamentally dishonest way in which the march was billed as a grassroots action to end the war and then deliberately played out in front of the media as something quite different.

Never again will I attend an ANSWER-sponsored event. I was outraged. How can we criticize Democrats for collaborating with the Neo-Cons when we anti-war progressives are collaborating with an organization that uses our presence at an anti-war rally to zealously promote its own controversial and politically disastrous agenda, including anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-communist views?

I felt deeply offended to come to a march whose announced goal was ending the war in Iraq only to hear people take the microphone and promote radical views unrelated to the Iraq War. Some of the views expressed truly offended me, and I felt used and betrayed as the TV cameras filmed me standing among the captive audience.

Not only the content, but the style of the rally was disturbing and repugnant. I came as a peacemaker, a voice in defense of my country,  my two sons, and the sons and daughters of mothers and fathers everywhere. I did not come in hate, but with humility and resolve.  To love and honor my country and my constitution, as well as the rights of people in other countries to live unmolested by my own government, without fear of "pre-emptive war."

That is why I was dismayed at the out-of-control, vitriolic, screaming demeanor of speaker after speaker, who displayed anything but leadership. There were notable exceptions — Jesse Jackson, Cindy Sheehan, Ramsey Clark, and a few others. But the rally, as a whole, was a disaster. Even a person such as myself — who has opposed this war from Day One and long hungered for the sight of 300,000 Americans filling the streets of Washington to oppose it — even I could not draw strength and inspiration from this rally.

Instead, I felt repulsed at the ugly spectacle of our peaceful audience being screamed at by a parade of angry misfits.  It felt like a group therapy session gone terribly wrong, or maybe a revival meeting in some mega-church in an alternate bizarro universe.  It also reminded me of the 1930s newsreels in which screaming, bellowing demagogues attempt to dominate vast crowds by the sheer force of their rage.

From what I could tell, many others in the crowd were dismayed at some of the things we were hearing. I heard few boos. Despite our immense elation at the obvious power of numbers we had achieved for our cause, we were starting to become bummed out. Had we all somehow walked onto the set of the wrong movie?  Unfortunately, the cameras were rolling. Here I was, standing in the audience while some guy I had never heard of yelled into the microphone, "Victory to the Iraqi resistance!"

Realizing that our peace march had been hijacked by zealots with their own stupid agenda, I wandered away from the podium in disgust, and made my way into the crowd on the streets that stood, waiting, for what seemed like hours for the march to start.

Growing impatient, I started to move through the crowd, trying to find a place beyond what I assumed was a bottleneck. But no, block after block, it was all the same.  The whole damn movement was paralyzed, waiting for some leadership.

Ain't that a nice metaphor.

Puzzled, I kept asking people around me as I moved through the crowd, what's the holdup? Why aren't we marching? Many people seemed as annoyed and frustrated as I was, but it was hard to break the log jam, since there appeared to be no leaders present, nobody knew why we were at a standstill, and it was not possible to simply start marching because we were surrounded by thousands of people standing patiently in close ranks, blocking movement in every direction.

I am not young anymore and my legs were starting to swell up from standing in cramped quarters for so long. I was starting to limp. I can walk for miles, but I cannot stand for long periods. I knew if I didn't start walking soon, I would have to leave and go home. With some effort, I finally made my way to a different part of the crowd on a different street, where things were starting to move in a desultory way, even though there was no leadership in sight.

Now and again, I saw parents of fallen soldiers wearing placards or holding signs that bore silent witness to the hideous fate that is every parents' greatest fear. I felt drawn to them, I shook their hands, told them I was sorry at their loss, and listened to their stories. I looked closely at the photos of their sons, each face as handsome and sweet as my own boys' faces. I have reached an age where all young people tend to remind me of my own children.

I noticed the parents took special care with the photos of their children. They were always large and mounted with care. They were beautiful in a terrible way. One father gave me a xeroxed copy of the last letter his son had sent home. It bore the marks of a boy in first bloom of manhood, full of longing and affection, of pride and idealism, and yet uncertain, with a barely voiced subtext of dread and misgivings. At the bottom of the letter was a lengthy postscript especially for his little brother. How like the awkward tenderness between my own two sons. Why are my boys alive, while these parents have lost theirs? And what about the grief of the Iraqi parents?

One gold star mom was standing by herself intently watching the throng of thousands, and as she shook my hand, I saw she was powerfully distracted. But it was by something more than grief. She spoke, she told me about her son, and she shook my hand warmly, but she looked past me, like a blind person or an oracle.  She was staring intently at that vast crowd, as if drinking it in.  Perhaps she was stunned to be surrounded by people who were all shouting out in unison the very thoughts that silently torment her in her private solitude of grief.

