The Gotcha question

The Iraq question isn’t the only gotcha question Jeb Bush will be getting about his brother. Just as Hillary will be carrying Bill, so Jeb and Dubya.  I believe he handled it poorly—and Marco Rubio did an excellent job and said the closest to what I would say.

• Who in the world “would have gone into Iraq knowing what we know today (in May 2015).
• Who could have known the next president (Obama) would take a war won in Afghanistan, and essentially won in Iraq (after the surge) and throw it all away because he made promises to the far left to get elected and then play footsy with Iraq and draw meaningless lines in the sand?
• Knowing now what Obama would do, of course, Saddam would have been the choice to hold Iraq in check. He was a really bad dude, and the Iraqis and Iranians are different ethnic groups.
• Now we know what Obama intends, and Saddam could be useful if not dead.
• Osama bin Laden’s death has probably led to the growth of ISIS, so that’s on Obama’s record. A year ago, none of us had ever heard of ISIS.
• Bush acted on intelligence from the Clinton era and the Democrat candidates in 2000 were really beating the war drums about WMD.
• Obama acted on intelligence from the Bush era.

How far back should we go? What if Truman had decided to undo the tentative allied victory in Europe and not use the bomb on Japan? What if there had been no Communists in FDRs cabinet and administration to push for giving Eastern Europe to the Russians laying the ground work for almost half a century of domination by the powerhouse USSR that we helped create?

I’d like to hear a candidate play the history “what if” game and out smart the reporters reading a script. The Republican candidates will all run from the Iraq-Afghanistan wars, and no one will turn the table to speak on Obama’s complete failure in the middle east. But if such a candidate emerges from the large, talented field of Republicans, I’ll vote for him/her.

Read between the lines—Obama is no military leader

“Washington spent $25 billion to re-create and arm Iraq’s security forces after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion [under Bush and a large coalition], only to see the Iraqi army easily defeated last year by a ragtag collection of Islamic State fighters who took control of large parts of the country [after Obama pulled out the troops and left them defenseless]. Just last year, President Obama touted Yemen as a successful example of his approach to combating terrorism.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-loses-sight-of-500-million-in-counterterrorism-aid-given-to-yemen/2015/03/17/

WaPo is an Obama apologist—so you won’t find outright condemnation. Obama pulled out and left Iraqis defenseless.  Our losses in Afghanistan are triple what they were under Bush, and that war—the one Obama said was “good,”--was virtually won before he took office. Gave armaments to a country not strong enough to handle them.

Even with the Benghazi scandal, there were rumors of American arms being part of the story and then it appeared in a report not released to the public at the time. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’ Many of those arms probably ended up in the hands of ISIS who are now killing our allies and Christians. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/04/real-benghazi-story.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/covert-cia-mission-to-arm-syrian-rebels-goes-awry-1422329582

Thank you, President Obama, for the hasty, ill-advised withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan that brought the world to this point

“Sunni violent extremists are gaining momentum and the number of Sunni violent extremist groups, members, and safe havens is greater than at any other point in history. These groups challenge local and regional governance and threaten US allies, partners, and interests. The threat to key US allies and partners will probably increase, but the extent of the increase will depend on the level of success that Sunni violent extremists achieve in seizing and holding territory, whether or not attacks on local regimes and calls for retaliation against the West are accepted by their key audiences, and the durability of the US-led coalition in Iraq and Syria.

Sunni violent extremists have taken advantage of fragile or unstable Muslim-majority countries to make territorial advances, seen in Syria and Iraq, and will probably continue to do so. They also contribute to regime instability and internal conflict by engaging in high levels of violence. Most will be unable to seize and hold territory on a large scale, however, as long as local, regional, and international support and resources are available and dedicated to halting their progress. The increase in the number of Sunni violent extremist groups also will probably be balanced by a lack of cohesion and authoritative leadership. Although the January 2015 attacks against Charlie Hebdo in Paris is a reminder of the threat to the West, most groups place a higher priority on local concerns than on attacking the so-called far enemy—the United States and the West—as advocated by core al- Qa‘ida.

