[Peace-discussion] UFPJ's LeBlanc Waffles on Iraq Withdrawal

Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:05:40 -0500

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070301070705070300020502
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
 <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
 <title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://vfpdissident.blogspot.com/2007/01/ufpjs-leblanc-waffles-on-iraq.html">http://vfpdissident.blogspot.com/2007/01/ufpjs-leblanc-waffles-on-iraq.html</a> 
<h3>Saturday, January 27, 2007</h3>
<a name="825225505927849542">&nbsp;</a>
<h2><a
 href="http://vfpdissident.blogspot.com/2007/01/ufpjs-leblanc-waffles-on-iraq.html">UFPJ's
LeBlanc Waffles on Iraq Withdrawal</a></h2>
<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"
 href="http://bp1.blogger.com/_PxxELbdJlZQ/RbrM0dZQXOI/AAAAAAAAABQ/0Agxa-PFihg/s1600-h/waffle.jpg"><img
 style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;"
 src="cid:part1.07090404.02040902@usol.com" alt=""
 id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5024553535901031650" border="0"></a>Judith
LeBlanc, National Co-chair of <a
 href="http://www.unitedforpeace.org/index.php">United for Peace a</a><a
 href="http://www.unitedforpeace.org/index.php">nd Justice</a>, was on
National Public Radio yesterday <a
 href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7043131">talking
to Melissa Block</a>
about today's non-working day, civil obedient 'anti-war' rally in
Washington, DC. As Block alluded, UFPJ's official position is "End the
war in Iraq, Bring all the troops home now!" However, LeBlanc explained
"When we say 'immediately' we mean make the decision now and then map
out a plan." 
 
What's wrong with sticking unequivocally with "...
troops home now!"? Of course, no expects the troops to be tranported
instantaneously--that's magical thinking--but there is no practical
reason why an American withdrawal from Iraq could
not begin "<a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/now">now</a>" i.e.
"at the present time or moment" <thought of="" them="" just="" now="">or
"in the time immediately to follow : FORTHWITH" and be concluded within
days. All that is lacking is the political will in Washington and also,
as is now clear, within the leadership of UFPJ. 
 
<come in="" now="">On the UFPJ web site, LeBlanc is identified with the
Communist Party, USA (CPUSA). In fact, <a
 href="http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/770/1/134/">LeBlanc is
a National Vice-Chair of the CPUSA</a>
and Chair of its Peace and Solidarity Commission.* LeBlanc's
involvement in both UFPJ and the CPUSA is not surprising as both groups
have thoroughly accommodated themselves to the <a
 href="http://vfpdissident.blogspot.com/2007/01/iraq-war-will-worsen-take-two.html">Democratic
Party, which has steadfastly backed the US war in Iraq</a>. 
 
As <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/allen09272006.html">Joe Allen
wrote last year in CounterPunch</a>: 
</come></thought>
<blockquote>By every conceivable measure, the antiwar movement in the
United States should be a vibrant, mass movement. ... 
 
Another
crucial reason for the weakness of the antiwar movement is the
political course chosen by United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), the
largest and most visible antiwar coalition in the U.S. 
 
UFPJ's
main claim to leadership was the role it played in organizing the U.S.
end of the worldwide antiwar protests on February 15-16, 2003, a month
before the invasion took place. 
 
Yet in the three-and-a-half
years since, UFPJ has organized only a very small number of national
mobilizations. And even these have not always been unambiguously
antiwar demonstrations. For example, the clear target of UFPJ's protest
outside the Republican National Convention in August 2004 was George
Bush, not the war on Iraq, which has taken place with bipartisan
support. 
 
This past spring, meanwhile, some coalition leaders
explicitly described the New York City demonstration on April 29--which
UFPJ cosponsored with a wide array of liberal groups--as part of a
broader mobilization behind the Democrats in the 2006 election. 
 
UFPJ's
response to the major crisis points for U.S. policy since the
invasion--the leveling of Falluja, the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, the
threats to attack Iran, the recent Israeli-U.S. assault against
Lebanon--has been feeble in terms of protest, while its emphasis on
building support for the so-called antiwar Democrats in Congress has
grown more distinct. 
 
 <div style="text-align: center;">* * * 
 </div>
 
ONE
FACTOR in this strategic orientation is the influence of the Communist
Party (CP) USA, which plays an important part in shaping the direction
of UFPJ. One of UFPJ's co-chairs and most active leaders is Judith
LeBlanc, who is publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party. 
 
For
the past 70 years, with few exceptions, the CP has argued that it is
essential for progressive movements hoping to win social change in the
U.S. to support the Democratic Party against the Republicans. ... 
 
