• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For the Left, war without Bush is not war at all

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I think the author has a point. It wasn't the war they were protesting it was Bush. It seems almost all the wackos protesting the wars have ceased since Obama came to office.

For the Left, war without Bush is not war at all | Washington Examiner

Remember the anti-war movement? Not too long ago, the Democratic party's most loyal voters passionately opposed the war in Iraq. Democratic presidential candidates argued over who would withdraw American troops the quickest. Netroots activists regularly denounced President George W. Bush, and sometimes the U.S. military ("General Betray Us"). Cindy Sheehan, the woman whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, became a heroine when she led protests at Bush's Texas ranch.

That was then. Now, even though the United States still has roughly 130,000 troops in Iraq, and is quickly escalating the war in Afghanistan -- 68,000 troops there by the end of this year, and possibly more in 2010 -- anti-war voices on the Left have fallen silent.

No group was more angrily opposed to the war in Iraq than the netroots activists clustered around the left-wing Web site DailyKos. It's an influential site, one of the biggest on the Web, and in the Bush years many of its devotees took an active role in raising money and campaigning for anti-war candidates.

In 2006, DailyKos held its first annual convention, called YearlyKos, in Las Vegas. Amid the slightly discordant surroundings of the Riviera Hotel casino, the webby activists spent hours discussing and planning strategies not only to defeat Republicans but also to pressure Democrats to oppose the war more forcefully. The gathering attracted lots of mainstream press attention; Internet activism was the hot new thing.

snip....

Cindy Sheehan is learning that. She's still protesting the war, and on Monday she announced plans to demonstrate at Martha's Vineyard, where President Obama will be vacationing.

"We as a movement need to continue calling for an immediate end to the occupations [in Iraq and Afghanistan] even when there is a Democrat in the Oval Office," Sheehan said in a statement. "There is still no Noble Cause no matter how we examine the policies."

Give her credit for consistency, if nothing else. But her days are over. The people who most fervently supported her have moved on.

Not too long ago, some observers worried that Barack Obama would come under increasing pressure from the Left to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, it seems those worries were unfounded. For many liberal activists, opposing the war was really about opposing George W. Bush. When Bush disappeared, so did their anti-war passion.
 
I think the author has a point. It wasn't the war they were protesting it was Bush. It seems almost all the wackos protesting the wars have ceased since Obama came to office.

For the Left, war without Bush is not war at all | Washington Examiner

Remember the anti-war movement? Not too long ago, the Democratic party's most loyal voters passionately opposed the war in Iraq. Democratic presidential candidates argued over who would withdraw American troops the quickest. Netroots activists regularly denounced President George W. Bush, and sometimes the U.S. military ("General Betray Us"). Cindy Sheehan, the woman whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, became a heroine when she led protests at Bush's Texas ranch.

That was then. Now, even though the United States still has roughly 130,000 troops in Iraq, and is quickly escalating the war in Afghanistan -- 68,000 troops there by the end of this year, and possibly more in 2010 -- anti-war voices on the Left have fallen silent.

No group was more angrily opposed to the war in Iraq than the netroots activists clustered around the left-wing Web site DailyKos. It's an influential site, one of the biggest on the Web, and in the Bush years many of its devotees took an active role in raising money and campaigning for anti-war candidates.

In 2006, DailyKos held its first annual convention, called YearlyKos, in Las Vegas. Amid the slightly discordant surroundings of the Riviera Hotel casino, the webby activists spent hours discussing and planning strategies not only to defeat Republicans but also to pressure Democrats to oppose the war more forcefully. The gathering attracted lots of mainstream press attention; Internet activism was the hot new thing.

snip....

Cindy Sheehan is learning that. She's still protesting the war, and on Monday she announced plans to demonstrate at Martha's Vineyard, where President Obama will be vacationing.

"We as a movement need to continue calling for an immediate end to the occupations [in Iraq and Afghanistan] even when there is a Democrat in the Oval Office," Sheehan said in a statement. "There is still no Noble Cause no matter how we examine the policies."

Give her credit for consistency, if nothing else. But her days are over. The people who most fervently supported her have moved on.

Not too long ago, some observers worried that Barack Obama would come under increasing pressure from the Left to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, it seems those worries were unfounded. For many liberal activists, opposing the war was really about opposing George W. Bush. When Bush disappeared, so did their anti-war passion.

Anti-war Protest Videos Washington March 21, 2009 - 12.160Mhz

ANTI-WAR PROTESTS PLANNED — ANSWER

Tuesday October 7, 2009, marks the start of the ninth year of the invasion of Afghanistan. That day anti-war protests will occur in cities and towns across America. Monday October 5 and Saturday October 17 anti-war actions will also occur.

The ANSWER Coalition is calling on people in cities and towns and on campuses to take to the streets and to engage in other actions (rallies, pickets, teach-ins) —Demanding an end to all wars and occupations and serious attention to health care for all.

