Video: Whatever happened to the anti-war movement?

posted at 8:48 am on January 21, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Remember when opponents of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq used to hold massive rallies with lots of media attention, and newspapers like the New York Times warned that the 1960s may be returning? That turned out to be a short decade. Reason TV’s Ted Balaker and Zach Weissmueller look at the sudden dissipation of the anti-war movement, which in reality was a proxy fight in a much different battle:

Most of us presumed that the protests were more about Bush than the wars when they took place, but even the skeptics have to be a little surprised just how uncool the anti-war movement has become since Barack Obama took place. The neo-Stalinist International ANSWER, one of the groups featured in this film, must have thought they were achieving some sort of mainstream penetration into politics when Democrats started flooding into their rallies. Now they’re back to street-corner protests and “Honk If You <3 Peace” rallies and wondering why it suddenly got so lonely.

To be fair, though, the driving force of the earlier anti-war rallies was the war in Iraq, not Afghanistan. While the Af-Pak fight has lost considerable public support, the first war had broader support, as it targeted the actual 9/11 villains and their cohorts. The protests against the wars got fueled mainly by our presence in Iraq, and peaked when Bush put the surge strategy into place. The success of that strategy and the Status of Forces Agreement that moved American troops out of the cities and into support roles has removed most of the objections to Iraq, and for good reason — why protest a war that’s all but over?  Obama promised to have troops out in 16 months during the presidential campaign, but as Reason TV notes, he stuck with the Bush SOFA policy — and after 24 months, we’re still there and likely will be for years to come.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

Proud Rino on January 21, 2011 at 11:32 AM

so CLINTON was lying??

On February 17, 1998, President Clinton, speaking at the Pentagon, warned of the “reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.” These “predators of the twenty-first century,” he said, these enemies of America, “will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.”

Later that spring, the Clinton Justice Department prepared an indictment of Osama bin Laden. The relevant passage, prominently placed in the fourth paragraph, reads:

Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.</blockquote>

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/274fwxli.asp

right4life on January 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Proud Rino on January 21, 2011 at 11:32 AM


Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden:
A Match Made Up in Propaganda?

Compiled By: Ryan Mauro

http://www.worldthreats.com

This is to serve as a semi-chronological guide to Iraq’s sponsorship of terrorism throughout the years beginning with 1990. I personally have not taken a firm position as to if Saddam personally supported any anti-American terrorist attack, but the information is presented here for you to make up your mind. Some may say that Wahhabists like Bin Laden, Shiites like the Iranians, and Sunnis like the Iraqis won’t work together do to theological differences. This argument has obviously been disproved, as today we see Saddam’s loyalists, Wahhabists and all sorts of terrorists today cooperating in the war against Coalition forces.

Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki: Captured Al Qaeda Leader Has Close Ties to Saddam Regime

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/ny-times-captured-al-qaeda-leader-has.html

The New York Times published an article this week on the capture of Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. In the report Iraqi Prime Minister told reporters that Al-Baghdadi had close ties with the Saddam Hussein regime.


Bush Did Not Lie!… Saddam Officials Had “Good Relationship” With Zarqawi …Update: Sen. Bond Responds
The US knew that Al-Qaeda and Al-Zarqawi had a “good relationship” with Saddam Hussein officials before the war
:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/bush-did-not-lie-saddam-officials-had.html


The Connection
From the June 7, 2004 issue: Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right.

by Stephen F. Hayes
06/07/2004, Volume 009, Issue 37
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp?pg=2

NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, and offered this report:

Iraq’s contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.


IRAQ TERROR LINKS

1. U.S. Grand Jury Indictment of Osama bin Laden, dated November 6, 1998:
Paragraph 4. “In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”

2. Top secret Iraqi document dated March 28, 1992, lists Osama bin Laden as an asset of the Iraqi intelligence services.

3. In 1992, Ayman al Zawahiri–who later became the Number Two in al Qaeda–visited Baghdad for a meeting with Saddam Hussein.

