Where's the liberal protesters against the war?

During the Bush years, you saw liberal protesters about the war everywhere. They were disrupting congressional hearings and marching in the streets.

We are about to send more troops to Afghanistan and there's wars still going on.

Was that selective outrage?

Did that have to do with the letters R & D?

Did the protesters really care about the war? Did the protesters really care abouty the soldiers? Or:

Did the protesters really care about politics and feeding their ideology at the expense of the troops?

Sad.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Matrix Rising]

This is a really good question.

Amazing, people were all up in arms about Bush starting all these wars.....

But when Obama does it, he is treated like God's gift to America.

The campaign promises? I guess Obama forgot all about those.

Originally posted by LeeannaHolland
This is a really good question.

Amazing, people were all up in arms about Bush starting all these wars.....

But when Obama does it, he is treated like God's gift to America.

The campaign promises? I guess Obama forgot all about those.

Exactly,

You had people lying in the streets with red paint as blood on their shirts crying about the troops.

I guess all of those people decided to quit protesting because the troops came home....OOPS, they didn't and now their talking about sending more troops.

Fake outrage and they could care less about the troops or the war. It was about politics.

This is proof, that brain-washing DOES work.

I know Cindy Shehan is still out there protesting. She was protesting Obama when he was on vacation in Mass. But I dont see any other coverage on that. Its almost as if the msm is now creating stories to support the Afghan troop surge. You hear talking heads saying "we cant leave now, we need to finish".

Back in 02, we (the liberals) weren't protesting the war in Afghanistan, we were protesting the coming war in Iraq. I was one of those protesters and after noticing that we weren't getting our message across most of us decided to give up. No use peacefully protesting when those in power were determined to attack Iraq even though it wasn't warranted.

on a second note, regardless of what happened or didn't happen on 9/11, we were fooled into going to afghanistan because we had to strike back in blind hate, retribution, ire. And there's still a massive majority of people that don't question the official 9/11 so people think this is a necessary war. No need to protest when you think there's nothing wrong because you're defending yourself.

And it wasn't just because it was a Bush policy, it was because we knew he and his administration were lying. We were smart enough (unlike the majority who believed the whole mushroom cloud on the horizon crap) to know that there wasn't an Al Qaeda/Saddam Hussein connection, something that was used as a justification for war. We knew that Iraq didn't have WMD's yet most people thought they did. No need to start bashing liberals, specially when you can't tell the difference between the Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan.

In the Whitehouse

Seriously, I have been curious about that myself. But not just the liberals. Anti-war protesters in general.

Liberals aren't the only ones anti-war.

.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Define liberal?

RATM is against the war.

I'm against the war and I've been called a liberal.

Can we do another post about where was the conservative outrage over the Patriot Act when they can mass 2 million to hit DC over "Obamas" spending?

I'll tell you where they were. Home calling liberals unpatriotic.

This country is too partisan. People should have been thermonuclear mad for the last forty years. We haven't had a halfway decent President since...

Okay, I can't think who. We've had crap presidents and congress persons and if we weren't pitted against each other in partisan bickering we could see that.

Some people seem to think the war protests were really nothing more than a ploy to gain democratic control and since that goal has been accomplished, there is no need for them anymore.

ABC's Gibson on Cindy Sheehan's War Protest: 'Enough Already'

I think maybe there is enough fighting going on HERE to worry about. It's hard to get worked up about the same old wars we've been fighting for decades when you have to wonder if you're going to have a job tomorrow, or food to eat.

reply to post by KSPigpen


I wonder if Gibson would follow his own advice if it had been one of his child that died in the war.

My bet is that he wouldn't.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
During the Bush years, you saw liberal protesters about the war everywhere.

Yes, during the time to which the government set no withdrawal plan for the Iraq war.

We are about to send more troops to Afghanistan

The liberals who were protesting at the time were doing so opposing the Iraq war. While some opposed the war in afghanistan the consensus among liberals over the last 8years was the attacks to 9/11 and the reasoning for afghanistan.

Was that selective outrage?

What selective outrage? Were those protests against the Iraq war or the Afghanistan war? You already know the answer to that I'd assume.

I didn't realize Obama started a war. Which one are you guys talking about? Iraq? Afghanistan?

Anyways...

I wish people weren't so worn down and complacent and hit the streets to show their continued disgust with both wars.

As liberal as I am, socialist even, Obama has not lived up to his word, and has not changed things like he said.

Not to make excuses, as I am bent about many of his current choices, Bush left him one helluva mess to clean up...and i swear if someone mentions the choices Clinton made in 1998, to blame for the 8 years of boners Bush made there will be hell to pay.

Obama SHOULD listen to democratic and republican protesters who oppose the wars and do what they are asking since he DIDNT start it.