Moveon.org’s Crisis of Conscience
Justin Raimondo,
September 07, 2007
Via David Freddoso, over at National Review, this gem of an email from Moveon.org:
“Should we support primary challengers against some Democrats who side with the president on Iraq? It’s a tough question, and one we need everybody’s input on. Click below to fill out our survey and let us know what you think…”
It’s a hard question, admittedly: should we sell out completely, forget about the war, and become an adjunct of the Democratic party? The real question, of course, is: since when have they been anything else?
By all means, let Moveon.org know what you think …
Â
Jenkins
September 7th, 2007 at 6:39 am
Isn’t it hilarious how the organs of the Republican Party (Fox News, etc.) do not ask these questions? The party leadership has an agenda and anyone, even those within the party, not on board with that agenda is vilified and scorned. It’s the reverse for the Democrats. Their agenda is getting someone from their party into office. So the party organs (Moveon, blogs, etc) can’t decide if they should vilify certain candidates within the party. Ah, but it all makes sense when you realize that the party leaders have the exact same agenda as the party leaders of the Republicans. What kills me is that the plebes in both parties seem not to notice this.
Jenkins
September 7th, 2007 at 6:42 am
Aw man. Why’d you link to that? Isn’t it obvious that it’s a means to solicit email addresses and donations?
John Lowell
September 7th, 2007 at 7:33 am
I can remember a time right after the Congressional elections last Fall when posting at Glenn Greenwald’s blog that there should be absolutely no reason whatsoever for optimism regarding it’s outcome until the MCA were abrogated and the dictatorship of which it was evidence dismantled. I was very nearly assaulted by Greenwald immediately thereafter, my thoughts characterized by him as “cheap and destructive”. One wonders in light of developments over he last ten months if Greenwald might now wish to retract those remarks?
Greenwald’s enthusiasm for the potential for real change inherent in the system and that most specifically possible under Democratic Party auspices is more than a little typical of the mind-numbing naivete of leftish, system “progressives”, and none more frighteningly so than that at Moveon.org. All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, these folks just can’t shake the notion that the Democrats offer something genuine in the way of an alternative. All the griping in the world about Bush, the neo-cons, the war, violations of privacy and the like are just so much pallaver until one fully grasps the fact that our public life suffers most fundamentally from a kind of alien ownership. Until that happens, all constructs regarding remedial measures can possess only a limited relevance. It seems to me that alliances with people of the Moveon.org/Greenwald stripe hold little promisefor persons seriously wishing to see an end to the present state of affairs.
John Lowell
Fascist Nation
September 7th, 2007 at 8:10 am
MoveOn has always been a tool of the Democratic Party. As has the Daily Kos. There is nothing sweeter than when they are forced to overtly display their hypocrisy.
If you want a good example of left news without the support of the Democrat Party it can be found at Raw Story, which does a good job of keeping its editorial and content articles separated, and its reader comments are cynical and vocal progressives who shed any Democratic Party loyalties a long time ago. Fun.
Chris S
September 7th, 2007 at 8:58 am
I like GG’s articles, the GG letters are entertaining but not particularly inspiring. Most of them order the blue plate special and ignore the rest of the menu.
Chris S
September 7th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Daily Kos a tool of the Democrats? You don’t say! Somebody had better tell that to Cindy Sheehan. Oh wait, they already have… she was banned because she might run against Pelosi, but more importantly because she might not run as a Democrat.
I love the way they go into meltdown over the “Ron Paul Issue”, e.g. “We have our Ron Paul, his name is Gravel/Kucinich”. MoveOn should be proud…
evilpaul
September 7th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Daily KOS is worse than just a party organ of the Democratic Party like MoveOn. It’s like a DP-loving version of Freerepublic.com. The people are all ape-#@$% crazy except they have loyalties to a different party.
(What’s fun, is to mention this to them.)