The
Democrats--who, before and since the 2004 election, ducked every
opportunity to challenge the Bush administration's policies--got the
unswerving support of a large section of the left, including the
Communist party, to the detriment of the struggle against the Bush
agenda. 
 
 <div style="text-align: center;">* * * 
 </div>
 
NOW,
TWO years later, with Bush's policies sinking still lower in public
support--when the anti-war movement should be pressing both parties for
immediate withdrawal from Iraq--[CPUSA National Chair Sam] Webb is
arguing against it. 
 
Instead, he proposes that antiwar activists
should support what he calls an "anti-occupation bloc" in Congress and
the various proposals put forward by its members for "redeployment" of
U.S. troops or setting a deadline for their withdrawal from Iraq. 
 
This
"anti-occupation" bloc is an interesting group of people. When the
Republicans called the Democrats' bluff and put forward a resolution
last spring calling for immediate withdrawal, only three House
Democrats voted for it. The rest voted against it--including Rep. John
Murtha, whose "redeployment' plan has been supported by UFPJ, and Rep.
Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), an "antiwar" candidate in the 2004 Democrat
primaries, who said the Republican resolution was "a trick." ... 
 
But
most congressional Democrats are opposed to setting a deadline for
withdrawal, and even the "antiwar" resolutions put forward by the "out
of Iraq" caucus contain qualifications and vague timetables. The
demands that Webb would have antiwar activists embrace, in reality, are
not to "end the occupation," but to continue it in a different form. 
</blockquote>
LeBlanc's
remarks on Friday exemplified beautifully the position critiqued above
by Allen: "Troops home now!" but not really (wink, wink). 
 
The
list of confirmed speakers for today's rally includes a healthy
contingent from the phony " ' anti-occupation bloc' " cited by Allen: 
<ul>
 <li>Representative John Conyers (D-MI)</li>
 <li>Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)</li>
 <li>Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA)</li>
 <li>Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) 
 </li>
</ul>
The speakers list also includes Zionist hacks <a
 href="http://vfpdissident.blogspot.com/2007/01/iraq-war-will-worsen-take-two.html">Leslie
Cagan</a>, National Coordinator of UFPJ; rabbi <a
 href="http://psreview.org/content/view/12/70/">Michael Lerner of Tikkun</a>;
and <a
 href="http://vfpdissident.blogspot.com/2007/01/eve-ensler-lion-of-judah.html">Eve
Ensler, Lion of Judah</a>. 
 
Note: 
*
The CPUSA is not a group known for its principled opposition to war,
except, of course, "imperialist wars." However, UFPJ is a coalition and
I wouldn't object to their participation/membership simply because the
CPUSA is not opposed to all wars.
</body>
</html>

--------------070301070705070300020502
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1;
 name="waffle.jpg"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-ID: <part1.07090404.02040902@usol.com>
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="waffle.jpg"
Content-Base: "http://bp1.blogger.com/_PxxELbdJlZQ/Rb
	rM0dZQXOI/AAAAAAAAABQ/0Agxa-PFihg/s
	400/waffle.jpg"
Content-Location: "http://bp1.blogger.com/_PxxELbdJlZQ/Rb
	rM0dZQXOI/AAAAAAAAABQ/0Agxa-PFihg/s
	400/waffle.jpg"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<HTML><HEAD><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>ERROR: The requested URL could not be retrieved</TITLE>
<STYLE type="text/css"><!--BODY{background-color:#ffffff;font-family:verdana,sans-serif}PRE{font-family:sans-serif}--></STYLE>
</HEAD><BODY>
<H2>The requested URL could not be retrieved</H2>
<HR noshade size="1px">
<P>
While trying to retrieve the URL:
<A HREF="http://bp1.blogger.com/_PxxELbdJlZQ/RbrM0dZQXOI/AAAAAAAAABQ/0Agxa-PFihg/s400/waffle.jpg">http://bp1.blogger.com/_PxxELbdJlZQ/RbrM0dZQXOI/AAAAAAAAABQ/0Agxa-PFihg/s400/waffle.jpg</A>
<P>
The following error was encountered:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
Unable to determine IP address from host name for
<I>bp1.blogger.com</I>
</BLOCKQUOTE>

The dnsserver returned:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
Refused: The name server refuses to perform the specified operation.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

This means that:
<PRE>
 The cache was not able to resolve the hostname presented in the URL. 
 Check if the address is correct. 
</PRE>
Your cache administrator is <A HREF="mailto:support">support</A>.

<BR clear="all">
<HR noshade size="1px">
<ADDRESS>
Generated Sun, 28 Jan 2007 02:05:36 GMT by fastweb.usol.com (squid/2.5.STABLE9)
</ADDRESS>
</BODY></HTML>

--------------070301070705070300020502--