As one of the leaders of the L.A. chapter of the anti-war group ANSWER said, not long ago Old Media types were calling the anti-war movement “the third world power” because it seemed so powerful… or we should say because the Old Media wanted to present the anti-war movement as powerful. Only a few short years ago the anti-war effort was able to put thousands in the streets with only a few days notice. Now, anti-war groups can’t get more than a dozen people together at any given time.
So, what happened? Obama got elected and the hypocrites in the so-called anti-war movement suddenly found that war didn’t bother them so much since Bush was gone, that’s what happened.
You see, the anti-war movement was populated mostly with people that only wanted to get Bush out of office, to discredit him and the GOP. But once Obama got elected suddenly they realized they were no longer interested in protesting the government.
Yet, from the anti-war prospective, Obama’s foreign policy and his warmongering is little different than that of the Bush team. Still no mass protests. And those smaller protests that do come off are ignored by their once legion of followers.
The anti-war movement was never about war. It was merely a proxy issue for destroying Bush and the Republicans. And it was the ultimate in hypocrisy.
Reason TV Presents: What Happened to the Antiwar Movement?
January 21st, 2011 at 10:12 am
People are still against the war, particularly Iraq. Most just realize that simply packing up and leaving is not feasible. We invaded, we made the citizens of Iraq dependent on our presence there, and we can not simply leave them in the lurch. Many also feel that they now have a president who shares their views on getting in there in the first place and, as he said he would, is doing all he can to get us out of there.
January 21st, 2011 at 10:16 am
… gosh, TA. Sounds exactly like the same thing that Bush supporters said of the Bush plans for the wars. Yep. suddenly the hypocrisy of the left is revealed in stark contrasts.
January 21st, 2011 at 10:42 am
The protest that mattered most was actually on November 4, 2008.
January 21st, 2011 at 10:48 am
See, that is exactly my point, TA, and thanks for confirming it with your agreement that it was just about Bush.
It was NEVER about “war.” It was ONLY about getting rid of Bush. After all, Obama has not ended any war. He has not announced any pull out. He has not closed down Gitmo and even lied about doing so a year after he took office (he let that time pass without fulfilling his promise). He’s put in MORE troops in Afghanistan. He’s heavily increased the use of predator drone bombing in Pakistan (a country we are not at war with, by the way). And yet… and yet there are no protests.
Hypocrites. Plain and simple.
January 21st, 2011 at 11:04 am
If I remember correctly support for Iraq was more than half the national population until the 2004 election rolled around.
70% of those volunteering for service were registered republicans.
If people only did their homework on the past relations with Iraq and the circumstances leading up to the invasion they’d know Iraq was the right thing to do.
I’ll go to my grave insisting on it
January 21st, 2011 at 11:21 am
Look, I have never participated in an anti-war demonstration so can not speak to their motives. I was against Iraq from day one and still am. But, I acknowledge that to leave the Iraqis in a chaos of our own creation would be unthinkable.
I was also a supporter of the war in Afghanistan from day one and frankly appalled that we were spending precious resources in Iraq that could have made so much difference in Afghanistan. I believe it is our initial inattention that has allowed our real enemy, Al Qaeda, to dissipate and regroup. I think it is absurd that we are still there when we could have accomplished the task at hand in a fraction of the time had it not been for distracted leadership. And I think that it is now such a quagmire over there that no one really has a clue what is going on. We have installed a weak and likely corrupt leader in place of an evil regime. Now what? Frankly I haven’t the slightest. I just wish it had been done right in the first place.
Again, I see no hypocrisy in the fact that those protesting the Iraq war have pulled back. As I said before, folks believe that our current leadership taking the proper steps to get us out of there; that they have gotten what they were marching for.
January 21st, 2011 at 11:26 am
Gotten what they were protesting for? Bull crap. They’ve gotten nothing.
Show me what they’ve gotten. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan both. We have upped the use of predator drones for death from the skies. We have enlarged the number of troops in Afghanistan. We have not closed Gitmo and there is no further talk of doing so.
For the so-called anti-war left to ignore all this just because Obama is now president… well, THAT is pure hypocrisy.
It really is indisputable.
