Remember the Antiwar Movement?

Writing at the Encyclopedia Britannica Blog, the Cato Institute’s David Boaz wonders why the antiwar movement has gone missing in action:

Maybe antiwar organizers assumed that they had elected the man who would stop the war. After all, Barack Obama rose to power on the basis of his early opposition to the Iraq war and his promise to end it. But after two years in the White House he has made both of George Bush’s wars his wars....

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that antiwar activity in the United States and around the world was driven as much by antipathy to George W. Bush as by actual opposition to war and intervention.

Read the whole post here. Reason.tv asks the same question below:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Old Mexican||

    I remember a time when children used to ride their bikes to the park to play ball, instead of being driven by mom; and listened to records in portable record playing machines with pictures of little flowers or clowns or The Monkees in them.

    I also remember a time when there was an anti-war movement.

  • ||

    not to worry, soon ur memories will fade

  • Sandi||

    SHIT ALERT! SHIT ALERT!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: OO,

    not to worry, soon ur memories will fade


    Who are you, again? And why do you write with such awful grammar?

  •  ||

    The anti-Vietnam War protests were part and parcel of the anti-draft, anti-establishment "counterculture" of the '60s. Today there is no draft, no counterculture. American "protest" in the 00s and beyond is exemplified not by tear gas and head-bashings, but in the safety and anonymity of comment-section flame wars and mean tweets.

  • ||

    and big paper mache heads. That's pretty much the only improvement in protests since the 60s.

  • mikey||

    And it slowed way down when the draft lottery started and all those with higher numbers gave it over. It basically went away when the draft ended. Yeah, it was all real high minded alright.

  • kinnath||

    What year did you register for the draft mikey?

  • waffles||

    Isn't Selective Service registering for the draft? If so, I registered for the draft in 2004. Bad timing, I know, but thankfully the military is now a massive workfare program so we don't need a draft.

  • mikey||

    Same thing - when there is a draft. The selective service runs it. You have to register now "just in case". I could (almost)support the draft (with no deferments)as a way to put an end to this endless war.
    That would get a serious anti-war movement started again. And not just a bunch of dirty hippies.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    At least in the 80s you could do it to some funky beats.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  • Schempf||

    Oh shit, I turned 18 in '84 and I distinctly remember things being very cool then.....

  • mikey||

    '64?
    Lottery #s came out while I was in AF training.
    A lefty acquaintance, to this day, insists his decision to leave divinity school had nothing to do with his high lottery number.

  • kinnath||

    I was feeling depressed cause I was old, but you've made me feel better now ;-)

    I was in the last group of 18-year-olds to register in '75, but the draft officially ended before I could have been drafted.

  • ||

    I remember a time when kids went trick-or-treating by themselves on Halloween. Madness.

  • WTF||

    The whole 'antiwar movement' can be summed up in three words:

    Yay Team Blue!

  • Mike M.||

    This. Notice how even the Europeans love killing Arabs suddenly now that Obomba is the president.

  • Fixer||

    It’s hard to escape the conclusion that antiwar activity in the United States and around the world was driven as much entirely by antipathy to George W. Bush as and not at all by actual opposition to war and intervention.

    And that, all three of you out there who actually believed in all that isolationist pacifist crap and weren't just hating on Bush, is all you need to know, in case you're still wondering why you're so all alone these days...

  • MNG||

  • ||

    Because nothing says anti-war like class warfare.

  • Old Mexican||

    On March 19 in Chicago, 1,000 people marched on Michigan Ave. to demand an immediate end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Protesters carried signs that read "No War on Libya!" and "Stand Against War and Racism: Money for Jobs and Education, Not War!" A very popular chant was "End, End the War! Tax, Tax the Rich!"

    Nobody seem to be asking if we can have an end to war and NOT tax the rich...

  • MNG||

    heller

    You have to admit this whole "the Left loves this war because a Dem is in charge" seems pretty thin...Most anti-war voices on the Left are still bitching about Iraq/Afghanistan and now Libya, though they may not be pulling the mainstream crowds they once did.

  • Bill||

    It does not get the main stream attention it did on college campuses and in the news media.

    Yes, the more principled and/or more extreme groups have not changed their emphasis but it is not in the news as it was.

  • MNG||

    I'm not sure what you want. The Left is speaking and organizing against it. Go to the events and take your friends if you are lamenting the crowds are not bigger.

  • sevo||

    MNG|3.21.11 @ 1:52PM|#
    "The Left is speaking and organizing against it."

    Yeah, both of 'em. Cindy who?

  • ||

    That's not an answer. The "left" doesn't oppose military action. Period. Some small elements on the left do. As do most libertarians. So what?

  • ||

    Do we have to do everything?

    Where are the permanently unemployed protesters from 2007?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Or how about the permanently employed teachers of Wisconsin? Where the fuck are they when we need a REAL protest that isn't in their direct, personal interest?

  • ||

    MNG, as much as you would like the opposite to be true, there is no denying that the mainstream "left" are mere partisan hacks, too lazy to think for themselves. They follow political personalities and trends, not philosophies. This is the basic problem we are illustrating and criticizing.

  • Doc S||

    This is different than any other political group?
    Step 1) Find a political group that seems cool
    Step 2) Assume ALL beliefs of that group
    Step 3) Do no research to support any of those beliefs other than what you are told
    Step 4) Make biased unsupported arguements about the group and defend it any time someone says something remotely opposed to "your" beliefs

    It's how 99% of people form political stances.

  • ||

    While Facebook is a rather unscientific source of data, I can tell you that of all my liberal, supposedly anti-war friends, I saw exactly two comments regarding our new war over the weekend, and one of they used the war to take a shot at Republicans for wanting to de-fund NPR. I think it's entirely fair to say that this war isn't generating the same response that previous wars did when a certain Republican was in the White House.

  • Tony||

    Why should it? How is the Libya action comparable to Iraq in any way?

    These are the kinds of distortions you get into when you insist that both parties are equal.

  • wingnutx||

    Libya is different from Iraq.

    For starters, Bush got overwhelming support from congress before going into Iraq.

  • Tony||

    Libya is different from Iraq.

    For starters, Bush got overwhelming support from congress before going into Iraq.

    I'll take a limited non-invasion meant to prevent mass civilian deaths and the hands of a lunatic dictator and further instability in the Middle East over Congressional approval of a war based entirely on lies that has killed mass amounts of civilians and thousands of American troops and caused more instability in the Middle East any day. Of course that assumes that Libya will be as limited as claimed.

  • ||

    Tony, you're comparing three days of the Libyan intervention with eight years of Iraq -- and the left emits barely a peep about the latter these days either.

  • #||

    Tony, stop being a hack. The scale of the intervention at least fore now is different obviously, but in principal what's the real difference?

    Obama is bombing Libya not because its a threat to our security or our interests. Hes getting involved soley for what he sees as a humanitarian mission, and I might even add a premptive humanitarian mission, as his address refferenced "potential" for humanitarian atrocity. This is not mcuh different than what Bush did trying to spread democracy.

    And at least Bush made the argument anyway, even if not very strong that Sadam was a current threat, and at leats he went to congress.

    What Libya shows is that Obama believes in basically the same Wilsonian intervention philosophy that Bush did. Using military might for the purpose of imposing better government systems on nations is a legitimate use of power.

  • Tony||

    Well, the threat of mass civilian deaths in Libya was apparently days or hours from being actual. That's somewhat different from invisible WMDs.

    IF the stated reasons and goals of the Libya campaign are true, this type of intervention is something anyone who's not a pure pacifist can reasonably get behind. I'm sure, at Secy. Clinton's prodding, Obama had to weigh the downside of not acting in the face of a mass slaughter of civilians.

    I don't know how I feel about this quite yet, but I do know that unless you're an absolute pacifist, Libya and Iraq do not resemble one another in any important way.

  • WMDs in Iraq!||

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroo.....g-results/

    Don't forget that he also had a nuclear site that was, voluntarily, under UN seal.

    http://www.thebulletin.org/web.....l-tuwaitha

  • Tony||

    You seem to be under the impression that WMDs are a partisan game, and that the threat of nuclear war in America from Iraq--rather than the mere presence of remnants of Iraq's weapons programs--wasn't the justification for that endeavor.

  • yonemoto||

    Tony, the Bush administration justified invasion on the grounds that materials would make it into the hands of terrorists, not necessarily make an atom bomb (say, a dirty bomb). Now, the high likelihood that Bush's endeavors made that more likely notwithstanding, the fact is that it's likely that has happened, meaning it could have happened under saddam. Much as I dislike Bush, the presence of such remnants would be sufficient.

  • #||

    Did saddam not murder a whole bunch of his own people? Is it not true, that looking at only saddam's removal in isolation that that act in of itself saved the lives of a whole bunch of Iraqis?

    If preventing the slughter of people by their own government is justification for military force, that iraq did have that going for it. And as of now, Libya isnt even a darfur type situation. He's not going in and killing people for the purpose of killing them. Hes fighting an armed rebellion.

  • Tony||

    Whether we should have intervened in Libya's civil war is certainly an honest question. But there are few people who still defend Iraq on humanitarian grounds, considering the humanitarian nightmare the US has inflicted on it.

  • ||

    Yeah, right. Go ask the Kurds. Go ask the Shia. Iraq's a humnitarian nightmare if you're an ex-Ba'athist Suni.

    If you're interested in Libya you're interested in Iraq unless you would like to claim that Ghadafi's atrocities are different in scale from Saddam's. I think I read a few days ago that they just found another mass grave in Kurdistan. But I bet they were killed with bunny rabbits and unicorns so it's okay!

  • Tony||

    East Bay Jay,

    If you had asked Congress or especially the American people, just post-9/11, whether it was a good idea to occupy Iraq for almost a decade and get more Americans killed than on 9/11 on strictly humanitarian grounds, what do you think they'd say? That was never, ever the justification for that invasion, except in retrospect by dishonest hacks.

    A point of debate recently is whether we should ever intervene for humanitarian purposes, because we obviously can't fix everything. But not being able to intervene in every country with a brutal regime is no excuse for not doing so when we can. Libya may just present an acceptable cost/benefit equation, which, we know with absolute certainty, was not the case with Iraq.

  • ||

    But there are few people who still defend Iraq on humanitarian grounds, considering the humanitarian nightmare the US has inflicted on it.

    The humanitarian nightmare to come was not apparent three flerking days after the invasion of Iraq began. This may turn out to be just as bad.

  • Terc||

    It isn't obvious that airstrikes are going to prevent mass civilian deaths. It's possible that, directly or indirectly, thru unintended consequences, that airstrikes cost more lives than they save. At the very least, it's an open question.

  • mike||

    Would you stop with the "mass deaths in libya" crapola? How many Tony? 1,000? 5,000? 20K? How many would your boy Quadaffi have killed? How many did Sadam kill? Pol Pot? Rwanda? Are you supporting intervention in Ivory Coast too? Myanamar? Please go wipe your ass again with those DNC talking points.

