Kudos to you for taking the time to research it.

MoveOn did not oppose the war, there was a reason the petitions never made it on the MoveOn site.  A lot of MoveOn members, myself included, opposed and still do oppose the Afghan War... this article just points to some of those folks.

i went googling too, and was never able to and independent source to confirm the petition ari parser and pickering started the week of 9/11/08, but that's not evidence it didn't happen. i'm sure the petition is out there somewhere.

it's a smooth and disingenuous move for moveon to claim they never opposed the afghanistan war because parser wasn't working for them yet, especially since they hired him BECAUSE of his work on this petition.

here are some shots from the internet archive:

http://web.archive.org/web/2001092000574 3/http://www.9-11peace.org/

and here's the contact form. "eli". hmmmm....

http://web.archive.org/web/2001121720264 9/www.9-11peace.org/contact.php3

and check out the footer at the bottom of the page...

This site created and designed by Eli, and sponsored by Moveon.org.
Sincere thanks to our host, Capital Internet for their generosity.

and moveon claims they know nothing about it. riiiiight.

Do you really, I mean really and honestly, believe that Byron York and National Review are a good and authoritative source on MoveOn.org?

The Fox-Noise-ification of Team Clinton continues apace.

Even taking the article at face value, I see nothing there that says that the organization rejected a war with Afghanistan - nothing says that the organization ratified these petitions.  Not to mention, these petitions urge restraint but don't mention Afghanistan or oppose any war, period, so the petitions themselves don't even say what you would need them to say to make Clinton's assertion.    

Note footer:

http://web.archive.org/web/2001121223543 8/http://www.9-11peace.org/

She attacked the people who are the boots on the ground for this party.  Moveon was just the example she sited (incorrectly).  Her comment was aimed much more broadly at the activists in our party.  You know, those of us who do more than just vote?!  The ones she cannot win without.  

She wasn't worthy of my vote as a DLCer in the fIrst place.  Then she started campaigning for McCain and became even less worthy of my vote.  Now she attacks the part of the party that actually does something.  She may not be a full fledged rethug yet, but she's not purely a democrat anymore.  Republicrat maybe.  She and holy Joe can start a "third way" ticket in late may early june.  

She's not quite Zellary yet, but she's headed that way.

Tell ya what..

I read and re-read. I  read about restraint..
If you can point out where it says "We oppose any invasion of Afghanistan" I would appreciate it.
After all this was what Sen. Clinton claimed.

and don't forgot how Moveon spit on That brave General who was not, I tell you. a shill for Bush...

My question..
Will a tape surface of Eli, Ayers and Obama plotting the overthrow of Democracy?

tap yer toes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER9b0yWGc fs

What is lost here - We ought to oppose the Afghan War!

Unbelievable.  In which Hillary supporters demonstrate that progressives are an obstacle to and the enemy of her candidacy.  Good work all, I have become increasingly concerned with the lack of understanding of 'progressive' and 'activist' values and organisations on a progressive, activist website.  What are you attempting to prove?  Consider this:

Why have Democrats been much more loyal to their party's presidential candidates in recent elections? It's not just that the Democratic candidates have been more appealing -- it's also a result of an ideological realignment that has taken place within the American electorate. As the data displayed in Figure 2 show, since the 1970s Democratic identifiers have been trending to the left. During the seventies, almost a third of all conservative voters identified with the Democratic Party. By the first decade of the 21st century, only about one-seventh of conservative voters identified with the Democrats. Meanwhile, Democratic identification remained stable at about 60 percent among moderate voters and rose from 84 percent to 90 percent among liberal voters.

The ideological realignment of the American electorate since the 1970s is largely responsible for the dramatic increase in loyalty among Democratic voters (It almost certainly goes back further but the NES surveys did not include an ideology question before 1972). During the seventies and eighties, there were large numbers of conservative "Nixon Democrats" and "Reagan Democrats" who were willing to cross party lines to vote for Republican presidential candidates. Today, however, there are relatively few of these conservative Democrats left.

Alan I. Abramowitz - WILL DISAPPOINTED DEMS VOTE FOR MCCAIN? Center for Politics 17 Apr 08

Just what are you attempting to prove, that Move On doesn't represent the values of Democrats?  Or that there are some Democrats that don't share the values of the bulk of the rest of the party and are angry about it?  Kinda' sheds some new and revealing light on all the refusals to vote for Obama in the general election by Hillary supporters, doesn't it?  And explain some of the more egregious race-baiting accusations and jingoistic attitudes from the same quarter, no?

