MoveOn: Anitwar movement still vital, focused: The Swamp
 
The Swamp
-
Posted January 18, 2008 12:33 PM
The Swamp

by Matthew Hay Brown

A day after the Politico outlined details of a tactical retreat by a dispirited antiwar movement, the executive director of MoveOn.org today unveiled what he called “an aggressive new campaign to bring our troops home as soon as possible.”

“More Americans than ever oppose the war,” Eli Pariser wrote in a message on the Huffington Post circulated by MoveOn. “Yet all the major contenders for the Republican nominations support it, and Congress is unable or unwilling (or both) to take President Bush to task.”

Pariser said MoveOn would pursue a three-pronged strategy. First, he said, the organization will campaign against Republican members of Congress who have supported the war.

“They’ve now cast their lot with President Bush, and it's our job to make sure that they get booted by voters next November,” he said. “And we need to make clear that it's bigger than that: their willingness to give the president the votes he needs to continue the war puts their party into a political death spiral that will doom it for a generation. A growing number of congressional Republicans have already gotten the message and have chosen to retire.”

Second, Pariser said, the organization “will have to build an anti-Iraq war Democratic caucus on the Hill that finally stands up to Bush by blocking his funding requests unless they include a binding and timely plan to exit Iraq” – an effort that could involve launching primary challenges against Democratic incumbents who have been insufficiently against the war.

“We consider it our job to help produce more than a merely Democratic majority,” he said. “We want an anti-war majority in 2008.”

The third prong involves ensuring that the next president “leads us out of Iraq as expeditiously as possible,” he said. “Republican presidential aspirants have been unwilling to break with the President on Iraq, and some continue to be his most ardent cheerleaders. We will work to ensure that none of them has any chance to win election without reversing his stance.”

The Democratic contenders, meanwhile, “must be unequivocal in their commitments to remove all U.S. troops within eighteen months of taking office,” he said.

Pariser’s message comes a day after the Politico reported that a coalition of antiwar groups, disappointed following a year that ended with larger U.S. military presence in Iraq than it began with, was backing away from a multimillion-dollar effort to cut war funding and force Congress to establish timetables for a troop withdrawal.

Instead, the newspaper said, groups including MoveOn, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq and the Council for a Livable World were bowing to political reality and setting their sights on a less ambitious goal: pushing for legislation that would prevent Bush from entering into an agreement with the Iraqi government that would keep large numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come.

Pariser took exception to the story.

”Politicians who believe false media reports that claim the anti-war movement is shifting gears, or lost momentum, do so at their own peril,” he said. “We are energized, organized, committed and ready for this historic election year.”

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

Comments

Did the guy they stole from "The Onion" write this?

He's right that the anti-war movement is stil vital. Still vital at sinking the democrats chances of capturing the White House.


“More Americans than ever oppose the war,”
Say all you want...
But that's just the plain "truth".


No comment on the story in which the CIA says an ally of a tribal leader in Pakistan in cahoots with al-Qaeda was responsible for Bhutto's murder. One of the very same tribal leaders Musharraf signed a truce with. Apparently the truce said, "I will not root terrorists out of hiding in your area and you murder my political enemy". And Republicans think Musharraf is helping in the fight against terror. Pathetic.


The antiwar movement is despised by about 30% of the electorate. Those people are conservatives who would never vote for a Democrat under any circumstances unless his last name was Lieberman.

30% strongly support the antiwar movement in a clear, explicit way. And the other 40% of the population is influenced, directly and indirectly, by the antiwar movement. How? Well, those of us who are a part of it talk to friends and neighbors, write letters to the editor, blog, call radio stations, contact our elected representatives and help create a climate that counters the propaganda being spoon fed to the gullible and confused 30% who eat it up without thinking.

The pro-Bush people may think that the antiwar movement isn't effective. And I hope they continue to think that. In many, many subtle and overt ways, we've changed the dialogue and the thinking about Bush's occupation of Iraq.

You will not "win" in Iraq because there isn't anything to win. It's only a question of how many more lives and dollars will be wasted before we all concede the inevitable.


The antiwar movement is despised by about 30% of the electorate. Those people are conservatives who would never vote for a Democrat under any circumstances unless his last name was Lieberman.