  • Tony||

    Just playing Democrats' advocate. This actually unsettles me. Yes the tanks were at the doorstep of Benghazi. But as was an astute question with regard to Iraq, would we be there if they had no oil?

  • nekoxgirl||

    Yeah, because Libya totally attacked us! Oh wait...

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    ROTC buildings are not being burned down, and kids are not being gunned down National Guard and Neil Young isn't writing songs about it.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You have to admit this whole "the Left loves this war because a Dem is in charge" seems pretty thin

    David Corn disagrees.

    http://motherjones.com/politic.....h-doctrine

    The chimpouts in the comment section are pretty hilarious. I love watching progressives turn on each other.

  • FortiGuard Sucks!||

    Web Page Blocked

    You have tried to access a web page which is in violation of your internet usage policy.

    URL: www.answercoalition.org/national/index.html
    Category: Advocacy Organizations

    To have the rating of this web page re-evaluated please click here.
    Override

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Powered by FortiGuard.

  • Fixer||

    You use FortiGuard? I use the BlockSite add-on for Mozilla Firefox.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    http://www.answercoalition.org/national/index.html


    A bunch of communists.

  • ||

    This does confirm my own theory that the anti war movement was really about being anti the other political party. A left wing president would have had a right wing anti war movement. Both sides have huge swaths of war sympathizers.

  • Zeb||

    I don't know. I think that the hard core anti-war people are still just as hard core. Just the politically opportunistic crowds that came to the big protests are not there.

  • DJF||

    Plus there are the discouraged, they see both Team Red and Team Blue being pro-war and they know that nobody in Washington will even pretend to listen to them. While the MSM loves anything that is bi-partisan and will ignore the anti-war protesters once Team Blue and Team Red agree.

  • ||

    I don't see the equivalency at all. Team Red contains the warmongerers and Team Blue contains the peacenicks. It's natural that Team Blue protest war actions of Republicans. They're ag'in it.

    And when a Democratic President goes to war, Team Red is largely supportive and certainly isn't going to protest it. This puts Team Blue in a bad place: a choice of holding to principle or supporting the team. This will end up a big political mistake for Obama, no matter how it ends up.

  • MNG||

    A lead story at the Nation today:

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/.....presidents

    And at the Progressive:

    http://www.progressive.org/wx031911.html

    Dudes, before jumping to conclusions a little browsing might help...

  • ||

    Note, neither of these have to do with the decrease in popularity of the antiwar movement.

  • MNG||

    They are examples of voices on the left criticizing the war effort and organizing protests regarding it. What do you want?

  • Jersey Patriot||

    I dunno, a couple of massive marches through the streets of Washington and New York, as per 2003 or so? The question isn't "Why hasn't a single leftist criticized the war?" but "Where the hell did the antiwar movement go?"

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Some consistency in action would be nice. Hell, the weekend's coming up--will we see anything close to the unified, extended response we saw against Bush in 2003? I highly doubt it.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Yeah, yeah, they'll phone in the obligatory story, then roll over and go back to sleep.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,
    Blogs? We don't need no stinkin' blogs, we need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary!

  • ||

    The lack of protests is enough to draw a conclusion that the antiwar movement largely absent.

  • MNG||

    ANSWER had protests in many cities just two days ago. They just weren't as covered/well attended as in the past. Is that what you are getting at? If so then that is hardly the fault of "the Left."

  • sevo||

    MNG|3.21.11 @ 1:56PM|#
    "They just weren't as covered/well attended as in the past."

    Yeah, both of 'em.

  • MWG (Not MNG)||

    "They just weren't as covered/well attended as in the past."

    Which is EXACTLY the point.

    "If so then that is hardly the fault of "the Left.""

    Sure it is. Where are the thousands and thousands 'leftists' who were showing up to these protests under Bush? Oh that's right... Team BLUE is in power now.

  • ||

    I thought you were changing your handle to "Splenetic Overlord".

  • MWG (Not MNG)||

    The change will come SugarFree. For now, I'm satisfied merely making a distinction when responding directly to minge.

  • ||

    How about "Drunken Monkey God"? or "Randy Reaver"?

  • MWG||

    Those are great. I particularly like DMG, but I feel like my handle needs to be something I created myself.

  • Sandi||

    I understand your desire to create. It is most laudable.

  • ||

    Is this related to the Newcular Titties movement?

  • ||

    MWG once mentioned his frustration with being mistaken for MNG. I've been trying to help him think of a new name, preferably one that will strike terror in the loins of his enemies.

  • ||

    Learned Hand.

  • ||

    Red Right Hand.

    Although I have the, like, best handle ever in mind, but I don't want to post it in hopes that I can mentally project it into MWG's mind, making it seem as if the idea is his own. It's a seriously fine handle and it would be mine if I wasn't already firmly established under SugarFree.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    I've been thinking about changing handles too, as I'm no longer in Vermont and while I've been posting under this one for a while, I am more of a lurker than the 9-56 regulars anyway.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I've been thinking about changing handles too...

    I hear you. I am very sick of my handle and avatar.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Yeah, it just happened that the first time I posted (in 2006 after a couple months of lurking) was in a gun thread that mentioned Vermont's CC laws.

  • ||

    Clovis.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Hmm, I am both Catholic and French...

  • Pip||

    SugarFree (d.b.a. Best Handle Ever, LLC)

  • ||

    MWG will experience nausea, nosebleeds and headaches until he stops fighting me.

  • yonemoto||

    How about "Learned Foote"

  • Ice Nine||

    Ruth Ginsburg or, perhaps, Lorena Bobbit.

  • ||

    The Crapulent One

  • ||

  • ||

    All my suggestions were stolen psychically from MWG's mind, so they remain original to him.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    I thought you just saw into the future and then told him what he was going to come up with.

  • ||

    Prescience, psychic rape, it's all the same.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Are you the kwisatz haderach?

  • ||

    I'm the Kwittheshitz Hadenough.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    I'm the Kwittheshitz Hadenough.

    That would be one sweet new handle.

  • ||

    preferably one that will strike terror in the loins of his enemies.

    Nancy Pelosi.

    We are talking about fearful loins here.

  • ||

    The Deliberbator?

  • ||

    Really, this is all you need:

    http://www.bandnamemaker.com/

  • ||

    There's always The Walrus. I'm surprised we don't have a The Walrus around here.

  • dunkel||

    Well, there is a 'Paul'...

  • waffles||

    One thing I like about waffles is that in my mind it's a verb, adequately describing my H&R experience. And pancakes, that's a verb too.

  • Janet Napolitano||

    If everybody is changing handles, then I choose Pikachu.

  • ||

    I am Kirok!

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Let's just switch handles with someone else, for added confusion.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Or let's make all of our handles the same.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Hmm, never been spoofed before. That IS confusing.

  • Contrarian P||

    I had terror in my loins once.

  • kinnath||

    I judge the anit-war movement by what happens here in boring, middle-class Iowa. For years, we could see people standing on the major street corners year round (in really fucking cold weather) protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama was elected, and they disappeared overnight.

    The fact that they haven't come back, even though Barak is ramping up Afghanistan and killing civillians in Pakistan, proves that the anti-war movement was merely and anti-Bush movement.

  • Ted S.||

    proves that the anti-war movement was merely and anti-Bush movement.

    Is the use of "and" where "an" is correct an Iowa thing? I know somebody on another board who's from Cedar Rapids and he makes the same mistake all the time.

  • kinnath||

    merely a typo

  • ||

    some people just have to be pedantic...

  • ||

    That Bush! 20 months ago the conventional wisdom was that he destroyed the Republicans. Forever. 20 months from now conventional wisdom will be that he destroyed the Democrats. Pretty consequential, for a cowboy.

  • Neu Mejican||

    And those that supported the war did it 'cuz they were so in love with George W that anything he said was considered golden?

    Silly partisan arguments. They are always so weak.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Neu Mejican,

    And those that supported the war did it 'cuz they were so in love with George W that anything he said was considered golden?


    Are you implying that that was NOT the reason???

  • Neu Mejican||

    It could be argued that they supported W 'cuz he agreed with their aggressive policy preferences. Perhaps.

  • ||

    And they had those preferences because that's what Bush, Rove, and Cheney believed. There is very little principle behind most of these stories. They are mere political fads. They'll be taken off and put back on every so years, or they'll switch sides, like the "anti-government" sentiment switches sides based on who's in power. It's all the same shit.

  • ||

    Bosnia = no protests
    Iraq = huge protests
    Therefore, no equivalency. It's about war. Team Red will never be anti-war. Team Blue will never be anti-domestic spending i.e. there's equivalency, but only across subjects.

  • FortiGuard Sucks!||

    I remember before 9/11 quite a number of Conservatives disliked W a great deal. To the degree they tolerated him it was because of their hangover from the controversial 2000 "hanging chad" election.

  • Pip||

    "hanging chad"

    That has a nice ring to it...

  • ||

    Pron star name?

  • MNG||

    And at the American Prospect even!

    http://prospect.org/cs/article.....led_action

  • ||

    Again, what does this have to do with the antiwar movement, numbnuts?

  • MNG||

    Er, it's another voice from a major anti-war voice on the Left decrying the action?

    I mean, are you upset that it is not resonating? Cuz I thought the meme was "the Left don't care about this war/supports it cuz Obama is Prez."

    That's clearly incorrect.

  • Ventifact||

    the meme was "the Left don't care about this war/supports it cuz Obama is Prez." That's clearly incorrect.

    .
    If the left is narrowly defined as an ideologically consistent liberal/progressive wing of Democratic/Green politics, you might be right.

    If the left is broadly defined as the voters who chose to vote for the more left rather than more right of the two major presidential candidates in 2008, it's another story.

    Of course both notions of the left have their place. The narrow definition is consistent with the poll results that tend to show only about a quarter, rather than half, of Americans self-identify as "liberal". However, it seems to me that in the context of the antiwar movement and Obama, the broader notion of the left is more pertinent.

  • crossofcrimson||

    "That's clearly incorrect."

    You're going to have to go a lot further than linking a few articles in order to give people the illusion that as many people are up in as much frenzy (on the left) as they were during the Bush years. As someone watching it unfold from the "pro-war" side at the time, and then later converted, I can safely say the movement was vociferous and prolific - a few people doing some hand-wringing doesn't come close...whether it's genuine or not. That extends all the way up to politicians and mass media all the way down to all the leftists I personally know who are now all of a sudden particularly silent on the issue. It's pretty astounding. About the only thing more astounding would be someone who wasn't able to see that.

  • Tony||

    Where's the evidence that the antiwar movement has disappeared? Seems like just an assertion. They're still there, but the media coverage is about the same as it always was: virtually nonexistent. As far as antipathy toward Bush, it was kinda well- deserved given what a warmonger he was.

    The left may still vote for Obama but if you pay any attention to what they're actually saying, it's hardly unthinking worship of the man.

  • ||

    Bad Tony. You didn't watch the video, so you get a spanking.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    The left may still vote for Obama but if you pay any attention to what they're actually saying, it's hardly unthinking worship of the man.