I befriended a tiny and frail but stalwart fellow marcher from lower Manhattan who told me she was 85 years old, had attended many marches, and had "never seen one as badly organized as this.  Where is the parade marshall?  Where is the leadership?" she demanded. Where, indeed.

Today, after seeing the CNN footage of the rally, I now realize why the parade was maddeningly paralyzed for hours and why we stood out there, miserably shifting from foot to foot like penned cattle, with no information or justification for this indignity. It was so those blowhards from hell could use us as the stage scenery in their televised photo-op.

Well, I won't fall for that again. To the organizers of ANSWER, I say, "Not in my name".  I am against the war in Iraq, not anti-American. I certainly do not want "victory for the Iraqi insurgents"! I want to end the damned war, you morons, so there will be peace, not some hollow victory, with the defeated side living only for revenge. So don't corral me into your bait-and-switch photo op.

Who is ANSWER answerable to, anyway? Who is your Daddy? Who knows. In any case, we can safely assume that Bush and his cronies are well pleased that ANSWER helped make the anti-war movement look like the Neo-Con stereotype: a bunch of fringe groups and kooks.

Let's not allow the growing momentum for peace to get diverted into some unrelated, self-defeating, and — to many — deeply offensive political agenda. Surely we've already had enough of being manipulated in the name of idealism.

Let's keep building on the growing momentum against the war. Let's focus on that one issue. Let's build a grassroots movement so strong that it cannot be denied:

Not in my name.
Not in the name of my beloved country.
End this treasonous war!

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 24 comments

  •  We need to focus on one issue (none / 1)

    Ending the war.
  •  This just makes me sad. (none / 1)

    I don't think that was your intention, but to hear your story, a story of someone so committed and willing to sacrifice, but who was battered down by the failure of this event's sponsors, is just so sad.

    I was glad, at least to see the last words you wrote were still full of committment and defiance. That at least rekindles some sense of hope.

    • • Get Your John McCain - NOPE T-Shirts & Stickers

    by KingOneEye on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 11:00:36 PM PDT

    •  Not giving up -- don't worry (4.00 / 3)

      I'm not battered down, just sick and tired of being sick and tired of this criminal government.

      But I'm NOT giving up.

      I am, however, profoundly sad at the horrible suffering on all sides.

      Another incident that stays with me from the march is visiting the table set up by an arab-american civil rights group.  It featured a poster showing a young boy — perhaps 10 or 12 — not yet through puberty, who was being taken somewhere by American soldiers.  The American soldiers were grasping him firmly by the arms and looking straight ahead as they led him away.

      They looked like soldiers anywhere — focused on the task at hand.  But the boy was clearly terrified.  The soldiers looked immense beside him.  Maybe the boy was 5 feet tall or thereabouts, I don't remember.  The look on his face was haunting.  Then as you looked at the rest of the child's body, you realize he had urinated on himself.  I have been mightily afraid in my life, but never enough to do that.  What is it like to feel such overwhelming terror?  What was happening in that picture?  Why was the boy being taken away?  Had he attacked the soldiers? What happened to him?  Was he tortured? Is he alive?

  •  It's sad... (4.00 / 2)

    Well, I was accused of McCarthyism for suggesting this same thing in Meteor Blades' diary, but I believe it must be done.  This movement CANNOT continue with ANSWER at the helm.  And the sad thing is, this organization has been involved with the whole peace movement since 2002.  Everyone knew it was there, and the stupid, left-field statements you heard have been demoralizing mainstream protesters at anti-Iraq war marches since then.  But nobody's been willing to address the issue because of a misguided belief in absolute unity regardless of what is actually being said.

    It's time for MoveOn, UPJ, and other mainstream leaders of the protest movement to take a stand, define what they stand for, and demand that ANSWER either stick to the message of the broader anti-war coalition or stop organizing with them.  Of course they have the right to organize their rallies and say whatever the hell they want.  But the mainstream organizations also have the right to say "these people don't speak for me."

    Read James Loewen's "Sundown Towns"!

    by ChicagoDem on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 11:08:21 PM PDT

  •  We lose the high ground (4.00 / 2)

    by allying with ANSWER and their anti-American ilk. How can we criticize "moderate" Republicans for cooperating with far-right extremists when we do the same for our own wingnuts?
    •  Well (4.00 / 2)

      The stupid thing is that Democrats DON'T usually work with ANSWER.  I'm amazed that Jesse Jackson even showed up at this rally; even he's stayed away from them in the past.  They're that toxic.  But Dean didn't show up here, Kerry didn't, even Kucinich didn't.  It's that toxic.

