It started with the successful struggle to put Howard Dean in charge of the DNC.

And while the MSM will cover the price of gas and the foreclosures they never tie in the fact that those things flow FROM the war.  They'll cover the collapse of a bridge, but never mention that monies that could have saved it are being spent, hand over fist, on the war.

It was the day that MoveOn.org ran their strategically moronic BetrayUs advertisement in the New York Times. That was the day that the Democratic Party

Now, that's a little unfair.  Do you really think that, had that ad not run, the congress critters would have agressively quetsioned Saint Petreus and his almighty surge?  Would they have been more confrontational with Bush?  Would the howler monkeys of the right screamed any less should anyone badmouth the "success" of the surge?

Finally! I thought I was the only one who thought the MoveOn ad was detestable. And incredibly stupid. But it seems like all I read at the time were liberals up in arms (pun intended) defending MoveOn for its kindergarten stunt. Just because the words rhyme doesn't mean you should rhyme them.

Interestingly, I think Obama has "moved on" and brought the activists into his campaign.

It would be interesting to know if those news organizations who continue to cover the war, including foreign, and foreign language news organizations, have seen a increase in online traffic.

speech in New Mexico with "God bless you, and may God continue to bless the United States of America".

I was in another room so I didn't see if he was also wearing a flag pin in his lapel.

I don't know that the antiwar movement died on the day of the "Betray Us" ad -- moronic is about the best you can call it -- but it certainly got good and buried because of that. So, thanks, MoveOn.org.

Well, once the Hillary/Obama drama is officially over there will be all that empty airtime/news space to fill.  Maybe the media can see their way back to some meaningful coverage.

Oh, there you are, Perry. -Phineas -SLB-

I've a simpler explanation: media coverage of the war has declined as the complexity of the situation became more obvious. Many modern reporters lack the aptitude or training needed to report on complex issues, or believe that their viewers lack the capability to understand complex issues. Now that the situation in Iraq is basically "a tangled, bloody mess" that doesn't fit any of the normal good guy/bad guy or he said/she said narratives, they can barely report on it at all. Most Americans, however, understand "it's a tangled, bloody mess" just fine - thus, the continued support for peace.

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

to borrow a quote from george orwell: "The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it."

while the ending may not come quick, this "war" has been lost in the public's opinion.

of course, this fact seems lost to the presumptive RATpulican't presidential candidate, who used the occassion of his memorial day speech to devolve into the tired rhetoric of BushCo™:

...To walk away now -- before the Iraqi government can fully protect its people from ruthless enemies -- would strengthen al Qaeda, empower Iran and other hostile powers in the Middle East, unleash a full scale civil war in Iraq that could quite possibly provoke genocide there, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. The consequences would threaten us for years, and I am certain would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that would impose even greater sacrifices on us.

I have many responsibilities to the American people, and I take them all seriously. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others and that is to use whatever talents I possess, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted, and that as long as there is a reasonable prospect for succeeding in this war then we must not choose to lose it. That is how I construe my responsibility to my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. It is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.

full text of speech

l'm beyond weary of hearing the disenchanted hillary supporters threaten to vote for this man as if they actually believe he's a better choice.

the choice is quite clear: vote for the future or more of the same.

the revolution will not be televised...

Talk on the war in Iraq needs some re-framing. ONE BILLION gallons a year, not including private contractors.

To Blame Move On for the continuance of the war is total crap.  Are you all trying to say that criticizing a general is a no no.....Come on now people the war is wrong and nothing you say intellectually can justify this bloodshed. I was in Nam and it was never right for what ever political reason anyone wanted to dream up (you don't kill innocent women and children for some dumb political dream). I'm a Vet and I'm saying B.S. to all these false arguments.

The only reason a fairly innocuous advert criticizing the second in charge in the field (Fallon was in charge--Petreus was 2nd in the chain of authority--you fell for another trick) is  because you LET them sidetrack the country on this silly theater.  At the moment the opposition party was to decide the fate of the war the wimpy Democrats let the neocons and the media substitute the discussion of the apporpriateness of an advert in the NYT for any real debate on the war.  Booman evidently took the bait and is still going with it.  He and the strong Democrats would have stood up to Bush and ended the war (or at least blogged about it more) if the bad lefties wouldn't have scared patriotic America with their New York Times adverts.  Or so they want you to believe.  

The Democrats that went along with the head fake about the Petreus ad are as deeply guilty of violating their duties as legislators as the Republicans.  Democrats, (evidently like BooMan) used MoveOn as a convenient scapegoat for their own inaction and lack of courage to stop a war.  Even when the vast majority of people were against it the Democrats did nothing and had the audacity of blaming the "left" for creating an environment where they could do nothing.  .  

Now that you've defeated Hillary do you think you have to turn Obama into Mr. Moderate and are you now coming after the firebrands?  Is this how you plan to show that Obama is "tough" and a moderate?  If so, no thanks.  I don't need a pretend tough Obama.  Especially if he is going to prove his "toughness" by beating up on the left.  

Sorry BooMan.  You're way off on this one and way off on your history.  It's the Democratic party that is most responsible for not ending this war.   The party doesn't want you to talk about that though and you are obliging: you're focusing on the minor differences between two center-right Democrats at the moment.   There is a reason the Democratic legislature has the lowest approval in history.  You are aiding and abetting them and providing cover.  You just bought in to their silly excuse for doing nothing: the dirty fucking hippies on the left.  

The Day the anti-war movement died . . . .

Was the day that those on the radical Left went too far and took out an advert that was heard round the country.  The radical Leftists criticized the second in command in the Iraq war, and the President's hand-picked man (after about 4 other men were fired).  The Leftists claimed that the General's remarks were theater and were putting a political spin on the facts on the ground.  The radical Leftists used a pun and went too far.  Because of this pun--American foreign policy was determined for the next 2 to 3 years.

And the Democratic congressmen were hobbled from ending the war they so desperately wanted to end.  If it wasn't for this advert, clearly the Democratic legislators would have won the showdown they were preparing for.  

C'mon.  If the anti-war movement died that day it died because it became obvious that the Democrats had no intention of ending the war.  They were simply hoping the war would be lost and they could win some elections by claiming to be against the war.  It wasn't lost because the "Left" was too radical.  It was lost because it became evident that America's system of government was failing.