Case in point: Operation Iraqi Freedom (sic) has provoked far more protest/outrage than 78 days of U.S./NATO bombing over Yugoslavia in 1999 ever did. Where were all the Hitler moustaches and facile Nazi analogies when it was Bill Clinton ordering the use of cruise missiles and depleted uranium in the name of humanitarianism (sic)?
Well, don't think for a second that the powers-that-be aren't hip to this irrational trend. "As the Iraq war gets more unpopular, the environment for Republican candidates erodes," said Republican strategist Mark Campbell recently told the New York Times.
Meanwhile, Democratic candidates suddenly can't stop talking about Iraq. "Iraq and foreign policy are to a large extent albatrosses around the Republicans' neck this year," New York Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat) explains. "And they don't know what to do about it."
While the Democrats pretend to be Cindy Sheehan for a month, their rivals, well, here's Mark Campbell again: "Only in an election year this complicated can Republicans be happy that Mark Foley knocked the Iraq war off the front page."
By equating U.S. military intervention solely with the Bush regime, the anti-war crowd is aiding and abetting this subterfuge. Anti-war doesn't just mean anti-Bush and it isn't a useful mask to wear at an election season costume party. The label "anti-war" signifies one as being against all war no matter what political party has commenced the invasion, the bombing, the sanctions, or the covert operations. Until the anti-war movement is guided by genuine anti-war sentiment, it'll play right into the hands of the two-party (sic) game...a game with no long term winners.