I concur with MoveOn.
Barrack Obama is a truly inspirational. If elected president, it would
send a signal to the world that maybe, just maybe, the United States
is not a war mongering, white man dominating, greedy capitalist
monster. The fact that he has a Muslim name might very well ease
tensions with Muslims as well.

Or we can elect McCain and 'Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran".

Once again I AM SHOCKED!!!

MOVEON.ORG is backing an anti-American Liberal!!

OH MY!! WHAT A SURPRISE AND LET DOWN!!!

VTR wrote:

February 4, 2008
Why There's No Hope for Change
MoveOn's Obama Endorsement

By JOSHUA FRANK

MoveOn is mobilizing. The "antiwar" group's Political Action members
across the country voted
overwhelmingly to endorse the Democratic candidacy of Barack Obama last
week. MoveOn claims to
have 1.7 million members in states that vote in Tuesday's primaries.
"[Our] endorsement means a
fresh infusion of people-power for Obama in the critical days before
Super Tuesday," read the
organization's press release. "MoveOn will immediately connect thousands
of progressive
activists into the Obama" volunteer operation.

Obama's campaign is no doubt pleased, for its mantra of "hope" and
"change" has begun to echo
in the deep subconscious of many well-intentioned progressives. Obama's
best quality at this
point seems to be the fact that he's not a Clinton. When it comes to
foreign policy, however,
he may as well be, which makes MoveOn's shallow approval of his
candidacy all the more
hypocritical.

After Obama won his senatorial race in 2004 he quickly abandoned the
antiwar rhetoric he had
touted along the campaign trail. While remaining critical of the White
House and the lies that
pushed us towards war, Obama still maintained that US military should
remain in Iraq until the
job was completed.

"Given the enormous stakes in Iraq, I believe that those of us who are
involved in shaping our
national security policies should do what we believe is right, not
merely what is politically
expedient," Obama proclaimed in a speech to the Chicago Council on
Foreign Relations in late
November 2005. "In sum, we have to focus, methodically and without
partisanship, on those steps
that will: one, stabilize Iraq, avoid all out civil war, and give the
factions within Iraq the
space they need to forge a political settlement; two, contain and
ultimately extinguish the
insurgency in Iraq; and three, bring our troops safely home."

Obama continues to favor a "phased redeployment" of our troops as well
as "benchmarks" for the
Iraqi government, but promises to not "fully withdraw" -- hence why the
Illinois senator has
supported the majority of Bush administration's pork-engorged
appropriation bills that are
draining the U.S. Treasury. Obama wants to keep cadres of troops
throughout Iraq with others
all other the region to strike if necessary.

So where would President Obama send the troops he's redeployed? A good
guess might be Iran.

As Obama told the <em>Chicago Tribune</em> on September 26, 2004, "[T]he
big question is going
to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear
program], including
economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not
cooperate, at what point . . .
if any, are we going to take military action?"

He added, "[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal
position for us to be
in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical
Muslim theocracy in
possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that
military strikes on
Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to
"take over."

"[Iran] is a genuine threat" to the United States and Israel, Obama
later expressed at a forum
sponsored by AIPAC on March 12, 2007 in Washington D.C. At the event
Obama reiterated that he
would not rule out the use of force in disarming Iran, a position he
shares with rival Hillary
Clinton.

Earlier that same month, on March 2 2007, Obama spoke at an AIPAC Policy
Forum in Chicago,
where he succinctly laid out his position on how he would deal with the
Middle East, promising
not to alter the U.S.'s lopsided relationship with Israel. "[W]e must
preserve our total
commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully
funding military assistance
and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs,"
he said. "This would
help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from
as far as Tehran and as
close as Gaza."

How could any critic of the war machine support a candidate like Barack
Obama? MoveOn has quite
a long history of supporting Democratic candidates, despite said
politician's allegiance to the
Bush doctrine -- so their support of Obama doesn't come as much of a
surprise. But even
CODEPINK stalwarts like Jodie Evans and Nancy Kricorian (the latter runs
the popular
ListenHillary.org) have endorsed Obama for president.

Perhaps betrayal is contagious.

In the end Super Tuesday, despite MoveOn's public frolicking, won't end
up being all that super
when the votes are finally tallied. A pro-war candidate from both major
parties will likely
solidify their side's nomination.

Joshua Frank is the co-editor of DissidentVoice.org, and author of Left
Out! How Liberals
Helped Reelect George W. Bush, and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the
editor of the forthcoming
Red State Rebels, to be published by AK Press in March 2008. He can be
reached through his
website, BrickBurner.org.

Once again I AM SHOCKED!!!

MOVEON.ORG is backing an anti-American Liberal!!

OH MY!! WHAT A SURPRISE AND LET DOWN!!!