Crossposted from Flopping Aces

What is the “peace movement” doing wrong?

• It failed to prevent the war in Afghanistan.
• It failed to prevent the war in Iraq.
• It failed to change power in the executive branch.
• It failed to end the war in Iraq.
• It was duped by Democrats in 2006 who promised “A New Direction In Iraq” without ever having even formed a committee to brainstorm ideas until 2 months after being elected.
• It failed to prevent The Surge offensive.
• It failed to stop cannibals in the Congo [and was silent while 4-6million died as UN peacekeepers raped and sold children en masse].
• It failed to stop the bloodshed in Darfur.
• It speaks out against the efforts (war) of US forces to protect people from terror.
• It speaks the same rhetoric as the enemy’s propaganda. It is silent in response to terrorist attacks.
• It is openly embraced by Islamic holy warriors.

What is the “peace movement” doing wrong?

In late 2002 through early 2003, millions and millions of people took to the streets around the world and protested against further military attack on Iraq. They failed to prevent the invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein. Post war investigations and even interviews with many senior level regime leaders (as well as with his interrogator) show that Saddam never believed the U.S. would have the will to go against the world’s anti-war movement. At most, he expected another Operation Desert Fox, and it wasn’t until the last few weeks or days that he finally recognized that the invasion was going to happen. What do you think might have happened if millions of people took to the streets and-instead of trying to deter action (as Saddam believed would be successful)…what if those millions had protested in demand that Saddam answer Blix’ 129pgs of “Unresolved Disarmament Issues”? Could the “Peace Movement” have better achieved peace by protesting against Saddam rather than against those who would later remove the dictator? Would the Peace Movement be more effective if it protested against dictators, warlords, etc rather than representative governments?

Maybe the Peace Movement has failed because it’s embraced the very tactics that it alleges were used to start a war? Before the war, we were told by members of the Bush Administration that the war would be short, costs offset by Iraqi oil revenue, and casualties would be comparable to those of Desert Storm. Those claims were wrong. Opponents of the war often point to them as deliberately wrong, misleading, etc.; i.e. lies. Conversely, for the past four years the American people have been told that the Army was on the verge of collapse, that there was no way to continue the war in Iraq without a draft, that casualties are 50x higher than the actual number of bodies, that the cost is trillions higher than it really is, that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror (despite the fact that 95%+ of the suicide bombers were Al Queda, and 80% of all civilian casualties were from Al Queda suicide bombings). Today’s Peace Movement seems to feel it’s ok to lie and/or mislead to try and end the war in Iraq in the same way that Bush Administration people are accused of having lied and misled to start it.

Maybe the movement fails because its promoters really aren’t willing to help people/nations in trouble? When a nation is starving, and it asks the world for food then the U.S sends food. When a nation is facing a massive disease, and it asks for medicine, then the U.S. sends it. When a nation is hit by a tsunami or earthquake or other natural disaster the U.S. sends aid. When a nation is under attack from terrorist groups that are allied, affiliated, or even part of the enemy that the U.S. is at war with (as is currently the case in Iraq) then why shouldn’t the U.S. send help?

Maybe it’s something as simple as respect? Looking back at the protests and marches that brought about changes in civil rights and helped end the Vietnam War history books show tens of thousands of people dressed in their Sunday-best. Many people see today’s protest marches, and they look like carnivals. Groups like Code Pink seem the opposite in appearance to the respectful, professional look of the 60’s civil rights marches. Does this polar shift in respectful protest to a more “carnival” protest had an effect on the Peace Movement? Do people respect clowns as much as they did more formal protesters of the past?

I don’t know, but the fact remains that the Peace Movement seems more a partisan political tool and a carnival than a substantive and meaningful call for action. Perhaps someday it will succeed in bringing peace to a war torn nation rather than support those tearing it apart? Perhaps it would be more successful if it marched and took action against the terrorists?

For a detailed look at the 3/15/08 protest in LA from where these pics were taken, please visit this site. It’s worth it!

also:

Was He In The Pews On July 22nd? Like That Matters.

So now the Obamamites are spinning the Wright story into a story about one particular speech on one particular day:

Bill Kristol’s New York Times column about Barack Obama this morning contains a major, prejudicial error.

Paragraph five:

But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22. That’s when Wright blamed the “arrogance” of the “United States of White America” for much of the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. In any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright’s preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain.

The error is in trusting the source without checking.

The truth is that Obama did not attend church on July 22.

He was on his way to campaign in Miami.

Well, lets say he wasn’t in the pews that day. So what?