    Well... not NOW, at least.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  • ||

    Excellent.

  • MWG||

    "Where's the evidence that the antiwar movement has disappeared? Seems like just an assertion. They're still there, but the media coverage is about the same as it always was: virtually nonexistent."

    You're delusional... of course, if there has been a major protest on the magnitude of thousands and thousand of protestors marching down the middle of the street in NY, DC, San Fran, etc, similar to those under Bush that wasn't covered by the MSM, I'm sure you could provide a link to some leftist blog who covered it, right?

    "As far as antipathy toward Bush, it was kinda well- deserved given what a warmonger he was."

    Yes, and Obama has done much to remedy the war mongering of Bush. Let's see:

    -Afghanistan? Escalated.
    -Iraq? Troops drawn down. Of course he followed the direct course of action Bush's plans called for.
    -Patriot Act? Not only does it still exist, its virtually unchanged.

    Hell, even smaller policies such as gitmo and UAVs into Pakistan continue unchanged.

    ...and of course now we're bombing Libya.

  • ||

    Plus "indefinite detention", killing US citizens walking down the street in Yemen, wiretapping for copyright violations,...

  • MWG||

    The list goes on and on...

  • FortiGuard Sucks!||

    "As far as antipathy toward Bush, it was kinda well- deserved given what a warmonger he was."

    And Obama is NOT a warmonger? He has us in three wars in three countries - or four if you count Pakistan.

  • Yemen||

    Don't forget about us!

  • FortiGuard Sucks!||

    Good point. Four wars in five countries!

  • Restoras||

    Team Blue! Oh wait, Team Blue supported Iraq until they could score political points. Hmmm, how about that. Well, ummmm...

    Team Blue!

  • Paul||

    I believe that Matthew Yglesias (to his credit) made this point in a 'blogginheads tv' discussion with Matt Welch about Obama right after he was elected: That Obama would "destroy the anti-war movement".

  • db||

    Well, in the libs' defense, the Jedi Council thought that the prophecy of one who would bring balance to The Force meant that A. Skywalker would be a good guy. What they failed to realize is that the balance was already heavily tilted in the direction of good, and "balance" entailed increasing the amount of evil in the universe. Anakin (and later, Vader) represented the bursting of a bubble in good, (and if you want to get thermodynamic about it, a correction in an unnaturally high local low in entropy).

  • db||

    "unnaturally high local low in entropy" s/b "unnaturally low local entropy"

  • MNG||

    "Where's the evidence that the antiwar movement has disappeared?"

    As you can see, nowhere. After John picked this meme up a few days ago I figured it was making its way around the conservative blog-o-sphere. Had some time today and checked it out and as usual with those memes it's simplisitic at best bogus at worst. As the links I provide (and which took all of one minute to look up) demonstrate the usual voices on the anti-war Left (ANSWER, the Nation, the Progressive, even the more mainstream AP for crying out loud) condemn the Libya action.

  • ||

    You also neglected to watch the video then. Listen to the Answer Coalition guy. You know, the people you used as an example above... HERP DERP.

  • Paul||

    Speaking from the actual streets, I haven't personally seen an anti-war demonstration since Obama got elected. We used to have a regular one every Saturday(?) in the Junction on Alaska and California Ave.

  • Paul||

    In fact, I can't remember the last time I saw someone in a giant, papier-mache head.

  • MNG||

    Here you go Paul, near the end the whole "band" shows up in them

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WybiA263bw

  • Paul||

    The halo over Bono's head was a nice touch. Do Saints get depicted with halos in Catholicism?

  • ||

    There was - and probably still is - a "Yugoslavia War"-sized protest going on here in Mpls-St. Paul. There's a fairly vociferous anti-war movement here (Code Pink, etc.).

    The local Fox News affiliate is appalled by them, 'natch.

  • ||

    The left that was running the Congress and the executive sure did nothing to stop the wars. Without a lot of major criticism and with hardly anything that got the media's attention. It's not a meme, and it's been a valid criticism for a couple of years now.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    No no No, Pro lib. Don't you get it? The left isn't the masses that voted for the Dems, they don't count, so it's not the left's fault that they aren't showing up for antiwar protests anymore. But the left also isn't the Dems in charge, who are continuing the wars. They don't count either. The left is defined by those who throw antiwar protests, and therefore the left is still antiwar. The left is just the Goldilocks zone of power, like bloggers.

  • ||

    Slippery!

  • ||

    It's funny that leftists make fun of libertarians for being such a tiny fringe minority, and then when the shit hits the fan they define down "the Left" to the point where it's not much larger of a group than libertarians are.

  • ||

    Exclusive clubs.

  • Tony||

    On the contrary I'd argue that libertarian rhetoric--at least with respect to the economy--dominates actual policy far more than progressive rhetoric does. Hopefully we're inching in the right direction, though.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    On the contrary I'd argue that libertarian rhetoric--at least with respect to the economy--dominates actual policy far more than progressive rhetoric does.

    Just because spending hasn't gone up to $5 trillion a year doesn't mean that progressive rhetoric doesn't dominate actual policy.

  • Contrarian P||

    What libertarian ideal dominates any realm of what the federal government is doing?

  • Tony||

    When was the last time taxes went up?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    When was the last time taxes went up?

    Ask cigarette smokers.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Hell, Tony, ask homeowners. Tax increases aren't limited to income taxes, you know.

  • crossofcrimson||

    "When was the last time taxes went up?"

    Wait...

    So the government can spend all it wants but as long as they don't collect the funds right now, then it's libertarian?

  • Pizzly||

    Most of them are busy demanding a war...against the rich. I have no problem calling the national tax scheme a war, and it's no surprise most "antiwar" individuals support it.

  • Jeffersonian||

    The Left's enemies are almost all domestic. They'll put up with foreign wars as long as Obama keeps waging the war on markets, culture and iniquitous non-leftists.

  • ||

    Wars conducted by Progressive Demoncraps are just and holy and good. Wars conducted by Neocon Republicums are oppressive and evil. The difference is in the perspective and the perpetrator.

    No one wants to admit war is bad for human beings or, at times, necessary to prevent evil from spreading throughout a region. Unfortunately, war is viewed through a personal philosophical prism and those views become righteous in the extreme. That is why war is a huge cost in blood and treasure for a nation; the conduct of is never to be taken lightly.

    My personal view: Only ex-warriors should be enabled to declare war. Politicians need not apply unless they meet the above definition.

  • T||

    I really do despise the chickenhawk argument, and the corollary that only people with military service are entitled to have a say. Some of the biggest morons I've ever met were in the military, and there's no shortage of bizarre worldviews and craptacular judgment in the service, either. Disqualifying the possibly cogent and relevant opinions of someone who's never spent a day in uniform is equally as bad as imputing some special expertise or wisdom to veterans. We're, overall, just as loopy and ill-informed as the rest of the populace.

    Except me, of course. I am in the running for Philosopher King of the Universe when that position becomes available.

  • Gregory Smith||

    You can attack the chickenhawk argument without referring to the people in our military as morons, buddy.

    I love the troops AND the taxpayers. The way I see it, if I'm paying for your uniforms, your guns, your bombs, and your planes, I should get a say about how you use my money.

  • T||

    Learn to read, chumley. Once you get that done, pay close attention: Fuck off. I said some, not all, and I'm entitled to make that judgment because I was there. The idea that every service member is a paragon of virtue is crap. If you can't accept this, you need to reassess your realationship with reality.

  • Cruz||

    I'm a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, I can tell you some of the biggest idiots you'll ever meet in your whole life are in the military. When I landed in Iraq in 2009 I literally had a General give us a briefing where he said, "We're killing terrorists over here so we don't have to fight them back home." That Dick Morris line was tired in 2004.

  • Gregory Smith||

    Oh yeah? Well I'm a veteran of the University of Miami and the University of Michigan I can tell you that the biggest idiots I've met were there.

    Ever heard the term "educated idiot?" You'll find plenty of those in college. So frankly, I'd rather hang out with patriotic "rednecks" than with progressive douchebags that think Marxism works but it has never been applied correctly.

    WHY YOU CAN'T TRUST THE UN.
    http://libertarians4freedom.bl.....tions.html

  • yonemoto||

    > "I can tell you some of the biggest idiots you'll ever meet in your whole life are in the military."

    Clearly you have never been a scientist. My dad was in the Navy (supply corps), and some of his stories don't pale in comparison with what I've seen in the lab.

  • yonemoto||

    haha, awesome timing!

  • Gregory Smith||

    Look Freeman, you don't have to be a cop to complain about the police, you don't have to be a fireman to complain about sprinkler laws that might put you out of business, and you don't have to be G.I. Joe to vote for a war.

    The problem with Obama is that he didn't get authorization from congress to launch these air strikes.

    What's wrong with American Exceptionalism?
    http://libertarians4freedom.bl.....rican.html

  • ||

    My personal view: Only ex-warriors should be enabled to declare war.

    Which is, of course, directly contrary to the Constitutional provision for civilian control of the military.

  • ||

    Actually, it's not. An ex-warrior is, by definition, no longer a warrior. They'd be civilians who've served.

    It's an interesting idea. An independant tactical review board comprised of ex-military civilians.

    I think they, moreso than any others, really understand that everyone is anti-war, but sometimes it's the only recourse left.

  • MNG||

    "Wars conducted by Progressive Demoncraps are just and holy and good."

    Which is why nearly every major Progressive oulet is condeming the war...

    Riiiiight.

  • Tim||

    This is much worse: Skinny Wonder Woman:

    http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/03.....cki-photo/

    (perfectly work safe)

  • MNG||

    Agreed! She's way to skinny to be Wonder Woman.

    Someone like Lucy Lawless in her prime is needed. Most leading femmes are far to skinny to play the ass-kicking Amazon warrior.

  • MNG||

    You know, it occurs to me the gal from Watchmen could make a decent Wonder Woman.

  • Tim||

    Hmm, but putting pants on WW is also just dumb. Like making Batman wear a kilt.

  • ||

    I want to see legs. With skin. "Stop the blue pants!"

  • Restoras||

    I'd be ok with the pants if there is camel toe to be had.

  • Law Student||

    Lucy Lawless still looks good. Have you seen her in Spartacus?

  • Old Mexican||

  • Tim||

    That actress looks like a twelve year old out for Haloween.

  • ||

    Yes, especially the large boobs.

    *facepalm*

    What is it with the internet and dudes who state that any woman who isn't plump looks like a child? Are they plump (or larger) themselves?

  • ||

    The game theory of sour grapes. What I have can't be all that bad if I deny the existence of anything better.

  • Tim||

    Look, she's no Linda Carter.

  • ||

    Just for the record, I'm not defending Palicki. I think she's a pretty terrible choice. She just plain looks like a bimbo, no matter how she's dressed.

  • Tim||

    For example Katie Perry could pull it off, yes, I know she can't act, but if you think that "acting" is the point of a WW TV show you're deluded.

