Video: Hey, what happened to the anti-war movement?

posted at 9:29 pm on March 21, 2011 by Allahpundit

Via the noninterventionists at Reason TV, which explains why the clip feels mournful rather than scornful. I don’t think the anti-war movement’s entirely dead, even among mainstream Democrats: Behold the partisan breakdown in last week’s ABC poll on whether the Afghanistan war has been worth fighting. And to be fair, there were plenty of famous-yet-fringe-y leftists condemning Obama over the weekend, from Kucinich to Nader to Michael Moore. Nor do I think that the left’s support for Obama’s Bush-ian foreign policy is driven completely by partisanship, or at least not in the sense that they’re backing a Democratic president simply to retain an electoral advantage. So much of politics is driven by suspicions about motives; liberals cut The One slack that they wouldn’t cut a conservative because they assume he has good intentions, that he wants to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP, that he’s not serving any special interest overlords like Halliburton, etc. Rage is what gets people out in the streets, but it’s hard to feel enraged at a guy whom you believe is doing his earnest best to solve a difficult problem. That’s why anti-war protesters have disappeared and tea-party protesters have emerged. They believe, correctly, that our long-term problems with spending are dire and that Obama, in the interest of his short-term agenda, isn’t taking those problems remotely as seriously as he should. Rage.

But … yes, of course some of the anti-war movement eight years ago was fueled by partisanship aimed at delegitimizing a Republican president (one whom they never really felt was legitimate in the first place), just as conservative complaints about Afghanistan from the likes of Michael Steele and Ann Coulter became more vocal only after Obama’s surge. Rest assured, if even a conservative as mild-mannered and “sane” as Mitch Daniels is elected president next year and takes over command of the Afghanistan war, the progressive blogosphere will rediscover its fiery outrage and wonder when, exactly, President Mitch plans to announce an exit strategy. And then, if he dithers, before long he’ll become the Mitchitler. And then we’ll be back to blogging circa 2007. Good times. Can’t wait.

Update: Ah, turns out the Reason vid is from January, although the post linked above is from today. No matter. Even more timely now than it was then.


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

Hey, what happened to the anti-war movement?

It got Obama elected so it was no longer needed.

unseen on March 21, 2011 at 9:32 PM

I don’t think the anti-war movement’s entirely dead

no…it’s just resting…*shh.

ted c on March 21, 2011 at 9:32 PM

thats a pretty old vid ap.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 21, 2011 at 9:34 PM

::raises hand:: I’m still here

ernesto on March 21, 2011 at 9:35 PM

NO BLOOD FOR OBAMA OIL!!!

Where’s Cindy Sheehan when you need her?

Come on Code Pink! We miss your zany antics!!!

Roy Rogers on March 21, 2011 at 9:35 PM

When you’ve lost Michael Moore….. I’m sure he’s putting together footage for his next documentary on NObama as we speak.

if . . . Mitch Daniels is elected president next year

Is that your dog whistle for comment bait?

conservative pilgrim on March 21, 2011 at 9:38 PM

“… that he’s not serving any special interest overlords like Halliburton, etc.”

I guess George Soros…

… is some bloke that Obowma had lunch with one day.

Seven Percent Solution on March 21, 2011 at 9:39 PM

::raises hand:: I’m still here

ernesto on March 21, 2011 at 9:35 PM

Sooooo? Are you a paper tiger or truly outraged, ernesto? Inquiring minds do want to know.

conservative pilgrim on March 21, 2011 at 9:39 PM

I think what surprises me is that the Left is satisfied with The Won sticking with W’s plan. Wouldn’t you have thought that the smartest man ever would have at least come up with something different? So instead they just ignore Afghanistan completely.

Cindy Munford on March 21, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Reason #57 why I don’t call myself a libertarian.

AUINSC on March 21, 2011 at 9:40 PM

The useful idiots are no longer useful.

Bruno Strozek on March 21, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Ernesto you shouldn’t be here you should be marching in front of the WH yelling.

hboulware on March 21, 2011 at 9:41 PM

I’m sure the MSM will revive the body count ticker on this new war. You know, the one present on every newscast in the bottom corner during Bush’s previous wars. Why, there’s probably an app for it by now.

/Despicable double standards.

conservative pilgrim on March 21, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Didn’t Bill Ayers get all hot and bothered about thesame stuff that his neighbor is doing now in the White House?

I miss President Hoover!!!

PappyD61 on March 21, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Great question! What happened to the anti-war movement? It sures looks as if it is merely an anti-Republican movement using the vehicle of pacifism to gain power…oh wait, isn’t that what they do when they use education and kids to chant against GOV Walker? and Oh, isn’t that also what they do when they use sick people to chant for socialized healthcare? I don’t know about you, AP, but I’m sensing a pattern here…

ted c on March 21, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Where’s Cindy Sheehan when you need her?