4. From 1999 to 2002, Saddam Hussein ran three training camps in Iraq that produced thousands of Islamic terrorists.

5. Saddam’s intelligence service gave Ansar al-Islam money and weapons.

6. Iraqi memo dated November 22, 1999, shows that Saddam Hussein’s chemists trained “Arab fedayeen” how to make IEDs

7. Iraqi memo dated March 11, 2001, shows that Saddam Hussein recruited suicide volunteers to attack U.S. interests.

8. 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta was trained by Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal in Baghdad in July of 2001.

9. Members of an Iraqi secret-police organization called Unit 999 were dispatched to camps in Afghanistan to instruct Al Qaeda terrorists.

10. Abu Nidal lived openly in Baghdad.

11. Saddam maintained a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak near Baghdad where foreign terrorists were trained how to take over commercial aircraft using weapons no more sophisticated than knives.

12. Iraq gave Abdul Rahman Yasin, a 1993 World Trade Center bombing conspirator, both money and sanctuary.

13. Abu Zubayr, an officer in Saddam’s secret police, was also the ringleader of an al Qaeda cell in Morocco. He attended the September 5, 2001 meeting in Spain with other al Qaeda operatives, including Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh, the 9/11 financial chief.

14. Iraq made direct payments to the Philippine-based al Qaeda-affiliated Abu Sayyaf group.

15. In August 1998, an Iraqi member of al Qaeda traveled to Pakistan with an agent of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the American and British embassies with chemical mortars.

More on Saddam and the Terrorists
The Washington Times reports on the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) paper on Saddam Hussein’s connections with terrorist groups, which we’ve already commented on a number of times. The IDA report concludes that “Iraq was a long-standing supporter of international terrorism”:
“Many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States,” said the report. “State sponsorship of terrorism became such a routine tool of state power that Iraq developed elaborate bureaucratic processes to monitor progress and accountability.”
Zawahiri’s Islamic Jihad group, which merged into al Qaeda with Zawahiri as al Qaeda’s number two leader, worked closely with Iraqi intelligence and received Iraqi help in organizing terrorist attacks. So the IDA report, which is based on a review of only a fraction of the Iraqi intelligence documents that are now available, confirms the threat to the U.S. and its allies that was posed by cooperation between Saddam’s regime and Islamic terrorist groups. It’s hard not to agree with Rep. Pete Hoekstra:
Mr. Hoekstra bemoaned the White House’s refusal to highlight the Islamic Jihad-Saddam connection, or, for that matter, recent disclosures that Saddam told his FBI interrogator that he planned to resume production of weapons of mass destruction.

We have Senate Intelligence reports….CIA and other intelligence agencies and many democrats who now admit to the ties between these groups.

Baxter Greene on January 21, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Proud Rino on January 21, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki: Captured Al Qaeda Leader Has Close Ties to Saddam Regime

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/ny-times-captured-al-qaeda-leader-has.html

The New York Times published an article this week on the capture of Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. In the report Iraqi Prime Minister told reporters that Al-Baghdadi had close ties with the Saddam Hussein regime.


Bush Did Not Lie!… Saddam Officials Had “Good Relationship” With Zarqawi …Update: Sen. Bond Responds
The US knew that Al-Qaeda and Al-Zarqawi had a “good relationship” with Saddam Hussein officials before the war
:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/bush-did-not-lie-saddam-officials-had.html


The Connection
From the June 7, 2004 issue: Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right.

by Stephen F. Hayes
06/07/2004, Volume 009, Issue 37
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp?pg=2

NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, and offered this report:

Iraq’s contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.


IRAQ TERROR LINKS

1. U.S. Grand Jury Indictment of Osama bin Laden, dated November 6, 1998:
Paragraph 4. “In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”

2. Top secret Iraqi document dated March 28, 1992, lists Osama bin Laden as an asset of the Iraqi intelligence services.

3. In 1992, Ayman al Zawahiri–who later became the Number Two in al Qaeda–visited Baghdad for a meeting with Saddam Hussein.