      The sad thing is that this doesn't hurt our fight with the Republicans as much as it does with the DLC.  As long as the antiwar movement is the ANSWER movement, pols who want to keep the base happy while avoiding antagonizing pro-war pundits can legitimately claim to be opposed to the extremist sentiments voiced at these protests.  No mainstream Democratic pol is going to show up at an ANSWER protest, and very few liberal commentators are going to blame them.  But a protest that's sponsored 100% by a group like MoveOn or UPJ?  If Dems duck that, they suddenly have to face accountability.

      Read James Loewen's "Sundown Towns"!

      by ChicagoDem on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 11:22:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  ANSWER and Bush. (none / 1)

    ANSWER doesn't speak for me.  But they speak for me more than Bush does.  I hope they will be rendered irrelevant by a greater peace movement, but I still think that the show of strength - which did, remember, garner an AP article that I've found on the CNN and USA Today websites that nowhere mentions any of the negatives raised here and an article in the New York Times that actually flat-out says that this protest was unusually focused on the single issue when compared with other, similar ones - I think that show of strength was valuable.  The fact that there were 100,000 of us in comparison to an estimated 400 pro-war demonstrators on sunday, that matters and I'm sick of hearing people claim it doesn't.  I do sympathize with the criticims of ANSWER, a group I have no love for.  During the event itself I called my mom and said that I was holding ANSWER responsible for the organizational weaknesses of the day.  But that doesn't make all those people's presence in the streets worth nothing.

    (I'm also a little baffled since your experience of the march was clearly different than yours.  In my case, we started marching after perhaps half an hour.  Things were poorly run in some particulars, but I thought the march was the part that went really well after what was, relatively speaking, a minor initial hitch.  Several of the speakers through the afternoon at the Operation Ceasefire event were also quite good.)

    •  The massive turnout was great (none / 1)

      You are entirely right to say that in itself is very important. I certainly wouldn't say otherwise. I think peaceful demonstrations, together with other kinds of action, can help end the war and we should continue them.

      As far as ANSWER, they have a right to voice their views.  I just don't happen to support them myself, and I certainly don't want to be used as a prop in their photo ops.

      Instead, I'd like to see progressives and others who are willing to focus on the issue of the war (and not a wide range of potentially divisive issues) take what has been acomplished so far and bring it to the next level.

      In fairness, ANSWER deserves credit for helping to build the anti-war movement so far, but after what I saw this weekend, I personally would not want to support them in the future, and I believe that the anti-war movement will be undermined if these people continue to be presented to the media as its "leaders".

      If we want the anti-war movement to become a voice that echoes resoundingly all across America, it must focus on that one issue, and lead with humility, love, and firm resolve, in the tradition of Dr. King.

      Surely we've already had enough angry ranting from the Neo-Christian conservatives. Do we progressives need to lend our support to wingnuts views on the left?  I don't want to go to an anti-war rally and listen to speeches that are just as demented and hateful as Pat Robertson suggesting that we assassinate foreign heads of state.

      Regarding our differing experiences about the march itself — in particular, the long wait in my area, compared to the relatively smooth flow you experienced. Maybe that's because it was a REALLY big crowd, probably well beyond the 100K or so mentioned by the Washington Post. In fact, it seemed like 200K or more to me and my friends, judging by the crowds we saw at the Women's March for Health in April of 2004. So it makes sense that people in different parts of the crowd didn't necessarily share the same experiences. I can affirm, however, that many hundreds of people where I was endured a very long and frustrating wait.

      •  the long wait. (none / 0)

        What I was thinking about the delay where you were standing in getting the march started is this: think about when you're getting off an airplane and you've been sitting at the back.  It takes forever for all the people ahead of you to get off.  A march that size, it's just going to take time for it to get started.  This one probably could have started more quickly, but I suspect that some of the delay you experienced was just inevitable.
  •  Thank you for your observations! (none / 1)

    I was not able to watch all the coverage on C-Span, so I only saw a few of the speakers.  I thought Jessica Lange did a terrific job, but I saw others that I did not enjoy listening to either.  If it's any consolation, I think very few people actually saw the rally because it was only covered on C-Span.  The MSM simply did not cover it.  But your point is VERY well taken.  It may be that the way to fight this administration is not through massive protest marches.  

    It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!

    by kathika on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 11:27:17 PM PDT

  •  Provide proof (none / 1)

    that ANSWER is "anti-Semitic", i.e., "anti-Jewish".