January 21st, 2011 at 11:41 am
“But, I acknowledge that to leave the Iraqis in a chaos of our own creation would be unthinkable. ”
Heh, where the hell were you guys when Iraqis were being victims of Saddams creations ?
HUH ?
That monster was killing thousands of his own people,filling mass graves, butchering and raping and torturing thousands of his own people.
Why should the call for human rights be answered any differently in Darfur or Somalia as opposed to Iraq ?
Probably because the left uses the call to save blacks just to make themselves look righteous.
Warners absolutely right.
Ever since dickhead took office moonbats have been for the most part silent on Iraq.
We saved millions of lives. Either Iraqis themselves or the next nation Saddam planned on invading.
And dont even get me started on the genius behind the reason for being their regardless of WMD. It wasnt “all” about hearts and minds. It was about establshing a much needed precense in that conglomeration of dysfunctional and dangerous states called the middle east.
We didnt “immediately” start building the largest U.S.embassy there ever in history for no reason at all.
Look at the big picture, going back to the Iraq/Iran war, Clintons insistance that Saddam was a threat, leave Bush and your ideological bigotry out of that picture and you’ll start to have a clue as to just exactly why we went in.
January 21st, 2011 at 11:48 am
And now Al Queda/Al Sadr is back in Iraq blowing Christians and their churches trying to get a foothold in the Parliament.
Smooth move Barry
January 21st, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Everything backwards, as usual. The Right welcomed the anti-war demonstrations during Bush’s term. It served their purpose to demonize liberals and progressives. During those days the Iraq war was front and center in the consciousness of America. Today, that “other” was has been swept under the rug.
So, when do we ever do right, Warner Tedd? We are damned by the Right when we protest against war, and we are damned by the Right when we do not.
The truth is that no matter what liberals do, and no matter who is in power, you will be against them.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:48 pm
“The Right welcomed the anti-war demonstrations during Bush’s term.”
Are you kidding ?
You morons are your own worst enemy. You dont need any embracing from anyone to look like fools.
How bout those human shields during the initial invasion ? HAH !
Once the bombs and bullets started flying you idiots realized you werent dealing with the San Francisco Police dept and you ran like a bunch of pu$$ies. Or Cindy Sheehan, she needs no help in looking a pathetic ideoligical hack.
Theres a reason Bush was re-elected and it was because you all looked like a bunch of hypersensative ideological idiots using a just war as means for a campaign platform.
“Make sure you get and education so you dont end up in Iraq”
Sorry bub. That kinda crap worked against you with or without embracing from anyone
January 21st, 2011 at 1:15 pm
It was NEVER about “war.” It was ONLY about getting rid of Bush. After all, Obama has not ended any war. He has not announced any pull out. He has not closed down Gitmo and even lied about doing so a year after he took office (he let that time pass without fulfilling his promise). He’s put in MORE troops in Afghanistan. He’s heavily increased the use of predator drone bombing in Pakistan (a country we are not at war with, by the way). And yet… and yet there are no protests.”
Warner I think you forgot the “50″ advisors stationed in Yemen…
Funny how you never hear from MSM about the “war deaths” now KeithOlderdude had a running count every night during GWB’s time…and the hypocrisy just keeps on rolling out
January 21st, 2011 at 1:25 pm
@ Faye
Or the “renditions” to foreign facilities and secret CIA prisons that still exist after all that crap over waterboarding.
January 21st, 2011 at 2:44 pm
You nailed it Warner. These liberals are the phoniest bunch of sh*t dicks ever.
January 21st, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Oh, and dont buy that bullsht that Obama got troops out of Iraq. It was already in the works.
Long before he took office office Bush along with Iraqs parliament had decided on what was called a “forseeable horizon” which coincidently happened to be the same day Barry promised to move out and leave only 50,000 troops.
http://politics4all.com/users/talkshowamerica/blog/1359-obamas-iraq-withdrawal-plan-actually-bushs-plan
“What they don’t want people to know or realize, this is the plan that the Bush Administartion and Iraq had negotiated and signed last year ! All US forces were to be out of Iraq by 2011, unless the US was requested to leave troops at the request of the Iraqi government.”
January 21st, 2011 at 4:13 pm
The point here is that we all know there are still many anti-war demonstrations going on. Maybe not as many as while Bush was president, but consider this. While Bush was president, the Lame Street Media would cover any demonstration that had two or more people attending.
