EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Collapse: Does Washington Bridge Expose the Crumbling of a Nation?
- Exclusive: Why I Spoke Out at Obama's Foreign Policy Speech
- Over a Million Signatures in Support for Sen. Warren's Student Loan Bill
- German Official Warns of Immediate 'Revolution' if EU Adopts US Model
- Get Apocalyptic: Why Radical is the New Normal
- Exclusive: Why I Spoke Out at Obama's Foreign Policy Speech
- Get Apocalyptic: Why Radical is the New Normal
- Think Fracking Is Bad? Wait Until You Hear about the Gas Industry's "Acid Jobs"
- Over a Million Signatures in Support for Sen. Warren's Student Loan Bill
- We’re Being Watched: How Corporations and Law Enforcement Are Spying on Environmentalists
Popular content
Today's Top News
Shouldn't MoveOn Oppose Obama on Afghanistan?
MoveOn.org became a meaningful force in American politics when it emerged as a muscular network of activists that was willing to challenge not just Republicans but Democrats when they were wrong about foreign policy.
Democratic leaders in Congress might have been willing to compromise with the Bush administration on Iraq back in 2002. But MoveOn said "no."
And MoveOn was right.
Now, more than ever, we need MoveOn to remain true to its historic mission.
We need MoveOn to be right about Afghanistan.
For that reason, I certainly hope that Justin Ruben, the new MoveOn executive director, was wrong when he told my colleague Ari Melber that he did not think the group would be letting President Obama know he is wrong to be surging more U.S. troops into Afghanistan.
Here's what Ruben said about MoveOn's agenda for the coming months:
And while MoveOn loudly led the battle against the Iraq "surge," Ruben said he not expect ending the war Afghanistan, where Obama is deploying additional troops, to make the priority list. The "overwhelming priority" is still Iraq, Ruben explains, and while his members are concerned about Afghanistan, they tend to 'differ on what ought to be done about it.'
Unless the MoveOn membership has lost touch with its values and its former allies, I am going to bet that they are a lot more concerned about Afghanistan than Ruben thinks.
Here's what Peace Action says:
Yesterday, President Obama announced his decision to send 17,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, on the grounds that ‘the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention'. Peace Action strongly opposes Obama's recent announcement and urges people to immediately call on Obama to choose diplomacy, not escalation.More troops won't solve our problems in Afghanistan...
We have seen the disastrous consequences of heading into war without a plan in Iraq. We are still mourning American and Iraqi lives lost, and struggling to rehabilitate our economy while spending billions of dollars on war.
Peace Action calls for the ‘rapid withdrawal' of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and a new commitment to a negotiated diplomatic solution involving all regional players.
The Obama Administration should:
-- De-escalate troop levels in Afghanistan and to reject the idea that there is a military solution to the region's problems;
-- Immediately stop military activities that indiscriminately impact civilians such as air and drone strikes;
-- Rapidly withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan;
-- Commit to negotiated diplomatic talks involving all major regional players, including major international peace-keeping bodies;
-- Address the real needs of Afghans, which include health-care, clean water, education, and security.
Here's what the new www.stateupcongress.org network -- which has been organized by the group Win Without War and is backed by TrueMajority.org, the Council for a Livable World, Working Assets, Women's Action for New Directions, Faithful America, 2020 Vision, the American Friends Service Committee, the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, the Unitarian Universalist Association and NETWORK (the National Catholic Social Justice Lobby) -- says:
President Obama has announced a plan to send 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan this spring and summer. In the absence of a clear mission or exit plan, this troop escalation is more likely to fuel anti-American sentiment and the Taliban-led insurgency than provide any meaningful improvement in security.
Here's the Afghanistan assessment of California Congresswoman Maxine Waters, the driving force behind the Congressional Out of Iraq Caucus:
We don't want to substitute Afghanistan for Iraq.
Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, the member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with the steadiest track record of challenging presidents of both parties when they make wrong moves on the international stage, adds:
After years of a failed foreign policy which distracted us from our top national security priority of defeating al Qaeda and its affiliates, I am encouraged by President Obama's focus on Afghanistan where the 9/11 attacks originated. But we need to make sure we have a strategy in place for Afghanistan that will actually work before we commit thousands more U.S. troops. A military escalation without a strategy to address the complex problems facing Afghanistan and the region could alienate the Afghan people and make it much more difficult to achieve our top national security goal of defeating al Qaeda.
