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

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

by Norman Solomon

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0417-24.htm

<snip>

The petition's two sentences only convey opposition to a "nuclear" attack on Iran: "Congress and President Bush must rule out attacking Iran with nuclear weapons. Even the threat of a nuclear attack eliminates some of the best options we have for diplomacy, and the consequences could be catastrophic."

In MoveOn's mass email letter, the only reference to a non-nuclear attack on Iran came in a solitary sentence without any followup: "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?

There's no way around the conclusion that the signers of the letter ("Eli, Joan, Nita, Marika and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team") chose to avoid committing themselves -- and avoid devoting MoveOn resources -- to categorical opposition to bombing Iran.

--------------------------


Iranian women form a human chain at the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility to support Iran's nuclear
power program, just outside the city of Isfahan.
(Mohammad Kheirkhah / UPI)

[paul_fromatlanta]

1. I don't think its a lack of opposition - it was slowness in realizing the

issue on the table wasn't withdrawing from Iraq but the coming war with Iran.

[magellan]

2. I signed their petition

But emphasized that it would be insane to attack Iran with any kind of weapon. I wish MoveOn would change the wording. The last thing we need to do is to give Congress the idea that we'd be okay with a conventional attack on Iran.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. Agreed. They should change their wording. nt.