Anti-War "Teach-In"
Earlier today, I attended the "Teach-In" on University of Delaware's campus sponsored by a group called "Historians Against the War." The two main speakers where J. Kenneth Campbell, director of the University of Delaware's International Relations program, and former member of John Kerry's Veterans Against the War [in Vietnam], who said he was involved in "the same kinds of activity as John Kerry. Joining him was David Farber, a history professor at Temple University in Philadelphia (director of their graduate program). Farber was introduced as "an expert on the 1960s." This was organized by Susan Strassman of UD's History Depatrment.
In attendence were assorted faculty members, students, and local Newark moonbats, or "peaceniks," as they liked to be called. More than one person reminisced about the days of protesting Vietnam during the Q&A period. Lots of Marixism all around. More on that later.
David Farber delivered the opening remarks, and though he seemed to tried to sound rational, his real views came apparent as time when on. He said that there were "good reasons to believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." He then went on to say that the fact that the Bush Administration was wrong made the war more "problematic," and that "fear and anxieties were not a good reason to be at war." He eventually said that Iraq's dislike of the United States has it's roots in anti-British and anti-Israel feelings.
Then Professor Campbell spoke mainly on comparing Iraq to Vietnam. To him, they are so strongly linked in his mind that he has trouble differentiating betweent the two. He said the entire process of "quagmire" was "a process of deception and lies," from "deception getting in," to "denying atrocities," and "deception to block exit." Professor Campbell made the claim that Iraq was "entirely based on lies," and that "torture was system-wide in Iraq, Afghanistan, and certainly Guantanamo."
A UD history professor, whose name I didn't catch, seemed angry that the first two speakers were not angry enough. He went through a rundown of what caused the Iraq War in his mind. To him, Karl Rove was for the war because of "Bush's sagging political fortunes," and that Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to "kick some ass" and build an oil pipeline. An oil pipeline. I'm sure Halliburton is working on it right now. He also said that the end of the war was "near to an unconditional defeat for the US."
One audience member, an older man, said that the stories of people spitting on veterans after Vietnam was "slander against the peace movement." The same man said fighting the war calls for some "risky behavior."
It was about here that I knew the real character of these people was going to come out soon. They can only hold their friendly demeanor for so long. After being pressed by an audience member, Professor David Farber yelled his response of "this Administration hasn't had to pay for the F***ING PRICE FOR SCREWING UP!"
After Farber's outburst, things picked up a little, with one audience member, idetifiying herself as a "public school administrator" calling the United States' support for Israel a "detriment to the UN." I don't think that even makes sense!
There was one thing that really stood out for me. I've heard stuff akin to this for years, but what I noticed this evening was the horribly eletist rhetoric by most of the speakers. One blamed the war on "American ignorance," another said that "anyone who could read knew" the Administration was lying. I find remarks like that incredibly offensive. There are plenty of rational arguments that can be made opposing the war, on both sides of the ideological spectrum. None of them were on display tonight.
In attendence were assorted faculty members, students, and local Newark moonbats, or "peaceniks," as they liked to be called. More than one person reminisced about the days of protesting Vietnam during the Q&A period. Lots of Marixism all around. More on that later.
David Farber delivered the opening remarks, and though he seemed to tried to sound rational, his real views came apparent as time when on. He said that there were "good reasons to believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." He then went on to say that the fact that the Bush Administration was wrong made the war more "problematic," and that "fear and anxieties were not a good reason to be at war." He eventually said that Iraq's dislike of the United States has it's roots in anti-British and anti-Israel feelings.
Then Professor Campbell spoke mainly on comparing Iraq to Vietnam. To him, they are so strongly linked in his mind that he has trouble differentiating betweent the two. He said the entire process of "quagmire" was "a process of deception and lies," from "deception getting in," to "denying atrocities," and "deception to block exit." Professor Campbell made the claim that Iraq was "entirely based on lies," and that "torture was system-wide in Iraq, Afghanistan, and certainly Guantanamo."
A UD history professor, whose name I didn't catch, seemed angry that the first two speakers were not angry enough. He went through a rundown of what caused the Iraq War in his mind. To him, Karl Rove was for the war because of "Bush's sagging political fortunes," and that Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to "kick some ass" and build an oil pipeline. An oil pipeline. I'm sure Halliburton is working on it right now. He also said that the end of the war was "near to an unconditional defeat for the US."
One audience member, an older man, said that the stories of people spitting on veterans after Vietnam was "slander against the peace movement." The same man said fighting the war calls for some "risky behavior."
It was about here that I knew the real character of these people was going to come out soon. They can only hold their friendly demeanor for so long. After being pressed by an audience member, Professor David Farber yelled his response of "this Administration hasn't had to pay for the F***ING PRICE FOR SCREWING UP!"
After Farber's outburst, things picked up a little, with one audience member, idetifiying herself as a "public school administrator" calling the United States' support for Israel a "detriment to the UN." I don't think that even makes sense!
There was one thing that really stood out for me. I've heard stuff akin to this for years, but what I noticed this evening was the horribly eletist rhetoric by most of the speakers. One blamed the war on "American ignorance," another said that "anyone who could read knew" the Administration was lying. I find remarks like that incredibly offensive. There are plenty of rational arguments that can be made opposing the war, on both sides of the ideological spectrum. None of them were on display tonight.
| Permalink | 