I was against the Afghan war, as were many with me.

Move on?  I remememer them being against it, as well.  But to me EVERYONE with a brain was against it.

As if talking about left-wing activists and their intimidation role in caucuses and their anti-Hillary stance is anything like putting down all rural voters as gun-toting, bible-clinging, bitter, bigots...yeah, right.

Again it just shows the profound difference between the two candidacies -- Hillary understands what is happening on the ground and BO doesn't have a friggin clue. The ignorance of the BO campaign and his netroot army to think that they can attack and denigrate HRC and her supporters today and get them to vote for him tomorrow is astounding.

If he manages to club the nomination out of the party he will probably suffer the worst electoral defeat of any Democratic candidate in years -- no matter how many millions vote for him in his home district. Many former activist Democrats will actively campaign against him...it won't be pretty.

Clearly yes.

Are you Obamabots for real?  His entire camapign is like a comedy skit.  Get caught saying something divisive or contradictory on several occasions.  Tells the people that what I meant was Yada Yada Yada.  When that does not work he goes on every news outlet and spins.  And when that does not work we get a speech.  Over and over.  Do you think the American public is going to buy this in the general?  Your hip hop presidential contender can't win.

Why Not Blame Obama?
By Lawrence Kudlow

It's rather amusing watching the liberal media launch a full-scale attack on George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson, with General Tom Shales of the Washington Post leading the charge. ABC's Stephanopoulos and Gibson had the audacity to ask Obama some tough questions during the Democratic debate Tuesday night. Challenge Obama with well-informed questions on tax policy and politics? Wound the media favorite? How dare they?

The fallout is fascinating. With members of the mainstream liberal media lunging at each others throats, it's kind of like watching Hillary and Obama go at it.

But here's the deal: During the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.

First off, you don't raise taxes during a recession. That's a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That's what history shows.

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000.

Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, another blunder that will hit people up and down the income ladder. While Obama pledges tax hikes only for folks earning more that $200,000 a year, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations.

In fact, in America's largest cities, a firefighter married to a school teacher can earn close to $200,000 filing jointly. So not only will each spouse separately pay more for Social Security and health care under Obama's plan, together they'll also be slammed by Obama's cap-gains tax increase.

This is more than just a failure to understand the Laffer curve. It's another cultural misstep by Obama. I can't help but wonder if the senator knows any cops or firemen. His appeal is to well-educated latte liberals. That remark about middle-income folks having turned to God, faith, and guns because of economic setbacks? Not only was it ill-advised, it illustrates the wide cultural chasm that exists between the candidate and the rest of America.

In effect, Obama's economics are bad and his social circle is very limited. This is one of the many reasons why a quarter of the Hillary Democrats are telling pollsters they'll likely move to John McCain in the general election.

Obama's real agenda is far-liberal left. It's an ideology that places income redistribution above economic growth. That's his real message. And it's the same one that sunk Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. Bill Clinton? He was a growth Democrat. So he won twice. But Obama is aligning himself with the Democratic losers. And that will make him a loser as well.

The Gallup poll taken after the Democratic debate reveals that Hillary's pit-bull routine may have worked. We'll learn more on that front come Tuesday when Pennsylvanians head to the voting booths. But that's a different issue. What I'm saying is that liberals need to quit blaming Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for Obama's shortcomings. Instead, they need to blame Obama for failing to grasp how tax penalties on upward mobility will hurt the very people he thinks he's going to help.

Jack Kemp has effectively made the point that African American communities desperately need capital in order to create new businesses and jobs. Yet as Obama takes the capital out of capitalism, all those who are not rich will be hurt when the rich folks with capital have less of it -- after tax -- to invest in those new businesses and new jobs.

That's exactly why wealth-redistribution plans always backfire. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is a surefire economic loser. So is putting government in charge of the economy, which is what Mr. Obama is proselytizing.

This marks the third mistake for the Illinois senator. Not only does he not understand economics; not only is he set apart from middle-class values and beliefs; he apparently hasn't read much history either.

Did someone say inexperience?