Been there (4.00 / 1)

Yes, it's an old question. I chose the movement in 1968, and have never had any reason to regret it, but there are still some around in the party who would like me to. In 2006 our senatorial candidate gave me a brief lecture on the impatient, shrill, anti-war people who betrayed and derailed the party at the infamous Chicago convention, and how, if we'd just stuck with Humphrey, he'd have won and everything since would have turned out just fine.

Even though I was working as a volunteer to get the guy elected, and trying to be a good party member and keep my mouth shut, this was more than I could take. I was one of those people, I said, and if you insist on seeing history this way, you're going to wind up there again. Is that what you want?

At that point, I moved out of the line, and let someone else shake his hand.

---

by: William Timberman @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:30:57 AM CDT

The problem is (4.00 / 1)

CAP and MoveOn never opposed the Afganistan war or claimed to be anti-war groups. The opposed the Iraq war and argued in part that it was distracting from the real fight in Afganistan as did Obama.

Nichols and you are making up controversy to fit your own agenda. The groups that have stated missions opposing all wars  have opposed the Afganistan war, groups that opposed the Iraq war have. Groups like CAP and MoveOn that opposed the Iraq war but supported the Afganistan war have stayed consistent to that. And you can twist their actions to fit your motives all day long but that doesn't change the facts.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:34:21 AM CDT

"Twisting the facts" (0.00 / 0)

Hmmm...

And the broader point is that the question is not just about Afghanistan (as I said very clearly) - it's about many issues.

---

by: David Sirota @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 12:02:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Awesome (4.00 / 1)

citing a National Review hit piece written to defend Karl Rove. Very classy.

You have a point on other issues, but Afghanistan isn't one. When you twist facts to fit your agenda on this your other points lose credibility.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 12:29:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You can attack... (0.00 / 0)

You can attack the messenger, but the facts are the facts.

---

by: David Sirota @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 15:45:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, the important question (4.00 / 2)

is not whether Move On used to support the war--some ninety percent of the country did. The question is why they support it now.

It's nearly impossible to believe that Move On would be supporting escalation if Bush had proposed it, and the same can be said of many of the progressive now cheering Obama's taking ownership of this fiasco.

But maybe I should ask you directly, Populista: do you support escalation of the war in Afghanistan? If so, why?

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 12:47:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Regardless of the question of why (0.00 / 0)

this is a dumb move, for Obama, the Democratic party and the movement.  

Military action almost never defeats terrorists, that action is likely to give those we're fighting against anti-imperialist credibility, and it will help Al-Qaeda and similar groups recruit around the world.  

The entire thing seems to be premised on the idea that Al-Qaeda is incapable of planning anywhere in world except in Af-Pakm, which is nothing short of absurd. The fact that 9/11 was planned there is not relevant to how to deal with this problem today. The usual response is that we can't just pack up and leave, as though we can't have any interaction with a country that doesn't involve war.  

Hearing the arguments put in favor of this, with two escalations since the inauguration, with people who loudly supported of the Iraq disaster playing leading roles, is disturbing.  

Go back and read The Best and the Brightest, and tell me how you could tell whether it was written years ago if the names were taken out. As long as you are always on the side of aggression and war, you can never be kicked out of the foreign policy club. Being right or wrong is irrelevant to the question of expertise and seriousness.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

---

by: David Kaib @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 16:24:13 PM CDT

Best post in a while on this! (0.00 / 0)

I like your thinking...common sense is sometimes overlooked. Thank you.

---

by: justsaying @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 21:57:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maney can't buy love, but it can buy peace (0.00 / 0)

The mainstream press states that the Obama administration's position embraces this idea: the source of ills in Afganistan is poverty not fundamentalism.  This alleged change of attitude provides an opening for liberal-activists groups to get on board.  And as my subject line states, you can indeeed pay most people to be relatively 'content' (as has already been done in Iraq with the Sunnis) for as long as the money lasts.  
What I doubt is that things will actually change on the ground in Afganistan.  The bean counters will soon point out what it would really cost to build a high employment economy in Afganistan, and things will continue as before -- hunting down and killing the malcontents.

---

by: jwalseth @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 21:53:19 PM CDT

Great...more countries to build! Definitely scope creep... (0.00 / 0)

not that I liked the troop escalation of the first scope. We cannot go around militaristically wiping out poor countries only to rebuild them - oh yeah... in the name of 'terrorism'.

---

by: justsaying @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 22:01:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]