From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Out of date?

This is severely out of date now... Can someone find something more recent to put here? Maybe a list of funders of MoveOn? - User:JesseW

Go for it!

Removed biased content

removed RNC talking points from stub

Jeffrey Blankfort on MoveOn

Jeffrey Blankfort's comment about Matzzie's statement: trying to rewrite history
This is's latest message to its email list which perpetuates the dangerous illusion that there was an element larger than three or four people among the hundreds of Democratic Party legislators who opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. Nancy Pelosi was not one of them. Meeting with a group of her constituents in San Francisco on the eve of the war, Pelosi said that while she had questions about it, should Bush make the decision to go to war she would support him and the war and so she did, and several demonstrations have been held in San Francisco since, criticizing her position. But here is Tom Matzzie of MoveOn.Org, who knows the truth about where Pelosi stands, lying to MOO's members with a statement such as this. Pelosi, in fact, rejected Murtha's position, until, apparently, she heard from her constituents who have become tired of her pimping for what's expedient at the moment. I have sent Mr. Matzzie a copy of this message. It is one thing to call for an end to the US war on Iraq. It does not excuse, however, the rewriting of history.

Pelosi voted for the Authorization, but with caveats. It waas not a vote intended to give the president a free hand, but was to aplly pressure on Saddam so that the UN inspectors could do its job, which they were doin gwhen GW jacked them out of Iraq, the evidence notwithstanding.

This is the same spin that they try to place on Kerry too, and isn't factual.

On Oct. 10, 2002, Pelosi spoke in support of The Spratt Amendment, which was actually a competing resolution titled:

Elimination of Weapons of Mass Destruction from Iraq Resolution

part of which read:

SEC. 2.(2) the President should persist in his efforts to obtain approval of the Security Council for any actions taken against Iraq; and

SEC. 2.(3)(C) authorizes, if the President deems advisable, a military force, formed under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council but commanded by the United States, to protect and support arms inspectors and make force available in the event that Iraq impedes, resists, or in any way interferes with such inspection teams;

SEC. 2.(5) if the United States must resort to force, the President should endeavor to form a coalition of allies as broadly based as practicable to support and participate with United States Armed Forces, and should also seek multilateral cooperation and assistance, specifically including Arab and Islamic countries, in the post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq; and

SEC. 4. In the event that the United Nations Security Council does not adopt a resolution as described in section 3, or in the event that such a resolution is adopted but does not sanction the use of force sufficient to compel Iraq's compliance, and if the President determines that use of the United States Armed Forces is necessary for such compliance, the President should seek authorization from Congress to use military force to compel such compliance...

i am busy presently, and do not have the time to vet what's going on on this site as much as i previously did, but this is a bit beyond the pale.

And the edit comes from a brit whose sole other contribution has been a glowing write-up of the Hayek Society? Special:Contributions&target=

Funding from Soros

two other paragraphs, left in the stub state: devoted its efforts toward supporting the Democratic nominees for the 2004 U.S. presidential election and defeating George W. Bush's re-election effort, raising millions of dollars for Democratic candidates. It is one of several 527 committees who supported John Kerry, the Democratic nominee in the 2004 U.S. presidential election; others include America Coming Together and the Media Fund. A major supporter of MoveOn in recent years has been George Soros.
George Soros and a partner committed up to $5 million to bringing to $15.5 million the total of his personal contributions to oust President George W. Bush. Overnight, Soros, 74, became the major financial player of the left. He has elicited cries of foul play from the right.

Note that not one allegation is sourced, and the Soros "up tp $5 million" is what in reality?

--Hugh Manatee 07:33, 5 Dec 2005 (EST)

and the Washington Pos cite tooo

I just checked th eWashington Post Citation (i believe footnote 3(


and got no text, just the headline and Attribution:

From Screen Savers to Progressive Savior? Founder Galvanizes Opposition to Bush, Democratic Centrists

By David Von Drehle Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, June 5, 2003; Page A14

--Hugh Manatee 07:40, 5 Dec 2005 (EST)

moved from my personal talk page's response to my editing out much of's Pelosi stub edit, as well as a response. It is more appropriate here.

--Hugh Manatee 07:32, 6 Dec 2005 (EST)

gleeful asymetry moving move on...

