>1.  If Western intellectuals told the truth bout the crimes of the USSR,
Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein (after he was designated an enemy in August 1990),
that's fine, but has no moral standing.
>2.  If they exaggerate or fabricate such crimes, they become objects of
contempt.
>3.  If they ignore such crimes, it is a matter of little significance.
>4.  If they deny or minimise such crimes, it is also a minor matter.
>5.  And if they ignore or justify the crimes in which their own state is
implicated, that is criminal."

>This appeal to common sense about morality, truth - telling, and
responsibility seems to apply rather well to the case of Ramsey Clark and
the IAC, even taking for granted that all of the accusations are true.

(Did you write all that stuff out?  If so, thanks for taking the time to do so.)

I have always felt that people who go to a IAC meeting need not discuss the
obvious(like the crimes committed by the enemy), but discuss lesser known
crimes (which may be larger in scale).

But, if an IAC meeting chooses to “deny or minimize” crimes committed by the
official enemy, it becomes more discrediting and members may start to dilute
themselves.  They will come to believe in a picture of world which doesn’t
exist.

Many people already have this problem.  Why should a “leftist” group
perpetuate this?

Milutin

--
What we don't know keeps tha contracts alive and movin'
They don't gotta burn tha books, they just remove 'em