Marc Bilodeau
September 7th, 2007 at 10:04 am
I think some of the comments above are not constructive. Instead of calling other people names and amplifying the sectarianism and divisions within the antiwar movement, we should welcome this initiative by MoveOn’s leadership. Maybe they won’t follow through, or maybe they will follow through too timidly, time will tell, but at least it’s a step in the right direction. Ending the occupation of Iraq and putting the brakes on imperialist adventures abroad is like turning around an ocean liner: it requires a lot of effort and time. So please let’s put the emphasis on supporting and reinforcing each others’ positive actions instead of sniping about our differences. Personally, I’d gladly vote for Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul. I’d also gladly vote for Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan. If we could be lucky enough that more than one of them appear on the ballot, then I’ll worry about making finer distinctions. In the meantime, I’d like to think that we’re all allies in the same cause.
evilpaul
September 7th, 2007 at 10:33 am
I’d like to agree with you, but these same people were in favor of Bill Clinton’s interventions (dropping bombs on people for humanitarian reasons) and are calling for more of the same in Darfur. I don’t think many of the MoveOn’ers want to turn the ship around I think they just want to turn it 15 degrees and continue in the same basic direction. With a captain who proffers platitudes more appealing to their emotions and preferences than the current captain (who seems barely competent in the language).
Seeing MoveOn.org put up a webpage saying “How likely would you be to give us your money if we acted on principle?” in so many words isn’t exactly inspiring. It doesn’t make MoveOn seem like a great ally to the antiwar movement to me.
It’s like the politicians who are retiring coming out against continuing in the Iraq Quagmire indefinitely after it has become wildly unpopular. Such courage and moral leadership we can do just as well without.
Ramsay
September 7th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Beware Sheep in Progressive Clothing
The progressive base of the Democratic Party was used and abused in the ‘06 elections. It will be interesting to see if they bolt from the flock, or line up to get sheared, like they did only a year ago. baaaa….
Ramsay
Marycatherine Barton
September 7th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
“Give us money if you want us to do the decent thing.” How disgusting is moveon.org. Thank you, antiwar.com, for reenlightening me.
Chris S
September 7th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
AIPAC is powerful, but so are the banks.
Chris S
September 7th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
When bleeding hearts drop bombs they church up their rhetoric so that the reasons we are bombing are “humanitarian”.
Richard
September 7th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Moveon.org was founded to “move on” past the obsession with the Executive’s illegal activities (that would be Clinton’s suborning perjury).
Due to the Republicans’ justly-deserved reputation as intrusive prudes, the “it’s just about sex” mantra sold well. But it was actually about equality before the law.
So moveon’s raison d’etre was in fact “allow the Executive to do whatever he wants”. Bush is now doing (decider-ing) to do whatever he wants…how can moveon complain?
Lefty for Paul
September 7th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Lots of harsh comments about Moveon.com, but it is to their credit that they are soliciting membership advice.
I am one Moveon member who is furious and heartbroken by the behavior of bush’s Democratic enablers and would happily support primary challengers or Republican opponents in the Ron Paul tradition.
purple girl
September 7th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Why must this post come through my Moveon e-mail notice.
Stop riding Moveon’s coat tail into to my homepage !!!
get your own website and encourage BillO’s group to join you.
Pere
September 8th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Well if you go to the dem or republicants party sites they both have talking points lined up for those who wish to submit a comment/letter. Wake up- they are the same side, and it’s not ours (unless you happen to be very wealthy) Check out my vids!
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=noreast77
Cathryn Martaga
September 8th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Well, it’s up to moveon.org I suppose. If they want Democrat party power or if they want the war to end. I gotta’ pretty good guess which way this goes — always take the power, and then you can make happy happy later. (Note to the cynical: later never comes, but never mind that.)
Gene McCreay
September 8th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Excellent comments.
Some tired snarking « UFO Breakfast Recipients
September 8th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
[...] That’s comment to a post at Antiwar. It highlights the differences between wingnuts and progs. [...]
AlanSmithee
September 10th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
The purpose of MoveOn, as a quasi-DP organ, it to keep as many liberals as possible from bolting the party. The DP leaderships reasoning is that it’s better to sidetrack their party’s antiwar faction than cut them loose.