Anti-War Protest 2009 - a set on Flickr

Fight Back! - January 2009 - Anti-war protests at the RNC send message to the world

Google

There are 90,000,000 results for :

Anti war protesting in 2009
 
Cindy Sheehan: Non-hypocrite. I think she's a joke, but props where props are due.

Anyway, there's a whole HOST of things, once considered proof positive of the "Bush Reich," which are suddenly OK.

And a lot of things which were ridiculed, too, but for some reason still stick around.

DHS | Homeland Security Advisory System
 

The article didn't say there were no protests. It was about the lack of interest in it from the usual suspects who drove the Lefty machine during the Bush years, when they WERE all about it.
 
Let me explain the math to you.

Dem power in Congress...... 60% GOP 40%

Good Progressive anti war Dems....60% of Dem Party...Corporate shills or Blue Dog Dems 40%

.6 x .6 ....37% of Congress

Since when can 37% of the good guys influence US foreign policy????

They cannot. Obama is going way too slow. He doesn't have the spine to rock the boat.

Thanks to GOP scare tactics and rhetoric the USA cannot pull out without right wingers screaming and howling how Obama is putting the Country at risk.

Congratulations! You've burned a Trillion dollars up in smoke ...got nearly 5000 young adults killed needlessly, and there are still not enough good Democrats to stand up to you.
 
Last edited:
Let me explain the math to you.


Dem power in Congress...... 60% GOP 40%


Good Progressive anti war Dems....60% of Dem Party...Corporate shills or Blue Dog Dems 40%


.6 x .6 ....37% of Congress

Since when can 37% of the good guys influence US foreign policy????


They cannot. Obama is going way too slow. He doesn't have the spine to rock the boat.

Thanks to GOP scare tactics and rhetoric the USA cannot pull out without right wingers screaming and howling how Obama is putting the Country at risk.

I'm going to regret asking this, because the answer will be difficult to read and make no sense, but . . .

What's this got to do with the sudden lack of interest, especially as contrasted against the time when Democrats were in the minority and had no chance at all of influencing foreign policy, and there was PLENTY of interest?
 
I'm going to regret asking this, because the answer will be difficult to read and make no sense, but . . .

What's this got to do with the sudden lack of interest, especially as contrasted against the time when Democrats were in the minority and had no chance at all of influencing foreign policy, and there was PLENTY of interest?

The election is over. The bad guys lost. The warmongers and Neocons are gone.....Yes! Obama sucks also but not near to the degree that Bush/Cheney did on Iraq and their "War on Terror".....AND things are slowly winding down.

All those liberals you saw marching on the streets are not Obama fans! Unless your definition of an Obama fan is voting for him over another BUSH II.
 
The election is over. The bad guys lost. The warmongers and Neocons are gone.....Yes! Obama sucks also but not near to the degree that Bush/Cheney did on Iraq and their "War on Terror".....AND things are slowly winding down.

All those liberals you saw marching on the streets are not Obama fans! Unless your definition of an Obama fan is voting for him over another BUSH II.

Now, wait . . . were all those protests about Bush, or not?
 
Let me explain the math to you.

Dem power in Congress...... 60% GOP 40%

Good Progressive anti war Dems....60% of Dem Party...Corporate shills or Blue Dog Dems 40%

.6 x .6 ....37% of Congress
So you admit the progressives to be a minority? (BTW, 0.6 * 0.6 is 0.36, not 0.37)
 
So you admit the progressives to be a minority? (BTW, 0.6 * 0.6 is 0.36, not 0.37)

Yes they are but they do far outnumber "real" Conservatives. What you are likely calling Conservative are really Authoritarians.

The majority in Congress are members who's first allegiance is to corporate/big money interests.....The vast majority of them are GOP members.
 
The article didn't say there were no protests. It was about the lack of interest in it from the usual suspects who drove the Lefty machine during the Bush years, when they WERE all about it.

I just found out over 90 million links with anti-war protests on them. A big one coming up in October. So how can there possibly not be any interest in it?
 
I just found out over 90 million links with anti-war protests on them. A big one coming up in October. So how can there possibly not be any interest in it?

GOOGLE SCHMOOGLE.

Perhaps you can address the salient point of the piece cited in the OP:

Perhaps more tellingly, Greenberg asked activists to name the issue that "you, personally, spend the most time advancing currently." The winner, again, was health care reform. Next came "working to elect progressive candidates in the 2010 elections." Then came a bunch of other issues. At the very bottom -- last place, named by just one percent of participants -- came working to end U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
The true left never ceased protesting, and did not care whether rightist Democrats replaced rightist Republicans, which accounts for the Marxist-led ANSWER Coalition's continued activity.
 
I think the author has a point. It wasn't the war they were protesting it was Bush. It seems almost all the wackos protesting the wars have ceased since Obama came to office.

For the Left, war without Bush is not war at all | Washington Examiner

Remember the anti-war movement? Not too long ago, the Democratic party's most loyal voters passionately opposed the war in Iraq. Democratic presidential candidates argued over who would withdraw American troops the quickest. Netroots activists regularly denounced President George W. Bush, and sometimes the U.S. military ("General Betray Us"). Cindy Sheehan, the woman whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, became a heroine when she led protests at Bush's Texas ranch.

