Reason.TV makes a very valid point:
Ed Morrissey also makes a valid assessment:
Most of us presumed that the protests were more about Bush than the wars when they took place, but even the skeptics have to be a little surprised just how uncool the anti-war movement has become since Barack Obama took place. The neo-Stalinist International ANSWER, one of the groups featured in this film, must have thought they were achieving some sort of mainstream penetration into politics when Democrats started flooding into their rallies. Now they’re back to street-corner protests and “Honk If You <3 Peace” rallies and wondering why it suddenly got so lonely.
To be fair, though, the driving force of the earlier anti-war rallies was the war in Iraq, not Afghanistan. While the Af-Pak fight has lost considerable public support, the first war had broader support, as it targeted the actual 9/11 villains and their cohorts. The protests against the wars got fueled mainly by our presence in Iraq, and peaked when Bush put the surge strategy into place. The success of that strategy and the Status of Forces Agreement that moved American troops out of the cities and into support roles has removed most of the objections to Iraq, and for good reason — why protest a war that’s all but over? Obama promised to have troops out in 16 months during the presidential campaign, but as Reason TV notes, he stuck with the Bush SOFA policy — and after 24 months, we’re still there and likely will be for years to come.
A very valid assessment. However, there is more to that too. The left just straight up hated Bush with a passion. The Anti-War protests were also less about Anti-War, and more about Anti-Bush. The left never, ever forgave Bush for winning the 2000 election. To this very day, the left still believes that Bush and Co. somehow or another stole the election. The left screamed and yelled and protested; that is, until it was very clear that challenging Bush’s election in 2000 was a lost cause.
Then 9/11 came along, and the entire Country stood behind Bush. The left basically stood down, and supported the President. Of course, there were outliers, but the majority of them were supportive. So, America went to war in Afghanistan, then Bush in 2003 decided that invading Iraq was necessary; which we now know was based upon faulty intelligence. Of course, there are some, within Neo-Conservative circles, that still, to this day, believe that Iraq had WMD’s. However, in this day and age of post-Bush, those people are big minority. Anyhow, At first, the MSM went along with Bush’s plans and the persons saying that Bush was wrong were a small minority. Over time, as it became clear that Bush’s intelligence was flat out wrong; the voices of dissent became louder.
By 2004, these voices had risen to fever pitch and the left was in fully in “Get Bush out of Office!”, an effort that ultimately failed; because of the total lack of electability of John Kerry as President of the United States. By 2006, however, independents and even some more main stream Conservatives had left Bush and realized that the man was just simply wrong. Of course, the loyalists defended him to the end and still do. But now, they are quite the minority. Thus was the reason why the Democrats won so big in 2006 and 2008; not because Obama or the Democrats were something wonderful — it was because American independents wanted something different than Bush’s Neo-Conservative, interventionist foriegn policy blunders.
However, there is one thing that this video totally missed; the voices of the Anti-War movement were not all Liberal or even Libertarian. There were some Conservatives, there were Paleo-Conservative voices. Pat Buchanan and some others formed a Magazine called “The American Conservative.” Which was formed for the sole purpose of convincing the White House that they were wrong about Iraq and foriegn policy. An effort, which ultimately failed. These same people, earned the scorn of people like David Frum. Which is pretty ironic, considering his position today on Bush and the Iraq war.
Of course, looking back; seeing all of the blunders of the Democrats and of the President — Bush does not seem that bad of a President. Bush was by no means perfect. However, the tone-deaf antics of the Democrats after the election of President Barack Obama, made Bush’s era seem a bit more sane. Prime example: Has the economy gotten better since President Obama was elected? No, it has not. In fact, it has gotten a bit worse. I have heard the following from committed Democrats: “President Obama got it exactly backward; he did healthcare first. That was stupid, he should have gotten the economy fixed FIRST and waited to see, if the fixes worked — THEN he should have tackled healthcare reform!” Which is right, Obama and the Democrats wanted to push it through, despite the consequences and for that they paid for it in the 2010 elections — and outside of a major change in the economy or something major in the terrorism world, like the capture of Osama Bin Laden and the totally destruction of Al-Qaeda; which will never happen, Obama and the Democrats will further more pay for this foolishness. Possibly by Obama being primaries out in 2012. Do not discount that theory, we do live in much different times and the America people have become more fickle in their loyalty. It could happen.
As a Bonus, I present a movie, the name of it is simply “Crawford” that basically proves what I said above. It is a little long. But it is well worth it: