In his recent article -- How the Anti-War Movement is Blowing it, Bill Weinberg (aka Bill Whineberg)'s attack on the anti-war movement (under the guise of constructive criticism) comes as no surprise at all. He has a history.  I've read his attacks on those who sacrificially put their feet on the street and work for peace in the past.  He promotes himself as anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-zionist, etc. but when you read his stuff and read between the lines he's always chipping away at the anti-war movement with pseudo-microanalysis, ever weakening and dividing the movement. When it comes down to it, I see him as fifth column, pure and simple. Sometimes I would like to write a comprehensive analysis of his work - but choose not to give him any more attention than he deserves.  Strategically, It's also more savvy strategically to simply ignore him. I'll make an exception this time since he's out there barking from his "WW3" website on the weekend when tens of thousands are protesting the war in Washington and San Francisco.
 
His attacks on ANSWER in his latest attempt to divide the anti-war movement are the same worn-out, red-baiting assaults we've heard so many times in the past.  He makes a piss-poor attempt to mix his verbal attacks with a pretense of analysis, but the attacks are as tiresome as they are ineffective. You would think he would come up with a new approach. For the first time, ANSWER and UJP have managed to pull together into a fragile-but-real alliance against the snakepit in Washington. Whineberg doesn't like that.

One has to ask why he's attacking the only movement in the U.S. that presents a viable threat to the Bush junta, rather than the junta itself. Oh yes, he packages it as self-evaluation, but it's obvious to me that his attacks are meant to neutralize or destroy the movement. If he really meant to offer constructive criticism and help create and support unity, he would be in the middle of it pulling people together - not driving a wedge between them and calling one side "murderers" and "supporters of genocide".

I am not a "member" of ANSWER, IAC, UJP, Workers World, any Communist party, any Socialist party and would not allow myself to be called a socialist or a communist or any other "ist".  But I've followed their work closely and I've worked with both, ANSWER and UJP in various mobilizations. I was one of the first to call publically for national unity between the two coalitions, after 9/11/01, fully aware of the ideological differences among their ranks.
 
Whineberg's comments about supporting Tiananmen Square and Milosevich grossly misrepresent the positions of Ramsey Clark, ANSWER and Workers World - and that's not an accident on his part. He knows that the real issues surrounding Clark's and Becker's criticism of the Bosnian wars and the war crimes tribunal at the Hague are issues of U.S. imperialism and interference with sovereign states. Why not acknowledge and address those issues? Whineberg's just another mole, bent on infiltrating the anti-war movement, splitting it and bringing it down.  Don't get me started.  As far as activisim goes, I know 10-year-olds who have seen more action on the street than Whineberg has seen from his NYC office window.  In terms of intellect, integrity, courage, and personal accomplishments, he wouldn't make a good sized pimple on Ramsey Clark's ass.
 
Les Blough, Editor
Axis of Logic
Boston, MA
rmcmail@speakeasy.net
www.axisoflogic.com
617-787-3498