    Cindy McCain: "In Arizona The Only Way To Get Around The State Is By Small Private Plane"

    by assyrian64 on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 11:34:40 PM PDT

  •  So... (4.00 / 3)

    organize or join and empower an alternative.

    Get the permits, garner the support and round up the warm bodies.

    ANSWER would be and is easy to supplant.

    Now that the raft of bellyaching has been paraded before us...incessantly...how about fishing or cutting bait?

    The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

    by RedDan on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 11:52:43 PM PDT

    •  Let's do it. (none / 0)

      Kossacks have organized many times before. Just draw up a list of tasks and people can volunteer.
      Where is Georgia10 and the Downing Street Memo crew? They sure seemed to do an effective job of pulling that together. Maybe they or others could draw up the tasks and we can call for volunteers. I can give some time each week.  

      We don't have to make an MGM production out of everything. The march in Selma went forward despite the lack of a sound system for a live music concert or scaffolding for the television crews.

      And we maybe we don't need to supplant ANSWER, actually. Live and let live. They can still do what they're doing, as far as I'm concerned. I just want a more positive and intelligent alternative. One that can win the support of people of conscience all across America.

      •  No, we do need to supplant them, actually (none / 1)

        for several reasons.

        First of all, let me state clearly that a large number of the ANSWER coalition's member organizations are great people doing great things for great reasons. ANSWER suffers from the malady that ALL coalitions and cooperative conclaves generally fall prey to - mission creep, message mangling, and general lack of focus coupled with ideologically driven commitment to individual "issues" over and above general group aims and success.

        That said, a significant number of the ANSWER members are blinded by their own passion and their microscopic focus on single issues, and by their ongoing tactics of bringing every and any issue and trying to connect them all together - putting the entire historical narrative onto each and every slogan and so on.

        Then there are the totalitarian fools and stalinist maoist "maximalists" and the ultra-left infantile disorder sufferers...

        We must supplant them because we need to get those permits, because we need to rebrand the anti-war movement, we need to make it mainstream, we need message management, we need broad, popular appeal, we need simplicity, clarity, and focus.

        ANSWER provides none of those things...regardless of the appeal or not of their core set of messages.

        So, they must be supplanted. If we build better, we should and can expect a large number of the ANSWER core organizations to cleave to OUR organization...

        We must evolve.

        The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

        by RedDan on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 01:16:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please STEP UP (4.00 / 4)

          I went to the San Francisco ANSWER rally and march because there was no 'better' one to go to. I wasn't thrilled by much that happened ON THE STAGE, but ANSWER (not some 'better' organization) provided the stage, sound equipment, and generator.

          I was thrilled to see the 50 to 100 thousand who showed up. I was thrilled to walk beside a couple with a son who had been in Iraq for two weeks.

          I carried a sign, again provided by ANSWER, that had a picture of Martin Luthor King and 'OUT OF IRAQ' on it.

          So I found that, amongst the stuff I did not agree with or was bored by, was quite a bit I did agree with and was grateful for.

          So if people who can do it better want to STEP UP instead of complain about how poorly it was done by people ("lefty whackjobs" or not) who did step up and do the hard work for the first time since George W. Bushiter ignored my 'focus groups' and began the destruction of the USA, please step right on up.

          Another comment... On the same day was another large event in San Francisco. The LOVE parade. As we left the Anti-war march there were all these 'younsters' celebrating love and sex, with all the zest of people who are still being driven by their DNA in the 'reproduce now' stage of life.

          It was nice to be able to work to bring an end to this stupid criminal war and then laugh out loud at the celebration of reproduction on the same day.

          LL
           

          "No AMERICAN requires authorization to do the right thing."

          by LeftyLimblog on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 05:32:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Where are the Democrats? (none / 0)

    Hold your fire.   This wasn't an event that was sponsored by Democrats, and taken over by ne'er-do-wells.  If you look closely, you'll find that the Democrats had nothing to do with it.  Further, the Democrats would rather choke on their own blood than be seen at the demo (and not because of ANSWER, either)  

    Never again will I attend an ANSWER-sponsored event.  Do you think they'd miss you?  

    Groups like ANSWER get pulled into to vacuum when our party doesn't do it's job.  How many Democrats where speaking out against the war on the Mall this weekend, or on the weekly gabfests this on Sunday?  Oh?  What's that?  NONE.  

    So don't corral me into your bait-and-switch photo op.  You don't say?  Hillary Clinton didn't call today's demo, just so you know.

