Where did all the anti-war protestors go?

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2011/04/25/where-did-all-the-anti-war-protestors-go/

April 25, 2011 01:53 PM UTC by John Stossel
Where Did All the Anti-War Protestors Go?

The anti-war movement was all over the news before President Obama was elected. But apparently they weren’t really anti-war ... they were just anti-President Bush. Two college professors just released a study of national protests between 2007 and 2009. What did they find?

… After January 2007, the attendance at antiwar rallies [measured in] roughly the tens of thousands, or thousands, through the end of 2008.

… After the election of Barack Obama as president, the order of magnitude of antiwar protests dropped [...] Organizers were hard pressed to stage a rally with participation in the thousands, or even in the hundreds. For example, we counted exactly 107 participants at a Chicago rally on October 7, 2009.

Amazing. Especially because the war in Afghanistan ramped up after Obama was elected. American fatalities shot up in 2009 and 2010.

The protesters have remained silent over Libya.

And I’m struck by the hypocrisy of the supposedly “anti-war” politicians who voted against Iraq, like Nancy Pelosi. Since Obama was elected, she has voted to continue the war in Afghanistan … and supported the attack on Libya.

Only a handful of Congressmen have remained principled on foreign intervention. One of them is Ron Paul. On my FBN show this week, I’ll talk with him about why he opposes our “aggressive foreign policy.” Thursday at 10pm EST.

 

Lets not forget that the liberals have taught us the only thing that changed in 2009 was the color of the presidents skin, afterall that is the only reason right wing protestors started protesting against Obama, and not Bush. Therefore it is now safe to assume all liberals are racists. j/k

Nothing new here. Left wing protestors largely go to bat against right wing presidents, and right wing protestors largely go to bat against left wing presidents. Maybe if some of these protesting groups were more principled we would get some stronger presidents who actually stuck to their values, instead of one shit head after another, who lies their way into office, and then does everything the same once they get in the door.

If the Tea Party bails once Obama is gone we can probably count on another big spending Republican in the whitehouse.

 

When Bush was president, half the cars in our neighborhood had "Dissent is Patriotic" bumper stickers. Within a week of the time Obama took office, the bumper stickers disappeared from every car. I can only surmise that dissent is not patriotic when a Democrat is in the White House.

 

Burn a Bush effigy, patriotic.

Burn an Obama effigy, racist!

 

That is truly sad and pathetic.

 

+1

I'll note that I don't see the impeach odumba kind of stickers like the one's that were almost everywhere saying impeach bush. Guess it's "racist" to openly state that odumba is the worst US President we've had in the history of this Country. Sad...

 

Caricature George W. Bush as a chimpanzee, funny political commentary. (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushchimpanzee.htm)

Do the same for Obama, and you're a racist and the NAACP will demand your resignation. (http://www2.wnct.com/news/2011/apr/19/naacp-wants-gop-official-resign-over-obama-chimp-p-ar-960267/)

 

Or...Call the President a monkey, keep your network anchor job:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HgvQgGDJuw

 

Hypocrites extraordinaire every fucking one of them.

 

Back then they came out to protest a bullshit invasion to find non-existent WMDs. Now they're being told US military action is to help civilians. Whether those things are true or not, if they believe them then why would you expect them to be as excited about the latter as they were about the former?