MYSTERY SOLVED
Now I Know Why MoveOn Has No Use for WMD

I am staring at the beauty of the ocean on an island paradise — Oahu, Hawaii, occupied for over a century after being annexed by force by the USA in its “own interests” of course. Annexed and occupied. The Hawaiian Queen surrendered to the “Superior Force” of the US military.

Sound familiar? These islands were needed then as a cross-shipment point, when the US went to war in the Philippines at the start of the last century. That was the Vietnam Before Vietnam, an imperial adventure that savaged another people in the name of the white man’s burden.

The Hawaiian people will tell you about that history. They will tell you how one quarter of the land on this island paradise is owned by the US military. They will tell you about their struggle against colonialism to keep their language and traditions. They will tell you about pillage, as Karen Murray does, in a letter this week to the Honolulu Weekly:

“Money comes and money goes but we get stuck with the bills. The bills come in the form of lands — whole ecosystems — destroyed and polluted with ordinance of all kinds and left for us and our children to deal with.”

I could go on, but I won’t because, today, like every day , I am thinking more about the present, more about carnage of the war in Iraq which marks its second anniversary next weekend.

I am thinking about , how the media was used as a tool of pacification. And is still being so used. The Weekly reports that “mainland based Clear Channel owns seven radio stations in Hawaii carrying Fox News Reports hourly.” Yesterday I was watching the new Pentagon Channel here on cable TV.

I am here to show WMD a few times here and then in Maui on Wednesday. The screenings have been in all the papers.Its part of a very inventive Freedom of Information week organized by Charmaine Crockett and a committee.

WHY HAS MOVE ON MOVED ON?

As readers know, I was very distressed when the mighty movers of MoveOn declined to help us or even tell their readers about our film. I wondered why. I challenged them to discuss it. No one responded. I was later told that I pissed off one of their main team members by going public about my concerns with what I saw as a rightward drift (not in the ranks but among the leaders, perhaps in hopes of becoming powerbrokers and insiders.)

I figured, well, maybe the film was just not good enough or that this dispute was considered personal. Perhaps, I just wasn’t a big enough celeb for them like the stars they like to hang with and trumpet. Perhaps the film is not partisan enough because it doesn’t just just go after Fox but indicts the corporate media system — a system they seem to support with all their advertising.

I didn’t feel they owe us anything. They have a right to decide what to support or not support just as I have the right to lobby them as they lobby the public.

That’s what I thought and after lots of queries — from Mediachannel readers — went without any response, I decided to move on and drop it. I do admire their impressive capacity at motivating and organizing. I wished MoveOn well.

“You win some, you lose some,” I told an old friend and anti-Vietnam War activist who works closely with MoveOn. He agreed, and said he tried to persuade them but failed. Let it go.

So be it — UNTIL I read what follows which puts my minor peeve in a much bigger context. It seems that the MoveOn which played to anti-war sentiment to build its membership base has now decided to drop the issue on the belief it is not winnable. They cite some vague polls of their members as the reason.

Pragmatism strikes again to rationalize silence.

What’s next? An alliance with the DLC? I guess to win brownie points or access on the Hill and in the inner circle they feel they have to move like Hillary Clinton and the others into a centrist CONsensus. You could see this coming when one time anti-war hero John Kerry felt he had to out-Bush Bush on the war to win. It didn’t work, did it?

Whats especially troubling is that MoveON is dropping the war as an issue after a majority of the people (56% in a December poll) now say they now think Iraq was a bad idea. As anti-war sentiment grows and as the US military loses the initiative, MoveOn is pursuing its own “exit strategy.” Could the positive but wrong media spin on the Iraq elections have convinced them to drop the issue?

So now read this article by Norman Solomon as introduced by Anthony Lappe of Guerrilla News Network.

Ach so.

ABANDONING IRAQ

Anthony Lappe of Guerrilla News was recently invited to spend three days at a swanky Maryland resort to “the future of the progressive movement with an impressive group of lefty movers and shakers. Over the course of the conference, the only time I heard the word “Iraq” was when I noted, that in case they hadn’t noticed, we are at war and that maybe we should discuss what we were going to do about it. I was met with blank stares. Apart from a few recent grassroots efforts, the mainstream left has largely ignored the growing insurgency in Iraq. As GNN contributor Norman Solomon writes, nowhere is the left’s abandonment of the antiwar movement more clear than in MoveOn’s agenda. One MoveOner explained to me that weekend in Maryland, social security is their number one issue for 2005 because “it’s an issue we can win.” Iraq, he explained, is not a winner”. [A.L.]:

Norman Solomon explains further:

MoveOn.org: Making Peace With the War in Iraq
Groundbreaking group not pushing for U.S. withdrawal

Sadly, it has come to this. Two years after the invasion of Iraq, the online powerhouse MoveOn.org — which built most of its member base with a strong antiwar message — is not pushing for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

With a network of more than three million “online activists,” the MoveOn leadership has decided against opposing the American occupation of Iraq. During the recent bloody months, none of MoveOn’s action alerts have addressed what Americans can do to help get the U.S. military out of that country. Likewise, the MoveOn.org website has continued to bypass the issue — even after Rep. Lynn Woolsey and two dozen cosponsors in the House of Representatives introduced a resolution in late January calling for swift removal of all U.S. troops from Iraq.

