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.
Where did the anti-war protesters go? To the same place that those currently complaining about the deficit were during the Bush administration. barfo
Where are all the anti-peace protesters? Those smarmy lizards never show their faces, too cowardly to do the dirty work themselves.
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.
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?
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
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
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.
