March 21, 2011

"Say, whatever happened to the antiwar movement?"

Asks Instapundit:
“It’s hard to escape the conclusion that antiwar activity in the United States and around the world was driven as much by antipathy to George W. Bush as by actual opposition to war and intervention.” Well, the corpse is twitching a bit today, but yeah.
Come to Madison, Wisconsin. There was a big antiwar rally here this weekend, and protesters confronted about about Obama made no excuses for him. Like this guy:

He always knew Obama was a corporate puppet.


Trooper York said...

So that's what Robert Cook looks like.

rhhardin said...

Iowahawk tweet

White House war strategy 2011: Sun Tzu meets Barney Fife

MadisonMan said...

Isn't it time for that protest where they put the gravestones up for each person killed? It was on Speedway one year, and out on Monona drive another.

PETER V. BELLA said...

The Obama Doctrine-

Er, ah, eh, huh, uh, well, am, let's, ah, what do I do, what do I do? To do or not to do? Doobie doobie doo.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

It always was a matter of style, of being in with the in crowd. I wonder how long it took her to decide on the Audioslave sweatshirt?

kent said...

"Say, whatever happened to the antiwar movement?"

As this current Cindy Sheehan-themed thread on Democratic Underground makes amply manifest: all of that noisy, bothersome "THE WORLD CAN'T WAIT!" folderol gets tossed aside like an empty pizza box in the Wisconsin State Capital Rotundra, the very NANO-second such stance or sentiment conflicts with continued slavish devotion of the Jug-Eared Jesus.

Guess they just aren't making "ultimate moral authority" the way they used to, really.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Whatever happened to the daily KIA body counts? The tally used to be reported on the news every night. They've melted away just like the interest in photographing military coffins. Strange how that works.

Lincolntf said...

The "anti-war" pose was a convenient method to gin up hatred and fear (much like the AGW scam) among the easily led. Now that the object of their hatred (GW Bush) is gone, they don't need the act anymore.
There are no honorable people on the Left.

Joaquin said...

It's a new world. The United States now gets its "marching orders " to fight antiseptic wars from Brussels.

Hagar said...

Well, this Libya deal could undoubtedly cause a bad case of whiplash for some people!

Phil 3:14 said...

Well, here's one "conservative" outfit that has been fairly consistently opposed to military interventions.

And for balance, a liberal voice that's been anti-war.

But, to your point Professor, yes partisanship muddies the anti-war waters.

And I'm sure Wisconsin teachers and Charlie Sheen wish that Libya would just go away.

Quayle said...

This guy is woefully uninformed.

In the new era the politicians aren't puppets of the corporations, the corporations are puttets of the politicians.

Fred4Pres said...

Andrew Sullivan must be weeping in confusion today.


Because, that woman was affiliated with McCain. And that justifies everything.

Quayle said...

See e.g. GM, Chrysler, GE, etc.

shoutingthomas said...

Not much antiwar stuff in Woodstock.

The usual 10 to 15 hard line commies are always protesting something... the Code Pinkos and the Bitches in Black.

But, no uproar like during the Bush admin.

During the Bush admin we had a semi-official Hate Bush Weekend, highlighted by a two page spread in the Woodstock Times and a showing of Loose Change at the Tinker Street theater.

Loose Change laid out the charges against the Bush admin, which supposedly was really, really behind the 9/11 attacks.

kent said...

“It’s hard to escape the conclusion that antiwar activity in the United States and around the world was driven as much by antipathy to George W. Bush as by actual opposition to war and intervention.”

Fearless prediction: regardless of how many Libyan civilians end up becoming nameless, faceless clots of "collateral damage" as a result of U.S. bombs, throughout all of this -- and no matter how dizzying the final number of American military personnel airily sacrificed on the altar of Obama's feckless geo-political conceits -- we will never, ever, EVER see a studio-produced, Obama-centric film reveling in the notion of presidential assassination porn.

shoutingthomas said...

The big thing in Woodstock right now is the hate Israel/embrace Hamas thing.

The far left has gone absolutely fucking crazy with this shit.