Alan MacDonald
September 12th, 2007 at 7:14 am
The Democratic Party had already been given it’s second chance in 1932 after the corporate empire had destroyed the American system —- and all that FDR did was to “save capitalism from itself” and allow the global corporate political/economic empire to rise like the vampire that it has now become under the guise of “Vichy America”.
The Democratic party is nothing but one of the three con artists in this “Three Card Monte” that the global corporate Empire is playing on the honest, but ill-informed, non-elite American rubes. We are ill-informed precisely because the corporate Empire’s MSM is playing the role of the ‘objective observer’ in this Three Card Monte, but is actually, as is ALWAYS true of Monte schemes, not really an objective observer, but actually one of the three con artists involved in roping the rubes in —- the other two roles being the two scammer parties, who switch their Monte roles from ‘dealer’ to ‘player’ every few rounds.
Like ALL Three Card Monte scams the two-party, Republicans and Democrats, AND the MSM are actually ACTIVE participants and con-artists in this Three Card Monte — since ALL Three Card Monte schemes are ALWAYS based on EVERYONE other than the rubes themselves BEING IN ON THE CON!!!
Both parties and the MSM must be TOTALLY expunged (if not surgically excised) from the essentially combined political-economic decision making by real people in a real democracy if this guileful ruling-elite global corporate Empire behind the facade of “Vichy America” is ever to be removed, like a cancer, from the body of a real self-governing America and the American people.
My position is that the ENTIRE scamming and corrupt global corporate Empire’s system of a phony “Vichy America” disguise in the form of this ENTIRE Three Card Monte scam of Republican and Democrat and MSM con game must be exposed, destroyed and thrown out, (PERIOD)
No to Republicans political party hacks. No to Democrat political party hacks. No to MSM shilling hacks. No to MoveOn hacks. And most particularly, No to the global corporate Empire with all its cast of private Equity Pirates, Hedge Fund Whores, Wall Street swindlers, and crooked corporate judges. The whole system is only a “Vichy America” facade over the overtly fascist global corporate Empire that has taken over our democracy.
The American people have been far too polite and accepting of this deadly internal errosion of our country and democracy, and the combined economic and military hardships that we are about to experience will hopefully insure that the coming crash will not be met by quiet Americans in soup-lines and VA hospital lines, but by an engaged and enraged American people in the streets.
Surging Toward Iran « Is it over yet?
September 12th, 2007 at 10:30 am
[...] Petraeus is surely cooking the books, as the MoveOn.org folks aver in their great New York Times ad – nice to see they’re (finally!) growing a pair – but this avoids the larger question: what is the administration really up to in Iraq? They’re hanging on, “buying time,” as the pundits ceaselessly report – but what do they hope to accomplish? If you go through the Petraeus report, the key passages are those that deal with Iran. Petraeus continually points the finger at Tehran as an explanation for the lack of “progress” in Iraq. He claims to have “disrupted Shia militia extremists” – you know, the ones that sit in the Iraqi parliament – and to have captured the leaders of “Iranian-supported Special Groups, along with a senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative supporting Iran’s activities in Iraq.” Who is this operative, and what are these “Special Groups”? Apparently, they are too special to be named in testimony before Congress. The “ethno-sectarian competition,” Petraeus avers, is being pushed toward violence, in part because of “malign actions by Syria and, especially, by Iran.” [...]