30% strongly support the antiwar movement in a clear, explicit way. And the other 40% of the population is influenced, directly and indirectly, by the antiwar movement. How? Well, those of us who are a part of it talk to friends and neighbors, write letters to the editor, blog, call radio stations, contact our elected representatives and help create a climate that counters the propaganda being spoon fed to the gullible and confused 30% who eat it up without thinking.

The pro-Bush people may think that the antiwar movement isn't effective. And I hope they continue to think that. In many, many subtle and overt ways, we've changed the dialogue and the thinking about Bush's occupation of Iraq.

Bush and his backers will not "win" in Iraq because there isn't anything to win. It's only a question of how many more lives and dollars will be wasted before we American citizens and taxpayers concede the obvious and the inevitable.



The spineless liberals have no shame...

Iraq:

U.S deaths down 80%
Civilian deaths down 75%.
Car bomb,suicide attacks down 60%.
Al-Quida on the run.
Iraqi security forces expand [by] 100,000.
Iraqi oil revenues being shared.
Shiite militants declared a cease fire.
Of course, you never hear this good news by the M.S.M.

If the dems had it their way, Al-Quida would be in charge of Iraq by now.

Paulo


He's right that the anti-war movement is stil vital. Still vital at sinking the democrats chances of capturing the White House.

Posted by: Jeff | January 18, 2008 12:51 PM

Bill/Jeff,

Aren't you supposed to be at a college Republican meeting today?...don't forget your pocket protector, I hear Karl Rove will be speaking today.


From the internet(s):

Top Ten Myths about Iraq 2007

10. Myth: The US public no longer sees Iraq as a central issue in the 2008 presidential campaign.

In a recent ABC News/ Washington Post poll, Iraq and the economy were virtually tied among voters nationally, with nearly a quarter of voters in each case saying it was their number one issue. The economy had become more important to them than in previous months (in November only 14% said it was their most pressing concern), but Iraq still rivals it as an issue!


9. Myth: There have been steps toward religious and political reconciliation in Iraq in 2007.

Fact: The government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has for the moment lost the support of the Sunni Arabs in parliament. The Sunnis in his cabinet have resigned. Even some Shiite parties have abandoned the government. Sunni Arabs, who are aware that under his government Sunnis have largely been ethnically cleansed from Baghdad, see al-Maliki as a sectarian politician uninterested in the welfare of Sunnis.

8. Myth: The US troop surge stopped the civil war that had been raging between Sunni Arabs and Shiites in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad.

Fact: The civil war in Baghdad escalated during the US troop escalation. Between January, 2007, and July, 2007, Baghdad went from 65% Shiite to 75% Shiite. UN polling among Iraqi refugees in Syria suggests that 78% are from Baghdad and that nearly a million refugees relocated to Syria from Iraq in 2007 alone. This data suggests that over 700,000 residents of Baghdad have fled this city of 6 million during the US 'surge,' or more than 10 percent of the capital's population. Among the primary effects of the 'surge' has been to turn Baghdad into an overwhelmingly Shiite city and to displace hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from the capital.


7. Myth: Iran was supplying explosively formed projectiles (a deadly form of roadside bomb) to Salafi Jihadi (radical Sunni) guerrilla groups in Iraq.

Fact: Iran has not been proved to have sent weapons to any Iraqi guerrillas at all. It certainly would not send weapons to those who have a raging hostility toward Shiites. (Iran may have supplied war materiel to its client, the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq (ISCI), which was then sold off from warehouses because of graft, going on the arms market and being bought by guerrillas and militiamen.

6. Myth: The US overthrow of the Baath regime and military occupation of Iraq has helped liberate Iraqi women.

Fact: Iraqi women have suffered significant reversals of status, ability to circulate freely, and economic situation under the Bush administration.

5. Myth: Some progress has been made by the Iraqi government in meeting the "benchmarks" worked out with the Bush administration.

Fact: in the words of Democratic Senator Carl Levin, "Those legislative benchmarks include approving a hydrocarbon law, approving a debaathification law, completing the work of a constitutional review committee, and holding provincial elections. Those commitments, made 1 1/2 years ago, which were to have been completed by January of 2007, have not yet been kept by the Iraqi political leaders despite the breathing space the surge has provided."