The same far left that is obsessed with feminism and gay activitism. And, loathes evangelicals.

Go figure.

rdkraus said...


Well then, they should be dancing in the streets after that decisive victory over a family of five - I mean who doesn't love to see a Jew baby get his head cut off?

Yay, hand out the candy.

shoutingthomas said...

Well then, they should be dancing in the streets after that decisive victory over a family of five - I mean who doesn't love to see a Jew baby get his head cut off?

Yay, hand out the candy.

Yes, it is that bad in Woodstock.

Because you see, the Palestinians are oppressed by the Zionists, who are imperialists.

It's the Zionists who are really committing atrocities.

The Woodstock Times is full of this shit. Hard to believe.

Stan said...

So I take it that the folks so far left that they were to the left of BO are still farther to the left than BO?


Maguro said...

Well then, they should be dancing in the streets after that decisive victory over a family of five - I mean who doesn't love to see a Jew baby get his head cut off?

Indeed. The little colonialist oppressor had it coming.

Pogo said...

"White House war strategy 2011: Sun Tzu meets Barney Fife"

"Nip it in the bud!
Nip it! Nip it!

Drew said...

We have a group here that's been holding weekly anti-war rallies for almost a decade, though they have been poorly-attended since Obama got elected. However, for the last few weeks, it's morphed into an anti-Walker rally.

Because we're dealing with a mindset that says something MUST be protested.

This week's rally should be interesting. I predict a combination message.

Fen said...

Fen's Law: "The Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about"

They were never anti-war, they were anti-Bush. Democrats were willing to supplicate themselves to Americas enemies, merely to gain political traction. Traitors all.

kent said...

Niall Ferguson points out how very badly The Won has already botched this whole Libyan mess... and just how very, VERY badly things will most likely turn out, as an inevitable result:

"When the news of the no-fly zone reached Benghazi last week, it was relayed from mosque loudspeakers, and the crowds responded with cries of 'Allahu akbar!' not 'God bless America!' Significantly, the rebel spokesman quoted by The New York Times was an imam.

"I wish I could believe the National Security Council is now presenting the president with a better set of scenarios than it put on the table when this crisis began in Tunisia. As I’ve said from the outset, a peaceful transition to Western-style democracy in the Arab world is, of all the scenarios, the least probable. The more likely outcomes are (a) 1848-style restorations of the old regimes; (b) a descent into protracted civil wars; (c) Islamist takeovers; (d) a regionwide Sunni-Shiite conflict. By the way, (b), (c), and (d) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They may be a sequence of events."


madAsHell said...

You are having WAY TOO MUCH fun with these people, and making a buck to boot. How many times can you go back to the well??

Keep your eyes peeled!

Carol_Herman said...

The anti-war movement will not save a POLICAL happening that may boost Obama's numbers; if not actually his "popularity."

In the old days those anti-war people owned the songs. Owned the street. And, spit on soldiers who were returning home from Vietnam. The effect was to have the soldiers "leave their uniforms behind," and return dressed as civilians.

It was not pleasant!

This time, like REAGAN, Hillary and Obama tossed in a few Tomahawks.

It's been said when Reagan did it, to Ghaddafi, (and got Ghaddafi to give up WMD's), this was also done to send a message to Haffiz Assad, in Syria. (Sounds logical.)

Perhaps, this time the message goes out to Amadinajob-and-a-half! He suppresses his own street.

What if Libyans, once they discover the POLICE STATE Ghaddafi put into place with his family; where everyone obeyed the cult, or was carted off in the dark of night ... A country without a place to gather. Suddenly free.

Even with sandstorms. Why not think that our military cannot go in and restore order? Like they did in Europe after WW2, can peace, hmm?

Photo ops can carry a candidate forward.

The anti-war movement? Good point that this one is really anti-Bush. Lots of people still are!

Michael said...

MadasHell: "How many times can you go back to the well??"

Often, given the stupidity of the subjects under review and the inconsistency of their beliefs, assuming they have any.

Carol_Herman said...

Israel's been besieged with hatred from its first days. And, has learned to survive in a very hostile environment; learning earlier than we did that "being in Lebanon" was worthless. A lot of the crap you see is to tempt them back in, militarily. (While Ehud Barak won his stripes by being clandestine.)

