Now, we all know, during the Bush Administration, these people were essentially locust's, they were everywhere. They were all over every news channel, INCLUDING Fox News. Obama campaigned on withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan (which he did not do), yet for some reason, I see ZERO mention of the anti-war movement or war protests on any cable news network, including Fox. And before everyone gets all up in arms, I do not like Obama, I am not an Obama supporter, but the one, singular thing he has done in office that I 100% support him for is shifting military concentration of the war on terror to Afghanistan where it belongs. I am not against this at all. MY question still remains though, I KNOW the anti-warriors are out there and are still just as strong, but why, under a Democratic Administration, are we not hearing this same dissent that we witnessed under a Republican Administration less than 2 years ago? We're still at war, in the same two countries, doing the same thing we were 2 years ago, yet, we no longer hear these people's voices? Is it no longer convenient?

_________________
"I can't really hear what Jeremy says, because I got my two Stanley Cup Rings plugging my ears...." -Patrick Roy in reference to Jeremy Roenick's trash talking

I think the easy answer is that they're still there but so-called liberal news outlets do not want to show any evidence of a lack of support for a liberal president.


Personally I think it's just old news now.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

well, since this isnt the guy/administration that GOT us in one bullshit war (iraq) and one far more legitimate war (afghanistan), Perhaps he's being given the benefit of the doubt that he is trying to stick to timelines of withdrawal in Iraq. I dont remember Obama saying we were going to get out of afghanistan, but I could be mistaken on that one. Either way, I think the anger and anti-war sentiment was far more reflective of the nations feelings about Bush, than it was about the actual war. Just my two.

I tend to think you're correct here, but, isn't to purpose of being anti-war to be ANTI-WAR? Why should it matter who is in office? If I'm against tax increases, I wouldn't give a flyin f*** if it was Obama or Bush instituting them.....just seems kinda hypocritical is all.

_________________
"I can't really hear what Jeremy says, because I got my two Stanley Cup Rings plugging my ears...." -Patrick Roy in reference to Jeremy Roenick's trash talking

Well...when the protesting started it was against the war, and against the warmongers who got us INTO the war. When the next guy comes along promising to correct these mistakes of the last administration, that takes a lot of anger out of the sails of protesters. Who are they going to be angry at? They're hoping that the new guy will stick to his word, and trying to believe that he meant what he said, and is actually working towards that.

True, purist 'anti-war' folks probably shouldnt care WHO is in office as long as the wars are ongoing...but it's definitely more gray than that.

Just so we're all clear, the withdrawal from Iraq was agreed upon and signed with the Iraqi government during the Bush administration.

Code pink is still trying to arrest Karl Rove, and if you ask Zilla, the protests are just as frequent as before.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

This was already covered in another thread, and it was ME who pointed out that in fact, there are still plenty of war protests going on throughout the country and the world. Look up protest against the war in Afghanistan on wikipedia and you'll see a detailed list of the protests that have happened since Obama took office.

Zilla did too, but if you want to take credit....

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Read this and tell me who did the heavy lifting here to prove that protests are still happening:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2799&start=0

I never said these protests are not going on....fun with reading!

" I KNOW the anti-warriors are out there and are still just as strong"

What I asked simply was.........why now that there is a Democrat in the White House, are CNN, NBC, MSNBC NOT playing this coverage 24/7 as they did when a Republican was in office? Screw 24/7, why have they not covered this AT ALL!?!?!

_________________
"I can't really hear what Jeremy says, because I got my two Stanley Cup Rings plugging my ears...." -Patrick Roy in reference to Jeremy Roenick's trash talking

Ok, you're right, I didn't address your specific question. I assumed without fully reading you post.

Now as for why isn't it better covered, I think you are one of these people who think that the media has a "liberal' bias, and so they don't want to criticize Obama. I don't think that is true though, as I feel the mainstream media will and does criticize Obama on economic policy. My guess is that the topic of war in general is not getting the coverage it used to because the public views the economy as the #1 issue, and has sadly lost interest in the wars unless they affect them directly or someone they love.