  • ||

    "Can't act, can't sing, can suck a little."

  • ||

    The worst thing is that the costume is PVC. Cheap and nasty.

  • ||

    No, they're just chubby chasers and trying to make that sound legitimate.

  • Tim||

    Stand up for her all you like, Palicki isn't going to date you.

  • Beezard||

    Some girls are bigger than others.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Wonder Woman?

    In PANTS?

    Someone call the police. My childhood has been murdered.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Perfunctory.

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    Okay, granted there are still war protesters out and about... My question is this: Where is the coverage of the anti-war movement in the mainstream press (e.g. CNN, Network television etc.)?

  • ||

    The antiwar movement was far more than just authors of articles. It was people protesting. The question isn't about proving they have gone, it's about proving they are still here. I can give some credit to what MNG is listing, but it pales in comparision to the kind of activity that the movement was engaged while Bush was in office. The absence of large scale protests can not go unrecognized.

  • Neu Mejican||

    if there has been a major protest on the magnitude of thousands and thousand of protestors marching down the middle of the street in NY, DC, San Fran, etc, similar to those under Bush that wasn't covered by the MSM, I'm sure you could provide a link to some leftist blog who covered it, right?

    pales in comparision to the kind of activity that the movement was engaged while Bush was in office

    Given that this whole Libya thing has escalated from nothing in the matter of a couple of weeks and the Iraq war and even Afghanistan had a much longer incubation period, it is hardly surprising that we haven't yet seen similarly scaled organized protests against the Libya thing. It seems.

  • Sudden||

    I'll grant you that the Libya affair hasn't had sufficient time to metastasize into something more odious and therefore more protest-worthy in many people's minds. However, that fails to explain the relative disappearance of the anti war protests to Iraq and Afghanistan in spite of the continuation and escalation of those respective conflicts.

  • Neu Mejican||

    I think this has been covered, but both are nominally moving in the direction of winding down. It is harder to get large protests against that trajectory than it was against Bush's move to start these things. Also, it is harder to get people riled up against a guy who says to anti-war arguments..."Yes, I agree. That is why I am working to end them as soon as possible."

  • ||

    MNG has throughly vanquished an argument no one made.

    His next feat will be to win a boxing match against his own shadow.

  • Warty||

  • ||

    "They're writing terse blog posts and magazine articles as fast as they can!"

  • Beezard||

    To be fair, most of my lefty friends are not happy with the current situation. But it usually expresses itself in the context of cutting military to cover a federal bailout of the states or some such angle, not a full fledged realization that the current administration is as bad as any other.

    The Nation can say all it wants, but the mainstream perception of the anti-war movement, for better or worse, comes via CNN, local news, Daily show, ect. And it isn't there yet. Nor does there seem to be any serious action on college campuses and the mall, or at least anyone covering it with the same voracity as during the Bush years.

    That doesn't mean we wont see it in the next few weeks and/or months however.

  • Tony||

    not a full fledged realization that the current administration is as bad as any other.

    And this seems to be what you guys here want out of the left--admitting you're right about how Obama=Bush.

    But this is simply not true by any stretch. Is Obama perfect? Did he end all war? No, but is he likely to start a new decade-long war based on lies? No. More to the point, is he as likely as John "bomb Iran" McCain to have done so? Again, no.

    Perhaps we on the left are simply more pragmatic than those of you in the comfortable place of hating all governments equally.

    The questions being asked by this post have obvious answers, none of which is "the left is a soulless empty shell of pure partisan hackery." These are some of the longest wars in US history. Apart from it being difficult to sustain a robust protest movement for this long, the winding down of these wars is something somewhat less of a motivator than the ramping up of them.

    I for one don't see it as useful to do anything to damage Obama's reelection chances. Why? Because the Republican alternative will be all the more willing to start a reckless war, and then not pay for it.

  • ||

    If you think that Bush "lied" (which many fair minded liberals dispute) to wage war, well, then Obama either doesn't care enough to end the lie, or he believes in the lie himself.

    People make no distinction between Bush and Obama for a reason. Obama continued Bush's stimulus programs and government expansions faster than Hollywood comes up with a seqeul to a money making superhero flick. Obama's response to any kind of crisis has been either slow or muddled. Gas prices and unemployment are pretty much stuck at 08 levels when Obama was swept int office.

    Obama is pretty much a poor man's Bush. I thought he was a marginal improvement over Bush in the foreign policy department, but the libya involvement has me thinking otherwise.

  • Tony||

    Well, the stimulus was a leftist policy that Bush only took on because he had no choice (in other words, the right's cherished economic paradigm had proven a complete disaster). The left won't fault Obama on these grounds (except those of us who think it wasn't a big enough stimulus).

    I don't see how gas prices or employment are Obama's fault. If he had his way, this country would be implementing the only possible long-term strategy for high gas prices: moving toward sustainable energy. Since the recession didn't start on Obama's watch, the only blame that can be placed on him is not getting policies meant to lower unemployment. What would those be? Certainly not tax cuts for the rich, the only Republican alternative--while they block any other policy options completely.

    And if Libya=Iraq, then I can think of no clearer an example of the complete lack of perspective that accompanies this compulsive need to pretend that Bush and Obama are equal.

  • yonemoto||

    "right's cherished economic paradigm"

    What cherished economic paradigm? Most of the rightists I know are up at arms about ending the Fed.

  • Tony||

    The idea that (especially financial) regulations are always burdensome, and there can never be enough cutting or lack of enforcement of them?

  • yonemoto||

    I don't think that rightists think that "regulations are always burdensome". Anti-theft, anti-fraud regulations, eg.

  • yonemoto||

    note "rightist" != anarcho-cap

  • Tony||

    I wonder when the moment might have come when they would have advocated stopping deregulation. What was the financial crisis but a perpetration of mass fraud that was allowed to happen?

  • yonemoto||

    >What was the financial crisis but a perpetration of mass fraud that was allowed to happen?

    try the bursting bubble from an artificially inflated economy created by the the grotesque merger of the worst parts of friedman-chicago and keynesian economics?

    Deregulation was only the catalyst. Hell, I'm glad it happened sooner than later.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Fraud and theft are crimes. They don't need "regulation", there need to be laws against them, which there have been, for hundreds of years.

    Determining interest rates, how much capital a bank needs to keep in reserve, reporting people who make large deposits or withdrawals, etc., are regulations, and they are all bullshit.

  • Sudden||

    Interestingly enough the number of financial regulations in the period between 2000-2008 grew immensely as did the number of regulators at the SEC. Try the "DEREGULATION KILLED TEH ECONOMY!!!!!eleventy!!1!!!" canard on a less-informed swath of commentors.

  • yonemoto||

    ? No but there was certainly the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Now, in theory, there should not be any restriction on banks using their money for speculative investing, but the fact of the matter is that the social expectation was that a bank was, well, a bank. A place to put your money and vainly try to beat inflation with interest (mathematically impossible with institutionalized fractional reserve banking).

    Suddenly allowing banks to do so was certainly a catalyst because it allowed the system to more rapidly reveal the structural problems created by a credit binge.

  • sasob||

    A place to put your money and vainly try to beat inflation with interest (mathematically impossible with institutionalized fractional reserve banking).

    It's especially impossible when interest is subject to income tax.

  • yonemoto||

    with institutionalized frb, the money supply must increase at least at the rate of interest. True fact.

  • ||

    The idea that (especially financial) regulations are always burdensome, and there can never be enough cutting or lack of enforcement of them?

    Ever heard of Sarbanes-Oxley, Tony? And if we move toward more general regulation, McCain-Feingold and the banking part of the Patriot Act should ring a bell. All signed by Bush and passed by the GOP Congress.

  • ||

    They just weren't as covered/well attended as in the past. Is that what you are getting at? If so then that is hardly the fault of "the Left."

    Could it perhaps be the fault of a leftward-leaning mass media establishment so committed to "Presidential deference" they refuse to cover anything which does not support his Presidentialness?

  • ||

    Barack Obama rose to power on the basis of his early opposition to the Iraq war and his promise to end it. But after two years in the White House he has made both of George Bush’s wars his wars....

    "I drink your hope. I drink it up."

  • ||

    + 1,000,000

  • 1980 Redux||

    The answer to "what happened to the anti-war movement" is simple: there never was an anti-war movement, so nothing happened to it.

    There was, for a time, a significant anti-Bush movement, which largely seized on the war as a convenient meme with which to beat the president over the head. Now that the hypocritcal, God-less leftists are in charge, the anti-Bush movement is gone, and the sad little remnants you see of hippies protesting the action in Libya are all there really is or ever was of any legitimate "anti-war" faction.

  • ||

    +1000

  • zoltan||

    The leftists have their god and it is the State.

  • ||

    ur right, hippies are decades gone.

  • Pip||

    Who farted?

  • Gregory Smith||

    The antiwar movement? I didn't live it but I read about it. A bunch of smelly Marxist-loving hippies, in San Francisco they even developed diseases after giving up basic hygiene and living like savages.

    Eventually they did "grow up," shaved, and shifted their tactics. It's ironic that some of them would like to bring back the draft they escaped themselves because "there's not enough rich people in the military." Yeah, too them it's all about numbers, the military is "racist" because it has too many black soldiers and not enough black officers.

    Screw the antiwar movement, bunch of collectivists commie bastards. If they like communism so much why don't they go to Cuba, North Korea and China?

    http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

  • Beezard||

    Smash the Red Scum!

  • ||

    GREGOOOOOOOOOO

  • ||

    Yes...I like this. It really is appropriate.

  • ||

    Yet another "libertarian" who thinks that supporting endless wars all over the world can still be seen as a libertarian principle. I always say that for every left wing nut there is an equivalent right wing nut, you prove my point.

  • Gregory Smith||

    I do not support "endless wars," just one or two wars at a time.

    Besides, it's your homeboy Obama who got us into the Libyan mess.

    WHY YOU CAN'T TRUST THE UN.
    http://libertarians4freedom.bl.....tions.html

  • ||

    Screw the antiwar movement, bunch of collectivists commie bastards. If they like communism so much why don't they go to Cuba, North Korea and China?

    You left off the part about George Soros.

  • Gregory Smith||

    Good point. I wish Soros had been killed by the Nazis, frankly, what kind of "Jew" doesn't change his name back to Schwartz after the war? That's his real name, you know.

    Soros is no Anne Frank, buddy, he actually delivered deportation notices. The man is human garbage.

  • Robert||

    Because Schwartz isn't a cool palindrome.

  • Sudden||

    Rumor is he was tempted to change it back to Schwartz when informed that his name was a palindrome given his intense (and understandable) loathing of Palin.

  • barfman||

    *barf*

  • PantsFan||

    Your friend and mine, Justin Raimondo is still firmly antiwar

  • Kristen||

    A huge number of the so-called "anti-war" movement are easily distracted, self-aggrandizing opportunists.