Is MoveOn really out of synch with Peace Action, Win Without War and other major anti-war and religious groups and congressional allies of the peace movement?
Let's hope not.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


110 Comments so far
Show AllWho will Betrayus now?
exactly humbaba.
and if obama & co. did have a workable strategy and all that, would it make it okay?
"My view is also that nobody's above the law and, if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen.
But that, generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards."
These are Obama's own words regarding the prosecution of criminal acts by the Bush Gang. This is his attitude towards a troupe of such bad actors that they shamed all of America on the world stage.
Don't hundreds of thousands of Afghanis deserve the same consideration? What are the "clear instances of wrongdoing"? Can't we "move forward" right on out of the middle east?
We train our dogs to be vicious, then when they maul someone it's a tragedy and we have to shoot the dog.
Ahh yes, almost always true for kids, but to a much lesser extent for pols especially those at the helm of the empire, with their finger on the "explode the world" button. Think about the effect such power has on people. It leaves most people "shock and awed" just thinking about it. It seems our greatest challenge is learning to select where to apply what, e.g. trusting the kids but not the pols. It seems the idea of balance is one of the most misapplied concepts. It seems that many people quietly tolerate class hierarchy if not by the feeling of powerlessness to change it, then because it seems that "balance in everything" is "the way". It may be that the key to unlock our shackles is to advance from a first order approximation to a second order approximation, and declare: balance in everything except the social hierarchy - smash it; hierarchies are ok except the social hierarchy - burn it; tolerate human imperfection except where power is concentrated. Goodwill toward people, but give elites "no quarter". A primary exception to every rule seems a good step up from "all or nothing". This can be taught in K-12 civics curricula, along with target practice - to shoot USAF predator drones out of the sky.
yeah, that was my tho't when i first read this article. *nichols* accusing moveon.org about not being principled enough?!?!?!1111!?
but give moveon a tiny bit of credit for the 'general betrayus' ads, probably the highpoint of its career. but you know w.ho was prez then, and b.ho.'s doing the bombin' now.....
I second that impression of MoveOn and am puzzled as well by the articles crediting them with being any sort of thorn in the Democrats side. I remember when Joan and Eli began that organisation , many hoped for a non-partisan clarion voice for truth and justice. We were quickly disabused of that notion however.
I have seen other such groups show promise only to be seduced by the "glamour" of access to politicos and "a-list gatherings", Marcos, sadly, is another such I fear, democratic shills and little else.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
President Obama is proving that he deserves the benefit of the doubt. He continually affirms the diplomatic side, is candid with the public and his recent achievements signal a turn to the progressive side even as he sidetracks to keep the Wall Street Casino from crashing.
Obama may want the troops there to bargain from a position of power, to spread good will(?) and to keep the American warmongering conservative beast well-fed and quiet. I don't agree he should send more troops, but I trust him.
"You see, Obama is really an "antiwar" guy at heart -- but the wicked conservatives made him do it"
You get it!
ezeflyer and joehope: two peas in a trust-Obama-no-matter-what-he-does pod. He may be doing terrible things but he just wants to keep those nasty Republicans at bay, and his motives are pure, by definition. He's Obama, and that means righteous and good. Or something. But whatever it means, he's better than the rest of us so we should just trust anything he does. If he surges into Afghanistan he'll be doing it to spread good will and Christmas cheer, even if it all goes badly and we're quagmired all over again, in which case it's all the Republicans' fault. And for that inveterate Obama apologist *joehope*, he could end up killing every last Afghani and it would be just swell! At least he set them free!
"*joehope*, he could end up killing every last Afghani and it would be just swell! At least he set them free!"
I really don't see how you can think that. Would you rather we abandon the people of Afghanistan to the Taliban and let al Qaeda keep attacking the US? Because all I want is peace for the people of Afghanistan and safety for the US. I want an end to violence. If the terrorists and the Taliban were to stop fighting and respect Karzai's government, then the war would be over. How does that amount to "killing every last Afghani"?
