Move On's Disingenuousness

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:23:11 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

As always, I speak only for me

In an e-mail to its members (except me, I got neither the one to vote on the House bill, or this latest), Move On says:

Some of you have asked whether we support the Lee Amendment, a proposal that would accelerate the end of the war. Of course we do—we'd love for the proposal to bring our troops home sooner, and MoveOn members are pretty clear on that point. We've been fighting for as strong a bill as possible. Right now, the Lee Amendment is not being offered, but if it comes up, we'll definitely encourage Congress to vote for it.

If you support funding the war through September 2008 (which mean funding it past that because only a fool thinks the Congress will cut off funding 2 months befoe an election) you do NOT support the Lee Amendment. This is just nonsense from Move On. The Lee Amendment would be moot if the House funding bill becomes law. Let's hope it does not so Move On can ACTUALLY support the Lee Amendment.

< The House Iraq Supplemental Funding Bill: Differences | Live Blogging Joseph Nacchio Opening Arguments >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Move On's Disingenuousness | 18 comments (18 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If you fund the War through 2008 (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 04:08:24 PM EST

when do you fund the withdrawal? At first I thought it was a play on words toward a more positive way of framing things but as usual my husband reminds me that this is no play on words and that the withdrawal will require a large block of time and funds. When the troops he served with left Iraq it took them weeks to remove themselves and their equipment to Kuwait. In Kuwait everyone became part of cleaning all of the equipment and making it ready for its ocean voyage back to American soil. Readying a 24 million dollar helicopter for a 3 month ocean voyage home in salt water filled air is no small damned feat...wonder what it takes to ready everything else that I don't know much about? Then they loaded it all onboard ships and once it was all on its way back home most of them came home on planes. It took about 90 days total to just remove the 3rd ACR! Removing all of our troops or most of our troops from Iraq is going to be a massive chore and a giant mission and now some Dems and Moveon are telling me they don't even have a plan for starting that until maybe 2008 hopefully sort of kind of we think. GOD GIVE ME STRENGTH TODAY!

This is the general problem (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by RenaRF on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 04:19:08 PM EST

I have with the entire discussion. First, it's important to note that I think defunding is the only thing that will bring the Administration to heel on the issue of the war. No defunding, war continues - simple as that.

Having said that, what does defunding really look like? Is it a pullback to other areas that are NOT Iraq? Is it pack up your tents and come back stateside? What is it? I still don't have a sense of clarity.


: Since my family's basic needs, (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 04:50:50 PM EST

my husband's salary, and most of the basic needs of all the other soldiers are already funded until next October I'm having a hard time understanding what all this supplemental is needed for except WAR and MORE WAR. I think most of it is needed to keep the contractors in play and with things getting hotter and hotter that is costing more and more. When the withdrawal happens it will need its own funding or funds will have to be diverted to withdrawal efforts after withdrawal orders are given.

that is why... (4.80 / 5) (#2)
by selise on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 04:13:50 PM EST

that is why i have, with great sadness and after years of support, cancelled my membership with moveon.


me too ! !! (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by leoncarre on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:25:42 PM EST

i have moved on from moveon.org
f**k em

i have moved over to

over to true majority
and democracy rising us


: i too have shined on moveon (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by conchita on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:09:36 PM EST

you might want to consider progressive democrats (pda) - they get it. they also sent out an email to their membership clarifying the misleading moveon position and asking folks to oppose it. i am hoping to work with the new york chapter to start a local impeachment action.

Reading Between the Lines (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by leoncarre on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:45:59 PM EST

Democrats Should Set 2008 Iraq Deadline

"That should be, at the latest, by fall of 2008. After four years of slogging through one failed Bush administration strategy after another, giving this latest effort a year and a half to work, as House Democrats propose, seems reasonable"

Bush says "have patience" Dems offer another eighteen months... just in time for the 2008 presidential election, when Bush hands his war to his successor, just like he said he would.

And furthermore (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by leoncarre on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:02:51 PM EST

If anything goes to demonstrate the answer to your question "Are Blogs Changing the Discourse on Iraq?" this slimy move by MoveOn.org proves the answer is NO...
Out of 3 million MoveOn members polled on line, in the eleventh hour, for their stand on the Iraq Supplemental...

84% were in support of it... only 6% opposed it but the poll was biased in favor of the supplemental.

Proof of this bias is revealed in the results... only 6% of progressives opposed?? WTF????

At the gathering I attended last night 100% were in opposition to the Iraq Supplemental!! (Iraq War Memorial Vigil held in a Unitarian Church... mostly grey hairs and white hairs)

That the poll was biased was pointed out by mcjoan and BarbinMD two days ago:Iraq and a hard place

did you read the text of the email with the poll? (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by conchita on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:16:41 PM EST

it was completely misleading and did not include any hard info about the so-called compromise resolution. it also said that some progressives would be voting for it but did not list who would and who would not be. it was more than disingenuous, it was dishonest.


yes, and that's what's burning me up!! (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by leoncarre on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:48:01 PM EST

I was among that 6% who voted NO in their poll.


: s***ks when your side turns on you (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by conchita on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:26:13 PM EST

also makes me wonder who gullible are people? the poll was an online poll - don't these people read more than their email??

Renamed StayPut.org (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by Ben Masel on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:12:28 PM EST

BTD (none / 0) (#4)
by RenaRF on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 04:19:43 PM EST

I'm accessing remotely (via Blackberry) - do you have a link to the text of the amendment?

: Blogging 101 (none / 0) (#5)
by manys on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 04:29:00 PM EST

Yeah. Google aside, it's customary to actually link to the thing you're talking about. I've never even heard of the Lee Amendment.

MoveOn's Betrayal (none / 0) (#7)
by leoncarre on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:20:33 PM EST

You're a little mild here, BTD
MoveOn.org has betrayed the cause of the progressive democrats in its support of the Iraq Supplemental.

which can be found, in all its loopholed glory here:

Iraq Supplemental: Continue to Fund a Hopeless Situation Until A Date Uncertain

just run a search on the words Iraq... now try to find the word "withdraw" "redeploy"

try to find a date for ending this horrific tragedy.... September 2008!!! and that's just when the money runs out, not when the conflict ends....

and don't forget to leave the door open for the upscaled air war

On Capitol Hill, most Democrats seem to have settled on a tactical approach of simultaneously ratifying and deploring the continuation of the war. The approach may or may not be savvy politics in a narrow sense of gaining temporary partisan political advantage.
But it is ultimately destructive to refuse to do the one thing that the Constitution empowers Congress to do to halt a U.S. war -- stop appropriating taxpayer money for it.
Norman Solomon
The Pragmatism of Prolonged War

MoveOn Has a History (none / 0) (#9)
by Bill Samuel on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:32:44 PM EST

MoveOn has an interesting history. It was founded by a group of business executives to promote moderate politics. It opposed progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans mainly by funding relatively conservative Democratic candidates. In its early years, it helped get several Democrats elected who went on to support going into war.

It now tries to present an image of being progressive and for peace. But its background of hostility to both still comes out. So it is not really surprising that it now advocates massive funding for continued war in Iraq. It is showing its true colors.

Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, MD, USA
http://wsamuel.bravejournal.com/

: it is not the first time i have been disappointed (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by conchita on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:13:10 PM EST

by moveon's centrism. i thought it was formed by a group of silicon valley execs to fight clinton's impeachment and was resurrected several years back to elect a democrat. it has been effective as a pulpit and for organizing people to act, but they have lost me on this one.

BTD - A question (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 02:15:48 PM EST

Why do you say?

Why would anyone think you speak for anyone else?

Are you a member of an organization/group that someone might think you speak for??