    An acquaintence of mine moved to DC to be a professional "anti-war activist". She and her buddies (100s of them) were all gung-ho against the war until ObamaCare came along. Then they saw which way the media coverage was going, and being desperate to get their mugs on camera, shifted their attention. Guess what happened when the shit hit the fan in Wisconsin? C'mon - guess! Meanwhile, the war machine grinds on.

  • Spoonman.||

    How do you pay your bills as a professional anti-war activist? Does she have rich parents?

  • Kristen||

    Nope - she was pretty damn poor. You couch surf, you pal around with Code Pinkers (rich suburban housewives) and Cindy Sheehan, you house-sit and/or you find some kind of communal-style living arrangement.

    She also held a series of activist-related odd jobs. Like, when Sheehan was in town she acted as her assistant and got paid a couple bucks. Also, there are plenty of organizations in DC who get funding from rich stupid people who can pay nominal wages for "community organizers" and the like.

  • Cyto||

    You mean guys really do join leftist movements for the chicks?

  • zoltan||

    Correction: The chicks' husbands' money.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Nope - she was pretty damn poor. You couch surf, you pal around with Code Pinkers (rich suburban housewives) and Cindy Sheehan, you house-sit and/or you find some kind of communal-style living arrangement.

    In other words, you follow directly in Marx's mooching footsteps.

  • Belly of the Beast||

    I work in academia and I am pleased to report that the Obamtrons are walking around looking plenty angry but refusing to engage. These were the same clowns who shot off their mouths non-stop at the beginning of the Afghanistan/ Iraq wars. They feel duped and humiliated. TOLD YOU SO.

  • Kristen||

    I imagine it's kind of like leaving a cult...you feel ashamed that you ever let yourself get sucked in to begin with. You feel stupid for not seeing what was clearly a bunch of empty promises based on an emotional, not reasonable, appeal.

  • ||

    I don't know if they've reached, or are capable of reaching, the "holy shit I was an idiot for believing in this guy" phase.

    If they were capable, they wouldn't have fallen for his shit in the first place. Partisans are not very bright. If they were, they wouldn't be partisans.

  • Tony||

    Partisans are not very bright. If they were, they wouldn't be partisans.

    I was a principled independent up until about 11th grade. How could I align myself with either party, when both have done very bad things?

    Then I realized that patting myself on the back for being pure in my principles changes nothing and helps no one. Since by all evidence there are only two choices in the American political system, the surest way to actually accomplish anything other than stroking one's own ego is to join the TEAM that most represents your values, and then do what you can to make it better. Nothing is accomplished without requisite power, and only the two political parties have any meaningful policy power in this country.

    Of course, the fact that you think that it's impossible for anyone who has chosen a side to be as brilliant as you indicates that policy change doesn't matter nearly as much to you as being seen as the cleverest guy in the room. Forgive me if I don't see fluffing your own ego as the end of all policy discussions.

  • yonemoto||

    WTF?

    > "the surest way to actually accomplish anything other than stroking one's own ego is to join the TEAM that most represents your values, and then do what you can to make it better"

    No, that is pure partisanship. You should be open-minded as to switch teams. Many Libertarians, are perfectly happy to vote on one side of the aisle or another. That sort of principled compromise is not the same as "alignment".

  • yonemoto||

    sorry, that should have been a small l libertarian.

  • Tony||

    In theory you're right. Cheerleading for a party just for the sake of its own power is nothing to be proud of, and surely reasonable people can have policy desires that cross party lines.

    However, in the specific case of the US, it has come to be my belief that not only do Republicans offer no policies that reasonable people should support, they are in fact an existential threat to this country, if not the entire planet as we know it. The party has gone off an ideological cliff. They don't care about facts, and their entire existence seems to be about their own power and the power they can grant to its backers. They're so far gone that the question of stupidity versus malice is purely academic.

    I don't love Democrats so much as I hate Republicans, and believe that practically, pragmatically, realistically, the most anyone can do to effect positive change (or prevent negative change) is simply to never vote Republican. That may not leave us with palatable choices, but this is the world we live in and we have to deal with it.

  • yonemoto||

    "However, in the specific case of the US, it has come to be my belief that not only do Republicans offer no policies that reasonable people should support, they are in fact an existential threat to this country, if not the entire planet as we know it. The party has gone off an ideological cliff. They don't care about facts, and their entire existence seems to be about their own power and the power they can grant to its backers. They're so far gone that the question of stupidity versus malice is purely academic."

    and this is not true of Democrats? Earth to Tony: Democrats don't care about facts, either.

  • Tony||

    yonemoto,

    I have to disagree with you there. And this is a major, very important, instance where the parties are just not equivalent. Democrats are politicians to be sure, but there is no way they equal Republicans in anti-intellectualism.

  • yonemoto||

    Anti-intellecutalism is simply the skepticism of people who claim to be smart. There's nothing wrong with that, especially since the ivory tower is full of self-appointed brainsturbators.

    Feynman, for example, was extremely anti-intellectual, for all the right reasons:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f61KMw5zVhg

    Almost everything I see around me in science, points to the questionable factualness of anything generated by academe. and I'm in the HARD sciences.

    The real question is do democrats ignore FACTS, not whether or not they listen to "smart" people.

  • Tony||

    Welll both sides listen to experts, but Republican experts are totally partisan hacks. Sarah Palin is deemed qualified to comment on stuff! Democrats at least believe in science. You're the professional so I'm sure you know what you're talking about, but where else are we supposed to go for the best approximation of the factual other than the relevant nonpartisan experts?

  • yonemoto||

    scientists? Nonpartisan? HA.

    And I think you're just being ignorant if you're implying republicans don't believe in science. Republicans are just as interested in what I'm doing as Democrats are. Debates about evolution or whatever that are fun for the talking heads are really, in the final analysis, academic. The only "real" "scientific" divide beteween (D)s and (R)s is over global warming climate change, and that debate has gone way beyond scientific.

  • Tony||

    Well climate change of course is what I'm specifically referring to. Out of curiosity, do you call your colleagues stupid just because they disagree with you on this point?

    I'm sorry but I don't foresee a scenario in which Republicans are proved right and climate science is proved wrong. And if Republicans are wrong, the consequences of their stupidity are dire.

  • yonemoto||

    Nope. That's because when confronted with the points I make they almost unanimously say, "yeah well that's a real possibility". Even taking account the fact that I'm in a bioenergy lab and we make our dime off of fear of carbon emissions*.

    See, I currently happen to work with some actually smart scientists, which is more than I can say for most scientists I've worked with.

    *Yes, I work for a government-sponsored lab. However, it's only a "temporary" job, they pay me $20/hour for 40 out of 70 of the hours I work at lab (which is also part of the reason why I take liberties on the Reason site), and I personally draw the line at "applying for government grants". Until I'm an independent investigator, I'm not holding myself accountable for where my money comes from.

  • ||

    To be fair, though the mainstream republican party isn't down like this, there is a sizeable conservative population for whom the question of evolution is not academic, and is a front-line issue in school board mini-culture conflicts across the country. There's a museaum, an actual museum, which posits that the Earth is some 6,000 yrs old, and shows scenes of men fighting dinosaurs. Now THAT is anti-intellectualism.

  • yonemoto||

    I've been to that museum! Strangely, some of those guys are paleos and associate with the Ron Paul camp.

  • yonemoto||

    oh, wow. There are more than one. but I wouldn't call it "anti-intellectual". These guys are very much steeped in their own intellectualized dogma. Now, a truly anti-intellectual museum is the "museum of jurassic technology", because part of what they do is to mock intellectualism, but strangely, it definitely has a meta-intellecutal air about it.

  • Tony||

    Well the whole point is, these people believe Jesus had a pet dinosaur. Why would you trust them on any other issue? The only way they'd possibly be right is by accident...

  • yonemoto||

    Logic fail. Look, I believed that my last girlfriend was really into me. Clearly I was wrong. Does that mean you shouldn't trust me to instruct you how to set up a borohydride reduction?

  • Restoras||

    Do you hear yourself? Or does this gobbledeegook just fall out your head without a filter?

  • yonemoto||

    you know what's funny? Many of your arguments on these comment threads really feel like you're just doing it to stroke your ego. I'll admit that that why I'm here (that, and being bored while my PCR reactions/transformations are running).

  • Tony||

    No doubt. I don't think blog commenting does anything to change anything in the world either. I think there's evidence that all it does is entrench worldviews. But I can't help myself.

  • yonemoto||

    Well then you're just a pussy. Get out and go protest the war. Or at least give some money to someone who will.

  • ||

    Will Protest For Food Ammo

  • crossofcrimson||

    yonemoto,

    Totally off-topic here, but have you ever read Kary Mullis' autobiography (Dancing Naked in the Mind Field)? Very short read but it's pretty interesting. I read it back in high school.

    I just thought it was an odd coincidence because he was the "inventor" of PCR (so to speak). Brilliant/eccentric guy - He not only doesn't buy into a lot of the climate-change hype, he also believes that HIV is a mis-categorization of a group of different actual conditions. I don't claim to know enough about either subject to say he's even remotely right on these accounts, but he's a highly intelligent guy (Nobel Prize winner, developed probably the most useful tool for biochemistry in the last thirty years), but I kind of doubt he's one of those people that thinks Jesus "had a pet dinosaur." Therein is the problem with broad generalizations.

  • crossofcrimson||

    From his wiki:

    "Mullis has said that the never-ending quest for more grants and staying with established dogmas has hurt science.[11] He believes that "Science is being practiced by people who are dependent on being paid for what they are going to find out," not for what they actually produce.[11] Mullis has been described as an "impatient and impulsive researcher" who avoids lab work and instead thinks about research topics while driving and surfing.[19]

    In his 1998 autobiography, Mullis expressed disagreement with the scientific evidence supporting climate change and ozone depletion, that HIV causes AIDS, and asserted his belief in astrology. Mullis claims climate change and the HIV/AIDS connection are due to a conspiracy of environmentalists, government agencies and scientists attempting to preserve their careers and earn money, rather than scientific evidence."

  • Tony||

    So he believes in astrology... and does science by thinking while surfing. Yeah, definitely an authority on climate science.

  • crossofcrimson||

    Tony,

    Curiously, do you think those attributes make him any less an expert on biochemistry? Or does it preclude him from lucid thought in that arena too?

    Strangely enough, it was his thinking while surfing and also cruising around CA with his then girlfriend which prompted the thoughts that ultimately led to his development of PCR. But you're right. What an idiot this guy must be.

    I brought up this particular guy for a good reason - and you're validating it. Too many people will push aside the opinion of VERY intelligent people simply because they hold tangentially unorthodox beliefs (which may or may not have anything to do with the subject at hand). In this case you just blew off at least one Nobel Laureate (a hard-science one at that). I was trying to show, rhetorically, the folly of that line of thought - but apparently you feel the need to out yourself on this one.

  • Sudden||

    Tony, I don't think the criticism lies with recognizing the limitations of the system and voting for a candidate you think is the lesser of two evils, so long as you recognize that he is going to do bad shit and you remain consistent in your approach to his bad shit as you would if it were the other guy doing the identical same bad shit.