The threat to Israel grew when Bush and Condi tried to impose the "2-State-Solution." Which is a FINAL SOLUTION. And, Obama clings to it, too. Americans, in general? No so much.

What's going on now in the Mideast doesn't involve Israel at all. It happened because there was an explosion that despotic leaders were unprepared for. Doesn't mean anything good of it. Nothing good came of the Cedar Revolution (in Lebanon), either. Nor from our involvements in either irak or afghanistan.

If Libya isn't a sea of hatred against Americans, once they are free of Ghaddafi's secret police state, the photo ops will come.

In Libya, th 4-story palace belonging to Ghaddafi, has been demolished. And, the Gaddafi goon who headed the secret police is dead. Burns killed him.

Ghaddafi's police state apparatus looks somewhat busted.

Phil 3:14 said...

I like Douthat's column on Libya.

But there are major problems with this approach to war as well. Because liberal wars depend on constant consensus-building within the (so-called) international community, they tend to be fought by committee, at a glacial pace, and with a caution that shades into tactical incompetence. ...
The ultimate hope of liberal warfare is to fight as virtuously as possible, and with the minimum of risk. But war and moralism are uneasy bedfellows, and “low risk” conflicts often turn out to be anything but.

wv: squis.
I may be a centrist but I'm not a squis!

edutcher said...

Five will get you ten the T-shirt the doofus in the video was wearing was made for an organization funded by the same guy that funds The Zero.

bad touch said...

Left or Right, Audioslave rocks.

lemondog said...

Sunday watched Drexel U interview of Christopher Hitchens part 2.

His comments on the Iraq war and the opposition of many in the right were revealing in how the left-right thing often becomes blurred, misunderstand, mislabeled and, deliberately or not, misreported.

Comments begin at about 3 min mark.

Patricia said...

What in Obama's book led him to think he was a corporate man??

vbspurs said...

Patricia wrote:

What in Obama's book led him to think he was a corporate man??

Maybe when he cashed in his $1,000,000 advance fee from Random House. You think Bill Ayers would take one red cent from THE MAN?

kent said...

OBAMA GHRAIB: 'Kill team' in Afghanistan posed for photos with murdered civilians...

The War Crimes Presidency.

PatCA said...

That's pretty funny. I remember when a virulently anti-Bush writer friend got an NEA grant of $45K. So he took it. So much for sticking it to THE MAN!

vbspurs said...

PatCa, many a person has reneged on his deeply-held beliefs in front of a wad of cash. But it takes a special kind of person, usually called a liberal, to take the money and run, and still want to stick it to The Man. :)

kent said...

Dem Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA): "We're In Libya Because Of Oil" [VIDEO]



iowemysoul said...

I was an authentic anti-Vietnam war college protester because the FBI was always at our house looking for my brother who went to Canada when his number came up - my boyfriend was drafted - my best friend's boyfriend was killed. We protested because of the draft - we were being consigned (at least the men in my generation were) to fight in a war we did not support. Without the draft, something that affects ME - there is no passion to resist. We were the original ME party ....and as we grew up and went to work for the company town in Madison - the gummint - we apparently still are the ME party.
It was always about what affected us directly.

Gene said...

All those people who thought Barak Obama had no backbone must be totally humiliated that a former community-organizer could find the chutzpah to turn his presidency into a war-monger's wet dream--three wars at the same time.

Furthermore, his streak still has two years to go. That's more than enough time time to attack Iran too.

Although all these wars could send our economy down the tubes for good, you've got to think of the opportunity here for the Obama legacy--four simultaneous wars of choice. What Republican has ever managed that?

vbspurs said...

Furthermore, his streak still has two years to go. That's more than enough time time to attack Iran too.

We won't have to go so far -- how about Saudi Arabia. I think we're in Libya, in part, because it sends a message that we're serious about involvement in case Saudi protests get out of hand.

But in a very real sense, we'd be very screwed, because God only knows what would happen to our oil needs if less a pro-American government took over in Saudi.