Did he not attend this church for 20 years? He sequestered himself for days with copies of the racebaiting ministers speeches to learn how to move audiences. Obama has described some of Wrights sermons in his books that mirror the speeches we have on film:

And so it went, a meditation on a fallen world. While the boys next to me doodled on their church bulletin, Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpsville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the State House. As the sermon unfolded, though, the stories of strife became more prosaic, the pain more immediate. The reverend spoke of the hardship that the congregation would face tomorrow, the pain of those far from the mountaintop, worrying about paying the light bill…

He has said he felt at home in Wrights church:

In his 1993 memoir “Dreams from My Father,” Obama recounts in vivid detail his first meeting with Wright in 1985. The pastor warned the community activist that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church’s radical reputation.

When Obama sought his own church community, he felt increasingly at home at Trinity…

Later he would base his 2004 keynote speech to the Democratic National Convention on a Wright sermon called “Audacity to Hope,” –also the inspiration for Obama’s second memoir, “The Audacity of Hope.”

Obama even told Wright that he can get a “little rough” during his sermons so he asked him not to deliver the invocation at his February 2007 Presidential campaign announcement party.

All of this is evidence he KNEW the man was a divider of races. In no way, shape, or form, will anyone (except the most diehard Obamamite) believe that over a 20 year relationship with Wright, a relationship which was described by Obama as a mentorship, that Obama never head this kind of hateful rhetoric. I mean come on. Wrights hallmark is this “black power” rhetoric but for some reason when Obama was in the pews Mr. Wright toned it all down.

Puhlease.

But if your gonna go down this road of “was he in the pews during this sermon or that one” then at least write all the facts. The facts are that Obama WAS in Chicago that day so he could have attended the church. He did fly to Miami later in the day but to state he could not of attended because he was traveling to Miami is omitting the fact that he attended a function in Chicago also. The writer of the original story sticks by his article:

Clarification: The Obama campaign has told members of the press that Senator Obama was not in church on the day cited, July 22, because he had a speech he gave in Miami at 1:30 PM. Our writer, Jim Davis, says he attended several services at Senator Obama’s church during the month of July, including July 22. The church holds services three times every Sunday at 7:30 and 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. Central time (with weekly praise/prayers starting 15 minutes previous to those times). While both the early morning and evening service allowed Sen. Obama to attend the service and still give a speech in Miami, Mr. Davis stands by his story that during one of the services he attended during the month of July, Senator Obama was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Wright as described in the story. Mr. Davis said Secret Service were also present in the church during Senator Obama’s attendance. Mr. Davis’ story was first published on Newsmax on August 9, 2007. Shortly before publication, Mr. Davis contacted the press office of Sen. Obama several times for comment about the Senator’s attendance and Rev. Wright’s comments during his sermon. The Senator’s office declined to comment.

But either way, he attended this church for 20 years. As Bob Owens notes, these kind of excuses is just plain silly:

Barack Obama is forcing us to chose between one of two narratives. Either he:

A. attended a church for two decades that featured a radical minister preaching a seemingly separatist and occasionally anti-American “Black Value System” (which curiously, was scrubbed from the church’s web site over the weekend), considered Wright a mentor, was married by him, has his children baptized by him, and added him in an official capacity to his Presidential campaign (though in a largely ceremonial role), without ever really knowing anything about him or his beliefs, or;
B. Barack was aware of Wright’s pronouncements and beliefs and agreed with him enough that he was a member of Wright’s congregation for 20 years, only to then see Obama threw Wright “under the bus” when those beliefs became a threat to Obama’s presidential campaign.

Which is it?

Hell, just check out Obama’s first book and you will find all the evidence you need to understand why he chose Wright to be his mentor.

From the age of ten onward, though, Obama desperately wants to be black: “I was trying to raise myself to be a black man in America, and beyond the given of my appearance, no one around me seemed to know exactly what that meant.” Honolulu’s paucity of African-Americans means he has to learn to be black from the media: “TV, movies, the radio; those were places to start. Pop culture was color-coded, after all, an arcade of images from which you could cop a walk, a talk, a step, a style.”

He cherishes every cause for complaint he can discern against white folks. He is constantly distressed at being half-white. Obama says he “ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites,”

He spells it all out in the book. But instead of owning up to it he makes excuses and uses Clintonian doublespeak about the meaning of “attend.”

Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

UPDATE

Heh:

has anyone else noticed the irony of his “alibi”? He was speaking to La Raza.

So let me get this straight. He couldn’t be listening to his racist pastor because he was speaking to a racist group. Isn’t that like claiming you couldn’t have robbed the bank because you were busy sticking up the liquor store at the time?

How ironic.

Other’s Blogging:

• Riehl World View
• Outside The Beltway
• Sister Toldjah