    The difference here is that the current POTUS came into office riding what could only be described as an unprecedented level of near idol-worship, and although much of that luster has worn off, there is still a significant enough chunk and a fair bit of cognitive dissonance where those who previously worshipped the ground he walked upon have found any rationalization/excuse to forgive him for doing things that they would rightly castigate a President McCain had he won and followed the same agenda.

  • Tony||

    I'm not sure I see it that way. I was never a true believer, of course, having loudly advocated against Obama's nomination in the first place. Yet by all appearances, Obama has been remarkably consistent with delivering on his campaign promises. Yes, a lot of liberals weren't listening. (One of the reasons I was against him was because he was the less liberal of the potential candidates.) They did seem to project a lot onto Obama. And now, from my perspective, liberals tend to be royally pissed that he's not the progressive firebrand they imagined him to be. Go to a liberal blog and I doubt you'll find much Obama worship going on anymore.

  • Sudden||

    Admittedly, there are exceptions to any rule. And I don't actually think you're a Obamatron in the unthinking way that some are. I generally view you as a principled progressive, probably would be Green if you felt they had any electoral prospects. And I can respect that. I do think you are a bit too willing to forgive some of Obama's policies that you wouldn't ordinarily agree with if a TEAM RED guy did them (this Libya thing being one, and I think you'd be more upset if Romney imposed Obamacare, although I realize you're still a bit peeved he didn't go full single-payer). And yes, a lot of true liberals have been disappointed with a number of his policies, likewise there were many true conservatives that were upset with Bush's policies, but there is generally still an almost instinctual reflex to defend TEAM RED/BLUE when confronted with opposition from TEAM BLUE/RED even where a person may actually agree with the opposition more than the man they're defending.

    Also, although many liberals are disillusioned with some aspects of Obama governance, there are still a fair number of less sophisticated types who will defend all manner of things they wouldn't accept from the TEAM RED guy, and even embrace those policies without catching that irony. I have met a fair number of those.

  • Tony||

    I've not declared support of bombing Libya, and if a Republican implemented Obamacare I'd take back all my digs about how they believe in Jesus riding on a dinosaur--in Romney's case, uh, equally weird stuff.

    But you're surely right. Such behavior happens when you root for a team. It may be hypocrisy, but if you feel that warts and all your team is necessary if only so that the other, much worse, team doesn't have power, a little hypocritical cheerleading might seem useful.

  • yonemoto||

    Funny you should mention Romney, since he did implement Obamacare.

  • Tony||

    But that was before the freedom-killing death panels and evil 1,000 pages of Satan were fully understood.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Then I realized that patting myself on the back for being pure in my principles changes nothing and helps no one.


    So you became a whore.

    Congratz.

  • zoltan||

    Don't diss whores like that. Most are honest workers.

  • ||

    Then I realized that patting myself on the back for being pure in my principles changes nothing and helps no one. Since by all evidence there are only two choices in the American political system, the surest way to actually accomplish anything other than stroking one's own ego is to join the TEAM that most represents your values, and then do what you can to make it better.

    And how is that team working out for you, Tony? What's been accomplished, changed, or made to help people by TEAM BLEW?

  • Tony||

    Most importantly, Republicans don't control the entire government, so their damage is, for the time being, halted.

    A lot of the Dems' big policy achievements are steps in the right direction from my point of view. Possibly more consequential are the things that go unnoticed--actual enforcement of regulations, for example.

  • Restoras||

    Phew! If we had more Democrats in Congress they might actually address our fiscal/debt issue, right? RIGHT??

    Oh, sorry, forgot who I was talking to. We don't HAVE a fiscal/debt problem, do we Tony?

  • Tony||

    Not one that will be solved by any of the ideas coming from Republicans.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Most importantly, Republicans don't control the entire government, so their damage is, for the time being, halted.


    ... balanced by the damage generated by Obama and his spendrift minions.

    A lot of the Dems' big policy achievements are steps in the right direction from my point of view.


    Which ain't sayin' much.

    Possibly more consequential are the things that go unnoticed--actual enforcement of regulations, for example.


    Sure. Like when, for instance, the Obama government imposed a moratorium on offshore drilling, just to have it overturned by a judge the government decided not to listen to. So the government will go great lengths to enforce regulations which would include contempt of court.

  • Kristen||

    The lack of reading comprehension among some of you people is astounding.

    The article isn't about whther or not there are still individuals in teh U.S. who are anti-war (because clearly there are); it's about what happened to those 1000s and 1000s of oh-so-committed activists who took to the streets in the early 00's. As a whole, as a group - where are they?

    See my post above.

  • ||

    Pretending to misunderstand takes considerable skill.

  • Hillary Clinton||

    That's why I'll be bailing.

  • ||

    they disappeared just like the iraqi nukes

  • Gus||

    You just made my dog vomit.

  • ||

    And yer caps key?

  • ||

    Hey, I'll not stand idly by and allow you to cast aspergers on our old friend gaius marius.

  • ||

    Guess what happened when the shit hit the fan in Wisconsin? C'mon - guess! Meanwhile, the war machine grinds on.

    You should tell her the Army is not unionized.

    Papier mache heads for everybody! I'll be Daddy Warbucks.

  • ||

    gotta love it ... but how could ANYONE expect this President to be what he claimed.
    The last President who I think tried to do what he claimed was assassinated - Kennedy.

    People are nuts - they can ONLY vote against anything ...
    Look at the little Bush - a FISCAL LIBERAL

    ... and what happened? the Lib's went farther left just to be AGAINST him!

    They WILL NEVER BE SATISFIED!
    Until they make Russia the symbol of FREEDOM!

  • Beezard||

    "They're sendin' Russia food now, sendin' Russia grain,
    I hope it ain't your land,
    When Russia invades again.

    And They Will! Cuz Ima- Soldier of Freedom!"

  • Beezard||

    Life was so much easier when we had the commies..

  • General "Buck" Turgidson ||

    ..and the "Fulda Gap" gap.

  • ||

    who's "they"?

  • T||

    We have met the enemy, and they is us.

  • Ventifact||

    After all, Barack Obama rose to power on the basis of his early opposition to the Iraq war and his promise to end it. But after two years in the White House he has made both of George Bush’s wars his wars

    But, isn't this oversimplification to the point of distortion? The Iraq War has been scaled down. Haven't the number of troops, the range of missions, and the casualty rates in Iraq all diminished under Obama? Even if these trends just reflected the "natural" progression of U.S. activity in Iraq, it's not clear to me how Obama has made Iraq "his war". Sure, he came to office with the war ongoing, but he has declined to escalate it and he has chosen specifically to shift resources away from it, toward Afghanistan. And regarding Afghanistan, Obama didn't campaign as an anti-war candidate at all.

    Moreover, I'm still not sure exactly how much of an anti-war candidate Obama ever was. He gave a speech against starting the Iraq War, which was not part of his presidential campaign. During the presidential campaign, that speech was used to illustrate Obama's political principle and prescience, but by the time of the presidential campaign the anti-war stance of the speech itself was moot and was not actively elaborated on by Obama. To have done so would have been nonsensical.

    I also think it's debatable whether Obama's (broken) campaign promise about Guantanamo are an anti-war/pro-war issue. Seems more like a human rights issue with implications for international relations and the feasibility of unconventional military operations. Regarding the latter implications, maybe Obama has learned the lesson of Guantanamo: we have no ground forces in Libya and thus will not have any detainees to sort out. (More likely, the real reason we have no ground forces in Libya is a larger family of issues related to feasibility, prior commitments, and a degree of non-interventionism.)

  • Gus||

    I have never seen anyone suck that much cock!

  • Tateroo||

    Amazing! No gagging, no coming up for air! ... Hey, it's got to be a trick.

  • Ventifact||

    Are you calling me a troll? Haven't you heard of circular breathing? Don't worry, I can teach you. Your mom learned quickly enough. In short, I assure you I really am sucking as hard as it looks.

    In other news, the complaint that Obama "has made both of George Bush’s wars his wars" is a rhetorical jab that's hard to substantiate. One of the wars he wanted all along. The other he has de-escalated.

  • Sudden||

    You make some fair points, however it should still be noted and emphasized that he did in fact state he would withdraw from Iraq in 2009 once sworn in and he made that statement a campaign pledge. Since then, he has followed what was more or less the blueprint that was left him by the previous administration for the de-escalation of Iraq (although interestingly enough, there are still a number of issues to be resolved in Iraq and its hardly evolved since late 2007, but the media has completely ignored the happenings there in large part).

    You are partially correct concerning the Afghan situation, Obama said all along that he was for winning that occupation. But I think a lot of people might have wrongly percieved that as just his way of not looking weak on foreign policy since he was such a vocal critic of Iraq. Moreover, I think his insistence on a compelling victory in Afghanistan does much to throw his judgement on military policy into question. The implicit goals of both Afghanistan and Iraq based on our policies in both places has been nation-building, essentially the construction of modern, Western-friendly governments that will supress the jihadist impulses and sell us much needed oil. Well, for all his faults and idiocies, GWB picked a far better country for pursuit of such a policy in Iraq, which was an advanced society with sufficient civil institutions, a relatively educated populace, and a less tribal and fractured society. Meanwhile, Afghanistan has got to be among the worst places in the world to attempt nation building. This raises serious questions about the wisdom of Obama making this his conflict of choice.

  • Ventifact||

    Interesting points on the wisdom of pro-war Afghanistan. And, indeed it is conspicuous that Obama had the rare opportunity of appealing politically to pro-war and anti-war voters at the same time. All this might count against Obama ... but, contrary to certain interpretations, I'm not so interested in promoting Obama as pointing out that the original claim about the relationship between the anti-war movement and Obama is not compelling.

  • sasob||

    The implicit goals of both Afghanistan and Iraq based on our policies in both places has been nation-building, essentially the construction of modern, Western-friendly governments that will supress the jihadist impulses and sell us much needed oil.

    Afghanistan has oil?

  • A Serious Man||

    The problem I have with the anti-war movement is that there is often a complete lack of sincerity among them. Most view and project their struggle as being driven by some moral imperative where killing is unacceptable no matter what.

    But in reality they simply feel that killing is only acceptable for certain ends. When that is your position you lose the designation of having the moral high ground since what is an appropriate end (some people legitmiately think we shouldn't let Islamofascist run Afghanistan) is subjective.

  • ||

    DOUBLE STANDARD

    I don't think there would have been much of an "anti-war" movement during the Bush years if Bush's war consisted of firing cruise missiles and conducting airstrikes on Saddam while the Kurd and Shia masses took the whole ground war onto themselves.

    The fact that Obama is catching so much grief for conducting what is, essentially, a Nintendo War on Qaddaffi with zero boots on the ground and zero American casualties in prospect shows that Dems are held to a different and higher standard by people across the political spectrum.

    The same kind of thing happened in the Balkans, where Bill Clinton used air power to roll up Milosovic even while his GOP enemies and his Leftist critics joined forces to try to sabotage the effort.

