Where Did All the Anti-War Protestors Go?

[Denny Crane]

By John Stossel

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2011/04/25/where-did-all-the-anti-war-protestors-go/

The anti-war movement was all over the news before President Obama was elected. But apparently they weren’t really anti-war ... they were just anti-President Bush. Two college professors just released a study of national protests between 2007 and 2009. What did they find?

… After January 2007, the attendance at antiwar rallies [measured in] roughly the tens of thousands, or thousands, through the end of 2008.

… After the election of Barack Obama as president, the order of magnitude of antiwar protests dropped [...] Organizers were hard pressed to stage a rally with participation in the thousands, or even in the hundreds. For example, we counted exactly 107 participants at a Chicago rally on October 7, 2009.

Amazing. Especially because the war in Afghanistan ramped up after Obama was elected. American fatalities shot up in 2009 and 2010.

The protesters have remained silent over Libya.

And I’m struck by the hypocrisy of the supposedly “anti-war” politicians who voted against Iraq, like Nancy Pelosi. Since Obama was elected, she has voted to continue the war in Afghanistan … and supported the attack on Libya.

Only a handful of Congressmen have remained principled on foreign intervention. One of them is Ron Paul. On my FBN show this week, I’ll talk with him about why he opposes our “aggressive foreign policy.” Thursday at 10pm EST.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Starbucks.

 

[Denny Crane]

Starbucks.

McDonalds, clearly.

 

[44Thrilla]

I'm still right here

 

[barfo]

Where did the anti-war protesters go? To the same place that those currently complaining about the deficit were during the Bush administration.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

Where are all the anti-peace protesters?

Those smarmy lizards never show their faces, too cowardly to do the dirty work themselves.

 

[MARIS61]

Here's some.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/antiwar-protesters-arrest_n_838031.html

 

[Denny Crane]

Here's some.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/antiwar-protesters-arrest_n_838031.html

This supports Stossel's blog post.

… After January 2007, the attendance at antiwar rallies [measured in] roughly the tens of thousands, or thousands, through the end of 2008.

… After the election of Barack Obama as president, the order of magnitude of antiwar protests dropped [...] Organizers were hard pressed to stage a rally with participation in the thousands, or even in the hundreds. For example, we counted exactly 107 participants at a Chicago rally on October 7, 2009.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Where did the anti-war protesters go? To the same place that those currently complaining about the deficit were during the Bush administration.

Correct. Like Paul Ryan, the biggest hypocrite of them all.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

 

[MrJayremmie]

The biggest hypocrisy comes from Obama himself...

http://biggovernment.com/awrhawkins/2011/03/25/joe-biden-to-impeach-barack-obama-today/

In November 2007, Senator Obama introduced S.J.Res.23, requiring that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” Then, in December 2007, he said: “[the] president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

 

[PapaG]

The biggest hypocrisy comes from Obama himself...

http://biggovernment.com/awrhawkins/2011/03/25/joe-biden-to-impeach-barack-obama-today/

Yeah, so, like Denny posted, where are the protestors pointing out this hypocrisy and "blood for oil", especially in Libya?

 

[julius]

Where did the anti-war protesters go? To the same place that those currently complaining about the deficit were during the Bush administration.

barfo

this.

 

[Ed O]

Where did the anti-war protesters go? To the same place that those currently complaining about the deficit were during the Bush administration.

I don't know exactly what you mean.

Are you saying that people will only protest when they want to complain about something that someone they don't like is in charge of?

I'm asking seriously. Not in a mean way

I think that the Iraq war is/was a BIG deal to many anti-war protestors... Afghanistan (while an ultimately hairier situation) was never really the focus of the peaceniks... Iraq (with the bad/bogus/lied-about intel, as well as the lack of connection to 9/11) seemed to be.

Iraq is, essentially, wrapped up now. Libya still hasn't seen Americans getting shot at (that I'm aware of). Afghanistan still has its roots in a response to 9/11.

Add in the fact that ANY new president--especially one of a different party--would be given something of a clean slate, and I can understand why there's no groundswell of anti-war sentiment like there was under Bush.

The media responds to what people care about, not just what THEY feel is important, so with a lack of outrage over American deaths it makes sense that the daily death toll reports would fade away.

I'm not saying that the Left (or the Right) aren't being hypocritical, but I think it's more complicated than Stossel (and barfo ) is making it.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Where are all the anti-peace protesters?

Those smarmy lizards never show their faces, too cowardly to do the dirty work themselves.

Who protests peace?

That makes no sense.

Ed O.

 

[barfo]

I don't know exactly what you mean.

Are you saying that people will only protest when they want to complain about something that someone they don't like is in charge of?

I'm asking seriously. Not in a mean way

I think that the Iraq war is/was a BIG deal to many anti-war protestors... Afghanistan (while an ultimately hairier situation) was never really the focus of the peaceniks... Iraq (with the bad/bogus/lied-about intel, as well as the lack of connection to 9/11) seemed to be.

Iraq is, essentially, wrapped up now. Libya still hasn't seen Americans getting shot at (that I'm aware of). Afghanistan still has its roots in a response to 9/11.

Add in the fact that ANY new president--especially one of a different party--would be given something of a clean slate, and I can understand why there's no groundswell of anti-war sentiment like there was under Bush.

The media responds to what people care about, not just what THEY feel is important, so with a lack of outrage over American deaths it makes sense that the daily death toll reports would fade away.

I'm not saying that the Left (or the Right) aren't being hypocritical, but I think it's more complicated than Stossel (and barfo ) is making it.

