Maybe anti-war demonstrators are unemployed, back home & getting on their parents' health insurance policies. Or, maybe they've all decided to watch President Obama talk "hip hop" on MTV rather than care anymore about premeditated wars without Congress or international coalitions. Or, maybe they don't want to be reminded of that "global test" that then Senator Kerry spoke about in the 2004 campaign? Or, maybe they don't want to hear that we are starting wars that we can't afford? Or, maybe they just can't believe that the man who told them what they wanted to hear in 2007-08 would start a war in Lybia.
We do know that the anti-war left is mute and out of business now that "hope and change" is the one starting wars.
The silence or indifference is that Obama is a liberal Democrat, as Keith Wagstaff points out:
PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter. If you like our posts, drop a dime here. We do know that the anti-war left is mute and out of business now that "hope and change" is the one starting wars.
The silence or indifference is that Obama is a liberal Democrat, as Keith Wagstaff points out:
"Part of the reason, the study says, is that Democratic politicians in the Bush era found it politically useful to co-opt the anti-war movement for votes. That all changed after Obama was elected: Ultimately, the study suggests, the anti-war rallies of 2003 weren't just about Iraq -- they were also a way to register disapproval with the Bush administration. Now, even with most Americans wary of military intervention in Syria, the Democrats who marched a decade ago are mostly staying home."
The left has been exposed. It was always about Bush and not war.