Critics of Moveon very often point out that the group opposed invading Afghanistan after 9/11.  Then we all argue about what Moveon did or didn't say at the time and the argument is rarely productive because it rests on a false premise: that we were absolutely right to invade Afghanistan and that any other point of view is bogus.

I'm not a Moveon member (they send too many emails) and I did support attacking Afghanistan.  But, we need to stop thinking about it as some sort of good war that all reasonable people did and do support.

Here are some valid reasons that somebody might have opposed invading Afghanistan:

Afghanistan didn't attack us, Al-Qaeda did.  Sure, the Taliban supported Al-Qaeda but we supported the Taliban up until September 10th so we lacked any sort of moral high ground.

9/11 was basically a criminal act, not a military act, so our response should have been closer to an international law enforcement effort.

That the chaos of war might have created cover that would allow Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants to escape justice.

We risked killing innocent people in Afghanistan by invading.

We did not have the ability to replace the Taliban with an effective government.

We risked sending our troops into a quagmire that would lead to a multi-year engagement.

That our occupation in Afghanistan risked propping up Musharaf's dictatorship in Pakistan and could potentially harm our relations with India while hurting our efforts to stop states from developing nuclear weapons.

In the end, I believed that once the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden that it had to go.  But I don't think that people who might have opposed invading Afghanistan (or who still oppose it, or the way the war was conducted) are particularly radical or wrong-headed.