The Vanishing Anti-War Left

[Wehrwolfen]

By Brent Bozell
September 03, 2013


Barack Obama ran for president as the last of the red-hot pacifists, so it might have sounded preposterous to predict that after a few security briefings at the White House, President Obama would follow in the same policy footsteps of horrid warmonger George Bush, with his anti-terrorist wars and strategies.

So where is the anti-war movement now?

“What anti-war movement?” former Congressman Dennis Kucinich asked when called for comment last week. Medea Benjamin of the radical group Code Pink agreed: “the antiwar movement is a shadow of its former self under the Bush years.” Cindy Sheehan quipped that “The ‘anti-war left’ was used by the Democratic Party. I like to call it the ‘anti-Republican War’ movement.”

The “Wonkblog” of The Washington Post ran an article (online only, not in the newspaper) headlined “How Obama demobilized the antiwar movement.” As much as our “objective” media lamely tried to portray the peaceniks mobilizing in the streets against Team Bush as nonpartisan and non-ideological, the truth is the movement collapsed as soon as the Democrats tasted power.


Read more:
Bozell Column: The Vanishing Anti-War Left | NewsBusters

So here comes Obama, will Code Pink be calling Obama a criminal soon?

 

[AngryOldGuy]

The 'Anti-War Left' ? oh no they will be right back the day a Republican is sworn in Friday, January 20 2017
'course he was elected because the current office holder started WWIII so they will have a lot to complain about.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Right here!

And....it is more appropriate to call us the "anti BOGUS war" left. As you are so eager to point out, liberals are violent and callous.......when violence is the appropriate solution.

 

[rocket88]

By Brent Bozell
September 03, 2013


Barack Obama ran for president as the last of the red-hot pacifists, so it might have sounded preposterous to predict that after a few security briefings at the White House, President Obama would follow in the same policy footsteps of horrid warmonger George Bush, with his anti-terrorist wars and strategies.

So where is the anti-war movement now?

“What anti-war movement?” former Congressman Dennis Kucinich asked when called for comment last week. Medea Benjamin of the radical group Code Pink agreed: “the antiwar movement is a shadow of its former self under the Bush years.” Cindy Sheehan quipped that “The ‘anti-war left’ was used by the Democratic Party. I like to call it the ‘anti-Republican War’ movement.”

The “Wonkblog” of The Washington Post ran an article (online only, not in the newspaper) headlined “How Obama demobilized the antiwar movement.” As much as our “objective” media lamely tried to portray the peaceniks mobilizing in the streets against Team Bush as nonpartisan and non-ideological, the truth is the movement collapsed as soon as the Democrats tasted power.


Read more:
Bozell Column: The Vanishing Anti-War Left | NewsBusters

So here comes Obama, will Code Pink be calling Obama a criminal soon?

They're the same place as the Hawkish Right.

 

[rocket88]

The 'Anti-War Left' ? oh no they will be right back the day a Republican is sworn in Friday, January 20 2017
'course he was elected because the current office holder started WWIII so they will have a lot to complain about.

If WWIII starts, we won't have to worry about it for long.

 

[German guy]

It's my impression Obama now continues all the policies Bush started and was rightfully bashed for.

When certain "liberals" now fail to criticize Obama for it, just because he's a Democrats, that's hpocritical. But it's just as hypocritical when certain "conservatives" now bash Obama for the very things they found perfectly okay as long as it was a Republican doing it.

 

[Fiddytree]

It's my impression Obama now continues all the policies Bush started and was rightfully bashed for.

When certain "liberals" now fail to criticize Obama for it, just because he's a Democrats, that's hpocritical. But it's just as hypocritical when certain "conservatives" now bash Obama for the very things they found perfectly okay as long as it was a Republican doing it.

Yeah, which is why I instead embrace the changes the President has made, while not mostly abandoning the foreign policy of the Bush administration. The "consensus" foreign policy we have now is not so bad. Fissures happen over specific instances, but the overall trajectory of what we want is fairly similar.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

what we have now is not so bad

17% U6 unemployment, socialized medicine, 100+ dollar barrel oil prices, Egypt, Syria & Iraq in flames,
a foreign policy that no one can seem to decipher and on and on...
things aren't that bad but you might agree with me, the trends certainly not headed in the right direction?

 

[Paschendale]

I'm pretty sure that if the anti-war faction of the left isn't quite as loud as before (and I'm not really certain that it is) it is because Obama is actually doing different things than Bush did. We haven't invaded any countries and occupied them under Obama. Drone strikes and bombings, while deplorable, really are a vast improvement over that. There is a LOT of criticism of Obama from the left for continuing the interventionist policies of his predecessors, but let's not pretend that they weren't already a bipartisan thing. We've been doing it since WW2 ended, by Democrats and Republicans. Non-intervention doesn't really seem like an option anymore. It's been part of the American way for longer than I've been alive. But there is a huge difference between invading a country and what Obama has done thus far.

It is not merely that the president is a Democrat. It is that he has actually done some of what the anti-war people want. I am quite anti-war. I am more okay with dropping some bombs than I am with invading a country. I am more okay with intervention to stop genocide than I am some preemptive strike against someone merely because of what kinds of weapons they might possess. There is absolutely no comparison between Iraq and the military actions that Obama has taken. Iraq was predicated on lies, it was stretched out and cost us vast amount of money and contributed to the recession. It was abused by private interests for their own personal gain. Afghanistan was exploited the same way and did the same kind of damage. No conflict that we have intervened in since 2009 has done that kind of harm to the nation. There is no equivalence. Should we have gotten involved in Libya? Maybe. Should we get involved in Syria? Maybe. It's hard to argue against trying to stop genocide. I'm genuinely not sure if it would be a good thing or not. But there was never a reason to attack Iraq. There was never any doubt that there wasn't. There were only lies to say that there was. We were sure of that the minute it came out of Bush's mouth.

