[Peace-discuss] WaPo: Liberals, Dems, Women Abandon Afghan War

[C. G. Estabrook]

	What happened to the antiwar movement?
	Cindy Sheehan hits 'hypocrisy' of Left, Democratic allies.
	By: Byron York
	08/18/09 11:19 PM EDT

After my column, "For the left, war without Bush is not war at all," [POSTED TO 
PEACE-DISCUSS AS "LIBERAL OPINION"] appeared Tuesday, I got a note from Cindy 
Sheehan, the anti-war activist who was the subject of so much press coverage 
when she led a protest against the Iraq war outside then-President George W. 
Bush's ranch in Texas.  This is what the note said:

  "I read your column about the 'anti-war' movement and I can't believe I am 
saying this, but I mostly agree with you.

  "The 'anti-war' 'left' was used by the Democratic Party. I like to call it the 
'anti-Republican War' movement.

  "While I agree with you about the hypocrisy of such sites as the DailyKos, I 
have known for a long time that the Democrats are equally responsible with the 
Republicans. That's why I left the party in May 2007 and that's why I ran for 
Congress against Nancy Pelosi in 2008.

  "I have my own radio show, 'Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox,' and I was out on a 
four-month book tour promoting the fact that it's not about Democrats or 
Republicans, but it's about the system.

  "Even if I am surrounded by a thousand, or no one, I am still working for peace."

	Sincerely,
	Cindy Sheehan

After receiving the email, I asked Sheehan to give me a call, so I could verify 
that the note in fact came from her.  She did, and we discussed her plans to 
protest next week in Martha's Vineyard, where President Obama will be 
vacationing.  "I think people are starting to wake up to the fact that even if 
they supported Obama, he doesn't represent much change," Sheehan said.  "There 
are people still out here who oppose the war and Obama's policies, but it seems 
like the big organizations with the big lists aren't here."

I asked Sheehan about the fact that the press seems to have lost interest in her 
and her cause.  "It's strange to me that you mention it," she said.  "I haven't 
stopped working.  I've been protesting every time I can, and it's not covered. 
But the one time I did get a lot of coverage was when I protested in front of 
George Bush's house in Dallas in June.  I don't know what to make of it.  Is the 
press having a honeymoon with Obama?  I know the Left is."

After the protests in Massachusetts -- Sheehan told me she has no idea how many 
people might show up -- Sheehan will be in Washington October 5, for a protest 
at the White House to mark the eight anniversary of the start of the war in 
Afghanistan.  Not only is the president escalating the war there, she said, but 
he's not withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq as quickly as he originally promised. 
"That's why I was opposed to him," she said.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/What-happened-to-the-antiwar-movement--Cindy-Sheehan-responds-53628177.html

Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> Thanks for this, Bob.
> 
> I think this is good evidence that the oft-repeated (here and elsewhere) 
> assertion that the anti-war movement has been totally "coopted" or 
> "destroyed" and "liberals" have been suckered in is off the mark.
> 
> There is definitely a decline, nationwide, in turnout at anti-war 
> events, but I think it's more complex than it might appear.  Some are 
> fooled, sure.  A big part of the anti-war movement leading up to the 
> Iraq invasion (I felt at the time) was mistrust of Bush partly related 
> to the election, etc., temporarily overridden by the events of 9/11/01 - 
> for many, that is.  (It was easy to be confused about what to think or 
> do in those days, which speaks to the importance of AWARE and others who 
> spoke out.) 
> 
> Another big part was of course the different circumstances around the 
> Iraq invasion vs the Afghan invasion.  I talked to a number of fellow 
> protesters on those famous Saturdays on Prospect when we had 300-plus 
> every single week for weeks on end, who told me: "I supported the attack 
> on Afghanistan, but this is crazy," or words to that effect.  This comes 
> into play now, too, I think.  True, the US is still not out of Iraq, and 
> in reality may not be on its way out at all, but the focus has shifted 
> to "AfPak" - which people have felt differently about, at least until 
> now - and there is or has been a feeling or a hope that Obama would get 
> us out of Iraq if not "AfPak" (a lesser version of the snookering, 
> perhaps, that has become such a commonplace argument here).
> 
> It's also true of course that Bush's rhetoric alone excited rightwing 
> support and even centrist condemnation, while Obama's feelgood stuff 
> works on a much broader audience, as far as the talk goes.
> 
> Well, that's all my speculation, but I do want to point out one more 
> fact.  We noticed a dramatic dropoff a couple weeks after the invasion 
> of Iraq, too, in fact much more dramatic than the dropoff since 
> January.  Locally our numbers at protests went from over 300 every week 
> to 30-40 once a month within a matter of weeks after the invasion.  
> That's worse than decimation by my count.  Why?
> 
> Was the anti-war movement coopted?  Were liberals suckered in?  I hardly 
> think so.  (And while we're at it, where were conservatives then, in 
> numbers?  Tea parties?  Town hall meetings?)  Nope, people were pretty 
> clear if you asked them.  They didn't see what good it would do; they 
> had their lives to return to; they'd be back when it was useful; and so on.
> 
> I think they turned out at the polls to do what they could.  Now it's 
> hard for folks to tell what to do, or what they are willing to do - 
> after EIGHT SOLID YEARS OF WAR, let's don't forget.  They're tired.  I'm 
> tired.  We have all tolerated one another for a long time, and many of 
> us just don't want to sit through endless pointless painful meetings any 
> more, unless it's for some good specific purpose.  I don't think we're 
> ready to forget about people whose lives are much harder than ours by a 
> long shot, victims of US foreign policy etc., not at all.  We wouldn't 
> be who we are if we could do that.
> 
> But the question, I believe, is not our moral staying power.  It's how 
> to be most effective at organizing, that is not just planning events or 
> expressing opinions but mobilizing people.  What can we do that would 
> best 'demonstrate' opposition to these endless wars?...