That was then. Now, even though the United States still has roughly 130,000 troops in Iraq, and is quickly escalating the war in Afghanistan -- 68,000 troops there by the end of this year, and possibly more in 2010 -- anti-war voices on the Left have fallen silent.

No group was more angrily opposed to the war in Iraq than the netroots activists clustered around the left-wing Web site DailyKos. It's an influential site, one of the biggest on the Web, and in the Bush years many of its devotees took an active role in raising money and campaigning for anti-war candidates.

In 2006, DailyKos held its first annual convention, called YearlyKos, in Las Vegas. Amid the slightly discordant surroundings of the Riviera Hotel casino, the webby activists spent hours discussing and planning strategies not only to defeat Republicans but also to pressure Democrats to oppose the war more forcefully. The gathering attracted lots of mainstream press attention; Internet activism was the hot new thing.

snip....

Cindy Sheehan is learning that. She's still protesting the war, and on Monday she announced plans to demonstrate at Martha's Vineyard, where President Obama will be vacationing.

"We as a movement need to continue calling for an immediate end to the occupations [in Iraq and Afghanistan] even when there is a Democrat in the Oval Office," Sheehan said in a statement. "There is still no Noble Cause no matter how we examine the policies."

Give her credit for consistency, if nothing else. But her days are over. The people who most fervently supported her have moved on.

Not too long ago, some observers worried that Barack Obama would come under increasing pressure from the Left to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, it seems those worries were unfounded. For many liberal activists, opposing the war was really about opposing George W. Bush. When Bush disappeared, so did their anti-war passion.

We are (slowly) drawing down in Iraq. Would be nice if it was faster, but we are going in the right direction. In Afghanistan, most liberals actually supported the war there from the beginning. Where we supposed to change that somehow?

There are fewer protests, and less coverage because things are simply going better.
 
The true left never ceased protesting, and did not care whether rightist Democrats replaced rightist Republicans, which accounts for the Marxist-led ANSWER Coalition's continued activity.

Yeah, and for ANSWER, it's never actually about war, it's about anti-capitalism.
 
I just found out over 90 million links with anti-war protests on them. A big one coming up in October. So how can there possibly not be any interest in it?

Don't know. Show me the interest among those about whom York was writing.
 
There are fewer protests, and less coverage because things are simply going better.

It's posts like this that make the time I waste on these forums worth my while!

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
 
There are fewer protests, and less coverage because things are simply going better.

By the way, by 'going better' do you mean we're winning? Or are we just losing less badly?

:2wave:
 
Cindy Sheehan: Non-hypocrite. I think she's a joke, but props where props are due.

Anyway, there's a whole HOST of things, once considered proof positive of the "Bush Reich," which are suddenly OK.

And a lot of things which were ridiculed, too, but for some reason still stick around.

DHS | Homeland Security Advisory System

As I have said in the past, people that protest against whoever the current crop of clowns in power have no problem with the actions they protest are being done by those they support.

Yes they are but they do far outnumber "real" Conservatives. What you are likely calling Conservative are really Authoritarians.

Authoritarianism crosses ideological lines.
 
Before I thought that perhaps we would lose the war on terrorism because we have no real patience for the amount of effort it would take, but I consistently heard Afghanistan was the justified place. Now Americans are becoming increasingly dissatisfied of the idea of being at war in Afghanistan. Thanks to this poll, I'm reluctantly saying that if this keeps up, Americans would have not crafted a War on Terrorism strategy and will flounder. I'm severely becoming disappointed.
 
Before I thought that perhaps we would lose the war on terrorism because we have no real patience for the amount of effort it would take, but I consistently heard Afghanistan was the justified place. Now Americans are becoming increasingly dissatisfied of the idea of being at war in Afghanistan. Thanks to this poll, I'm reluctantly saying that if this keeps up, Americans would have not crafted a War on Terrorism strategy and will flounder. I'm severely becoming disappointed.

People have short memories. Another painful terror hit within the U.S. and Americans will be clamoring for another good butt-whipping somewhere.

:2wave:
 
By the way, by 'going better' do you mean we're winning? Or are we just losing less badly?

:2wave:

Neither one of us has enough information to judge properly.
 
It's posts like this that make the time I waste on these forums worth my while!

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

How is this somehow laughable? We have moved the emphasis from a war we should never have fought, and moving it to a war that many of us find to be of high importance. This is a step in the right direction. Care to ofer more than just laughter...you know, like maybe debate, or an actual position?
 
Authoritarianism crosses ideological lines.

Indeed it does, and those who think their side is immune represent a fertile breeding ground for authoritarians to sow their crops.
 
There are fewer protests, and less coverage because things are simply going better.

They weren't out protesting because the war was being prosecuted poorly. They were against it in toto.
 
Back
Top Bottom