How Long Will MoveOn.org Fail to Oppose Bombing Iran?

[IChing]

How Long Will MoveOn.org Fail to Oppose Bombing Iran?
by Norman Solomon

April 18, 2006

In preparation for this article, I sent e-mails to each of the four signers of MoveOn's "Don't Nuke Iran" letter, asking them:

(1) Why does the letter say nothing against a prospective non-nuclear attack on Iran other than comment that "a conventional attack would likely be a disaster"?

(2) Why was the petition confined to opposing a "nuclear" attack on Iran rather than opposing any military attack on Iran?

(3) Has MoveOn ever sent out a message to the three-million list taking a clear position against the U.S. attacking Iran (no matter what kind of weaponry would be used)?

(4) If the answer to question #3 is "no," why not?

In MoveOn's mass e-mail letter, the only reference to a non-nuclear attack on Iran came in a solitary sentence without any follow-up: "Even a conventional attack would likely be a disaster."

"Likely" be a disaster? Is there any U.S. military attack on Iran that plausibly would not be a disaster?

AntiWar.com--------http://www.antiwar.com/solomon/?articleid=8865


interesting article

[SteppingRazor]

1. Aw c'mon... when you accuse MoveOn of being Bush enablers...

who's left?

What's next, bash Code Pink for not demanding that we immediately dissolve all of our armed forces?

Sheesh. :eyes:

[IChing]

2. YOU is not me.....I still think that the petiton had bad ambigious wording

and the writer of the article had a valid point,

but most people including myself who signed the petition are against any military action in Iran.

I know you, as in you, writing a response to my post,
did not mean you, as a personal you, in your post

[SteppingRazor]

4. You are correct...

in assuming that "you" does not mean you, except for "you" as used in the subject line of this post. You know that I know that you know that you're right. :crazy:

[IChing]

5. LOL......"likely"......story ....n/t

[longship]

3. Flawed logic.

This is a dispicable twisting of things.

Just because MoveOn hasn't explicitly condemned the conventional bombing of Iran, the writer of this article has the audacity to presume that MoveOn's condemnation of nuking Iran does not contain the implicit condemnation of a conventional weapons attack.

This is a sleazy smear.