It is curious that you deem deleting Jeff Blankfort's comment... after all, it is his comment and this can be verified directly via his email ( Now, you may disagree with it, but given that JeffB has followed the political scene in California for ages, and has been a constant critic of MoveOn... I think it is a bit rich if you try to reinterpret the opinion of a well known writer/radio program producer/and decades-long activist.

MoveOn is mostly composed of a bunch of milkshods -- maybe this explains why George Soros funds them. One should NOT expect a more radical stance from them other than to "support" this or that flake Democrat politician.


Retrieved from User_talk:Hugh_Manatee

This wasn't about somebody named Blankenship; it was about the distortion of Pelosi's antiwar. Both the extremities of America's Bipolar polity desire to grayscale all that exists with the set;
They'd like to take it into the realm of the digital, the black or wihte duotones, because it serves them both.

The assininity:

yer either with me or agin' me pard'ner;

posits that there are not political choices outside of their flatworlder ideologies; that all political views must be exsistent on a linear scale. Then both try to destroy individuals who they perceive with their stunted worldviews to be inbetween.

Well the neoconniving and the old school need to be slapped silly with asymmetrical post{whateverism} from a low elliptic orbit, which sadly exists high above their 2 dimensional distorted abstraction, resultant from their arrogant refusal to lift ther gaze above the dirt.

Antiwar can be found across political spectrums. Anti GW Bush's War Upon Iraq is the same. Pelosi voted for the Authorization of Force in Iraq in Oct. 2002, but to claim her vote was the same as Duncan Hunter's is absurity. Minimally, as indicated with her vocal support for the Sprat amendment mentioned above, Pelosi did not believe her vote empowered a unilateralist war without first receiving the assent of the congress.

In other words, she expected GW to act according to strict constitutional construction. He did not, and chose to instead posit that the resolution was an Unconditional Declaration of War.

I don't care much for Pelosi, nor do I believe the War Upon Iraq is either lawful or rightful, and have not since its first engagenment; but I do care about SourceWatch, and do not wish to see it loaded up with the stupidity of situationalists.

On the eve of the war in an interview with Christiane Amanpour, Chirac succintly described what this Authorization could have meant for Bush's legacy, instead of the infamy it will be:

Amanpour: Do you believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction; for instance, chemical or biological weapons?
Chirac: Well, I don’t know. I have no evidence to support that… It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of.
As for weapons of mass destruction, bacteriological, biological, chemical, we don’t know. And that is precisely what the inspectors’ mandate is all about. But rushing into war, rushing into battle today is clearly a disproportionate response.
Amanpour: Here, many commentators, many newspapers have been hailing you as a hero. They have even said your position should make you qualify for a Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, in America, in Britain, they call you an appeaser, that you are appeasing this terrible dictator who may have weapons of mass destruction.
Chirac: I feel the same way about Saddam Hussein as George Bush or Tony Blair. There is a rather long list of countries where there are dictatorships, and if we were going to wage war to get rid of all of them without pursuing all other options, we are going to be very busy
Amanpour: You have said that inspections were working in great part because of the massive US and British force that is arrayed outside Saddam Hussein’s doorstep. Wouldn’t it be even more effective if France had sent troops also to double and triple the threat?
Chirac: I have said that it is indeed thanks to the pressure of British and American troops that the Iraqi authorities and Saddam Hussein have changed their position and have agreed to cooperate with the inspectors.
So I would say that the Americans have already won, and they haven’t fired a single bullet.
CBS Sixty Minutes, "Chirac Makes His Case On Iraq", CBS News, March 16, 2003

Those evils frogs...

This could have been Bush's great victory.

The future's veneration which the Son of Bush will never have:

the skilful leader subdues the enemy’s troops
without any fighting;
he captures their cities without laying siege to them;
he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.

Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"

Also, your critique is specious in that

  • it only challenges the Blankenship citation's removal, and not the rationale behiind my claim of its bias.
  • you once again make unsourced allegations of MoveOn being a tool of Soros'. :Citations? Please!

Removing "failed" from MoveOn's role

I discussed this with Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber and until someone documents what it was that MoveOn failed at (sourced, of course), I removed the "failed" term from the section about MoveOn's controversial role in the 2007 peace movement.--Conor Kenny 12:01, 24 September 2007 (EDT)