So where is the LSM today? Why do we not see these protests against Obama’s policies? There have been demonstrations against his increase use of drone attacks in Pakistan. Why is the LSM not showing them?
Being 51, I can clearly remember the nightly coverage of the War in Vietnam and the protests here in America. Lyndon Johnson caught so much heat that he decided not to run. Everyday people were outside the White House chanting “Hey, Hey, LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?” But, I suppose back in the ’60s we still had some real journalism being practiced.
January 21st, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Yeah Andy, I’m 53 and I’ll never forget those ass-holes spitting on our troops as they came home.
January 21st, 2011 at 6:51 pm
The above comments have effectively made the point that the lefts opposition to the war is anemic under Obama. Opposition was stronger in the 60’s not because the left was against the war but against the draft. They didn’t want their pink a$$es exposed to a little danger.
January 23rd, 2011 at 2:00 pm
This is one of Obama’s biggest failures.
I am always confused by people that claim to “support the troops” by beating the drums of war.
Supporting the troops means not sending them capriciously into war. If you care about the troops you don’t get them killed and maimed unless there is “overwhelming” evidence that our presence is needed.
This thankless job of being the world’s unpaid police department is economic suicide.
Was Saddam bad? Sure, and if we had acted in a reasonable manner we could have had the full support of the world. A little patience and planning could have made that happen.
Fighting terrorism is a war of intelligence, not overwhelming military might. That is like trying to kill a fly with a baseball bat.
How unfair to the troops to make them fight this kind of war.
It would be akin to telling them to fight a war in L.A.
Ten percent of the population are terrorists and we want you to kill them.
What do they look like? The same as everyone else.
Where do they live? Amongst the people.
What do they wear? The same clothes as everyone else.
So how do we fight them? Oh, I don’t know, how about you drive around until a bomb goes off and see if anyone is around.
January 23rd, 2011 at 2:06 pm
The next time the world needs the help of our effective and very expensive military let them invite us.
We can give them an estimate of the cost, take a deposit and collect our payment. Just like we did to Kuwait.
We spend more on our military than the combined total of the industrialized world; we may as well try to turn a profit.
Other countries can prosper economically because we offer free protection. That was fine in the fifties because that “investment” allowed us to leverage our influence for “profit’, but now is merely a thankless job that is not economically viable.
January 23rd, 2011 at 2:13 pm
It was interesting listening to John McCain discuss torture recently.
He remarked that the people that advocate its use are generally those that never served.
As someone that was the recipient of torture he recognized that it is very effective at eliciting the “correct” response. That is, the person being tortured will say anything to make it stop. If the truth is in there somewhere it is generally an accident.
Entering war is the same way. If we had a draft we never would have gone to Iraq. “Fortunate Sons” don’t go to war.
I had to go because my “number” literally came up in the lottery. Perhaps every presidential candidate should serve. That would certainly cause them to hesitate before designating the troops as canon fodder in Iraq.
January 23rd, 2011 at 2:37 pm
“Supporting the troops means not sending them capriciously into war. If you care about the troops you don’t get them killed and maimed unless there is “overwhelming” evidence that our presence is needed.”
On the other thread you asked why we cant just put the birther “drivel to rest”.
Not many are questioning his citizenship as much they are why he just wont show his fcking hand, get it ?
Secondly, as far as “drivel” goes. There was/is overwhelming evidence that justified both wars.
So, give “YOUR” drivel a rest
January 23rd, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Buzzbee;”I am always confused by people that claim to “support the troops” by beating the drums of war. Supporting the troops means not sending them capriciously into war. If you care about the troops you don’t get them killed and maimed unless there is “overwhelming” evidence that our presence is needed.’
What a bunch of sht.
If you morons really cared about the troops you and your leaders wouldnt be accusing them of war crimes they never committed, or telling the country “get an education and you wont end up in Iraq”
Or that they’re stupid for volunteering to fight a lie.
Or that they’re taking orders from an idiot CIC.
Or that what thery’re doing is wrong.
Give a rest
January 23rd, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Wow, the number of people that still think there was “overwhelming” evidence would fit in a “tea cup”.