Roy Rogers on March 21, 2011 at 9:35 PM

She’s there. She’s outlived her dupe-ful-ness.

For now.

Lanceman on March 21, 2011 at 9:42 PM

I can feel the world’s love…

Mmmm… Mmmm…. Mmmmmm……

Roy Rogers on March 21, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Rest assured, if even a conservative as mild-mannered and “sane” as Mitch Daniels is elected president next year and takes over command of the Afghanistan war, the progressive blogosphere will rediscover its fiery outrage and wonder when, exactly, President Mitch plans to announce an exit strategy. And then, if he dithers, before long he’ll become the Mitchitler. And then we’ll be back to blogging circa 2007. Good times. Can’t wait.

Don’t worry allah a Palin POTUS will give you a TOTAL different type of blogging material on the WAR……

unseen on March 21, 2011 at 9:42 PM

no…it’s just resting…*shh.

ted c on March 21, 2011 at 9:32 PM

…pinnin’ for the fjords….

BigWyo on March 21, 2011 at 9:42 PM

There is no anti-war movement and never was. They’re all for war as a means to their ends.

Christien on March 21, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Note to self……the “strong” option doesn’t work that well on the iPaaafone!

PappyD61 on March 21, 2011 at 9:46 PM

This is simple.

Whose ox is getting gored?

BowHuntingTexas on March 21, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Reason:

“Hey, who’s up for sitting in front of the tube watching CNN as Ghadafi’s troops and goons slaughter those who stood up against him?”

Atheists.

Al-Ozarka on March 21, 2011 at 9:48 PM

OBAMA:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

heh

CWforFreedom on March 21, 2011 at 9:51 PM

I’m curious to see the same numbers for Republicans.

Hypocrisy like this is why it’s silly to listen to partisans.

tneloms on March 21, 2011 at 9:52 PM

War mongers!!!

Big Orange on March 21, 2011 at 9:53 PM

The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action — including any kind of strategic bombing — against Iran without congressional authorization. That is why I have supported legislation to bar President Bush from doing so and that is also why I think it is irresponsible to suggest, as some have recently, that anything Congress already has enacted provides that authority.

Hillary Clinton

Heh heh

CWforFreedom on March 21, 2011 at 9:53 PM

I was asking my friend the other day if he too noticed no one in the media or in the democrat party were accusing Obama of going to war for oil.

jawkneemusic on March 21, 2011 at 9:54 PM

Hey Ernesto,

You never named a single person who was wiretapped because they went to a peace rally. Care to try now?

G M on March 21, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Remember Barack Obama’s “Dumb War” speech.

Well, here is an upgraded version with just a few changes:

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear. I suffer no illusions about Muammar Quaddaffi. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, sponsored terrorists , developed chemical and biological weapons, and enriched himself at the expense of his country.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Libyan people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Quaddaffi poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Libyan economy is in shambles, that the Libyan military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Libya will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Libya without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

Oh how things have Obama has changed

LifeTrek on March 21, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Where’s Cindy Sheehan when you need her?

Roy Rogers on March 21, 2011 at 9:35 PM

I’ll say “Smoking fat joints in San Francisco”.

JohnGalt23 on March 21, 2011 at 9:56 PM

They’ll be alive and well right after Obama loses in 2012. It’s the same people who believe union thugs can actually do all of the things they accused the tea party of doing, and not have one mention in the LSM. Yeppers, those people will find their voice, once again, in February, 2013.

bflat879 on March 21, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Dunno. Farrakhan seemed pretty pissed.

I’m glad that AP considers the Tea Party the righty counterpart of the leftist anti-war movement. I guess it was all of those H!tler posters at the Tea Party rallies.

darclon on March 21, 2011 at 9:58 PM

unseen on March 21, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Wow. All of thirteen minutes for the PalinSpam to begin.

I marvel at your restraint.

JohnGalt23 on March 21, 2011 at 9:59 PM

They were never “ANTI-WAR” but anti-Republican.

The “war” was just a political tool.

Once in power, it was no longer needed,

profitsbeard on March 21, 2011 at 9:59 PM

Peace through superior fire power and golf.

Obama the baby killer.

esnap on March 21, 2011 at 10:01 PM

The French revolutionaries decried the wars of the anciens regime fiercely when Louis XVI ruled France. Once they were in power they immediately declared war on every country in Europe, drafted tens of thousands into the war effort, and began purging enemies within France.

The Left’s playbook has remained the same ever since.

darclon on March 21, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Nor do I think that the left’s support for Obama’s Bush-ian foreign policy is driven completely by partisanship, or at least not in the sense that they’re backing a Democratic president simply to retain an electoral advantage. So much of politics is driven by suspicions about motives; liberals cut The One slack that they wouldn’t cut a conservative because they assume he has good intentions, that he wants to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP, that he’s not serving any special interest overlords like Halliburton, etc.