    It's impossible to imagine a Democrat getting away with what Bush did in Iraq. And it's impossible to imagine a Republican getting so much grief for doing what Obama is doing in Libya, or what Clinton did in the Balkans.

  • ||

    +1

  • ||

    Welcome to the adults' table Danny. Open up your mouth wide so you can catch all of Dear Leader's gift.

  • ||

    uh ... your mom?

  • ||

    Why are you being so mean Danny, don't you want to be an adult?

  • ||

    I am reconciled to being a perpetual adolescent.

  • Beezard||

    The fact that Obama is catching so much grief for conducting what is, essentially, a Nintendo War on Qaddaffi with zero boots on the ground and zero American casualties in prospect shows that Dems are held to a different and higher standard by people across the political spectrum.

    or that they're ideologically pussified hypocrite bullies who'd rather claim it isn't really a war when they accidentally bomb refugee trains...

  • ||

    Let's see where things go before we pat Obama on the head for conducting a Nintendo war with no risk to Americans at all, no boots on the ground, over in a few weeks, everyone home by Memorial Day, etc. etc.

    Let's say Qaddafi holds on. Somebody is going to need to make the no-fly zone stick. Guess who that will be?

    Let's say Qaddafi gets kicked out. Somebody's going to need to keep a lid on and organize elections, etc. Guess who that will be?

  • Esteban||

    Yup, twelve years of no fly zones in Iraq provided by the US eventually led to a war. I can easily see something similar happening in Libya.

  • ||

    "Let's see where things go before we [dot dot dot]"

    I couldn't agree more, RC. I could agree more.

  • Attila the Huh||

    Huh?

  • ||

    Yeah, I meant to say "couldn't" twice.

  • Beezard||

    His Virgin Guard of course.

  • ||

    Shorter Danny:

    "Leave Obama alone! Leave him alone, I'm serious!!!"

    Can we call you Danny Crocker?

  • ||

    Yeah, if "shorter" means "willfully paraphrasing in a way that ignores the substantive argument", I guess that's right.

  • ||

    You have no argument, you partisan moron.

  • ||

    I think I do. So do the people who disagreed with me in substance. You reject me, you reject them.

    If you just want to "flame" and not argue, then why don't you go flame somewhere that people are not trying to disagree in substance, Epi? Your "moron" entries just clutter the thread to the detriment of people who are discussing both sides of the argument.

  • ||

    Concern troll is concerned about cluttering the thread. Fucking. Priceless.

    How about you not "clutter the thread" with your partisan stupidity?

  • ||

    You are trying really hard to be even worse than sevo, but I think he has too much of a head start.

  • Tony||

    Epi thinks it's the height of wisdom to hate everyone and everything equally. That this relieves him of the burden of nuance is just a bonus. I also get the impression that he wants us all to pat him on the back for his efforts.

  • ||

    er ... your granny?

  • ||

    Darn it! Misplaced on the thread. Damn you, Epi.

  • ||

    And here comes the sockpuppet to "clutter" the thread with the concern troll. It really is priceless.

  • ||

    Epi likes the word "priceless." He learned it from the MasterCard ads on TV.

  • Esteban||

    You're right, Bush got congressional approval for what he did. Obama doesn't even seem to believe what he said as a candidate.

    What was the opposition to the Iraq War based on? That Iraq wasn't a threat, that we were meddling in a foreign nation's business. Hell, even Hillary Clinton said as late as 2007 that we shouldn't be mediating the civil war in Iraq. So what about Libya makes it the 'right' war compared to Iraq? I mean, what's the the exit strategy for Libya, what are the objectives? Consistency in criticizing the two wars would be nice.

  • Esteban||

    Oh and another mainstream criticism of Iraq was "No Blood for Oil". Coincidentally, Libya has some nice reserves of oil too. Democrats will be sure to use that conspiracy theory too, right?

  • ||

    "What was the opposition to the Iraq War based on?"

    That it could turn into bloody quagmire that would result in thousands upon thousands of U.S. military casualties before the fighting was over (which is exactly what happened).

  • Esteban||

    Of course that was ONE of the reasons, but it certainly wasn't the most popular slogan being thrown around.

  • ||

    Initial opposition to the 2003 Iraq war was vocal but quite small. The war opposition did not gain its major impetus until the quagmire dimension of the conflict became clear.

    In other words, smug tropes like "what about this other country?" and "no blood for oil!" never commanded a large segment of public opinion. The thing that shifted the discourse was the mounting loss of American blood and treasure.

    If your argument is with MoveOn dot Org and their ilk, fine. You won't find many of them on this message board anytime soon. If your argument is with the people who are actually conducting or supporting current policy, then you have to confront the decisive importance of the radically different casualty risks these two very different conflicts present.

  • ||

    Remember to swirl your tongue when you suck that much cock, Danny.

  • ||

    (advice from an expert)

  • ||

    I am indeed an expert on receiving blowjobs from women like you.

  • ||

    My friend, if you've been on the receiving end of bj's from "women like me," then you know all there is to know about the crying game.

  • ||

    So you're admitting that you dress up as a woman and peform oral sex on other men?

    NTTAWWT, but this is hardly the time or place to discuss your strange sexual proclivities.

  • ||

    You are most correct, sir.

    Can I offer you more of my effete stylistic literary musings? It would be no bother for me, and I assure you that you would enjoy the experience most indubitably so.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Danny,

    I don't think there would have been much of an "anti-war" movement during the Bush years if Bush's war consisted of firing cruise missiles and conducting airstrikes on Saddam while the Kurd and Shia masses took the whole ground war onto themselves.


    Do you mean that the anti-war movement is only concerned with war when the U.S. kills people with other people but not when the U.S. kills people with what amounts to Vergeltungswaffe 1's?

    I guess you believe the anti-war movement has no qualms about sendig robots to die for America. What do you (or they) have against our automated brethren???

  • Kennedy/Johnson, et al||

    "It's impossible to imagine a Democrat getting away with what Bush did in Iraq. And it's impossible to imagine a Republican getting so much grief for doing what Obama is doing in Libya, or what Clinton did in the Balkans."

    Hi!

  • ||

    The Iraq War has been scaled down. Haven't the number of troops, the range of missions, and the casualty rates in Iraq all diminished under Obama? Even if these trends just reflected the "natural" progression of U.S. activity in Iraq, it's not clear to me how Obama has made Iraq "his war".

    He only hits you because he loves you, dude. Seriously.

  • Ventifact||

    Well, OK, let's suppose for sake of discussion I am suffering domestic abuse from the president.

    ...Now that that's on the table, what about whether Obama has made Iraq "his war"? He has overseen a phased withdrawal which is far from perfect, far from prompt, and far from complete ... but far more than what McCain would have delivered. Or am I totally wrong about this?

  • Shorter Ventifact||

    Wars created or saved...

  • Ventifact||

    I don't accept Obama's claims about jobs "created or saved".

  • ||

    Obama has stuck, more or less, to the Bush plan for withdrawal. He may have slowed it down a little, I can't be sure.

    I'm not sure why McCain would have done anything different, to tell you the truth.

  • Ventifact||

    I'm not sure why McCain would have done anything different, to tell you the truth.

    I'm not sure either. Certainly McCain also planned on a phased withdrawal at some point as well. His commitment to withdrawal was, however, more open-ended. Maybe that's a moot point, since Obama has fudged his own withdrawal timeline. But I think it's considerably harder to imagine McCain's withdrawal being more comprehensive or prompt than Obama's, whereas it's not hard to imagine McCain's withdrawal being more limited or sluggish than Obama's.

    So, if the question is 'was a vote for Obama wasted effort if you wanted de-escalation in Iraq' then I think the answer comes as a matter of degree, but is nonetheless 'no'.

  • ||

    Iraq is totally non-controversial now. Team Red and Blue pretty much on the same page. I think that's your answer to what McCain would do. If he's not flapping his jaw complaining from the Senate, then he wouldn't likely be doing anything dramatically different than what O is doing.

  • ||

    But, isn't this oversimplification to the point of distortion?

    No.

    http://www.google.com/search?s.....797005b049

  • Ventifact||

    Obama promised a phased withdrawal, and he has implemented a phased withdrawal. He fudged the timeline, and has probably fudged on the distinction of "combat brigades".

    I watch the videos, and I see Obama promising saying the Bush's Iraq War was a bad idea -- he gets a hearty applause. He promises to end the war -- he gets a huge applause. He goes on to say he will be sensible about the withdrawal and be careful not to (further) destabilize the region -- he gets a few scattered claps. It seems like Obama articulated a more nuanced stance than many people were responding to.

    Sean puts it well. If there was a switch to flip, that would be one thing. But I still don't see that Obama promised to flip that switch, much less do I see such a switch exists.

    By the way, what does phrase "made [it] his war" even mean? It seems like a phrase that is vague enough to be non-falsifiable but suggestive enough to score points against Obama. I am not happy that Obama is keeping Guantanamo open. I am not happy that Obama has let much of the Patriot Act stand. But regarding Iraq, it nonetheless seems to me that Obama promised a phased withdrawal, and he has delivered a phased withdrawal.

  • Barack Obama||

    I'M GONNA CUM!!!!!!!

  • ||

    Pssst, Afghanistan.

    Inconvenient, I know.

  • Ventifact||

    So inconvenient I made a point of mentioning it:

    Even if these trends just reflected the "natural" progression of U.S. activity in Iraq, it's not clear to me how Obama has made Iraq "his war". Sure, he came to office with the war ongoing, but he has declined to escalate it and he has chosen specifically to shift resources away from it, toward Afghanistan. And regarding Afghanistan, Obama didn't campaign as an anti-war candidate at all.

    I.e., to say Obama has gone back on anti-war promises regarding Afghanistan makes no sense: he was pro-war on Afghanistan from the beginning. Even in his eventually-famous 2002 "anti-war" speech, Obama was clear that he opposed deposing Saddam -- he didn't oppose war in a general sense:

    Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.
    [...]
    Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda [...]

    Now, I do think it's true that Obama has never felt the need to correct the mistaken impression of some on the left that he was fundamentally anti-war. But he was pretty clearly not anti-war. I mean, how many Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speeches have been pro-war?

    ...That speech was, by the way, pro-war regarding Afghanistan. Inconvenient indeed.

  • Ventifact||

    I must correct myself for saying this:

    Now, I do think it's true that Obama has never felt the need to correct the mistaken impression of some on the left that he was fundamentally anti-war

    ...when I also note that Obama said this:

    Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

    Revision: I do think it's true that the fatuously anti-war voters on the left were immune to certain clear statements that would have crushed the hopes of a rational, undeluded person. They persisted in believing Obama to be generally anti-war even after he informed them he wasn't ... and Obama was happy enough to have their votes, if not their comprehension.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Ventifact,

    They persisted in believing Obama to be generally anti-war even after he informed them he wasn't ... and Obama was happy enough to have their votes, if not their comprehension.


    This is inevitable. It's the star-dazzle effect: you wish for your fave stars to be more than mere mortals, even if they happen to be more flawed than you.

