|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:34 am Post subject: With Obama in office, liberals learn to love war. |
 |
|
| Quote: |
The antiwar rally at the University of Iowa was sparsely attended. The below 30 degree weather might have had something to do with it, but Paul Street, a local writer and one of the speakers, had another theory, as the Daily Iowan reported:
Before the crowd of fewer than 20, Street questioned why the �left� locals and university officials aren�t doing more to help in the protests against the war. �The big truth right now, whether this town�s missing-in-action progressives get it or not, is that we need to fight the rich, not their wars,� he said, citing big corporations for wasting their technology and funding on war.
The big truth is that the antiwar movement has largely collapsed in the face of Barack Obama�s victory: the massive antiwar marches that were a feature of the Bush years are a thing of the past. Those ostensibly antiwar organizations that did so much to agitate against the Iraq War have now fallen into line behind their commander in chief and are simply awaiting orders.
Take, for example, Moveon.org, the online activist group that ran antiwar ads during the election�but only against Republicans�in coalition with a group of labor unions and Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. Behind AAEI stood three of Obama�s top political operatives, Steve Hildebrand, Paul Tewes, and Brad Woodhouse. Woodhouse is now the Democratic National Committee�s director of communications and research. He controls the massive e-mail list culled by the Obama campaign during the primaries and subsequently, as well as a list of all those who gave money to the presumed peace candidate. These donors are no doubt wondering what Obama is doing escalating the war in Afghanistan and venturing into Pakistan.
As Greg Sargent noted over at WhoRunsGov.com, a Washington Post-sponsored site, �Don�t look now, but President Obama�s announcement today of an escalation in the American presence in Afghanistan is being met with mostly silence�and even some support�from the most influential liberal groups who opposed the Iraq War.�
In response to inquiries, Moveon.org refused to make any public statement about Obama�s rollout of the Af-Pak escalation, although someone described as �an official close to the group� is cited by WhoRunsGov as confirming that �MoveOn wouldn�t be saying anything in the near term.� A vague promise to poll their members was mentioned��though it�s unclear when.� Don�t hold your breath.
Another Democratic Party front masquerading as a peace group, Americans United for Change, declined to comment on the war plans of the new administration. This astroturf organization ran $600,000 worth of television ads in the summer of 2007, focusing like a laser on congressional districts with Republican incumbents. Change? Not so fast.
The boldest of the peacenik sellouts, however, is Jon Soltz of VoteVets, described by WhoRunsGov as �among the most pugnacious anti-Iraq war groups.� They came out fists flying, endorsing the escalation of the Long War.
According to Soltz, there is �much to like in the plan,� but his faves boil down to three factors, which supposedly represent �a stark departure� from the bad old days of the Bush administration. He applauds the administration�s recognition that �The military can�t do it all.� Yet we�re increasing the troop levels by some 17,000, plus 4,000 trainers to babysit the barely existent Afghan �army.� We�re going to send thousands more civilians�aid workers, medical personnel, and military contractors�to build the infrastructure lacking in Afghan society and promote fealty to the central government in Kabul. Schools, clinics, roads, and shopping malls will be built with American tax dollars in order to foster trust between the Afghans, their occupiers, and their government.
...
President Obama is often compared to FDR or John F. Kennedy, but I agree with Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, who worries that he�s more likely to turn out to be another Lyndon Baines Johnson�a president who triumphed against a perceived warmonger at the polls and embodied liberal hopes on the domestic scene but was then driven from office by a war-weary electorate and an insurgency within his own party. Add a rapidly expiring economy at home to an increasingly unpopular war�or series of wars�abroad, and you have a recipe for disaster: Obama�s Vietnam and the Democratic Party�s Waterloo. |
http://amconmag.com/article/2009/apr/20/00020/
I guess throwing your principles in the toilet to rally around a leader isn't just for conservatives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Most of them were not truly antiwar, Mises. But it made a nice pretext for partisan hackery during the W. Bush years. C'est la politique qui prime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The big truth is that the antiwar movement has largely collapsed in the face of Barack Obama�s victory: the massive antiwar marches that were a feature of the Bush years are a thing of the past. |
The writer is making the wrong connection. The collapse came when the SOFA agreement was signed. Why protest a war that has an 'end date' agreed to? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't remember any big protests over the last two or three years anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If Obama decides to bomb Iran then the honeymoon will be over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"The left" has been totally co-opted by the Democratic Party and its functionaries. The large amount of social unrest and dissatisfaction are channeled into acceptable protests, but they are only allowed up to a certain point.
Anyone who might really want to change things is not allowed to get anywhere near elective office. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The big truth is that the antiwar movement has largely collapsed in the face of Barack Obama�s victory: the massive antiwar marches that were a feature of the Bush years are a thing of the past. |
The writer is making the wrong connection. The collapse came when the SOFA agreement was signed. Why protest a war that has an 'end date' agreed to? |
Don't hold yer breath. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rory_Calhoun27
Joined: 14 Feb 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Democrats are behind the man who is ENDING the war..... no need to protest any further..... Obama has to clean up that mess gwb started in the first place, and it's going to take some time.
And what a mess it is.... two wars, an economy sinking faster than the Titanic, and other various maladies. I remember a skit on SNL with a hypothetical gwb Whitehouse in 2000. The stunned nitwit says exasperatedly, "Who knew the Great Lakes could catch on fire like that?!?" I'm more stunned in 2009 that he DIDN'T get a chance to make that comment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
ANYONE who actually followed the election, or any thing in politics, basically saw the Democrats parrot all of the same pro-war stuff. Kucinich and a few other fringers were the ONLY ones talking about being anti-war.
The only thing Obama said that was different was that he was one of the few who questioned the war on terror going into Iraq (as opposed to what was suppose to be the real focus - Bin Ladin and Afghanistan. He also spoke about a deadline for Iraq withdrawal. But he NEVER said he was against the 'War on Terror', only to re-direct it towards Afghanistan, focus on Bin Ladin, and reinforcing alliances, etc.
Anyone who actually believed Obama was 'anti-war'...was taking heavy doses of the partisan propoganda machine - on either the fringe left or fringe right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rory_Calhoun27 wrote: |
| Democrats are behind the man who is ENDING the war..... no need to protest any further..... Obama has to clean up that mess gwb started in the first place, and it's going to take some time. |
OMG, another partisan who believes there is a difference between Obushama and that a vote is going to fix things! 
Did you just wake up from early in the campaign when Obama said he'd end the war immediately upon election? He then changed that to within 16 months, and changed it again to 23 months.
Don't believe me? Watch the clip for yourself. It is in the middle of Alex Jones' latest film, [urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw&feature=related]The Obama Deception[/url].
Even if you want to call that ending the war in Iraq (albeit very, very slowly), he is ratcheting up the war in Afghanistan and increasing attacks on Pakistan. I guess one out of three ain't too bad.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
