Up to your old mind-reading tricks again, eh? Must be wonderful to be able to discern the inmost thoughts of all those awful lefties and share them with us. Pfui!

slightly OT but here's another example of the coffin myth that you have discussed before:

http://www.mnstci.iraq.centcom.mil/docs/advisor/currentissue.pdf

Mr. Trowbridge, the minds of these lefties do not have to be "read" they are on full display on the internet, in the newspapers, and on the television. They have not been circumspect about saying exactly what they think. But somehow, when you point it out to them, they get upset and accuse you of all sorts of things. "I was really talking about fluffy bunnies and unicorns! You're just an old rightwing meanie who's trying to make me look bad!" Uh huh. You go on with that game if it amuses you, but don't be surprised when everyone doesn't want to play along.

What I want to know is, how is it spokes-burbler Cindy Sheehan's supposedly impeccable "absolute moral authority" manages to cover both creepy propogandists David Duke AND Michael Moore, at the same time.

Dave, care to present any evidence that shows I'm wrong? (And yes I know that "leftist" is a rough generalization, and there will be individual exceptions. It's necessary to generalize because left-leaning people are rarely honest and open about what their core principles are. You can't divide them into useful sub-groups. And you often generalize about "right-wingers.")

I say the Left is cynically using Sheehan and will drop her the moment she's no longer a means to an end. Do you have any evidence that shows I'm wrong?

I say the Left (as a generality) would blithely sacrifice any number of Iraqis if that would deliver a defeat to Bush and America. Can you show me I'm wrong?

And if not, why are you fellow-traveling with these people? Are you one of them? If you are going to criticize everyone else, isn't it time you were honest about what your own political philosophy is?

I believe that you don't have one; and the same is true of millions of other people in our generation (see Raindrop Theory). You never did respond to my challenge to write about what you are for, and not just what you are against. I don't think you can do it. Show me I'm wrong, and I'll apologize.

I think your appearance of being a leftist is just a reversion to factory-default settings established when we were young. You and millions of others don't dislike Republicans because of political principles or logic or facts, but because you perceive us as crazy Goldwaterites who have somehow taken over the asylum and upset the natural order of things.

You've spent the last 3 years blogging and talking (in the realm of geo-politics) only about things you dislike. And every one of those grumpish items was about something that has changed since the 1970's. And you are the science fiction writer? I think you are stuck and will stay stuck until you can get back to first principles.

David T:

The claim of the "human shields" (who were mostly left-wing) was that they were intent on protecting innocent lives from the bombs of the Americans and Brits. I think it safe to say that we conducted a bombing campaign that sought to safeguard civilian lives to the maximum extent possible, insofar as it did not adversely affect military aims.

I am prepared to grant that the "human shields" were simply intent on protecting lives---if any of them were sticking around to safeguard the lives of the same Iraqis from the depredations of the insurgents.

The Left claims to speak for the military when it sez "Support the troops, pull out now!" But how much of the military does it actually speak for, when reenlistment rates are up (this among folks who have been in Iraq, and who are the ones who are not being protected by human shields, ever)?

You are familiar with blogs, so how many military bloggers decry the war? (And by that, I mean think that Iraq is not worth it, as opposed to that some particular approach or another is screwed up?) I can think of one, Micah Wright---oops, he never actually served in the military at all, which didn't keep him from assuming said mantle.

Now the Left supports Cindy Sheehan. While Ms. Sheehan, as with any American, has a right to express her views, she does not have the right, any more than Micah Wright did, to assume the mantle of "speaking for the troops" or, in Sheehan's case, for the families.

Certainly, she does not speak for the likes of Lynn Kelly, Linda Ryan, or Thomas Zapp, or the host of other folks that Arthur Chrenkoff notes disagree very much w/ Cindy Sheehan.

So, I put it to you, Mr. Trowbridge: On what basis does the Left coalesce around Ms. Sheehan? Is it genuine respect for the feelings of all parents and spouses and siblings of those who've died in Iraq? Or is it cherry-picking the one parent who has not only lost someone, but who has met the President and is prepared (in her grief) to espouse some of the most extreme elements of their agenda (including that the war is for Bush's enrichment, for oil, and for Israel)?

This thread is becoming so interesting it may have to be published on its own. So many interesting comments....

"I think one must deny to anyone the right to ventriloquize the dead. "

Does that include Michelle Malkin, who on O'Liarly was channeled the spirits of the dead when she announced that she (who never met Casey Sheehan) KNOWS he would disapprove of his mother's actions? Likely she was inspired to engage in her psychic activity by O'Liarly who did the same thing 3yrs ago with the son of a 9/11 victim...Who knew the right could speak to the dead?

"I say the Left is cynically using Sheehan and will drop her the moment she's no longer a means to an end. Do you have any evidence that shows I'm wrong?"

Familiar with the concept of having to prove a negative? Exactly how does one prove "When did you stop beating your kids?"
I say, no they ain't. PROVE they are!