Ed O.

You make some very good points. What did I mean? Well, I guess I was saying that there is some bias involved. Wars and government financing are complex subjects and there are many shades of gray. How we think about them is influenced by the political situation - an action by a president that we believe in, voted for, trust, etc. is inevitably going to be viewed through a slightly different lens than the exact same action taken by a political opponent. Of course, we could eliminate that bias rationally if two different presidents actually took exactly the same action, but history doesn't repeat itself, and the complexity and differences between situations allow us to avoid confronting our bias.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

Who protests peace?

That makes no sense.

Ed O.

Clearly, if people are being mocked for being anti-war, the people mocking them are anti-peace.

Despite our best efforts there are still several countries we remain at peace with, such as Canada (who has an army the size of Grenada's). This missed opportunity no doubt enrages the anti-peaceniks, but they have not taken their complaint to the streets. I think it's because they are chicken.

 

[MARIS61]

[video=youtube;dwrO8sn8HkQ]

 

[barfo]

Clearly, if people are being mocked for being anti-war, the people mocking them are anti-peace.

Despite our best efforts there are still several countries we remain at peace with, such as Canada (who has an army the size of Grenada's). This missed opportunity no doubt enrages the anti-peaceniks, but they have not taken their complaint to the streets. I think it's because they are chicken.

I've been calling for an invasion of Canada for years. I don't know why we haven't done it. They are just sitting there asking for it. They have oil. We want oil. They have little in the way of defenses. We have overwhelming firepower. C'mon, Obama, get 'er done.

barfo

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

By John Stossel

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2011/04/25/where-did-all-the-anti-war-protestors-go/

The anti-war movement was all over the news before President Obama was elected. But apparently they weren’t really anti-war ... they were just anti-President Bush. Two college professors just released a study of national protests between 2007 and 2009. What did they find?

… After January 2007, the attendance at antiwar rallies [measured in] roughly the tens of thousands, or thousands, through the end of 2008.

… After the election of Barack Obama as president, the order of magnitude of antiwar protests dropped [...] Organizers were hard pressed to stage a rally with participation in the thousands, or even in the hundreds. For example, we counted exactly 107 participants at a Chicago rally on October 7, 2009.

Amazing. Especially because the war in Afghanistan ramped up after Obama was elected. American fatalities shot up in 2009 and 2010.

The protesters have remained silent over Libya.

And I’m struck by the hypocrisy of the supposedly “anti-war” politicians who voted against Iraq, like Nancy Pelosi. Since Obama was elected, she has voted to continue the war in Afghanistan … and supported the attack on Libya.

Only a handful of Congressmen have remained principled on foreign intervention. One of them is Ron Paul. On my FBN show this week, I’ll talk with him about why he opposes our “aggressive foreign policy.” Thursday at 10pm EST.

It's a valid point.

Since the majority of the anti-war protesters are liberal, they aren't as inclined to trash "their" president. As such, they probably have more trust in Obama with respect to conducting the war than they do with a conservative. Just like conservatives trust theirs more to cut taxes and fix the deficit problems.

 

[Ed O]

Clearly, if people are being mocked for being anti-war, the people mocking them are anti-peace.

Not at all. You're creating a false dichotomy in which there is either only peace or unjustifiable disruption of peace.

Most of the people who mock anti-war people believe that war can be justifiable and can be legitimate projection of power. That belief does not mean that peace is not a preferred state.

While I know you're trying to make a point it's a bad one because there's no logical connection with reality and your statement.

Ed O.

 

[Shooter]

Where did the anti-war protesters go? To the same place that those currently complaining about the deficit were during the Bush administration.

You must have missed the memo. The federal deficit under Obama is at astronomical levels, far outstripping anything in past years. Obama has taken borrowing and spending to levels never reached in our country's history.

As for the deficit, CBO shows that over the first three years of the Obama Presidency, 2009-2011, the federal government will borrow an estimated $3.7 trillion. That is more than the entire accumulated national debt for the first 225 years of U.S. history.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703906204575027181656362948.html

 

[Denny Crane]

The memo says "dig the hole deeper"

 

[MARIS61]

Yeah, so, like Denny posted, where are the protestors pointing out this hypocrisy and "blood for oil", especially in Libya?

It's not an election year, so it's not very effective to stage large protests. There are no campaign rallys to protest at, and very little media coverage to be had. They'll be gearing up later in the year.

 

[MARIS61]

Not at all. You're creating a false dichotomy in which there is either only peace or unjustifiable disruption of peace.

Most of the people who mock anti-war people believe that war can be justifiable and can be legitimate projection of power. That belief does not mean that peace is not a preferred state.

While I know you're trying to make a point it's a bad one because there's no logical connection with reality and your statement.

Ed O.

I completely disagree, and I find your rebuttal silly.

Anyone who supports war while claiming to desire peace is a liar. They may be too full of themselves or too stupid to realize it, but they're liars. They may be lying to themselves, but they're liars.

 

[Ed O]

I completely disagree, and I find your rebuttal silly.

Anyone who supports war while claiming to desire peace is a liar. They may be too full of themselves or too stupid to realize it, but they're liars. They may be lying to themselves, but they're liars.

I desire freedom but I'm willing for citizens to be imprisoned if they deserve it.

Am I a liar for saying that, too?

Ed O.

 

[MARIS61]

I desire freedom but I'm willing for citizens to be imprisoned if they deserve it.

Am I a liar for saying that, too?

Ed O.

I understand our confusion now.

You refer to a personal peace, while I have always taken the word to mean worldwide peace.