    As a matter of fact, politicians are MORE flawed than one; otherwise, they would be doing something else besides whoring.

  • Sudden||

    As I stated in my response to you upthread, his candor in claiming Afghanistan as the good fight when it features essentially the same objective as Iraq albeit in a far more difficult and less useful area of the globe calls into question his judgement on military matters.

  • ||

    All things to all people is a great theme for a political campaign. I don't blame Obama for selling this, nor the people, for the most part, for buying it. I blame the media for putting on the pom poms instead of grabbing the magnifying glass. If Compassionate Conservatism was silly, and it was, Change You Can Believe In was simply vacuous.

  • ||

    gee candidates never say things for political reasons like lil w saying the military was NOT for nation-building.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: OO,

    gee candidates never say things for political reasons


    And that makes everything all right! Why bother with teensy-weensy details?? Fiddle-dee-dee!

  • ||

    He also made a speech on the night he clinched the nomination about "this is the moment when we ended a war" and made multiple references to ending the war in 2009 in the debates.

  • ||

    To be fair, Presidenting is a lot easier when you're doing it from the outside looking in. And with a giddy media blowing smoke under his dress, Obama probably thought he could do pretty much anything. On election day Obama was Icarus, wings bared for a run at the sun.

  • ||

    On election day Obama was Icarus, wings bared for a run at the sun.

    Yeah, that's what he did.

  • goatse for the masses||

    he gets a few scattered claps. It seems like Obama articulated a more nuanced stance than many people were responding to.

    Little Abdul: Your honor, that man is the man who killed my mother and my father!

    Judge: Let the record show that this little war orphan pointed to Mr. Nuance D'Neolibtard.

  • ||

    Obama was supposed to come into office, flip a switch labeled "WAR" to the off position, and immediately everything wrong with the US would be right.


    You mean he never flipped the switch?

  • ||

    He encased the switch in an unbreakable polymer.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    This thread has caused me to downgrade MNG from good-joe (except when he's replying to John) to crap-joe.

  • ||

    Amusing to see International ANSWER, an unabashedly Stalinist organization, described as "left-leaning".

  • Muammar al-Gaddafi||

    Down Down Down
    Down your planes go.
    Where this will stop,
    Nobody knows.

  • ||

    where do u think this stops gaddafi?

  • PantsFan||

    Michael Moore is back!
    Moore rages: "We have neither the troops, stomach, or $$ (dollars) to fight a ground war for months/years to defeat (Moammar Gadhafi)... May I suggest a 50-mile evacuation zone around Obama's Nobel Peace Prize?"
    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Wo.....story.html

  • Matt Perry's 2nd Chin||

    if you want to take a deep dark look into the abyss, gaze into Michael Moore's Twitter feed

    http://twitter.com/#!/MMFlint

  • Gregory Smith||

    Oh, we certainly have the stomach. Moore's belly is bigger than the Titanic and unlike that beautiful boat, he's yet to find his iceberg.

    http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

  • Kennedy/Johnson, et al||

    I think michael moore isn't half bad. His main flaws are:

    1) Seriously unapologetically distorting the truth (the least he could do is say he's sorry)

    2) Thinking the gov't is somehow more sinless than the private sector

    3)

  • dcdorset@gmail.com||

    Wait, wait, wait. Isn't this the same Michael Moore who wedged his fat ass into the pro-union rallies in Wisconsin to state that we are not, in fact, out of money?

  • Kennedy/Johnson, et al||

    hypocrisy was my third comment.

  • Kennedy/Johnson, et al||

    fuck these threaded comments.

  • Holy Cow||

    Helloooooo! Is this on? What about movies and TV and even pro sports on TV?

    Every movie, TV show, infomercial made by anyone to the right of Hegel had at least one barb directly against Iraq/Bush/Cheney/anyone who ever stepped foot in Texas.

    Before his suicide, Hunter S. Thompson even had a regular blog on ESPN.com.

    I remember 'chick' stores like Aaahs! and other gift-y type places had entire Anti-Bush/war sections. Now? Nothing. Nothing. I've seen one and only Anti-O! shirt/magnet/gewgaw. This is so nasty. Ready? Here comes: (picture of an angry Obama giving a speech). Caption: "Don't Worry. I've got this shit under control." Mmmm, that's some serious satire there.

    But, gosh, yes, let's stroke our chins and debate Libya, on the merits.

    Gen. Shinseki has nothing to say about this war plan? Gosh, he was sure opioniated 8 years ago.

    I mean, we could just scream No Blood for Oil, but then again, chills go up the legs, don't they?

    So which grieving mom will put a face to US soldiers dying in Libya?

  • Rock Action ||

    It was a cottage industry, the anti-Bush/Cheney thing. Made people some good bucks for part-time work. Hell, at one point, people even thought Wanda Sykes was funny.

    I'd venture they could have given "war profiteer" a whole new sub-category.

  • Tony||

    When the first US soldier dies in Libya, you will have 1/4439th of a point.

  • ||

    But killing lots of Libyans is okay.

  • Old Mexican||

    It's ok because Obama is doing it.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    He can't be racist, he's brown too!

  • Tony||

    Well, Libyans are poor, brown and "icky". Their lives aren't worth much.

  • Amateur Sociologist||

    I gave up on "The Sports Reporters" for exactly this-they constantly felt the need to inject their political opinions into the show.

    There are lots of political talks shows on on Sunday morning and I could watch any one of them to hear dumbasses argue politics-I watched ESPN to get away from all that and the idiot jock wannbes couldn't leave well enough alone. Moronic typing monkeys couldn't allow us a single shelter from their babbling. DAMN AND BLAST!!!

  • ||

    Boaz: Huh. I don't see an anti-war movement, even though we have the same wars, plus a brand new one, that Bush had.

    MNG: The anti-war activists are still bitching!

    HnR: Activists aren't a movement.

    MNG: But, activists!

  • Old Mexican||

    Some wars are better than others!

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo.....82852.html

    According to the left-wing Mother Jones, in a column just as Orwellian as anything Bill Kristol has ever written, Obama is awesome because his rationale for killing is so much different from Bush's: "The United States will join in a multilateral fight for democracy and humanitarian aims when it is in the nation's interest and when the locals are involved and desire US participation. In short, the Anti-Bush Doctrine."
  • Rock Action ||

    You knew that the partisan hacks were going to come out of the woodwork and yell "Distinction! Not the same! Line-drawing to be done here!" It's pathetic.

    Team!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Then I realized that patting myself on the back for being pure in my principles changes nothing and helps no one.


    And so you became a whore.

    Congratz.

  • Tony||

    Alas, I'm not paid for my efforts, though I do wonder what a libertarian would find ignoble about being a whore. Payment for service, right?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Alas, I'm not paid for my efforts


    Whoring your principles should be reward enough.

    [...]though I do wonder what a libertarian would find ignoble about being a whore.


    Whores that sell sex are principled - they're selling what's theirs, not what does not belong to them.

  • Tony||

    You know what doesn't belong to you? Dollars under the control of Congress and the US Treasury. You are a no-good thiever.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    You know what doesn't belong to you? Dollars under the control of Congress and the US Treasury. You are a no-good thiever.


    Up is down.

  • yonemoto||

    Dollars under the control of Congress and the US Treasury.

    If only.

  • ||

    And Tony yet again confuses approval with opposition to coercion. Easy for a statist to do, I know.

  • Tony||

    For Christ's sake, if you can't come to a libertarian blog to find approval for prostitution, where do you go?

    Besides, if you're going to do things like morally disapprove of people's private choices, then you're admitting that you've got your moral priorities completely out of whack, since there are in fact worse things out there than coercion--some things that might even require coercion to prevent.

  • ||

    I, for one, can't provide the approval you seek. Who you want to bare your buttocks to is of no concern to me.

  • ||

    And what non-coercive action is supposed to be worse than coercion?

    I mean, I guess you could say suicide is worse than being prevented from buying alcohol before noon on Sundays. But allowing people to kill themselves (an action I disapprove of) is the price I pay for being able to do the myriad things in my life that others disapprove of.

  • Tony||

    Natural disasters...

  • Tncm||

    "Alas, I'm not paid for my efforts..."

    I hear that the DailyKOS is hiring.

  • sevo||

    Tncm|3.21.11 @ 6:06PM|#
    "Alas, I'm not paid for my efforts..."
    I hear that the DailyKOS is hiring."

    Hey, hey! Kos has standards!

  • Nobel WarPig Obama||

    Saint Tony, thanks for your blind, unquestioning loyalty. And you ask nothing in return. What an example to the rest of the country.

  • ||

    "The United States will join in a multilateral fight for democracy and humanitarian aims

    Sounds just like Iraq, so far.

    when it is in the nation's interest

    I think the Iraq war had a stronger case as far as our national interests go.

    and when the locals are involved and desire US participation.

    Kurds, anyone?

    In short, the Anti-Bush Doctrine.

  • ||

    Whoa whoa whoa. Let's not use this as an excuse to rehabilitate the Iraq War.

  • ||

    You know, for once I agree with Joe Biden. We should've partitioned Iraq.

  • ||

    Damn straight. Though you know if he got what he wanted in that matter, he would have been emboldened to demand that we build a high speed rail line from Basra to Kirkuk.

    Iraq the Model, indeed.

  • ||

    Though of course that move would have pissed off our allies in Turkey and our "allies" in Saudi, who probably don't want a pure Kurdish and pure Shi'ite nation, respectively, sitting on their borders.

  • Armchair Protester||

    It's tough here in the trenches. Reading the blogs all day long is tough on the eyes, and I get so angry when people say stupid things that I'm beginning to drink too much. And I'm gaining weight. But it's not about me. It's all about the cause. No matter how hard things get, it's all about the cause.

  • Holy Cow||

    Dear Tony:

    Monica Lewinsky has nothing on you when it comes to servicing the CiC.

    Anyway, wipe your chin and have a nice read. Why, this is document is nearly 15 years old! W-w-wait a minute, my Bushhateometer isn't getting a reading:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/......4655.ENR:

    This is one of my faves right here:
    SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ UPON REPLACEMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME.

    "It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime."

  • ||

    That document represents a "sense of Congress", not a binding law. And it was a GOP Congress, by the way.

  • Skip||

    Only someone with an IQ above 20 could have predicted the anti-war morons would go away with a Democratic President.

  • Matt Perry's 2nd Chin||

    Note the verbiage: Leftists aren't blaming this on the President, they're blaming it on the Pentagon

  • Matt Perry's 2nd Chin||

    Note the verbiage: Leftists aren't blaming this on the President, they're blaming it on the Pentagon

  • Matt Perry's 2nd Chin||

    Note the verbiage: Leftists aren't blaming this on the President, they're blaming it on the Pentagon

  • Matt Perry's 2nd Chin||

    I pulled off the triple post.

  • Tony||

    Really? It's my understanding that Gates and command could scarcely contain their eye-rolls as they tried to defend this.

  • ||

    RON PAUL !!!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement