After Cindy Sheehan

Salon Magazine.

What more needs to be said. OK, I'll say more anyway. The sub-head on the article reads:

The antiwar movement was dominated by lefties and ineffective -- until a grieving mother from California became its symbol. With Middle America now asking the same angry questions she is, will the movement finally take off?

Now maybe I'm wrong, but someone that speaks at places like this and makes statements outlined here, is not exactly from "Middle America." As a matter of fact, since these are basically the extreme left talking points ("war for oil","constantly changing reasons for war", blah, blah, blah), then this is not really someone from "Middle America" is it? Didn't most of America, especially the middle, support the war in Afghanistan? Not Ms. Sheehan. Come on. She's a lefty. A total moonbat lefty. And everyone and there brother is going on and on about her and it's getting thick. Stop already.
Anyway, back the Salon article:

House, Sheehan and dozens of other members of military families opposed to the war represent the new face of the American antiwar movement -- a movement that has, over the past two years, managed to stage a few massive street demonstrations, but has otherwise had little success convincing Democrats, not to mention Republicans, to take up its cause.

Oh, well if dozens of people are against the war, it's shocking that they haven't convinced everyone to be on their side. And let's face it, these are not new faces. Cindy Sheehan, for example, was against the war from the start, but it was her son who volunteered for the Army and switched his MOS so that instead of being a non-combat role, he was in a direct combat role. So, all this junk about her being against the war because of her son... He was the adult that volunteered to go, not her. It just doesn't really matter that she's against it. He supported it.

Many of the more polarizing voices of dissent -- like Michael Moore or International ANSWER -- have been drowned out by a larger sea of opposition.

If true, that's going to have a real impact on the war.
That Sheehan's protest has caught on with the media now is not so much a testament to the power of her story as it is to the caprice of the national media, they say, which has long ignored opposition to the war and only now -- when Americans seem finally ready to oppose the war -- is changing its tune.

Or, it's August and not much is going on in the world at the moment and since they're down there in Texas with Bush anyway...

Sheehan herself has made her position crystal clear. "We're over there and we need to come home," she said in a conference call with reporters on Tuesday. What happens in Iraq after we leave isn't a worry of ours, she added. "We need to let the Iraqi people handle their own business."

Like we did the people in Rawanda & Somalia? Like the Europeans did the people in the Balkans? Like the world did for 30 years of Sadam's rule (how many graves were there again?). Whatever did happen to "never again" anyway?

To say the least, Sheehan is a bomb-thrower, which many on the right hope will knock her from her new perch as the head of the antiwar movement. During the past couple of weeks, Matt Drudge has put forward a constant barrage of some of her most impolitic statements about foreign policy -- her criticisms of Israel, or the "foul-mouthed tirade" she delivered at San Francisco State University in April, in which Sheehan called members of the Bush administration "fucking hypocrites" and declared, "We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We're waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!"

OK, it's actually an almost balanced article, which, since this is Salon we're talking about, makes it balanced. But this last bit, to me, is the main problem I have with the anti-war people, becuase, as George Orwell so ably pointed out, being against a war on Fascism means being a supporter of fascists.

One lingering question is the movement's position toward Iraqi insurgents, which is undefined, and which may leave the people who are against the war vulnerable to the charge that they are comforting terrorists in calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. According to Leslie Cagan, the national coordinator for United for Peace and Justice, the group has adopted no formal response to Iraqi insurgents because there is a wide range of opinions about the matter among UFPJ's member groups. Cagan says that within the group there is "a general feeling that we understand why people are using many tactics to fight against the occupation by the U.S. military, but we do not support terrorists or organized paramilitary groups."

Until this question is answered, then the "anti-war" people, as far as I'm concerned, can be safely labeled "pro-terrorist."