Differences in ideology and tactics will foster competition among some of these groups, particularly if a unifying figure or group does not emerge. In some cases, groups—even if hostile to each other— will ally against common enemies. For example, some Sunni violent extremists will probably gain support from like-minded insurgent or anti-regime groups or within disaffected or disenfranchised communities because they share the goal of radical regime change.

Although most homegrown violent extremists (HVEs) will probably continue to aspire to travel overseas, particularly to Syria and Iraq, they will probably remain the most likely Sunni violent extremist threat to the US homeland because of their immediate and direct access. Some might have been inspired by calls by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in late September for individual jihadists in the West to retaliate for US-led airstrikes on ISIL. Attacks by lone actors are among the most difficult to warn about because they offer few or no signatures.

If ISIL were to substantially increase the priority it places on attacking the West rather than fighting to maintain and expand territorial control, then the group’s access to radicalized Westerners who have fought in Syria and Iraq would provide a pool of operatives who potentially have access to the United States and other Western countries. Since the conflict began in 2011, more than 20,000 foreign fighters—at least 3,400 of whom are Westerners—have gone to Syria from more than 90 countries.”  “Terrorism,”  Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community, Senate Armed Services Committee, James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence
February 26, 2015

http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Unclassified_2015_ATA_SFR_-_SASC_FINAL.pdf

An Iraqi-Assyrian speaks out after the burning of the Mosul public library

“When ISIS first attacked Mosul, we Assyrians living in America protested and begged for help. We have lived as a minority in Iraq for hundreds of years, we have faced oppression, but when ISIS came we knew this was unlike anything we have ever faced before. Far worse than anything Saddam himself could have imagined. People counter protested us said it was not America's problem, citing the Iraq war. This is nothing like the Iraq war and I think now people are starting to understand why it is our problem. This isn't some backwards, stupid terrorist group. The leader of ISIS is CIA trained; he is smart unlike anything I've ever seen in the middle east before, and he wants to establish a caliphate. He won't stop until he wipes out the US and other westerners off the map. Now, he may very well be in absolutely no position to do that ever, but at the rate he is going he will be strong enough to cause us a lot of problems very soon.” Commenter at the article on burning the library, a Christian church and a theater.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/isis-burns-8000-rare-books-030900856.html

“The library was looted in 2003 and the citizens of Mosul restored it. During the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the library was looted and destroyed by mobs. However, the people living nearby managed to save most of its collections and rich families bought back the stolen books and they were returned to the library, All Faraj added.”

I lay the ISIS problems—the killing, torture and building of the caliphate--at the feet of President Obama, who could have prevented all this loss by leaving minimal armed U.S. military in the country.  ISIS flooded in even before our pull out which had conveniently been announced with a time table. And if he were a secret Muslim, what would be different? As it is, he is just another just-us social justice Christian.

We’re looking at a 30 year war—Panetta

"I think we're looking at kind of a 30-year war. It's going to take a long time to be able to go after these elements. It can't be [that] we're going to go in one day and pull back the next day." That's according to Leon Panetta, former defense secretary for Barack Obama. Panetta also criticized Obama for taking off the table the option of boots on the ground. "If we don't, at least in my view -- if they establish a base of operations in that part of the world, it's only a matter of time before they will then use it as a basis on which to attack this country," Panetta added. He also argued in his new book that it was a mistake to leave Iraq in the first place. He should send the commander in chief an autographed copy of that book.

From Patriot Post Daily Digest, Oct. 7

In his book “Worthy Fights” he writes, the White House was “so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.” And finally, “To this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al-Qaeda’s resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country.” His account directly contradicts Barack Obama’s latest story – that total U.S. withdrawal “wasn’t a decision made by me.” Actually, yes, it was, and it was a terrible and costly one.

Crickets and crow

Bush/Cheney haters should be eating some crow right now. Bush took a few moments to gather his thoughts during a visit to a school classroom after the 9/11 disaster and they ridiculed him.  Obama dawdled and hesitated for months not only in Iraq in 2009, but more recently for 9 months about ISIS, and it's crickets from the Bush haters. Kerry calls bombing ISIS counter terrorism and WH Chief of Staff calls it war, and Obama calls it time out and goes to the golf course.

Bush went to Congress to get support and enlisted many international allies; Obama will apparently move forward on the force of his charisma and personality. In the late 1990s most Democrats in Congress including Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, Lieberman,  Feinstein, Milulski, and Daschle all warned the country and President Clinton about WMD citing good sources of intelligence. But it was Bush's fault when they weren't found.  Yet Obama was using the excuse of chemical weapons (aka WMD) by Assad for supporting Syrian rebels and drawing lines and tough talk, even though it hasn't been proven and we've been fooled before.

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/iraq-justifying-war/p7689

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/if-the-bush-administration-lied-about-wmd-so-did-these-people-version-3-0/

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343870/why-did-we-invade-iraq-victor-davis-hanson/page/0/1?splash=

Prophetic words from President Bush

"I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous." G.W. Bush, July 12, 2007

It looks like Bush understood the danger much more than Obama.

Just bombs—no boots on the ground

When the media report on Obama authorizing bombing of Islamists in Iraq yesterday before leaving for a 2 week vacation, they note that he campaigned on ending the war, without reminding us that Bush ended it.

"17 November 2008 – The US and the Iraqi Government sign the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement providing for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraqi cities by 30 June 2009 and a complete withdrawal of US forces from Iraq by the end of 2011."

By the time Obama was elected, the heavy lifting was over, yet the media credit him for ending it. Even at the end of the 2008 campaign, it became a non-issue.  But it wasn't over was it? ISIS aka IS, a Sunni offshoot of al-Qaeda, was growing and although Obama was warned many months before we knew, nothing was done. The leader of ISIS is far more brutal than Osama could have dreamed of. Beheadings and crucifixions are far more common than with Osama.  Although we left troops in Korea in the 1950s and Germany and Japan for decades after WWII to help with stabilization, never mind Iraq--it could wing it. Perhaps if a better solution to helping Iraq get back on its feet had been worked out, there would be thousands of Iraqi minorities and Christians and Shiia still alive.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-kerry-warned-isis-paid-attention/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/world/middleeast/obama-weighs-military-strikes-to-aid-trapped-iraqis-officials-say.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/12/world/middleeast/the-iraq-isis-conflict-in-maps-photos-and-video.html

Pray for the minorities in Iraq

“Please continue to pray for the Iraqi people who have fled their homes because of religious persecution. Their situation is dire--with some reports saying thousands of people hiding in the mountains are being left with two choices 1) die at the hands of the IS militants 2) die of thirst in the mountains. Please pray!

"Chaldean Patriarch Louis Sako, who heads Iraq's largest Christian denomination, said the overnight offensive had displaced 100,000 Christians.

"This is a humanitarian disaster. The churches are occupied, their crosses were taken down," he told AFP, adding that 1,500 manuscripts had been burnt."”

http://news.yahoo.com/jihadist-offensive-sparks-mass-iraq-exodus-084039459.html

Jihadist fighters moved into Qaraqosh, Iraq's largest Christian town, and surrounding areas on Wednesday night after the withdrawal of Kurdish peshmerga troops, who are stretched thin across several fronts.

"Qaraqosh, Tal Kayf, Bartella and Karamlesh have been emptied of their original population and are now under the control of the militants," Joseph Thomas, a Chaldean Catholic archbishop in northern Iraq, told AFP.

Christians flee ISIS

“UN officials said an estimated 200,000 new refugees were seeking sanctuary in the Kurdish north from Islamic extremists who had pursued them since the weekend. The city of Qaraqosh, south-east of Mosul, home to around 50,000 Christians was the latest to fall, with most residents fleeing before dawn as convoys of extremists drew near.

Other Christian towns near Mosul, including Tel Askof, Tel Keif and Qaramless have also largely been emptied. Those who remained behind have reportedly been given the same stark choice given to other minorities, including Yazidis: flee, convert to Islam, or be killed.