To suggest that there is no difference between the military actions of Bush and Obama is to exercise a lot of cognitive dissonance and self-deception. The actions are different, not merely the party of the actor. Different actions are treated differently.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

17% U6 unemployment, socialized medicine, 100+ dollar barrel oil prices, Egypt, Syria & Iraq in flames,
a foreign policy that no one can seem to decipher and on and on...
things aren't that bad but you might agree with me, the trends certainly not headed in the right direction?

Hmm..., would you agree that there have been many wrong decisions made by this administration?

 

[Wehrwolfen]

I'm pretty sure that if the anti-war faction of the left isn't quite as loud as before (and I'm not really certain that it is) it is because Obama is actually doing different things than Bush did. We haven't invaded any countries and occupied them under Obama. Drone strikes and bombings, while deplorable, really are a vast improvement over that. There is a LOT of criticism of Obama from the left for continuing the interventionist policies of his predecessors, but let's not pretend that they weren't already a bipartisan thing. We've been doing it since WW2 ended, by Democrats and Republicans. Non-intervention doesn't really seem like an option anymore. It's been part of the American way for longer than I've been alive. But there is a huge difference between invading a country and what Obama has done thus far.

It is not merely that the president is a Democrat. It is that he has actually done some of what the anti-war people want. I am quite anti-war. I am more okay with dropping some bombs than I am with invading a country. I am more okay with intervention to stop genocide than I am some preemptive strike against someone merely because of what kinds of weapons they might possess. There is absolutely no comparison between Iraq and the military actions that Obama has taken. Iraq was predicated on lies, it was stretched out and cost us vast amount of money and contributed to the recession. It was abused by private interests for their own personal gain. Afghanistan was exploited the same way and did the same kind of damage. No conflict that we have intervened in since 2009 has done that kind of harm to the nation. There is no equivalence. Should we have gotten involved in Libya? Maybe. Should we get involved in Syria? Maybe. It's hard to argue against trying to stop genocide. I'm genuinely not sure if it would be a good thing or not. But there was never a reason to attack Iraq. There was never any doubt that there wasn't. There were only lies to say that there was. We were sure of that the minute it came out of Bush's mouth.

To suggest that there is no difference between the military actions of Bush and Obama is to exercise a lot of cognitive dissonance and self-deception. The actions are different, not merely the party of the actor. Different actions are treated differently.

You're right. Bush went to the American people, got Congressional authorization and went to the UN twice to get support before he put the screws to Saddam Hussein. In fact he had 20 countries supporting the invasion. It was called the "Coalition Of The Willing". Today, In Obama's case it's the "Coalition of the Unwilling".

 

[Paschendale]

You're right. Bush went to the American people, got Congressional authorization and went to the UN twice to get support before he put the screws to Saddam Hussein. In fact he had 20 countries supporting the invasion. It was called the "Coalition Of The Willing". Today, In Obama's case it's the "Coalition of the Unwilling".

Yes, Obama has been wrong to act so unilaterally (despite it generally being legal to do so). He should be judged for that. Each leader ought to be judged for what they have actually done wrong. In each situation, there has been a very vocal portion of the left that has been opposed. There were some who made a big deal out of the lack of congressional approval. I was probably one of them. I like that he's seeking it now. I mostly hope he doesn't get it. But as I said before, it's really difficult to have a problem with trying to stop genocide.

 

[Fiddytree]

17% U6 unemployment, socialized medicine, 100+ dollar barrel oil prices, Egypt, Syria & Iraq in flames,
a foreign policy that no one can seem to decipher and on and on...
things aren't that bad but you might agree with me, the trends certainly not headed in the right direction?

Our orientation toward foreign affairs is not a bad one. Now, if we can cut back on the hysterics, that would be nice.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

oh no No NO! we are smack dab in the middle of the obama recovery
The Arab Spring is going swimmingly
Race relations have never been better
Foreign and Domestic policy both on target
Things can only improve from here

 

[Carleen]

It's my impression Obama now continues all the policies Bush started and was rightfully bashed for.

When certain "liberals" now fail to criticize Obama for it, just because he's a Democrats, that's hpocritical. But it's just as hypocritical when certain "conservatives" now bash Obama for the very things they found perfectly okay as long as it was a Republican doing it.

This president has been in a damned if I do, damned if I don"t situation since he took office. I have to admire his patience in dealing with this congress.

 

[YoungConserv]

Right here!

And....it is more appropriate to call us the "anti BOGUS war" left. As you are so eager to point out, liberals are violent and callous.......when violence is the appropriate solution.

How is Syria any different than Iraq?

 

[StillBallin75]

Where is it? Um...it's right here.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-non-msm/171727-liberals-reject-obamas-case-syria-strikes-believe-obama-and-kerry-lying.html?highlight=liberals+war

And the claim that Obama ran as a "red-hot pacifist" (whatever the **** that means) is complete revisionist history. He ran on ending the war in Iraq and ramping up the war in Afghanistan.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How is Syria any different than Iraq?

Ha! Good one!