Talk about splitting hairs.

kjl291 on March 21, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Oh I don’t know, there were three or four loonies standing on the main drag of my neighboring burb at rush hour tonite. I wish I would have gotten a good look at their signs to see if they were down on Øbama. Could have been some comedy!

2ipa on March 21, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Is someone from MSNBC going to give Medea Benjamin their credentials so she crash the DNC in Charlotte, NC. Nevermind. Medea will be front and center by invitation…and she’ll accept.

SouthernGent on March 21, 2011 at 10:29 PM

No blood for oil!

GarandFan on March 21, 2011 at 10:36 PM

realities of governing and the actual real world as it exist….coming home to roost!

jp on March 21, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Why, there’s probably an app for it by now.

Sh*t. Great idea. I’d love to make millions off of stupid liberals with too much money to spe–

Oh. Wait.

nukemhill on March 21, 2011 at 10:50 PM

liberals cut The One slack that they wouldn’t cut a conservative because they assume he has good intentions, that he wants to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP, that he’s not serving any special interest overlords like Halliburton, etc.

Talk about splitting hairs.

kjl291 on March 21, 2011 at 10:10 PM

They click their heels prior to splitting those hairs.

CWforFreedom on March 21, 2011 at 10:51 PM

But … yes, of course some of the anti-war movement eight years ago was fueled by partisanship aimed at delegitimizing a Republican president (one whom they never really felt was legitimate in the first place), just as conservative complaints about Afghanistan from the likes of Michael Steele and Ann Coulter became more vocal only after Obama’s surge

Some? In the sense that 90% is some, then well then yes only some of the lefty anti-war movement was partisan. As for the equivalence, did Steele and Coulter’s lack of support have anything to deal with lack of progress or that the Surge announcement was coupled with a withdrawal announcement?

Basilsbest on March 21, 2011 at 10:53 PM

Why can’t the Arab League and the Muslims do this dirty work in Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, and elsewhere?

After all, those barbarians in the streets, and those barbarians in the government there, all hate the US, Europe, the West, and celebrated the attacks of 9/11, Spain, Britain, etc., in which innocent men, women, children, and babies were slaughtered en masse by violent, misogynistic, hate filled, barbaric, backward, sadistic, mentally deranged, malicious Islamofascist Jihadis.

Let THEM go into Libya, etc., and fix things. Let THEM take the heat, charged with taking part in hegemony, violence, killing Muslims, etc.

Leave the US, the West, (Europe, et al) out of it!

William2006 on March 21, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Why can’t the Arab League and the Muslims do this dirty work in Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, and elsewhere?

After all, those barbarians in the streets, and those barbarians in the government there, all hate the US, Europe, the West, and celebrated the attacks of 9/11, Spain, Britain, etc., in which innocent men, women, children, and babies were slaughtered en masse by violent, misogynistic, hate filled, barbaric, backward, sadistic, mentally deranged, malicious Islamofascist Jihadis.

Let THEM go into Libya, etc., and fix things. Let THEM take the heat, charged with taking part in hegemony, violence, killing Muslims, etc.

Leave the US, the West, (Europe, et al) out of it!

William2006 on March 21, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Yup, we’re all waiting for the VAST MAJORITY of PEACEFUL MUSLIMS to show up and squash the jihadists.

Any time now…..

Should be here shortly.

/crickets

G M on March 21, 2011 at 11:23 PM

William2006 on March 21, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Smart man that William. This is not our fight.

AZCON on March 21, 2011 at 11:26 PM

I marvel at your restraint.

JohnGalt23 on March 21, 2011 at 9:59 PM

thank you.

unseen on March 21, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Code Pink doesn’t even have the word “Libya” on their home page. lol

kagai on March 22, 2011 at 12:06 AM

The Left’s playbook has remained the same ever since.

darclon on March 21, 2011 at 10:05 PM

True. And they were silent about Hitler until June, 1941.

AshleyTKing on March 22, 2011 at 1:08 AM

Where’s Cindy Sheehan when you need her?

Roy Rogers on March 21, 2011 at 9:35 PM
I’ll say “Smoking fat joints in San Francisco”.

JohnGalt23 on March 21, 2011 at 9:56 PM

As an aside, what is truly a shame is that Casey will forever be remembered by the general public as the son of the most ridiculous war protester even, rather than as a fearless son of this nation who gave his last full measure. Her antics did and still do shame him.

hawkdriver on March 22, 2011 at 6:21 AM

Rest assured, if even a conservative as mild-mannered and “sane” as Mitch Daniels is elected president next year

Not to worry, PBHO promised us we would be out of there by then.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2011 at 6:41 AM

A lot of people support these things when they start…but over time they get tired of it. When Bush went into Afghanistan and Iraq he had bipartisan support, both from Congress and the population over all. The anti war movement at that point was not mainstream even in the Democratic party. Just look at who voted for the policy. If I remember correctly 70% of the public supported going into Iraq and more than that supported going into Afghanistan.