I agree that the criticism of you both is a bit over the top, but contains more than a bit of truth as well..
As to Afghanistan and your generalized and far too broad comment:
"Would you rather we abandon the people of Afghanistan to the Taliban and let al Qaeda keep attacking the US? Because all I want is peace for the people of Afghanistan and safety for the US. I want an end to violence."
We have no right to meddle in the affairs of other nations, really simple there Joe.If the majority of Afghan citizens do not want Taliban rule then they should really do something about that. Your crocodile tears about wanting peace seem a bit hard to understand amidst your clarion call for more war.
Your attempt to justify more troops in the region seems to overlook the fact that, directly after 9/11, the Taliban , still in power in Afghanistan, offered to turn bin Laden over for a fair trial with limited and understandable provisions. We refused that offer summarily...and stupidly.
Militarily you seem doomed to repeat the past rather than learn from it. Afghanistan and even Pakistan will become a graveyard for yet another Empire, as it has in the past.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
"President Obama is proving that he deserves the benefit of the doubt. He continually affirms the diplomatic side, is candid with the public and his recent achievements signal a turn to the progressive side even as he sidetracks to keep the Wall Street Casino from crashing.
Obama may want the troops there to bargain from a position of power, to spread good will(?) and to keep the American warmongering conservative beast well-fed and quiet."
Well said, I totally agree.
"I don't agree he should send more troops"
The task we had after 911 has only acquired greater urgency due to the mistakes made by Bush and the Republicans. Afghanistan needs to be stabilized.
"but I trust him."
Once again, we agree.
You conflate "benefit of the doubt" with silence or complicity. Regardless how one perceives the individual it is the actions of that individual that demand our attention. Especially when that individual is the leader of our nation.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
An Afghan general on NPR said, "We've defended this place for 6000 years. We won't stop." Is the U.S. ready for the "long haul" on that scale? Too, we must admit that defending one's homeland from a brutal attacker and occupier is noble. That is, every decent Afghan and Iraqi has a patriotic duty to kill Americans. one old atheist
Afghanistan/Pakistan: Obama's wars. The Great Game. Fight 'em over there...etc.
While, as ezflyer says, there have been some, umm, advances--e.g., cost-of-war-transparency--I'm unnerved whenever I see anyone say that they "trust" any politician. An avowed Naderite, I wouldn't even fully trust Ralph to "do the right thing," and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want me to--endless citizen oversight is always required; and Ralph's not beholden to anyone. How can we "trust" anyone who's been funded to the extent Obama has by corporate interests, who apponted a freaking Raytheon LOBBYIST as second-in-command at defense? Obama's heart may be in the right place, he may be the most intelligent, even the most principled President we've had since god knows when--but the nature of the office means we can't trust anyone who occupies it.
And, too, "tust" involved not only faith in the person, but in the process. In this case, it means trusting that the assemblage of technocrats, the "best and the brightest," assembled by Obama can think their way out of the problem--as though they are beyond ideology, operating in a scientific, purely pragmatic sphere. But there's no such thing as ideology-free content, and the underlying premise of continued U.S engagement in Afghanistan is that the U.S. has the "right" to lumber about the globe destroying that which does not fit into the narrative of neoliberal empire.
MoveOn apparently does have any issues with the underlying paradigm.
Neither does the Democratic Party.
If you DO have issues with the thinking underlying the policies--or, rather, the "believing" (in this case, in the myth of "American exceptionalism")--then you can hardly expect that the Dems of pressure groups like MoveOn are gonna get it right. Hence the Green Party--a party which questions the premises, not simply teh strategy and tactics.
As for JN, to his credit, he's taken Nader and his message seriously--even in '08.
michael horan
http://www.nosuppertonight.com
m horan
http://www.nosuppertonight.com
"While, as ezflyer says, there have been some, umm, advances--e.g., cost-of-war-transparency--I'm unnerved whenever I see anyone say that they "trust" any politician."
Good kids and good pols need our trust to progress. Admonishing them for their failures and not congratulating them on their successes chases them away from you.