    Whose is baiting and switching?

    No more Republican rule.

    by HarveyMilk on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 12:11:07 AM PDT

    •  I'm not a Democrat (none / 0)

      Hillary is not my leader... I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

      This is not about the Democratic party or any other party, in in my view.

      It's simply about ending the war and not getting sidetracked into other agendas.

      For me, it was bait-and-switch photo op because I went to protest the war in Iraq and not to have my presence used to get media attention for people shouting "Victory to the Iraqi resistance!"  I have a nephew in Iraq.  I want him, and his young Iraqi counterparts, to live to see the end of this criminal, treasonous war.

      What does this have to do with Hillary Clinton, the Democrats, or the wingnuts in ANSWER?  Can't we focus on ending the war?

  •  Join the club... (none / 1)

    I didn't go and would never attend an ANSWER rally again either. The one I went to a couple years ago turned into a love fest for some guy who killed a cop. I think ANSWER are provocateurs, personally, designed to discredit the anti-war crowd.
  •  Another course of action for ANSWER (none / 1)

    In deToqueville's diary, many people said, "If you're sick of ANSWER, then DO SOMETHING!"  Most, I think, were implying that we should organize our own enormous rallies.  While that's a good idea, it's also really hard.  However, there is something that a fairly small group of people can actually do - blacken their name.

    ANSWER needs to be villified, to be made so toxic that nobody, under any circumstance, will ever have anything to do with them.  Even if the local ANSWER moles call them fascists.

    Why?  These people are parasitical con-men, and the only way to stop a con-man (aside putting him in jail or killing him, options which are simply not available to us) is to make sure everybody knows he's a con-man, so they won't listen to the lies, the pleading, the begging, the accusations, the tearful rants, and all the other crap they'll pull.  

    This is vital, ESPECIALLY if some group of Kossacks, or anybody, starts putting together their own anti-war rallies.  ANSWER will not just stand by and let some other group steal it's bogus mantle as "leader" of the anti-war movement, and they will pull the same crap described by GreenSooner in his post on deToqueville's diary.  They do not play nice, and vindictive bastard that I am, I don't really feel like playing nice either.

    How to do it?

    Information about ANSWER is already out there, fairly easy to find, and not terribly pretty.  Pull the juiciest bits of this all together into something like a press release, short and nasty.

    Beyond that, I think it would be useful to collect stories from people who have been involved in activism at a variety of levels, and who have been burned by ANSWER.  People who have had their rallies stolen, their organizations taken over and run into the ground, people who have tried to stand up to them and been shouted down as a fascist pig, etc.  Put together a big collection of all these personal and organizational tales of woe on a website or something, along with all the data used to put together the press release.

    Then send this out to everyone you know, and to the various groups which were active in organizing this most recent rally, or who have been active in the organization of such events in the past.  

    To make sure these groups get the message, have as many people as possible send messages on how dissapointed/alienated/angered they were by ANSWER's behavior at the rally.

    I'd post this in deToqueville and Meteor Blades' diaries as well, but I'm not really sure if that's a violation of double-posting rules or not.  I will also likely put this in its own diary soon.  If anybody reading this thread has any of the aformentioned tales of woe in dealing with ANSWER, please, post them here and I'll make sure they are duly recorded.

    `Under my command, every mission is a suicide mission.`

    by Zwackus on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 06:14:58 AM PDT

  •  Local supporters of ANSWER (none / 0)

    spend their time picketing and leafletting against local peace groups. They spend their time spamming peace group discussion lists and creating leaflets that distort the purpose of peace marches. The result is that people I know stay away from those marches, because they mistakenly believe it is organized by antisemites.

    This is so toxic that many here believe these folks are agents provocateurs. Their "success" is far greater in undermining the peace movement than in achieving any of their stated goals. This has been pointed out to them year after year, and yet they persist. Wny?

    Actions speak louder than words.

    •  So let's organize and alternative Right Now (none / 0)

      Look, I have no experience with organizing a large demonstration, but I'm eager to help those who do. I'll even work on the committee that arranges for port-a-potties, since people keep citing that in other diaries as one of the amazing skills possessed by ANSWER.  It can't be that hard to do.

      Let's not waste any energy trying to diable ANSWER. They have a right to speak, if anyone wants to listen.  But I don't want to support their views myself. I want to help end the war.  Period.

      •  about more than speech (none / 0)

        this group is a difficult issue, because they are about more than just speech. They seem to have an agenda to subvert the peace movement. That takes more thought than just ignoring them, though I agree that life must go on despite these folks.

Permalink | 24 comments