"they care nothing for the hundreds of thousands of mothers whose families were tortured and murdered by Saddam."
Again, unless you've been carrying on conversations with people outside the Crawford home for weary Presidents who seek to get on with their life (you know, I'll bet Casey Sheehan would have liked to have gotten on with his life), PROVE they don't care! If you want to look at past history, I'd say its the right who don't care. After all, when Saddam gassed Kurds in the mid-80's, it wasn't a "lefty" who flew in to smile, shake his hand, and let him know he was still our buddy....No, that was the right-wing of American politics! And now we can add the parents/children/brothers/sisters/husbands/wives of the estimated 120,000 who were killed by us invading. Yes, I know many (but not most) were killed by insurgents...but there were no insurgents, nor terrorists, setting off bombs until we decided we wanted establish a bunch of permanent military bases in the midEast...I suspect the number of Iraqis who wish we'd just left well enough alone is growing daily...

And did you catch the stunning example of the ultimate in Dear Leader worshippers? The guy who, late at night, decided to drive his pickup over the 1,800+ crosses which commemorate the dead Americans soldiers...not to mention a couple dozen American flags...you know, people down there said even when the hundred or so pro-Bush supporters showed up last weekend, both sides made peace long enough to lay flowers and place flags by the crosses...but protecting Dear Leader is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than honoring our war dead. Righties care zip for our soldiers, our vets, or their families, as they've proven over and over. Its simple fact...

Today another Bush neighbor allowed Camp Sheehan to move a half-mile closer to Bush's front gate when he offered to let them use some of his land. Said he's sympathetic to them...Whoda thunk it in Crawford Texas?!?!

Well, it was interesting...

It's time for us all to see Cindy Sheehan for what she really is. She has now become the modern day Jane Fonda. A person so infested with hate that she will use anything or anyone, even the death of a son, to feed her hate and then allow that hate to take over all rational. I am a vetern of another war that a simple minded, uninformed America hate monger used to promote her own personal agenda. Has Jane been resurected in the body of Cindy? Well, let's find out for sure. If she really hates America, then she needs to go to one of the terrosit camps, sit on one of thier cannons, or better yet strap on one of thier fannypack bombs, and spout hate America rehtoric. Will this happen? I bet not. But Ms. Sheen needs to fully understand that wars are lost beacuse of people like her. Every time the Leftie media glorifies her obscene efforts, it is viewed by the terriosts. The result - another bomb goes off and kills innocent men, women and children. So Ms. Sheehan, who is the real terriost. It appears in your ignorance you have become what you accuse President Bush of being, and you have become what you son fought, a died, to eradicate. NOW, WHO IS THE REAL TERRIOST.

It's still interesting . . . just has a few more lunatic comments than it did at the start. It's also interesting that a crazed mother (whether from grief or politics or both) can galvanize so much thought. I guess one morale from this is that we all need to be careful not to attribute thoughts to people whose thoughts we don't actually know. Yeah, that sounds like it's obvious and a truism but think recent so-called biographies, many political writers, much journalism, etc., etc., etc....

Anne:

Part of the reason, I think, why this particular issue has triggered so much discussion is that you're seeing a coalescence around Ms. Sheehan of those who feel themselves somehow dispossessed of a voice.

As several columnists have noted, Sheehan's protest represents the first popular (i.e., media-centric) face of the anti-war movement. Now, I can say that I've seen w/ my own eyes quite a few anti-war protests (living near a major US urban center will do that), but as w/ the Clinton-era anti-WTO/anti-WB protests, they were usually too varied in their messages for their own good. I'm not sure what the anti-war movement, the "free Mumia" movement, and the anti-globalization movement share, other than a deep-seated suspicion of the US government.

Ms. Sheehan provides a clarity of message that the Left has generally been lacking.

Unfortunately, Ms. Sheehan's actual message is not necessarily quite so palatable. Is suggesting that America itself is not worth fighting for a message that will resonate beyond the ranks of the hard-core Left? Are some of the comments regarding her son dying for Israel something that the anti-war movement is prepared to accept? Is her comment that Afghanistan was not a justified war either something that will broaden her attraction?

Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's Countdown show, 8/17/05:
"First, time for Countdown's list of today's three nominees for the coveted title of worst person in the world....
Also, the fine folks at Austin Community College in Texas. Carl Basham says he was denied the state residence discount for tuition. He has to pay $2,600 a semester instead of $500 because they say he spent too much time living out of state. Well, it's true, Carl has been away, serving, he says, two tours in Iraq. [Welcome to Bush's Red State America and it's support of our troops!]...
But the winner -- oh, it's the irrepressible Rush Limbaugh. On the radio, he said, quote, "Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real."

I guess she made up that dead-son-in-Iraq business! He also referred to her supporters as "dope-smoking FM types." I guess the painkillers wipe out your memory along with your ethics. Rush Limbaugh, today's worst person in the world!"

YI-HAH! Tell it like it is!
By the way, several real journalists (not make-believe winger pundits) who actually went to Camp Casey, among those supporting Cindy are many vets, numerous parents of vets, and lot and lots of very ordinary middle-class, middle-America folk...the sort the GOP has totally forgotten exist in their rush to hold onto wealth and power!