Ahh yes, almost always true for kids, but to a much lesser extent for pols especially those at the helm of the empire, with their finger on the "explode the world" button. Think about the effect such power has on people. It leaves most people "shock and awed" just thinking about it. It seems our greatest challenge is learning to select where to apply what, e.g. trusting the kids but not the pols. I think the idea of balance is probably the most misapplied concepts. It seems that many people quietly tolerate class hierarchy if not by the feeling of powerlessness to change it, but because it seems that "balance in everything" is the "way". It may be that the key to unlock our shackles is to advance from at first order approximation to a second order approximation, and declare: balance in everything except banish the social hierarchy; hierachies are ok except social hierarchy; human imperfections may reign except where power is concentrated. You see, a prime exception to every rule. These can be taught in K-12 civics curricula, along with target practice - to shoot USAF predator drones out of the sky.
When action groups and political pundits and journalists decide to use their influence to elect candidates rather than support the larger mission of their credo, they suffer the political consequences of being tied to the politicians elected into power. When these groups or individuals elect not to restructure and return to the original mission, then the credo is dislocated from its foundation and suffers.
In the case of Moveon.org, its partial mission is to secure money and political capital to elect candidates. I am not unreasonable to view Moveon largely as a soft peddler of the Democratic Party. I just don’t understand why Nichols doesn’t acknowledge the reality of these circumstances.
The appearance Moveon is connected to the Party was publicly illustrated when the Democratic Party swiftly and effectively denounced and distanced itself from the “Betrayus Ad”. There is a direct correlation between the two and both powers are subjected to the other, however it is evident the Party is the power. The line was drawn and Moveon’s leaders willfully reverted to its more subservient role of campaign lackey. Nichols’ however is under a false belief Moveon.org is structurally designed to challenge officials. No, Moveon is designed to enlarge the political capital of Democratic politicians as it gravitates to the center.
The public supporter risks reverting individual political capital to the Moveon organization. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Nichols surely understands this better than anyone
"When these groups or individuals elect not to restructure and return to the original mission, then the credo is dislocated from its foundation and suffers."
Think about it--does anyone really know what the credo of the Left is?
A viable and effective movement has to be independent.
Chuk-it has characterized MoveOn correctly as simply a money conduit to the Democratic Party. It is a puzzle why Nichols doesn't get that.
MoveOn's original mission was simply to defend Bill Clinton. The group advocated censuring Clinton for lying about sex and wanted Congress to move on past that issue. Given that Clinton was a right-wing corporatist - a product of the Democratic Leadership Council - it would be tough to get too excited about such a mission.
People should just forget about MoveOn. It's an irrelevant Astroturf organization. John Nichols should not pretend that it's some democratic rallying point.
The real way to pressure Democrats and their awful Bush-supporting policies is to support third-party organizations. The Democratic Party Inc. will not be reformed from within.
-TIA
Sioux Rose
I am in transit, otherwise I'd quote what Yogananda said in an address given to the U.N. in l949 I believe. To paraphrase, he made it quite clear that very dangerous weather events (earthquakes, hurricanes, etc) would escalate if mankind did not learn to get along and dispense with all this effete and costly (on so many levels) war-making.
Thanks to certain astute voices in this forum, those able to separate the rhetorical wheat from the chaff, it was clear that Obama was just another PR man serving the elite. The U.S. elected to merge militarism with marketing on so vast a scale that as Nick Turse and others have pointed out, the tentacles of the monstrous MIC are embedded in almost every mundane industry, and located in most states. This of course fosters a kind of financial blackmail in that in tough times, "leaders" argue for the maintenance of jobs and so many tie into the MIC.
The U.S. has lost all sense of moral direction, an angry giant going about the world bludgeoning other peoples, the karma will come home. Even while Katrina landed a fatal blow, and droughts threaten the heartland (and West), and banks falter and industries close shop the same INSANE foreign policy, one that only appeases Mammon (the $ lovers) and Mars (the warriors and their patrons) continues on. This flawed direction, indicative of the moral blackhole from which it derives, cannot lead to ANYTHING remotely positive or profitable... I pray for the Afghanis... America has done enough to Iraq, for God-desses, sake. Sitting here among the majestic giant redwoods at Big Sur, the awe-inspiring mountains are beings of such greatness they inspire the soul. It's hard to understand how amid a geographical tapestry of such beauty American leaders can act on the call of destruction foremost. Tragic, to say the least.