4. From 1999 to 2002, Saddam Hussein ran three training camps in Iraq that produced thousands of Islamic terrorists.

5. Saddam’s intelligence service gave Ansar al-Islam money and weapons.

6. Iraqi memo dated November 22, 1999, shows that Saddam Hussein’s chemists trained “Arab fedayeen” how to make IEDs

7. Iraqi memo dated March 11, 2001, shows that Saddam Hussein recruited suicide volunteers to attack U.S. interests.

8. 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta was trained by Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal in Baghdad in July of 2001.

9. Members of an Iraqi secret-police organization called Unit 999 were dispatched to camps in Afghanistan to instruct Al Qaeda terrorists.

10. Abu Nidal lived openly in Baghdad.

11. Saddam maintained a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak near Baghdad where foreign terrorists were trained how to take over commercial aircraft using weapons no more sophisticated than knives.

12. Iraq gave Abdul Rahman Yasin, a 1993 World Trade Center bombing conspirator, both money and sanctuary.

13. Abu Zubayr, an officer in Saddam’s secret police, was also the ringleader of an al Qaeda cell in Morocco. He attended the September 5, 2001 meeting in Spain with other al Qaeda operatives, including Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh, the 9/11 financial chief.

14. Iraq made direct payments to the Philippine-based al Qaeda-affiliated Abu Sayyaf group.

15. In August 1998, an Iraqi member of al Qaeda traveled to Pakistan with an agent of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the American and British embassies with chemical mortars.

More on Saddam and the Terrorists
The Washington Times reports on the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) paper on Saddam Hussein’s connections with terrorist groups, which we’ve already commented on a number of times. The IDA report concludes that “Iraq was a long-standing supporter of international terrorism”:
“Many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States,” said the report. “State sponsorship of terrorism became such a routine tool of state power that Iraq developed elaborate bureaucratic processes to monitor progress and accountability.”
Zawahiri’s Islamic Jihad group, which merged into al Qaeda with Zawahiri as al Qaeda’s number two leader, worked closely with Iraqi intelligence and received Iraqi help in organizing terrorist attacks. So the IDA report, which is based on a review of only a fraction of the Iraqi intelligence documents that are now available, confirms the threat to the U.S. and its allies that was posed by cooperation between Saddam’s regime and Islamic terrorist groups. It’s hard not to agree with Rep. Pete Hoekstra:
Mr. Hoekstra bemoaned the White House’s refusal to highlight the Islamic Jihad-Saddam connection, or, for that matter, recent disclosures that Saddam told his FBI interrogator that he planned to resume production of weapons of mass destruction.

We have Senate Intelligence reports….CIA and other intelligence agencies and many democrats who now admit to the ties between these groups.

Baxter Greene on January 21, 2011 at 11:55 AM

If liberals are going to make statements…they should be held accountable for their accuracy.
There were WMD found in Iraq ( of which make up a wide range of products..such as missile components).
The stockpiles we were expecting were not found.

This is a rather important point, since leftist criticism of Bush was that he “lied” about the presence of WMDs. The fact that there were indeed WMDs in Iraq means that the liberals making the claim are in fact the liars.

Now, a few liberals occasionally recognize this when confronted with the facts and instead claim that Bush instead made the wrong decision. This is a much more reasonable claim and one that can be fairly debated, but unfortunately due to the left’s embrace of “The Big Lie” we cannot discuss this in isolation.

18-1 on January 21, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Proud Rino on January 21, 2011 at 11:32 AM

The ties between al-qaeda/Osama/Saddam and other terrorist supporting nations have been well established.


WaPo: Bush “substantiated by intelligence” – UPDATED

http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/06/09/wapo-bush-substantiated-by-intelligence/
What a long, strange trip it’s been, and here, some years later, we finally get someone in the press to tell it straight: Bush did not lie.

But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.

This is a great timeline that includes the massive amount of intel provided by the Clinton Administration concerning the ties between al-qeada and Saddam.

Connect the Dots . . .
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden

http://www.peteandrews.net/site/2004/Connect%20the%20Dots.html

Look no further than the support Iran gives al-qaeda and the Taliban for any proof that religious differences do not inhibit the corroperation of these groups to work together against the West.

