Silence speaks volumens but sometimes time is needed to hear the word

“One might almost think that the antiwar movement was all about politics, not principle. That it was really an anti-Bush, anti-Republican movement. And that once a Democrat was in the White House, its purpose had been served and the protest signs went into the trash. There is precedent for this, as we have written before. The anti-Vietnam war movement, which also was celebrated by the press, wasn’t really a movement against the Vietnam war. It was led mostly by people who were not at all opposed to the war, but wanted the other side to win. The rank and file were not so much anti-war as they were anti-draft. On the day the draft was abolished, the anti-Vietnam war movement ended. Whatever you think of the merits of the Vietnam war, there never was anything noble or idealistic about the anti-war movement.

History may, perhaps, say the same thing about those who protested the Iraq war so passionately, but have been so strangely silent about Afghanistan.”

John Hinderaker is wondering what happened to the antiwar movement? He observes that these ‘anti-war’ movements aren’t really that at all but rather a ‘pro-enemy anti-U.S.’ political expression. Hidden agendas, socialism oriented terror and violence, and much misery and death, over and over again. When will we ever learn?

Comments are closed.