Beautiful description... The paradoxic and quixotic and chaotic and chaordic all share time and place... Like frequency modulations of sound and light...
It is simultaneously humbling and empowering to be amongst arboreal ancestors that are older than Christianity...
No creation, no destruction, nothing has ever happened; now as far as the madness of this particular dream.........
Sioux and GoldenMean,
I remember reading a beautiful description (but I can't remember in what book, darnit) about how wrong humans are to believe it is we who are better and wiser than the trees.
THEY are our ancestors, and in a sense, they gave birth to us. They were the stewards of this earth before we were here, and they help watch over us and protect us.
I am truly not doing it justice. It was beautiful, and I wish I could remember where I read it . . .
Sounds like J.R.R. Tolkein writing about the Ents.
You're right, it does. : )
But that's not the reference I was referring to. It was from a non-fiction book, and i want to say it was "World Peace Diet" by Will Tuttle but I'm not all that sure of that. Man, I read so many books they tend to run together.
sioux, always look forward to what you have to say here. don't always agree w/where you are coming *from* (not my background), but always (or almost) agree w/where you are going *to*.
rock on sister
I'm leaving Move-on behind. they are simply War Cheerleaders because they are Obama cheerleaders.
There is much to criticize regarding Obama's war strategy. Read on:
Obama's war budget: Another 600+Billion for the Pentagon and 140 billion extra for Afghanistan and Iraq. Count all the other goodies like homeland security, veteran's benefits, etc. and you come up with a 1 trillion budget for the military.
We already spend more than the rest of the world combined on the military. We have 30,000 nuclear bombs and nearly 1,000 military bases all over the world. Who is our enemy and what is their force projection? Do we need 12 aircraft carrier squadrons to fight suicide bombers and IED’s? We have a nuclear submarine fleet armed with nukes with enough firepower to destroy the world. They are impervious to a first strike attack! These subs alone can keep peace in the world, or, alternatively, insure that the USA rules the world. (which is more like it.)
Cut the military budget to half its size and we would still dominate the world. The 130 billion to Afghanistan and Iraq is money down the drain. Our insane mission impossible to right wrongs in the middle east and grab the oil while we’re doing it, proved impossible.
Pentagon money down the drain! Better spend the money here for stuff we can grow an economy on. And please no more bubble economies, no more globalized information age economies where our best and brightest bankers take in junk mortgages, slice, dice and collaterise them with a few clicks of the computer, then these elite schooled ,information-age, greedy, globalized bankers had the rating companies rate this junk as AAA securities , which were then leveraged 30x and sold all over the world as GOLD! (Causing Iceland and others to collapse!)This is a crime scene, not an economy! Can we go back to making things ?
Wise up folks, see Obama for what he is: a cold war/hot war centrist "liberal." His “State of the Union’ speech made a pitch for a new “American century.” (i.e. we must rule the world)! This does not bode well. See below:
What? the American Century Part II? Yes, Obama said it the other night, ("The only way this century will be another American century is if we confront at last the price of our dependence on oil and the high cost of healthcare; the schools that aren't preparing our children and the mountain of debt they stand to inherit.")
Here he was following up on Henry Luce's claim that the 20th century was America’s time to be the world’s good Samaritan and spreader of democracy. Add to that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's notion of America as “the indispensable nation.” Then go back in time to the Puritan idea that we are chosen people that will bring light unto the world and that we are a city upon a hill for all to see, a beacon of goodness. And don’t forget the neo-con Project for the New American Century which promoted American global leadership. Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.
Can this be? Is numero uno in our future?
No doubt, we were a can-do country during the 20th century –climbing out of the depression, winning the war, helping our friends with the Marshall Plan and surpassing Great Britain as the major economic and military powerhouse. But we suffered during the Bush years, with the Iraq war debacle, Guantanamo, the Katrina Debacle, the Wall Street melt-down.
Are there still customers for Brand America? Probably not and God seems to be looking at us with a jaundiced eye, and so maybe now’s the time to became a caring, peaceful country like Sweden, or Norway. Mixed economies with great social services. And perhaps a new UN , minus the likes of John Bolton, can become the new city upon the hill.
dr 1:54 ------ I see a dust cloud in the east, 15 Al Qeada are madly whipping their mules in this direction. How many nukes will it take to stop this gigantic threat.
