Kill the poor, Take the oil

What I know is that Anti-war protests are not covered very well at all. Would it kill the MSM to report some facts? For instance, is it pertinent to to know who organizes these protests? The A.N.S.W.E.R. might actually surprise you.

For everyone who was unable to attend the most recent Surrender Rally in D.C. there are many pictures available to virtually tour the devastation.

Despite the fact that we have entered the information age the quality of our news coverage across the board remains so low that it is in fact defective. By way of comparison, if the news media made cars they would all make avacado green Ford Pintos that get 3 miles to the gallon, seat 1.25 persons, had no seat belts, and every third of which would have a 95% chance of having an exploding gas tank when rear ended. This is precisely the quality of news coverage we get through the main stream media outlets.

Thus we get lame coverage of an anti-war rally that lacks critical facts needed for Americans to make a decision about whether or not to join the Surrender Bandwagon. Christopher Hitchens is also all over this fact, even more eloquently than I, and quotes the NYTimes describing one rally organizer as merely having, "progressive political objectives," and another as having only a "narrow, anti-war focus."

The protests were largely sponsored by two groups, the Answer Coalition, which embodies a wide range of progressive political objectives, and United for Peace and Justice, which has a more narrow, antiwar focus.

How descriptive. How informative. How incomplete. Can you say, "Lying by ommission?" Luckily Hitchens is more than able to provide a little more context to Cindy Sheehan's Surrender Rally organizers.

International ANSWER:

I suppose that it is possible that he has never before come across "International ANSWER," the group run by the "Worker's World" party and fronted by Ramsey Clark, which openly supports Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and the "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Clark himself finding extra time to volunteer as attorney for the génocidaires in Rwanda. Quite a "wide range of progressive political objectives" indeed, if that's the sort of thing you like. However, a dip into any database could have furnished Janofsky with well-researched and well-written articles by David Corn and Marc Cooper—to mention only two radical left journalists—who have exposed "International ANSWER" as a front for (depending on the day of the week) fascism, Stalinism, and jihadism.

United for Peace and Justice:

The group self-lovingly calling itself "United for Peace and Justice" is by no means "narrow" in its "antiwar focus" but rather represents a very extended alliance between the Old and the New Left, some of it honorable and some of it redolent of the World Youth Congresses that used to bring credulous priests and fellow-traveling hacks together to discuss "peace" in East Berlin or Bucharest. Just to give you an example, from one who knows the sectarian makeup of the Left very well, I can tell you that the Worker's World Party—Ramsey Clark's core outfit—is the product of a split within the Trotskyist movement. These were the ones who felt that the Trotskyist majority, in 1956, was wrong to denounce the Russian invasion of Hungary. The WWP is the direct, lineal product of that depraved rump. If the "United for Peace and Justice" lot want to sink their differences with such riffraff and mount a joint demonstration, then they invite some principled political criticism on their own account. And those who just tag along … well, they just tag along.

One doesn't have to wonder why the liberal media wouldn't want to hype up the fact that the far left organizes all of these anti-war rallies. It might offend normal everyday Americans. Who, because of their barbaric unsophistication still consider pro-marxist and anti-American groups as "unpatriotic". We wouldn't want to discredit the anti-war movement now would we?

It's as if the Klu Klux Klan held a pro-war rally attended by thousands of Republicans and Conservatives and the news media somehow failed to mention it. Or described the organizers as having only 'vague conservative objectives'.

With signs that say:

Bush is the symptom,
Capitalism is the disease,
Revolution is the Cure.
-Party for Socialism and Liberation.

I wonder if more moderate Democrats are not ashamed of the fact that they align themselves with communists and have them as their spokespeople about the war? Or does this in fact represent the majority of the left today?

[H]egemonic Word count: 763