What's Next for the Anti-War Movement?
Here's MoveOn's plan: After consulting with MoveOn members, we're about to launch an aggressive new campaign to bring our troops home as soon as possible.
More Americans than ever oppose the war. Yet all the major contenders for the Republican nomination support it, and Congress is unable or unwilling (or both) to take President Bush to task.
So, we're moving forward with a three-pronged strategy.
First, our spring and summer campaign focused on giving Republicans who supported the war a choice between ending it and feeling the wrath of their constituents. 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. 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, we 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. We will even launch primary challenges to some Congressional Democrats who continue to be out of step with their constituents on this issue. We consider it our job to help produce more than a merely Democratic majority. We want an anti-war majority in 2008.
Third, we will have to make sure that the next president leads us out of Iraq as expeditiously as possible. 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. Democratic presidential hopefuls have pledged to end the war if elected but they must be unequivocal in their commitments to remove all U.S. troops within eighteen months of taking office.
Politicians who believe false media reports that claim the anti-war movement is shifting gears, or lost momentum, do so at their own peril. We are energized, organized, committed and ready for this historic election year.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Eli, MoveOn's intentions are fine, the end goal is admirable, but your target is the wrong one.
Look, the GOP has no chance of maintaining the WH after next November. None. Zilch. The problem you'll face while trying to extricate the US from Iraq will be that there are so many Democrats who support our military presence there and who will continue to support that presence. To quote Pete Townsend: "Here's to the new boss, same as the old boss."
Almost everyday we have more MSM articles announcing that the US will remain in Iraq for AT LEAST another 10 years, and it's obvious that the established power base in DC intends to milk the Cradle of Humanity for all it is worth. Moreover, the 'loyal' opposition - best represented by Reid and Pelosi - have demonstrated in the most obvious way of all their total support for this illegal, hegemonic empire building.
If you want my money again, MoveOn will focus its efforts on forcing Reid and Pelosi to facilitate the initiation of impeachment proceedings against those who so egregiously - and so INTENTIONALLY - misled this country into a war that has cost so much and delivered so little (except to the warmongers who profited from the lies and deaths). Moreover, MoveOn should be in the vanguard to force the leading candidates to face up to questions about the perpetuation of American military presence in the MidEast. Anything short of these efforts and MoveOn will remain in the column marked "Of Little Further Importance
Fatal flaws have already been committed by you and other organizations proclaiming to be progressive:
1. Funded by the Democratic machine, you could never, at least when it mattered, go after the real problem, the Democrats who stab us in the back. We could have had it all by now in Congress and the Senate.
2. Because of this fatal mistake, we have already lost too many Democrats to an Independent status. It would be interesting to see a tally. You can hear the declarations, on CSPAN every morning, of new converts. You could say the Democratic party is almost dead to many progressives, and maybe should be.
3. Third, by not embracing the issues of voter fraud, possibly now even by Hillary, you continue to undermine the public vote by assuming an honest vote tally is possible. It is not. Not when done in secret and by private companies in league with Bush/Clinton, like Diebold. (see blackboxvoting)
4. When things have gotten to this point in history, and around the world, ONLY A GENERAL STRIKE IS WARRANTED. Regularly each month, no work, no school, no tv, no internet, no shopping. But these tactics are for real revolutionaries, way beyond your Dem-sponsored efforts. Perhaps A.N.S.W.E.
5. By continuing to prop up a failed Democratic party, you have indicated to the world that the Dems have behaved "just fine" in Congress and the Senate. Its time for more decisive action and you are not going to EVER get it with Dems like Pelosi and Reid.
6. Because of all this, we probably deserve another Republican in the white house, sorry to say. As bad as George Jr was, he taught us a lot about how things really are and how bad our own party really is. Nothing else could have done this as well as electing him repeatedly. And at least the repubs may secure the borders and Ron Paul could end the war.
Call me paranoid, but take into consideration these facts:
1) In 2002-2003, the GOP was extremely capable and very successful in selling the Iraq war to the American public at a time when there was very little upon which to build their case. Yet the GOP succeeded completely in causing the majority of Americans to believe that Iraq was a threat, when in reality it was not.
2) The GOP saw how badly they lost in 2006 when Iraq was 'the issue', and have since made the determination that they mustnotcannot let Iraq be 'the issue' in 2008. They know that if they allow Iraq to be the issue they will surely lose by a large margin.
Hence: We now have a domestic economic emergency being fed to us from all quarters. Coincidence? Not at all. This issue has been designed to alter the playing field, because the GOP knows that it can't win if Iraq is allowed to remain the issue with US voters.
Worry: All of below equal eternal trouble.
1. Viewing Afghanistan as "good" war.
2. Iran can't have... . Therefore we or Israel bomb
3. Nobody mentions Israel bombing Syria
4. Pakistan has nukes, we have to be in there.
Until you get on TV and radio nationwide this movement will be ignored like Impeachmen
With all due respect, the strategy was flawed from the outset. We went head on when we should have been more circumspect. The focus should have been on reducing Bush's power base. Total emphasis should have been on removing Reid, Feinstein, and fellow travelers from position of influence. Pelosi would have been duly warned and investigations could have been launched into all the un-Constitutional activities that the Administration has been envolved in. This would of have yielded grounds for impeachment. With the sword of impeachment over his head, Bush would have been more amenable to a compromise that have ended the war.
Nevertheless Reid, Feinstein, Rockerfeller, and Schumer should still be removed from positions of influence. The thought of another year like the last one is a testament to our impotence. Another year of Reid's leadership sucks.
Eli,
if you want to do something constructive, you have to put their feet to the fire. This "impeachment is off the table" crap is the reason W hasn't changed his tune since the mid-term elections. With NO accountability, NO responsibility is taken, for anything.