4. Myth: The Sunni Arab "Awakening Councils," who are on the US payroll, are reconciling with the Shiite government of PM Nuri al-Maliki even as they take on al-Qaeda remnants.

Fact: In interviews with the Western press, Awakening Council tribesmen often speak of attacking the Shiites after they have polished off al-Qaeda. A major pollster working in Iraq observed,
' Most of the recent survey results he has seen about political reconciliation, Warshaw said, are "more about [Iraqis] reconciling with the United States within their own particular territory, like in Anbar. . . . But it doesn't say anything about how Sunni groups feel about Shiite groups in Baghdad." Warshaw added: "In Iraq, I just don't hear statements that come from any of the Sunni, Shiite or Kurdish groups that say 'We recognize that we need to share power with the others, that we can't truly dominate.' " ' '
The polling shows that "the Iraqi government has still made no significant progress toward its fundamental goal of national reconciliation."

3. Myth: The Iraqi north is relatively quiet and a site of economic growth.

Fact: The subterranean battle among Kurds, Turkmen and Arabs for control of the oil-rich Kirkuk province makes the Iraqi north a political mine field. Kurdistan now also hosts the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) guerrillas that sneak over the border and kill Turkish troops. The north is so unstable that the Iraqi north is now undergoing regular bombing raids from Turkey.

2. Myth: Iraq has been "calm" in fall of 2007 and the Iraqi public, despite some grumbling, is not eager for the US to depart.

Fact: in the past 6 weeks, there have been an average of 600 attacks a month, or 20 a day, which has held steady since the beginning of November. About 600 civilians are being killed in direct political violence per month, but that number excludes deaths of soldiers and police. Across the board, Iraqis believe that their conflicts are mainly caused by the US military presence and they are eager for it to end.

1. Myth: The reduction in violence in Iraq is mostly because of the escalation in the number of US troops, or "surge."

Fact: Although violence has been reduced in Iraq, much of the reduction did not take place because of US troop activity. Guerrilla attacks in al-Anbar Province were reduced from 400 a week to 100 a week between July, 2006 and July, 2007. But there was no significant US troop escalation in al-Anbar. Likewise, attacks on British troops in Basra have declined precipitously since they were moved out to the airport away from population centers. But this change had nothing to do with US troops.


Anytime an organization has to proclaim that it is still relevant means that it isn't but has to pretend it is to continue raising money from gullible supporters.


I think the people of Iraq who have been attacked repeatedly by Al Qaeda and former Baathists would argue strongly that there is something very tangible to "win."

I think Benazir Bhutto, who was murdered by Al Qaeda, would say the same thing if she were alive today.


If the dems had it their way, Al-Quida would be in charge of Iraq by now.
Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | January 18, 2008 1:48 PM

Paulita,

I don't know why I bother responding to you, you're dumber than a bag of rocks.

If everything you said were true then there would be no reason not to bring all of the troops home, right?

The Iraqi's sign an oil revenue sharing bill??? HAHAHAHA HOHOHO HAHAHAHA!!!
(I'm laughing in your face, Paulita)

-that might be the biggest lie you've ever told on here and don't forget this puppet boy, Al-Qaeda WASN'T IN IRAQ BEFORE YOUR PRESIDENT INVADED!


Here, let's take a look at another poll from VoiceVets. It depicts the sentiments of military families, which just might interest a troll like yourself:

Among active-duty military, veterans and their families, only 36 percent say it was worth going to war in Iraq. This compares with an Annenberg survey taken in 2004, one year after the invasion, which showed that 64 percent of service members and their families supported the war.

The views of veterans and their families are now closer in line with overall public sentiment. The poll shows that 32 percent of the general population supports the war.
36% today, from 64% in 2004. But, but, but, the SURGE! is working, right?

How about their feelings for our fearless leader?:

The poll conducted Nov. 30-Dec. 3 also finds that 37 percent of military-family members approve of the job Bush is doing as president, a little more than the general population. The 2004 poll by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of Communications in Philadelphia found that twice as many military families approved of Bush's performance.

Not to worry, dear Paulo troll. Just keep clapping like you always have, and these sentiments will turn around like magic!


More free pub for the wacko left moveon.org, donated by their buddies at the Swamp.


Paulo

You left out a BIGGER fact that the MSM is also not reporting.

How many of the 18 goals that Bush set has the Iraqi government met, even with a surge giving them more time?