China and Russia must be in revelry as they watch the USA ethnicly cleanse our former allies.
dr. Sweden though it has great social programs, and good foreign policy is not a good example of a peaceful nation because it is in the top five arms producing nations.
Perhaps Obama's strategy is to bring an end to the American empire, since all empires have found their end in Afghanistan. Then, we can convert to a peacetime economy and stop spending billions each year on the military-industrial complex.
The only benefit I can see for MoveOn is using them as a technology usage modal; any remaining political relevance is in exciting one half in the divide and conquer equation, placing another veil of titillation over the atrocities of reality. To someone like John Nichols, as others have intimated here, I say look for strategic alliances elsewhere and thus "move on".
Move where? Ha, ha, ha, ha, etc.
Mo Vaughn... Is he still playing?
This comment by DaveBronstein just cracked me up!
"What's amusing about this article is that Nichols himself (& much of The Nation generally) is also basically just an apologist for Democrats, most of the time."
As a long time reader of The Nation and an admirer of Nichols, I remember well the period from 1993-2000 when almost weekly editorials castigated Bill Clinton and the Democrats in Congress for selling out to the Republican agenda. There has also been a lot of criticism in that publication the past two years of the Pelosi/Reid leadership for not making a more principled resistance to the policies of George Bush. Say what you will about Obama, he was still a MUCH better choice than McCain, and I am hopeful that people are now waking up to the fact that they will not get what they want out of the Obama administration without applying a lot of pressure.
I heard Obama's talk yesterday. What noone has commented on is the utter lack on concern for all the million innocents killed by our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan or the 5 1/2 million Iraqi refugees we refuse to do anything about(*) just about our 4200 dead military as if they were all that counted . The hubris marches on...and on.
Semper Fi - S___! As an retired Marine officer, I'm especially appalled at the USMC actions in Fallujah ordered by the KIC (Killers in Charge)
We finally allowed some 13K Iraqi refugees we worked with into the US. What about the other 5 1/2 million desparate stateless folks? We blame the Iraq guv for these and tell them to take care of it - with what?
Iraq’s War Widows Face Dire Need With Little Aid
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/world/middleeast/23widows.html?hp
President’s Corner: Addressing the Challenge of Iraqi Displacement
http://www.refugeesinternational.org/blog/president%E2%80%99s-corner-addressing-challenge-iraqi-displacement
http://www.refugeesinternational.org/iraq-videos
1. Iraqi Refugees: The View From Syria
2. Iraqi Refugees: "Khaled's" Story
yes. what to say....the dead, exiled, wounded, traumatized don't even exist for most of us......
Iraq for the Iraqis & Afghanistan For The Afghanistanis
"Based on?"
"There being nothing so precious as freedom and independence.*"
*Ho Chi Minh
What's with the allegation that 9/11 started in Afghanistan? I don't recall seeing that before. What is the evidence?
Aside from some cheerleading by a handful of Arabs foreigners from a remote camp in the Hindu Kush, Afghanistan and particularly their government, had nothing to do with the September 11 events.
The plot was planned largely in Egptian Mohammad Atta's apartment in Hamburg, Germany. The training was done at US flying schools and on US airliners where various flights were cased. The attacks were launched from United and American Airline's departure gates. The modest funding needed for the plot came from money wire-transfered from widely scattered sources - none in Afghanistan.
So why did we invade Afghanistan again?
---USAn---
There's this oil pipeline running through there...
What a wealth of geographical and historical knowledge you have.
