‘Peace’ Activists Not Sure How to Protest Obama
When is a "peace activist" not interested in "peace"? After an Obama election...
Peace activists are liars. That is the lesson we learn from the Vallejo Times-Herald in the Napa area of California thanks to the hypocritical actions of “peace” activist Patricia Kneisler.
You see, Kneisler has decided to abandon her annual “peace” vigil in Benicia, California. Why would she do that? After all, we are still in Iraq. Not only that but we are about to ramp up actions in Afghanistan if the president can be believed. Why dump the “peace” vigil now since “peace” still hasn’t been achieved?
Let’s let our hippie friend tell us why:
“People are really conflicted now,” Kneisler said, explaining how many of the demonstrators felt they should not be protesting the war while Obama established his administration.
So, let’s get this straight… Bush is OK to protest, Obama is not? Even though the situation has not changed much at all? Why is that, anyway?
At this point Obama is not pulling out of Iraq any faster than the Bush administration had announced plans for doing and he continues to insist that he wants to engage more heavily in Afghanistan. Further, his Afghanistan policy has been one of upping the ante since the presidential campaign. There has been no hint that Obama is going to institute the precipitous retreat that these self-proclaimed peace activists wanted. So, on the face of it, Obama is not bringing “peace” on their terms. Yet, they still won’t protest him?
This makes it obvious that “peace” is not the agenda of the so-called peace movement. Politics is. They wanted a Democrat and did their level best to destroy George W. Bush’s policies to get that Democrat in office. Their guy won. Obama went to the White House and so these “peace vigils” end.
It doesn’t matter one little bit that the troops haven’t come home and that the “peace” they claimed to want hasn’t been achieved.
Quite regardless of any reality, THAT is their “peace.”
It also reveals their lies.