So I notice LOTS of hate spewed towards A.N.S.W.E.R., does that mean

Unlike many Democrats, ANSWER isn't confused about where it stands on Iraq. According to an ANSWER pamphlet, "Counter-revolution & Resistance in Iraq," "The anti-war movement here and around the world must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance.";

"On Nov. 7 <2000>, Berger met with William Cohen, then Secretary of Defense, in the Pentagon. The time had come, said Berger, for the Pentagon to rethink its approach to operations against bin Laden. 'We've been hit many times, and we'll be hit again,' Berger said. 'Yet we have no option beyond cruise missiles.' He wanted 'boots on the ground'--U.S. special-ops forces deployed inside Afghanistan on a search-and-destroy mission targeting bin Laden. Cohen said he would look at the idea, but he and General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were dead set against it. They feared a repeat of Desert One, the 1980 fiasco in which special-ops commandos crashed in Iran during an abortive mission to rescue American hostages." -- Michael Elliott, "Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?" Time, August 12, 2002

Even as other members of the democratic left have denounced the hardcore Maoists and Stalinists behind much recent antiwar organizing, Michael Lerner, the dovish San Francisco rabbi and editor of the liberal Jewish magazine Tikkun, has defended the role of sectarians in the movement. When members of his congregation complained about the stridently anti-Israel rhetoric at demonstrations sponsored by ANSWER, a front group for the Workers World party, he urged them to turn out anyway, and Tikkun sent busloads of people to both Washington and San Francisco. He co-signed a letter to Salon criticizing Salon's criticism of ANSWER and Not In Our Name, which is connected to the Revolutionary Communist Party.

So Lerner was understandably outraged to learn that he'd been banned from speaking at the San Francisco rally ANSWER is co-sponsoring on Sunday. The reason for his banishment remains murky. This much is clear: Organizers from the four groups collaborating on the rally -- ANSWER, United for Peace and Justice, Not In Our Name and Bay Area United Against War -- agreed that any one partner could veto a proposed speaker who had publicly criticized it, and ANSWER vetoed Lerner.

Some say that's because Lerner, while urging people to work with ANSWER on peace movement issues, also has denounced the group's rabidly anti-Israel, pro-Saddam politics. But Lerner says that the agreement giving ANSWER veto power over its critics was merely a pretext used by the group as an excuse to keep him off stage. The real reason for his exclusion, Lerner believes, is that, while he is unrelenting in his opposition to Ariel Sharon's government and his call for Palestinian statehood, he supports Israel's right to exist and condemns Palestinian terrorism. An ANSWER spokesman seemed to confirm Lerner's theory when he told WNYC radio host Brian Lehrer that the group wouldn't allow a "pro-Israel" speaker at its demonstrations. A Tikkun press release framed the decision this way: "Progressive Rabbi Banned From Speaking at Peace Rally Because of His Pro-Israel Stance."