That resolution would seem to be a natural peg for the kind of kinetic activism that established MoveOn’s reputation. A movement serious about ending U.S. military activities in Iraq could use the resolution as a way to cut through political tap dances and pressure members of Congress to take a stand. Down the road, generating grassroots support for a get-out-of-Iraq resolution has potential to clear a congressional pathway for measures cutting off funds for the war.

But, tragically, MoveOn’s leadership is having none of it. Over a period of recent weeks, the word “Iraq” appeared on the MoveOn.org home page only in a plug for a documentary released last year. Inches away, a blurb has been telling the website’s visitors: “Support Our Troops: Contribute your frequent-flyer miles so that American troops can get home.” (But not stay home.) Many soldiers are returning to the killing grounds of Iraq, while a growing number are vocally opposed to this war.

Why won’t MoveOn “support our troops” by supporting a pullout of our troops from Iraq? “We believe that there are no good options in Iraq,” MoveOn.org’s executive director, Eli Pariser, told me. “We’re seeing a broad difference of opinion among our members on how quickly the U.S. should get out of Iraq. As a grassroots-directed organization, we won’t be taking any position which a large portion of our members disagree with.”

In sharp contrast, early in the 2004 primary campaign, MoveOn committed itself to endorsing any Democratic presidential candidate receiving more than 50 percent of the Internet ballots cast by its activists. (Howard Dean fell shy of a majority, so there was no MoveOn endorsement.) But now, evidently, a majority of MoveOn members in favor of swift withdrawal from Iraq would be insufficient if a “large portion” disagreed.

When I asked Eli for clarification, he replied: “We’ve been talking with our members continuously on this issue. We’ve surveyed slices of our membership in January and in December, and surveyed our whole membership last spring. That’s how we know there’s a breadth of opinion out there.”

But last spring was a year ago. And any surveying of “slices of our membership in January and in December” came before the Woolsey resolution offered an opportunity to find out how the MoveOn base views the measure. In any event, there will always be “a breadth of opinion” about this war — a fact that does not trump the crucial need for clarity of purpose.

If MoveOn leaders were willing to submit the House get-out-of-Iraq resolution to MoveOn’s rank-and-file in an up-or-down vote, the chances of a substantial majority would be excellent. Too bad the leadership of MoveOn.org is currently unwilling to find out.

The 29 members of the House now sponsoring the resolution are hardly radicals. They recognize the kind of grisly consequences of equivocation that occurred during the Vietnam War: Refusal to speak forthrightly about the urgent need to end military involvement only fuels the war’s deadly momentum.

It’s all well and good for MoveOn.org to do superb work in the current battle over the future of Social Security. And it’s very helpful to excoriate President Bush for his many big lies in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. But such activities don’t make up for going along with the basics of the present-day Iraq war.

When a large progressive organization takes the easy way and makes peace with war, the abdication of responsibility creates a vacuum. Ironically, a group that became an Internet phenom by recognizing and filling a void is now creating one. And other groups are bound to emerge to fill it.

Among the emerging organizations is Progressive Democrats of America (www.pdamerica.org), a fledgling national group with an activist focus on the Iraq war that is laudably straightforward. “We’re organizing a new campaign in every Congressional District we can to call for the end of funding for war and occupation, and for the transfer of reconstruction assistance to Iraqis themselves,” says Tim Carpenter of PDA. He contends that “public pressure can awaken Congress to an opposition role.”

War in Iraq requires continual funding, of course, so President Bush’s new supplemental boost of $80 billion in war appropriations has been moving through Congress in recent days. Tacitly accepting the war’s continuation, MoveOn declined to take a stand against the essence of congressional backing for the war — the money that keeps paying for it. Meanwhile, PDA launched an effort against the $80 billion; the organizing included a National Call-In Day aimed at members of Congress on March 10.

MoveOn.org pioneered the use of email and web technologies as creative tools to further its political agenda. Now that the MoveOn agenda on the Iraq war has tumbled into the shallow depths of the Potomac, some similar online activism will be needed if MoveOn’s dive is going to be merely temporary. So, to help get the cyber-ball rolling, please forward this article around the Internet and post it where appropriate.

Friends don’t let friends drive drunk, and peace advocates do a lot more than shrug when a previously great antiwar organization starts to get lost.

If MoveOn continues to abandon its antiwar base, that base will get the picture — and move on.”

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0310-35.htm

Norman Solomon’s latest book, “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death,” will be published in early summer. His columns and other writings can be found at: www.normansolomon.com.

Your comments and suggestions welcome. MoveOn members should chime in. I don’t think the leaders want to discuss it.

The WMD DVD is now available from www.wmdthefilm.com.

After Hawaii, I will be speaking on the issue and screening the film in LA Friday night at Santa Monica College at 7PM.

Mahalo and thanks for all the kind comments on my CSPAN appearance.

Write: dissector@mediachannel.org