Baxter Greene on January 21, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.
Proud Rino on January 21, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Look no further than the support Iran gives al-qaeda and the Taliban for any proof that religious differences do not inhibit the corroperation of these groups to work together against the West.
Baxter Greene on January 21, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Time for a reality check here: You are trying to argue about history with a pernicious moron. As Hillary Clinton says: doing that has never killed a hungry fetus.

The bottom line is that none of the moonbats were PROTESTING history when “the evil bushmcHitler” was in power.

(Well, OK, a tiny handful of them had the mental acuity to put their demands into words, and tell Bush to get in a time machine, go back and figure out that Hussein was ‘just kidding’ about having and using WMD’s and let him stay in power indefinitely…)

But most of the signs didn’t say that. They said: “Get Us Out Of Iran!”

….And now they don’t. Because, for some reason the liberals refuse to divulge, the person liberals now think of as “The Evil ObamaMcHitler” is doing the exact same thing as his predecessor. And now that has magically become a GOOD thing.

Why? Because it’s impossible to find anyone in Iraq who would make a better leader than their own Hussein? So the only alternative is to leave one of our own in power indefinitely?

You need to focus on that. If you allow the moonbats to stick solely to their theological “original sin” debate, they’ll keep you arguing about time machines forever.

logis on January 21, 2011 at 12:47 PM

The left is wholly intellectually and morally bankrupt and exhausted. Zombies. Nothing more.

Mason on January 21, 2011 at 12:54 PM

i was with the counterprotest movement with the unfortunate logo (protest warrior) through and beyond 2004 and i can tell you, that once that election was over, it was only commies, rageagainstthemachineistas and schitzoids. all of the democrats stopped coming and crowd-size dropped to a tenth of what it was. our merry band of 75 or so dropped to about 9.

eh on January 21, 2011 at 1:00 PM

The issue is whether there were stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, and there weren’t. Colin Powell’s presentation in front of the UN “revealed” stockpiles that simply weren’t there.

That’s what people are talking about when they talk about how there weren’t any WMD in Iraq.

When those people make that claim they are really missing the point. Saddam admitted, while in US custody, that his plan was to get a clean bill of health from the UN and, after the inspectors left, restart his WMD manufacture. Setting aside the human rights issue, that alone makes the Iraq war moral and justified.

sheikh of thornton on January 21, 2011 at 1:02 PM

HTH

Proud Rino on January 21, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Thanks for the quote. However, the Democrats had absolutely no problem signing off on the Authorization, which means they believed the “stockpile” theory too, not just Bush and Cheney.

I believe Iraq War opponents did dispute the so-called “connection” between Bin Laden and Hussein, and I think the 9/11 Commission addressed that misconception pretty definitively.

Proud Rino on January 21, 2011 at 11:05 AM

LOL, the “9/11 Commission” can’t be relied upon, as it was a total farce. Proof positive of this was that the Democrats snuck someone onto the Ommission as an Ommissioner who should have in reality been a witness under oath before that Ommission.

When another witness correctly pointed this out to the Ommission in his testimony, he was loudly shouted down by your fellow Clinton Kneepads in the Visitor’s Gallery.

The 9/11 Ommissioner? Jaime Gorelick. The witness? The Attorney General at the time of the attacks.

BTW, Bill Clinton’s Justice Department indicted bin Laden in 1998. A central part of that indictment states that Iraq and al Qaeda were in cahoots.

Keep digging!

Del Dolemonte on January 21, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Being anything in name only implies at the very least deception. To me personally, being something in name only is deception. So what type of person would be proud of that?

cjk on January 21, 2011 at 2:54 PM

There never was an anti-war movement. It’s always been an anti-Republican attempt to reclaim political power by libs.

Bill Brasky on January 21, 2011 at 4:13 PM

There never was an anti-war movement. It’s always been an anti-Republican attempt to reclaim political power by libs.

