August 20, 2005


When the War Won't Stay at Bay: With Bush and the public insulated from Iraq, Cindy Sheehan has moral authority. (Peter Beinart, August 18, 2005, Washington Post)
Cindy Sheehan's allies (Robert Novak, August 20, 2005, Townhall)

At Cindy Sheehan's side since Aug. 6 when she began her antiwar protest outside President Bush's Texas ranch have been three groups that openly support the Iraqi insurgency against U.S. troops: Code Pink-Women For Peace, United for Peace & Justice, and Veterans For Peace.

Those organizations were represented at a mock "war crimes" trial in Istanbul that on June 27 produced a joint declaration backing the insurgency. Based on the United Nations Charter, it said "the popular national resistance to the occupation is legitimate and justified. It deserves the support of people everywhere who care for justice and freedom."

The Istanbul statement also rejected U.S. efforts to leave behind a democratic government in Iraq, asserting: "Any law or institution created under the aegis of occupation is devoid of both legal and moral authority."

It's not actually fair, but if you follow their arguments to their logical conclusion, to be a liberal these days is to believe that the elected government of Iraq has no moral authority but those supporting the Ba'athists and al Qaeda do.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 20, 2005 8:08 AM

It IS fair; that is exactly what they believe. The Left has achieved a kind of Zen perfection of moral vileness.

Posted by: Tom at August 20, 2005 8:55 AM

Of course Saddam is more legitimate - he (successfully) murdered all his rivals, and the left will always admire the monster who succeeds (Stalin, Mao, Castro, Mugabe, etc.).

Posted by: jim hamlen at August 20, 2005 9:29 AM

"Any law or institution created under the aegis of occupation is devoid of both legal and moral authority."

Such as the current governments of Germany, Japan, and Vietnam.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at August 20, 2005 10:08 AM

The South.

Posted by: oj at August 20, 2005 10:11 AM

You've got to dig down through the web pages at the Washington Post to find this one, but even Dana Milbank has his doubts about Cindy's moral standing:

Reading, Mass.: Is Cindy Sheehan just a passing August media enriched phenomenon or the catalyst of a crisis for the Bush Presidency?

Dana Milbank: That's why I posed the question: Rosa Parks or Lyndon LaRouche?

Certainly Sheehan has caught a wave, and the ranch stakeout was very clever. But she has been seeking publicity for more than a year (she even held a protest outside the Post a few weeks ago because she didn't like something I'd written) and for the most part, the media ignored her.

My sense is something of a perfect storm has developed: low polling numbers for Iraq, and Bush on Iraq, a surge in the violence, struggles over the constitution, and the Bush vacation providing a vacuum.

Sheehan's story will fade after the Roberts hearings start. But it's possible she has ignited a movement that will continue. Until now, there's been virtually no mass antiwar movement that puts people in the streets. There's a big antiwar protest here in DC I think on Sept. 24. That may be a gauge of where the antiwar movement is.

Posted by: John at August 20, 2005 11:07 AM

There really is a difference between the left and the right. Lefties, when they believe in something, but their lives on the line. Righties, when they believe in something...write blog posts.

Hilarious parody from makes the point:

"The Iraq Brigades were units created of volunteers and mercenaries who travelled to Iraq to fight against the Jihadist forces led by Saddam Hussein \and helped by Iran and Syria and protect the legitimate Iraqi Republic government in the Operation Iraqi Freedom between 2003 and 2005."

"40,000 men and women were enrolled in the Brigades. As many as 10,000 of them never returned. 50 nationalities were represented in the Brigades (during the Battle of Baghdad, the XIIth Brigade counted representatives from no fewer than 17 nationalities in its ranks).

"Many important artists and writers were in Iraq at the time, including Michelle Malkin and William Kristol. David Horowitz also was there as a war reporter for the Front Page, and spent time on the front line."

And I know the Abraham Lincoln Brigade were dupes for Stalinists. That's not my point. The point is that they stood up like men, and didn't beat up on women.

Posted by: Rick Perlstein at August 20, 2005 11:31 AM


C'mon, that's a parody too, right? You aren't really saying it was okay for Communists to murder 100 million people because they were feminists, or are you?

I know you aren't saying that Cindy Sheehan is putting her life on the line.

Posted by: oj at August 20, 2005 11:41 AM

"Lefties, when they believe in something, but their lives on the line. "

That has got to be one of the most obtusely self-congradulatory and self-rightous statements ever made. "Lefties" can riot with impunity (as they did here in Seattle a few years ago) because they know that NOTHING will be done to stop them. The only "Lefties" who have even been hurt for their cause were hurt by self-inflicted accidents, like that guy in Oakland in the '80s who lost his legs because he didn't realize that trains have a longer stopping distance than bicycles.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at August 20, 2005 12:06 PM

Criticizing badthink is the same as a beating ?

Can we withhold Sheehan's dessert, or is THAT too harsh ?

The Iraq Brigades were units created of volunteers...

40,000 men and women were enrolled in the Brigades. As many as 10,000 of them never returned.

Which is why warfare should be left to the pros.

So far, perhaps a quarter-million men and women from America's military have served in Iraq; fewer than 2,000 have lost their lives - less than 1%.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at August 20, 2005 12:58 PM

40,000 men and women were enrolled in the Brigades. As many as 10,000 of them never returned.

Where are the outraged mothers of these poor, exploited children? Who allowed them to be sent into harm's way?

Posted by: Robert Duquette at August 20, 2005 1:16 PM

If only Franco's men (or Stalin's) had been better shots...

Posted by: oj at August 20, 2005 2:39 PM

It reminds me of all the leftys who volunteered to be human shields for their pal Saddam and then get the heck out of Dodge as soon as the bombs started falling.

Posted by: Governor Breck at August 20, 2005 2:42 PM


And what % is that of our population of 300 million.

It's strange too that these guys have adopted the fascist belief that you have to serve in the military to be a true citizen.

Posted by: oj at August 20, 2005 2:42 PM


It will surprise you not one bit to hear thyat the shields are on their way!

Posted by: oj at August 20, 2005 2:45 PM

So I guess it's official: Mrs. Sheehan is simply a skirt for the Left to hide behind while they diddle themselves with their favorite fantasies. Though most don't reach back as far into history as the Lincoln Brigades for that. Men indeed.

Posted by: joe shropshire at August 20, 2005 3:33 PM

Perlstein is delusional.

I saw how leftists "put their lives on the line" all through the Vietnam era. All I saw was nauseating, self-serving cowardice. The only time any of them "put their lives on the line" was when some of them threw rocks at Ohio Nationalguardsmen.

It transpires that we in fact now have freedom brigades of volunteers in Iraq, but the peace creeps don't call them that--they like to say we are sending mercenaries.

And I just got back from the range, having tested a new reload, it turns out, for my Nguyen Ngoc Loan commemorative S&W Bodyguard. Nice load: 148 gr. Ranier plated wadcutters ahead of 5.0 gr. of WW231: not quite +P, but plenty punchy for a snubby and super accurate.

Posted by: Lou Gots at August 20, 2005 3:33 PM

US DEAD: 1862

Gunshot deaths in US - 2004: 31,000

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at August 20, 2005 10:16 PM

Making America a failed state.

Posted by: oj at August 20, 2005 11:05 PM