Or how about the BIGGEST fact?

The Bush definition of "victory" so we can leave Iraq.


Gordon, exactly.

The "Betrayus" ad caused a division on the left between people who are upset about the war but are still sane, and the off-the-cliff far left wackos who will say anything inflammatory to get attention. Anti-war Dems in Congress had to wince after that ad ran. Quite a few Americans are upset with Bush, but most Americans don't hate their generals and don't hate their military.

John E., how about an independent thought? No one is going to debate you on posts you copy from the internet, because no one is going to waste their time arguing with a parrot.


If it weren't for those spineless anti-war liberals--if putting yourself out there knowing you'll be labeled crazy takes no spine--our President wouldn't
have brought you those benchmarks to measure much needed progress so we know where we stand and how to move forward, or respond to the surge in violence the anti-war liberals were always talking about with "the surge,"or that extra amour to keep our men safe when we were extending our military, or know that he's offending moderate Muslims with his over the top "crusade" rhetoric that we need in this fight against extremism, or consider Guantanamo is hurting the US's image so it is necessary to reach out to Muslims, or that disbanding the Sunni in the long run would be counter productive and will mean an extra effort to bring them into Iraqi life, or that the lack of detail assigned to historical sites to prevent pillaging have hurt our image as liberators so we need to be careful the enemy doesn't use them as battle fields to engage us, or any of the other crazy things spineless anti-war liberals argued and Bush responded to while back boned pro-war "conservatives" back slapped each other and told everyone what a great job we are doing, meanwhile Iraqis made a mass exodus out of Iraq. I'd love to say ALL they want is defeat, but I can't. Their "want of defeat"--criticism- was constructive to Iraq's future.


Jeff,
10-15% of the violence in Iraq was al-Qaeda. The rest was Sunni vs Shia Iraqis killing Iraqis. Nice try. US Generals admit that al-Qaeda was responisble for a small fraction of the violence.


John E., how about an independent thought? No one is going to debate you on posts you copy from the internet, because no one is going to waste their time arguing with a parrot.

Posted by: Herbie H. | January 18, 2008 3:16 PM


Herbert,

You call that a response?

I've yet to see you debate your way out of a wet paper bag..


You anti-war types haven't changed since the 60's. Your philosophy is any enemy of the poor grunt on the ground is a political ally to be supported. We need to reserve a couple of MOAB's for missions here in the U.S. - let's start with MoveOn's headquarters.


Posted by: Sergeant Rock | January 18, 2008 4:33 PM

Spoken like a true traitor. Sad how much you hate the freedoms you supposedly defend. If you truly are a soldier, then you soil the uniform by wearing it.


You anti-war types haven't changed since the 60's. Your philosophy is any enemy of the poor grunt on the ground is a political ally to be supported. We need to reserve a couple of MOAB's for missions here in the U.S. - let's start with MoveOn's headquarters.

Posted by: Sergeant Rock | January 18, 2008 4:33 PM


WaaaHHH!!! Waaaaahhh!!!

Waaaah! Weeeeepy Weep!!

WWWWAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!!!!

You should be ashamed of yourself for crying on here, soldier..

Now drop and give me 20!


You anti-war types haven't changed since the 60's.
Posted by: Sergeant Rock | January 18, 2008 4:33 PM

Oh thanks for the complement, but I do feel older.


Posted by: Sergeant Rock | January 18, 2008 4:33 PM

I am anti-Iraq war and in the 60's I was in Nam. Were you there? Are you a real Sergeant? or are you named after a flea collar?


Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders were briefed by the CIA on the use of water torture. They were "enthusiastic" of these measures. DP, MoveOn, Obama, etc. will prolong the occupation of Iraq.


Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "y" in the field below:

Latest polls

Galleries

DNC

Democratic Convention

Obama's week

Parade of hats

Celebrities

campaign

Campaign trail

Electoral vote map

map

Test your scenarios

Unauthorized tour

Obama

Obama's Chicago

News, but funnier

Cartoon

Walt Handelsman

Cartoon

The Lowe- Down

Cartoon

Editorial cartoons

Quizzes

McCain

Know the presidents?

McCain

Your McCain IQ

Obama

Your Obama IQ

Bush

Bush twins

Test assumptions