Bill Brasky on January 21, 2011 at 4:13 PM

If by ‘never’ and ‘always’ you mean the last decade, sure.

It sickens me that the cause of peace is so cheap to people that as soon as it quite being a handy club to beat their political opponent, they just drop it. But that’s just what has happened.

Even the hippies of yesteryear had more spine for pity’s sake! They marched in the presence of armed troops with bayonets locked, not once but several times!

Dark-Star on January 21, 2011 at 5:01 PM

This was so easy to predict–Dems being against Bush rather than the wars. In fact half the commentators here at Hot Air did as much.

What was conveniently forgotten in all the hoopla at the time, pre Bush, were the countless Dems taking to the House and Senate floors pounding their chests as they threatened Saddam et als when Clinton was President. They were the original “weapons of mass destruction” crew. When Gore found a way to lose the “sure thing” election the Dems quickly hid their chest thumping, next resurfacing as anti war zealots a short nine months later.

Too funny and pathetic at the same time. Now Afghanistan is the “good war”. Yikes.

patrick neid on January 21, 2011 at 5:27 PM

There never was an anti-war movement. It’s always been an anti-Republican attempt to reclaim political power by libs.
Bill Brasky on January 21, 2011 at 4:13 PM

The liberal movement has always been an anti-AMERICAN movement, no matter who our enemies happened to be at any given time.

The liberals (somehow) managed to quiet down for a few years after Pearl Harbor, and for a few weeks after 9/11. Otherwise, the vitriol has been pretty much non-stop, and always pointed in the same direction.

logis on January 21, 2011 at 5:53 PM

I also have a decent amount of respect for many of the anti-war protesters that I still see making the effort these days. They might be a bit misguided, but they’re certainly not hypocritical.

I applaud your respectful disagreement. It’s nice to know you can tell the Code Stink dolts and Cindy Shreekan from the others.

The sad truth is that modern ‘peace protests’ are a pathetic shadow of what they should be, and the so-called ‘liberals’ at the top have done jack squat towards even stopping the wars they were handed.

Dark-Star on January 21, 2011 at 9:42 PM

I honestly don’t think Obama was lying to the American public about it. I really think he believed what he was saying but was too naive to know any better.

You could very well be right, it’s anyone’s guess at this point.

I personally think his promises on ending the war ranked right up there with his promises to legalize weed – empty rhetoric to gather votes from the foolish. He knew the anti-war movement would vanish without Bush to bash, and thus he could get away with doing almost nothing.

What I’m shocked about is the Afghan surge. I think he felt pressured to do it because of his campaign rhetoric.

Yeah, he miscalculated and had to throw a bone to certain groups. But that was about all he had to do.

I’m surprised that we don’t hear about more peace activists being utterly disgusted by it. They probably are very disgusted,

Minus the hardcore Obamabots, you darn bet they are, though their voting plans for 2012 are very mixed.

Dark-Star on January 22, 2011 at 12:21 AM

Why should the center protest when they think “the way things ought to be” is very close to “the way things are”?

unclesmrgol on January 22, 2011 at 12:31 AM

So the communists pleading for peace were partisan?

hmm.

Inanemergencydial on January 22, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Even the hippies of yesteryear had more spine for pity’s sake! They marched in the presence of armed troops with bayonets locked, not once but several times!

Dark-Star on January 21, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Oh please. They were mostly scared of having to go to Viet Nam. How many hippies do you know that bayoneted v=back then. You literally made me laugh out loud.

hawkdriver on January 22, 2011 at 5:57 PM

the so-called ‘liberals’ at the top have done jack squat towards even stopping the wars they were handed.

Dark-Star on January 21, 2011 at 9:42 PM

And God forbid they actually try to win it.

hawkdriver on January 22, 2011 at 5:58 PM

The answer is in the third paragraph.

You cannot blame Bush.

MSGTAS on January 24, 2011 at 8:16 AM

You literally made me laugh out loud.

hawkdriver on January 22, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Oh, is that you? I thought that my sister practicing her witch cackle for the school play.

Dark-Star on January 30, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2