Surging Toward Iran-Politics and Government-EOG Sports Betting Forums
September 12th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
[...] Surging Toward Iran Surging Toward Iran The surge is buying time – for what? by Justin Raimondo September 12, 2007 Amid all the back-and-forth between the administration and its critics about how to measure “progress” in Iraq, what gets lost is the question asked by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) at the Petraeus-Crocker hearings the other day: “I have to ask this question: where is this going? … Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate we are doing now. For what? The president said let’s buy time. Buy time? For what?” Petraeus is surely cooking the books, as the MoveOn.org folks aver in their great New York Times ad – nice to see they’re (finally! ) growing a pair – but this avoids the larger question: what is the administration really up to in Iraq? They’re hanging on, “buying time,” as the pundits ceaselessly report – but what do they hope to accomplish? If you go through the Petraeus report, the key passages are those that deal with Iran. Petraeus continually points the finger at Tehran as an explanation for the lack of “progress” in Iraq. He claims to have “disrupted Shia militia extremists” – you know, the ones that sit in the Iraqi parliament – and to have captured the leaders of “Iranian-supported Special Groups, along with a senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative supporting Iran’s activities in Iraq.” Who is this operative, and what are these “Special Groups”? Apparently, they are too special to be named in testimony before Congress. The “ethno-sectarian competition,” Petraeus avers, is being pushed toward violence, in part because of “malign actions by Syria and, especially, by Iran.” What actions? No answer is given: not that anyone is asking, at least not in the Congress or among the presidential candidates of either party. Prior accusations that IEDs found in Iraq were manufactured in Iran have proved sketchy, at best, and pure invention, at worst. Yet Petraeus’ words are simply taken as gospel, much as Colin Powell’s peroration of Scooter Libby-produced lies performed in front of the UN was hailed as a home run. Years from now, will we look back on the Petraeus-Crocker dog-and-pony show with the same bitter regret that nobody – or almost nobody – doubted them? You can bet the ranch on it. More lies from the “honorable” Gen. Petraeus: “In the past six months we have also targeted Shia militia extremists, capturing a number of senior leaders and fighters, as well as the deputy commander of Lebanese Hezbollah Department 2800, the organization created to support the training, arming, funding, and, in some cases, direction of the militia extremists by the Iranian Republican Guard Corps’ Qods Force. These elements have assassinated and kidnapped Iraqi governmental leaders, killed and wounded our soldiers with advanced explosive devices provided by Iran, and indiscriminately rocketed civilians in the International Zone and elsewhere. It is increasingly apparent to both Coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Qods Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi Special Groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.” What, in the name of Allah, is “Department 2800″? There ain’t no such creature on God’s green earth. I can find no reference to it anywhere: not in the standard studies of Hezbollah, not on the Internets, not anywhere. The only other reference to this mysterious organization, aside from the testimony of Petraeus, is on the Web site of Veterans for Freedom, a pro-administration front group that exists as a prop for their leader, the square-jawed Pete Hegseth, to appear on television as a counterweight to VoteVets. In other words, they just make stuff up. Haven’t we learned this time and time again? It happened with Iraq’s infamous ” weapons of mass destruction,” and now it’s happening again, this time with Iran’s alleged activities in Iraq. Refuting this farrago of half-baked fantasies doesn’t require any special knowledge, only a basic understanding of the current situation in Iraq and a bit of common sense. For example, why would Shi’ite militias go after the Shi’ite government in Baghdad – when, in reality, they are the armed wings of the parties that make up that government? Even more egregious is the contention that “it is increasingly apparent to both Coalition and Iraqi leaders” that “Iran seeks to turn the Iraqi Special Groups into a Hezbollah-like force” to “fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state.” Is that why Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki traveled to Iran recently, where he walked hand in hand with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then took off for Damascus, where he was warmly greeted by the last of the Mesopotamian Ba’athists? A proxy war is being fought in Iraq, but it isn’t one pitting the Iranians against the Iraqis: the U.S. is the proxy, fighting on behalf of Israel against Iran and Syria. That’s what all this malarkey detailing how the Iranians want to “Hezbollah-ize” the Iranian-run “Special Groups” is about. So now we’re fighting Hezbollah, a group that arose because of the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and is concerned exclusively with ridding their country of Israeli troops and influence. The “surge,” as the escalation of the war is being euphemized, is working, albeit not in the way the hapless Democrats and the American public understand it. “Progress” in Iraq, insofar as this administration is concerned, means we’re closer to war with Iran. That has always been our target, and now that we’ve got the Ba’athists out of the way, we don’t mind allying with the “dead-enders” against the real enemy: the Shi’ite mullahs of Tehran. In answer to questions from the senators, Petraeus gave away the show when he bluntly stated, “We cannot win Iraq solely in Iraq.” Oh no, we have to conquer most of the rest of the Middle East, including Iran, Syria, and who-knows-where- else before we can even begin to talk about winning in Iraq. I have emphasized, in this space, that nothing short of complete and immediate withdrawal from Iraq is going to avert a regional war in the Middle East, because that’s exactly what’s on the administration’ s agenda. That’s what Bush and Petraeus are buying time for – what Norman Podhoretz calls ” World War IV.” Every political leader who claims to be “antiwar” yet claims that we cannot just leave Iraq is complicit in this conspiracy to drag us into a conflict with Iran. Hillary , Obama, and all the Democrats except, perhaps, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel, and surely each and every one of the Republicans, with the single exception of Ron Paul – all are guilty, no matter how much they protest, of enabling this administration in its plans to carry the war into Iran, Syria, and even beyond: Pakistan, perhaps, or the oil-rich regions of Central Asia. We’ve said this over and over – down through the years! – until we’re blue in the face, and as the reality of it is becoming too apparent for even the worst evaders to continue dodging, I see that Andrew Sullivan has finally caught on. Well, bully for him – now that he, in his previous pro-war incarnation, helped bring us to this moment. The same realization is also dawning over at National Review, where Petraeus’ emphasis on blaming Iran for the mess we made in Iraq is being interpreted as good news (which it is, if you’re a warmongering, wholly-owned adjunct of the Israel Lobby). The dynamic sweep of the neoconservatives’ grand plan to ” transform” the Middle East and “drain the swamp,” as they put it, is something to behold. First, take on the Ba’athist Sunnis, pulverize them, isolate them, and let the Shi’ites fill the power vacuum left behind by Saddam. Then, change course abruptly, declare the Shi’ites – supported by Iran – to be the main enemy, ally with the Sunni remnants, and launch a final offensive against Tehran. Strike, stall for time, and strike again. Note, also, how the ” redirection” in favor of the Sunnis allows the administration to claim substantial progress in Iraq: by allying with these former “dead-enders” and “terrorists,” we can say we’re bringing Iraqis “together” – even as the insurgents continue their battle with the ostensibly pro-American government. This is supposed to keep war critics at bay on the home front, but not everyone is falling for it. The sharpest questions at the Petraeus-Crocker hearings were asked, tellingly, not by the Democrats, who remained cautious in their criticisms, but by two Republican senators, Hagel and John Warner, who, not coincidentally, are retiring this year. The latter opined: “I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, the stress on our forces, the stress on military families, the stress on all Americans,” and then asked Petraeus if his recommendations – to continue the surge for another six months – would make the U.S. “safer.” The general replied, somewhat sheepishly: “Sir, I don’t know, actually.” Yet isn’t that the mission of the U.S. military – to make us safer? To protect us from our enemies, here in the “homeland” (as they now call America)? It most certainly is not, at least not in the Bizarro World we fell into after the 9/11 attacks blasted a hole in the space-time continuum and rocketed us into an alternate universe – where up is down, right is wrong, and “security” means placing us all in imminent danger of yet another terrorist assault. Our camarilla of would-be conquistadors could care less about the security and safety of the American people: all that matters to them is their vision of ” benevolent global hegemony” – and, of course, the security of Israel. That’s why the Lobby is moving full-bore into propaganda mode and we’re hearing the drumbeat of yet another council of war rising and drowning out the peoples’ plea for peace. Democracy? Forget it. The two wings of the War Party, known as the Democrats and the Republicans, have a monopoly on the political process here in the cradle of liberty, and, what’s more, they know it. No need to pay attention to the polls when both parties are committed to war. http://antiwar. com/justin/ [...]
Lila Rajiva: The Mind-Body Politic » Raimondo on Petraeus…
September 13th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
[...] “Petraeus is surely cooking the books, as the MoveOn.org folks aver in their great New York Times ad – nice to see they’re (finally!) growing a pair – but this avoids the larger question: what is the administration really up to in Iraq? They’re hanging on, “buying time,” as the pundits ceaselessly report – but what do they hope to accomplish? [...]
site
October 30th, 2007 at 9:01 am
greatings…
i agree…