Reply #3: frankly, I think it is because neither MoveOn or others... [View All]

[mike_c]

...really wants to confront the ugly political truth of the Iraq war: that many democratic legislators have supported the war and continue to support it. MoveOn is closely allied with the Democratic Party, but the party leadership does not want an antiwar stance-- witness the absolute prohibition of any antiwar expressions at the national convention. Also, as much as many would like the antiwar movement to exist in a vacuum, it doesn't, and a RATIONAL antiwar movement must eventually recognize that any solution to the occupation of Iraq also brings up wider foreign policy and social justice issues. Again, MoveOn's alliance with the mainstream democratic party would be mightily strained by a public airing of those larger issues, because dems will be caught with their pants down, big time.

I think the ultimate answer is that MoveOn has mainstream political aspirations, in particular, it wants to influence national electoral politics. I would LOVE to see them take a leading role in the antiwar movement, but I think they feel that such a role might undermine their broader political aspirations, and I think they might have a point. Lots of dems have blood on their hands-- I suspect MoveOn doesn't want to be in the business of pointing that out.