I for one, don’t get the whole isolationist, noninterventionist mindset. That does not mean I want to see American troops sent into Libya, but like it or not we are the glue that holds a lot of the world together. If we withdraw chaos follows. As my hero Spock once said, Nature abhors a vacuum.

Terrye on March 22, 2011 at 7:15 AM

Barack Obama: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

This needs to be tattooed on some foreheads.

Ernesto? Step right up!

Good Lt on March 22, 2011 at 7:50 AM

Most of the lefties are not anti-war, they are anti not being in power. So they use the anti-war hot button to try to oust those in power.

albill on March 22, 2011 at 7:53 AM

Real men lead,Soldiers fight.
Lefties whine and write.
Pick any Republican candidate,take the first initial add derangement syndrome after the letter and you have the left in a (bad pun) nutshell.
Harvard claims the best and brightest but produces political Dreck.Amazing how four years and a lots of money can foul up somebodies kid

Col.John Wm. Reed on March 22, 2011 at 8:00 AM

The Left’s playbook has remained the same ever since.

Silly me. I always believed that consistency was a hall-mark of greatness.

oldleprechaun on March 22, 2011 at 8:15 AM

The anti war movement ended in 1975 when we ended our involvement in Vietnam. There has been nothing like it since and there won’t be until the draft comes back.If it does.

LODGE4 on March 22, 2011 at 8:19 AM

Hey, what happened to the anti-war movement?

It moved over to the “libertarian” isolationists, just like it did for the whole Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo thing.

Count to 10 on March 22, 2011 at 8:40 AM

Mitchitler

You may need to get this trademarked fast.

mechkiller_k on March 22, 2011 at 8:46 AM

“Hey, who’s up for sitting in front of the tube watching CNN as Ghadafi’s troops and goons slaughter those who stood up against him?”

Atheists.

Al-Ozarka on March 21, 2011 at 9:48 PM

I don’t know. Most of the “let them kill each other” crowd seem to be part of the “only Christians deserve representative government” crowd.

Count to 10 on March 22, 2011 at 8:48 AM

Calling Cindy Sheehan, Calling Cindy Sheehan. What? Oh, she retired from the anti-war movement?

Herb on March 22, 2011 at 8:49 AM

Via the noninterventionists at Reason TV

I thought the term was “Paulian isolationists,” or is that only the case when you’re not linking to the cool kids at Reason?

Nor do I think that the left’s support for Obama’s Bush-ian foreign policy is driven completely by partisanship

“liberal inteventionists are just ‘kinder, gentler’ neocons, and neocons are just liberal interventionsts on steroids.”

***

The ‘humanitarian’ wing of the War Party is in the saddle, and they are just as ideological, just as bellicose, and just as self-deluded as their neoconservative counterparts on the right.”

***

Conservative militarists invoke “National Security” to justify suspension of due process guarantees; progressive militarists appeal to “Collective Security” to sanctify aggressive war as a “multilateral” exercise. And of course, each of those collectivist factions will embrace the other’s nostrums when convenient.

You never named a single person who was wiretapped because they went to a peace rally. Care to try now?

G M on March 21, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Under Bush or Obama (BIRM)?

Rae on March 22, 2011 at 10:42 AM

The anti war protesters are off for this administration.. showing everyone that it was Bush they hated.. not the war..

cathymv on March 22, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Rae,

It appears you do not know what wiretapping means.

Wiretapping means connecting a concealed listening or recording device connected to a communications circuit. Most states nationwide have their own wiretapping/electronic surveillance statutes, which vary by state.

So, Eduardo, Rae or anyone else, please show me someone who was wiretapped only because they went to a “peace rally”. I assume Eduardo meant under W, as he was making his claim in an Allen West post.

G M on March 22, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Vote Allen West: Because government should be small and un-intrusive, except, of course, when it comes to wiretapping you because you were photographed at an anti-war rally. This guy cares for the constitution about as much as Obama does.

ernesto on February 12, 2011 at 6:06 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/12/open-thread-rep-allen-west-at-cpac/

G M on March 22, 2011 at 12:28 PM

..Wouldn’t you have thought that the smartest man ever would have at least come up with something different? So instead they just ignore Afghanistan completely.

Cindy Munford on March 21, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Get serious, Cindy. This clown couldn’t come up with something different for his NCAA roundball picks. He went with the top seeds in the four regions and Duke to win it all.

The War Planner on March 22, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Code Pink doesn’t even have the word “Libya” on their home page. lol

kagai on March 22, 2011 at 12:06 AM

Try the WH spelling: Lybia

sirnapsalot on March 22, 2011 at 1:25 PM