Am I surpised that MoveOn won't be criticizing Obama on Afghanistan---or anything else? Not at all. Right after the election I wrote a couple of weblog entries chronicling my personal encounters with the post-campaign fund-raising activities of that organization. http://sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/?p=71 and http://sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/?p=74 These writings described the evolution of the MoveOn campaign---like the Obama presidency---from a campaign organization to the huckstering of a cult of personality, as I like probably most other readers of this was offered "Victory" stamps and posters and asked to contribute funds to help MoveOn to "stand by the side" of Obama in enacting his "progressive agenda." As I point out there, MoveOn prides itself on its "tiny staff" (to reassure that money raised does not go to "overhead?") leading one to wonder with what personnel resources the organization would lobby on behalf of this "agenda." This rhetorical question highlights the transparent fact that post-election, if not before it, MoveOn existed to sell a "brand" (Obama) for its enrichment. If you're selling a brand, you're certainly not going to "criticise" it because it loses thereby its market value. If you want to imagine with Mr. Nichols that MoveOn would (or should) join other groups and individuals critical of their brand, be my guest, there's one born every minute.
Does anyone remember 911?
If that had happened yesterday, would you still be suggesting we do nothing?
Iraq was a distraction from Afghanistan. We still must defeat the terrorists.
Yes, I did oppose invading Afghanistan and I would today.
Afghanistan did not invade the US and it had no quarrel with the US aside from expecting it's sovereignty to be respected.
There were many alternatives to invading Afghanistan other than doing nothing.
---USAn---
"There were many alternatives to invading Afghanistan other than doing nothing."
Okay, I'm listening. Name them. Or can you?
The Taliban, and in fact the leadership of Pakistan also, offered to turn over Bin Laden if he would be tried in a neutral country. Was that too much to ask?
OH! But I forgot... justice is not the object here, just oil pipelines...
Actually, it's more complicated than that. There are three different stories: in one the Taliban offered to try Bin Laden themselves under Islamic law, in another they offered to turn him over to the US or a third country if evidence is shown, and in the yet another version they offer to turn him over without evidence if the bombing is stopped.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
The bottom line is that they weren't in a situation where they could issue demands. They needed to cooperate. If the police show up at my house, I don't get to negotiate. The Taliban forfeited their rights by aiding and abetting Bin Laden. Remember, this was not Bin Laden's first act of terrorism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
Taliban 'ready to discuss' Bin Laden handover if bombing halts
The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said today.
Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.
"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added.
But it would have to be a state that would never "come under pressure from the United States", he said.
Mr Kabir urged America to halt its air campaign, now in its eighth day, and open negotiations. "If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate," he said. "Then we could discuss which third country."
Large explosions caused by American bombs and missiles have been reported to the south and east of the Afghan capital, Kabul, this evening.
The sky above the city has been filled with tracer fire from Taliban anti-aircraft guns once again.
Before the start of the air campaign, the Taliban had demanded evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in the attack and had offered to try him before an Islamic court inside Afghanistan - proposals that the US promptly rejected.
....
So, Joe, what would have been wrong with complying with Mullah Omar's conditions and getting bin Laden before the bar of justice, any bar of justice frankly? Rather we continue a war which is guaranteed only to further the cause of radical Islam, the profits of a very few, the bankruptcy of our economy and our moral fiber, and, ultimately, cannot be won.
* note to admin* What the heck happened to posting active links?
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Are you too chicken to say that US authorities could not find OBL linked to 911?
=====
From the June 2006 Idaho Observer:
Bin Laden not suspect in 9/11 attack says FBI
Within hours of the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration publicly identified Saudi national Osama bin Laden as masterminding the attacks. The Bush administration’s official public position has never changed. But bin Laden has never been formally charged with crimes associated with 9/11. Though the alleged al Qaeda leader stands charged as a suspect in numerous acts of terror since 1998, FBI Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb told Muckraker Report editor Ed Hass. "...the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
Sheridan was tipped off when he noticed that Bin Laden’s "Most Wanted" poster made no reference to 9/11. According to Tomb, "The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
http://proliberty.com/observer/20060625.htm
=====
Are you too chicken to say that there was no reason at all to invade Afghanistan in the first place if OBL was not the "mastermind" of 911?
http://www.september11news.com/2003KSM.htm
Are you too chicken to say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was arrested in Pakistan as the mastermind of 911? And tortured at Guantanamo and is insane now? Most legal authorities say he cannot be brought to trial for 911 since he was tortured and confessions made under torture are illegal and most likely untrue, and because he is mentally unfit to stand trial.
Yes, OBL has been connected with other terrorist acts, but not 911. Now what was the reason GW illegally invaded Afghanistan again?