Until MoveOn gets on the ball - on this particular ball - I will _continue_ to be a MoveOn member who is DISSATISFIED with MoveOn's leadership. You keep promising that you pay attention to our interests, but times change and you need to keep up with us. For example, what about the MILLIONS of emails that have "disappeared?"
Further, I've tried to email you and only gotten dead air - not even a form letter telling me you don't have time. Very Sad.
However, I've not given up on you and MoveOn. I'm just sad you're not keeping your eyes on the ball. That is, what you have to do to be effectual. Here's one great idea: Talk to Oprah. She's about to start a new "network." Get her to agree, in the interests of democracy, to provide public airwaves time to balance out how the fairness doctrine was eliminated
Regards,
RTIII
Eli, I'm thrilled to hear that MoveOn will be going after Democrats who aren't trying to get us out of Iraq hard enough. The endorsement of Donna Edwards was presumably largely based on the fact that for so long Al Wynn would fund the war without any questions.
But why has MoveOn not done an endorsement of Mark Pera - who's up against a "Bush Dog Democrat" named Dan Lipinski who's actually been worse than Al Wynn on the war?
It's a safe blue district and undoubtedly MoveOn members in the district would be supportive of Mark Pera over Dan Lipinski -- so why haven't you polled them to ask? Why is the organization still not doing anything for Mark Pera when the primary is in ust a couple weeks (Feb 5)?
You've set the bar with the Donna Edwards endorsement - and Mark Pera exceeds it. MoveOn could make the difference in whether or not the IL-3rd District has a congressman who will fight to end the war in Iraq. Dan Lipinski has had lots of opportunities to do so, and done nothing.
Please endorse Mark Pera while there's still time
Eli, one small detail... you can't elect a Congress to stand up to Bush on funding because anyone you get elected will enter office mere days before Bush leaves. DUH. You'll be dealing with a different President. And if you are still dealing with Bush, then we've all got a bigger problem than just war funding.
And please. You people don't even know what "aggressive" is. You need to learn ALOT of things from the Ron Paul Revolution. Besides the fact that Dr. Paul IS The Anti-War candidate.
The Revolution on multiple occaisions has SHUT DOWN GOP offices when they tried to disrespect our wishes. SHUT THEM DOWN. We OWN the Internet. No one can compete with us on the Net, where we dominate everyone and everything.
We use the Hive Strategy, where we attack relentlessly in unending waves until our target is overwhelmed and gives up. Make a list of phone numbers to be called EVERY day, along with a "script" of exactly what you want to say to the people you speak with. Be polite. Be firm. Same thing for emails. You can also do snail-mail if you like.
When you have 100,000 people repeating these steps daily, you get results. When you have ONE MILLION doing this... you scare people. And you NEED to scare people if you want to win.
I suggest that we should style this, not merely as an "anti-war movement" but as an "anti-crime movement."
Immediately upon gaining office, the latest House of Representatives immediately proclaimed, "okay we've got your back... impeachment is off the table... carry on."
We need to take the position that Congress cannot lawfully do that. We need to take the position that, if (say) a Grand Jury chooses not to take action against what is plainly in front of them, that Grand Jury breaks the law itself because if there is no indictment there is no fear of prosecution.
We have been grievously thrust into a war that has not only killed thousands of American lives but maimed many thousands more. But that's only the tip of the iceberg of criminal behavior that has flooded all three branches of our government now. To eliminate crime, we must consistently prosecute crime. We must never tolerate crime.
There should be, not one or two but several dozen impeachment proceedings in progress by, say, March. "Any civil officer" can be impeached and "every civil officer" must daily live in fear of it, regarding it as a certain and swift consequence.
"War opposition" alone isn't enough. The crime must be rooted out completely at its source.
I'd like to see a campaign based on empathy for the suffering of fellow human beings, portrayed in terms of if America was Iraq.
Instead of 30 million people, picture 300 million.
Instead of 1 million dead, picture 10 million dead.
Instead of 4 million refugees, picture 40 million refugees.
Death squads controlling our barricaded ethnically and religiously cleansed neighborhoods.
An aggressive foreign power, who doesn't try to speak the language or understand the culture dropping "smart" bombs on hospitals and schools and apartments, and patrolling the streets running and gunning down anything that moves, while cultivating and exascerbating differences between religious sects, as they pillage the country.
No power. No water. No food. No jobs. Bridges bombed. Infrastructure destroyed. Every road potentially riddled with death traps. Every food line containing a posible walking bomb. All women forced to stop being educated or going outside.
Being anti-war is great, but there is a more fundamental issue. We are spending more on military buildup than the rest of the world combined, and we have a virtual monopoly on 21st century weapons development. This has nothing to do with defense of America. This is first strike capability. If we continue down this path, even electing anti-war democrats and leaving Iraq and bringing peace to the world would be only a temporary condition because our war making capabilities would still be there for the next time the hawks take power. If we want real peace, we must slash our military budget. Cutting it in half would be a good start. What do the various politicians say about that? Do they want to spend more or less on military buildup?
Thank you MoveOn and your sister organizations. You are the patriots and heroes of our day and age. I wish I had more time, money and energy to donate to you. I do what I can. You inspire me to do more. Keep up the pressure on the Congress Be sure to reevaluate and update as things change. Adios for now amigos.
anti war movement has accomplished a lot.
defeated Lieberman. no, I guess not.
elected congress that acted on their wishes. nope.
ended war. nah.
the truth is the people are against losing this war.
if this war was won early, everyone would have been for the war.
I think former members of con-gress would be insulted by a lobbying job offer of a MERE $1 million a year. Try more like $10 Million to $20 Million then you are in the ballpark.
Loading comments…
Posted January 18, 2008 | 11:38 AM (EST)