Christians, Yazidis and Turkmen have been at the frontlines of Iraq's war with the Islamic State (Isis) ever since the jihadist group stormed into Mosul and Tikrit and mid-June. The Iraqi army capitulated within hours, with at least 60,000 officers and soldiers fleeing on the first day of the assault alone.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/isis-offensive-iraq-christian-exodus

Quoting a UNICEF spokesperson, the Washington Post reports today: “There are children dying on the mountain, on the roads. There is no water, there is no vegetation, they are completely cut off and surrounded by Islamic State. It’s a disaster, a total disaster.”  Not to worry.  The Obama administration made a statement. “The United States is committed to helping the people of Iraq as they confront. . . and so forth.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/384773/1500-iraqi-civilians-were-slaughtered-yesterday-isis-and-obama-administration-issued

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28686998

Mission Accomplished. . . oops

“As he precipitously pulled out all U.S. peacekeepers from Iraq, the president had his own “Mission Accomplished” moment when declaring the country “stable,” “self-reliant,” and an “extraordinary achievement.” “ VDH

But Obama showed himself to be a weak and confused leader after the war was essentially over and won by the time he took office in January 2009 with nothing left to do but stabilize the victories.  His supporters didn’t seem to notice, but the terrorists certainly took note.  Now that ISIS has overrun the region, he is looking around for someone to blame.  Bush and the Republicans, of course.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381831/how-obama-lost-middle-east-victor-davis-hanson

10 Reasons Why Iraq's Bloodbath Is Not W's Fault

Forget that you didn't like the Bush administration, and blamed him for the War in Iraq (that essentially ended before he left office)--let's look at how Obama is handling what's going on in Iraq now. This is by Larry Elder.

Let’s review:  “The U.S. intelligence community's belief that Saddam was aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction predated Bush's inauguration, and therefore cannot be attributed to political pressure. ... Germany ... Israel, Russia, Britain, China and even France held positions similar to that of the United States. ... In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

“George Bush did not "rush" America into the war. He obtained a consensus -- a resolution from the House, a resolution from the Senate and a resolution from the United Nations. There was a 15-month run-up before the war, during which time Saddam could have declared what he did or did not do with the WMD.

“We were greeted as liberators in Iraq. The New York Times Iraq reporter John Burns said: "The American troops were greeted as liberators. We saw it." In April, 2003, the New York Daily News reported, "Jubilant crowds chanted, 'Thank you, Bush' and showered troops with yellow and pink flowers, exactly as administration hawks had promised."

http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2014/06/26/10-reasons-why-iraqs-bloodbath-is-not-ws-fault-n1855756

Politicians who abandoned their post and walked away

"Given" . . . that the Democrats would later accuse Bush of lying about [Iraq's possession weapons of mass destruction], here is a (partial) list of Democrats who had previously joined in the consensus: Bill Clinton; his Vice President Al Gore; his Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; his Secretary of Defense William Cohen; and his National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. In the Senate, there were Teddy Kennedy, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Edwards, Jay Rockefeller, Robert Byrd, and Bob Graham–not to mention Nancy Pelosi, among scores of others, in the House, as well as liberal papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post. Each and every one of them saw Saddam Hussein as a threat, and they all advocated taking action against him.”  Norman Podhoretz

Sunnis and Shi’ites can’t get along with each other; why should they get along with us?

"The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has just seized the Iraqi cities of Mosul and Tikrit, and is close to taking control of the nation’s largest oil refinery — indicating that the jihad between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims is raging hotter now than it has in centuries, and isn’t going to die down anytime soon. . .the idea that the Sunni-Shi’ite divide, which is 1,400 years old and goes all the way back to the murky origins of Islam, is something that can without undue difficulty be “overcome” is a sterling manifestation of the general superficiality of Washington’s analysis of the Middle East, during both the Bush and the Obama administrations. - http://pamelageller.com/2014/06/sunni-vs-shia-explained.html/

Bush thought he could bring democracy to these warring groups and stop the killing; Obama thought he could pull out and the killing and chaos would not return. But looking at that big black blob (Shia) that is Iran, I suspect that’s where the problem is.

Obama’s good war

For those too young to remember, in 2008 President Obama campaigned against the Iraq War.  By the time of the election it was virtually over, and all he could do was promise to bring the troops home.  He had always said Afghanistan was the “good war,” however, hostilities there were increasing after being quiet and secure for years. Women had uncovered and were going to school, working, being elected, etc.  So he dawdled and waited during the summer of 2009, and by the time he OK’d a surge, it was probably too late.

  During his first term more military were lost than during Bush’s two terms.  575 US troops died in Afghanistan during the Bush presidency. By August 18, 2010, following two troop surges initiated by President Obama, that number had doubled.

When looking at a map today of how the jihadists have overrun Iraq, it’s pretty clear that everything was in place.  Perhaps the return of the five was just the impetus needed since they knew Obama never wanted to be there and probably wouldn’t fight to help the Iraqis that Bush had liberated from Saddam.

In 2009 the main stream media still couldn’t lavish enough praise on their beloved president and admired him for holding back for months.

“When the history of the Obama presidency is written, that day with the chart may prove to be a turning point, the moment a young commander in chief set in motion a high-stakes gamble to turn around a losing war. By moving the bell curve to the left, Mr. Obama decided to send 30,000 troops mostly in the next six months and then begin pulling them out a year after that, betting that a quick jolt of extra forces could knock the enemy back on its heels enough for the Afghans to take over the fight.

The three-month review that led to the escalate-then-exit strategy is a case study in decision making in the Obama White House — intense, methodical, rigorous, earnest and at times deeply frustrating for nearly all involved. It was a virtual seminar in Afghanistan and Pakistan, led by a president described by one participant as something “between a college professor and a gentle cross-examiner.” “ New York Times, Dec. 5, 2009

                 

http://allenbwest.com/2014/02/us-military-deaths-afghanistan-skyrocket-obama/

"Today the president acknowledged that the Islamic State's advance "poses a danger to Iraq and its people, and given the nature of these terrorists, it could pose a threat eventually to American interests as well." In 2007 he promised to withdraw regardless of the danger to Iraq and its people. He kept that promise." Wall St. Journal, June 13, 2014

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303373004579622360300173126.html

Wasn’t al-Qaeda defeated? Another Obama mistake.

“Over the past several days, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham, al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, has taken control of large sections of two western Iraqi cities that were once bastions for the terror group.”

http://counterjihadreport.com/2014/01/03/al-qaeda-seizes-partial-control-of-2-cities-in-western-iraq/

Officials from the Iraqi Interior Ministry acknowledged that parts of Fallujah and Ramadi are under al Qaeda control.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/01/al_qaeda_seizes_cont.php

Top Republican senators on Saturday blamed the Obama administration for Al Qaeda-affiliates purportedly over-running parts of Iraq, including the city of Fallujah that the United States secured before President Obama removed all U.S. forces from that country in 2011. . .

“The administration's narrative that Iraq's political leadership objected to U.S. forces remaining in Iraq after 2011 is patently false,” said McCain and Graham, military hawks with an active interest in Middle East affairs. “We know firsthand that Iraq's main political blocs were supportive and that the administration rejected sound military advice and squandered the opportunity to conclude a security agreement with Iraq."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/04/mccain-graham-blame-obama-for-al-qaeda-related-takeover-fallujah-call-situation/

Why are Democrats and Republicans pushing us into war in Syria?

In 2002 President Bush took his case against Iraq and WMD to Congress and the U.N. He had bi-partisan and international support; he had intelligence going back years into the Clinton Administration. Obama has done none of that except to draw an imaginary red line about WMD and he's been fuzzy about that. Yet Democrats who originally supported Bush and later lied and feigned outrage, have been silent about Obama's duplicity, lack of leadership, and now arming rebels who are al-qaeda lite. Obama is taking us into another war, one in which we have no national interest. Where are the outraged Democrats? Why are Republican hawks like John McCain and Lindsey Graham playing along? Where are all those Republicans who switched parties so they could vote for Obama because Bush had failed them?

U.S. tracks 'millions' of dollars stolen by Iraqi officials

Seems to be some money missing and not trackable. Wouldn't you think that the brightest minds in the Bush administration and the Obama administration would have at least one person who knew how to do this?

Overall, Bowen said, he has found indications that huge amounts of money were stolen in Iraq. Asked how much, he said it is "impossible to say, but I know just from talking to Iraqis and just my travels to Iraq — I've been there 30 times. What I've learned is that hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of development fund for Iraq money was stolen by senior Iraqi officials for their own personal gain."

The Inspector General's mandate does not include looking at the tens of billions that were sent from the New York Fed to the Baghdad government after the Coalition Provisional Authority went out of existence in 2004.

U.S. tracks 'millions' of dollars stolen by Iraqi officials – USATODAY.com

Peter Mansoor to speak at OSU Thompson Library on Wednesday

This might be worth a stroll across campus to hear. (I like to park at the veterinary campus and avoid the crowd. I can walk faster than I can find a parking spot on main campus.)

The Iraq War: Opportunities Missed, Lessons Learned, and the Way Ahead" will be presented by Peter Mansoor, Colonel, U.S. Army (retired), and the General Raymond E. Mason, Jr. Chair of Military History at Ohio State, from 4-5:30 p.m. Wednesday (4/27) in 165 Thompson Library.

When Gen. Petraeus was appointed commander of U.S. forces in Iraq in January 2007, he tapped Col. Mansoor to be his executive officer. Over the course of the next 15 months in Iraq, Col. Mansoor helped orchestrate the surge of 30,000 additional U.S. troops into Baghdad and the implementation of a new U.S. counterinsurgency strategy that was controversial because it called for an increase in troop numbers, saw the U.S. military cut deals with one-time insurgents and prioritized protecting the local population even though it meant a short-term increase in U.S. casualty numbers. The moves are credited in many circles with reining in the violence.

In late 2008, Washington and Baghdad inked a deal to withdraw U.S. troops by the end of 2011. U.S. President Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to end the war, and shortly after coming into office, he set the Aug. 31, 2010, deadline to bring home all combat troops, leaving 50,000 trainers and support staff in their wake.
The speed of the recent combat wind-down didn't sit well with many who invested years in Iraq, including Col. Mansoor.

"I'm not enamored with President Obama's decision to pull our combat forces out before they had to go, which isn't until the end of next year," he says. "But I don't feel bad about the way things are there now. I think that Iraqi politicians will find a way to move the ball down the field. But in their usual Iraqi method, they will do so at the 11th hour and beyond, and probably at the moment when everyone thinks all is lost."

From August 2010 WSJ article

If he didn't support going into Iraq in 2003-04, imagine how our military leaders must feel about going into Libya led by a president who campaigned on getting us out of war!

In my opinion, the United States has not been on a "winning" team since WWII--we need to stop going in to break things and kill people if victory, which always means fewer deaths of civilians and military alike, isn't the goal. We are not going to "free" the middle east from bad government, military dictatorships, and fundamentalist Islamic kooks. Let the Libyans free themselves, Senator McCain.

Democrats rode the anti-war movement into office

and then jumped off the straw donkey. Here's a long scholarly paper to describe the goal of protesting the war in Iraq--to get Democrats elected.

"After January 2007 [Democratic Congress elected in 2006], the attendance at antiwar rallies dropped by an order of magnitude to roughly the tens of thousands, or thousands, through the end of 2008. Consistent with our environmental mechanism, the pending departure from office of President Bush and the prospect that the Democrats would nominate an antiwar candidate for President in Barack Obama, could have been perceived as a diminished threat to peace from the Republicans. After the election of Barack Obama as president, the order of magnitude of antiwar protests dropped again. 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. The threat to peace from the Obama Administration, as perceived by the grassroots constituency of the antiwar movement, must have been very small. The partisan dynamics of contention by Michael T. Heaney, of U. of Michigan who studies social movements and political parties

And of course, this was written before Obama's interference and rallying the rebels in Libya, which aroused no protest at all among Democrats. Looks like sincere pacifists (if there are any left), Communists and anarchists will just have to wait for another Republican to take office to stage a decent protest (unless we count Madison and Columbus).