Blogstress Bookworm e-mails to inform us that she’s linked our roundup yesterday of l’affaire Cindy Sheehan and the various ways in which grief-maddened, Crawford-camping Cindy has allowed her pain over the death in Iraq last year of her 24-year-old serviceman-son, Casey, to be exploited and professionally publicized by the radical left. (See “Mother of Re-Invention,” Aug. 15.) Writes Bookworm:

“[T]o the liberals, the fact that these facts exist is irrelevant — since the New York Times has been silent about her real agenda and her ‘friends.'”

As of the latest reports, Cindy has expanded her campaign (financed by wealthy lefties who have hired a professional public-relations firm for her) to denounce Israel, quit paying her federal taxes, and call for George W. Bush’s impeachment. And all the true-believer Times has managed to do is preach lugubriously about the “moral authority” of “One Mother in Crawford.”

This New York Post editorial has the straight story on Cindy, however. And Jonah Goldberg, writing in today’s National Review Online, points out the typical liberal riposte to the criticism–that the First Amendment gives Cindy a right to say whatever she wants, isn’t much of a defense:

“The Constitution allows me to make a very long list of statements. I can say George W. Bush is in the pocket of Zionists and oil interests, as a certain woman hanging out in Crawford, Texas does. I can also say that George W. Bush is little bunny fru-fru hopping through the forest. I can say that the difference between him and a duck is ice cream because, after all, a vest has no sleeves. Or I can say that the Stifler dance scene in American Wedding made complete sense. In other words, I can say any crazy old thing I want. I can say America is a racist, sexist, homophobic country of hate with mean icing and a bigoted cherry on top. Or I can say that I have armadillos in my trousers.

“In fact, I can actually put armadillos in my trousers (though I suspect there’s barely room for one) and then say all of the above. Because, you see, I can make statements almost anywhere I like about almost anything I like. I can say it in Texas, I can say it in front of the White House. I can say it dressed like a mouse, I can say it like a souse….

“But, if you want to defend somebody’s controversial statements, saying ‘so-and-so has the right to his opinion’ doesn’t get you out of the gate. It just sucks up air and fills space. Intellectually, it’s got the nutritional value of Styrofoam. You might as well say ‘Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah, ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang’ instead and then move on to your next point. It’s not interesting, not smart, not insightful. Saying Cindy Sheehan has a right to criticize the president is like saying she’s a carbon-based life form: True, but utterly beside the point.”

And reader Anonymous points us to Eve “Vagina Monologues” Ensler’s latest cause: bringing her crusade to liberate women’s private parts to the Islamic world. Typically, Eve has decided that the fact that women are subjugated in Muslim countries has nothing to do with radical Islam; it’s All America’s Fault:

“The policies of the United States are in many cases, escalating this war. If we look at Iraq as one example, we see that under the terrible tyranny of Saddam Hussein, women lived difficult lives, but they were actually one of the most liberated and free in the Middle East. Since the U.S. invasion and occupation, the situation has becoming increasingly desperate…. 

“Where people feel threatened and undermined by outside invasion, fundamentalism grows. Fundamentalism survives on the suppression and silencing of women. As the United States sustains policies of empire building and hegemony, in the supposed name of ‘security’, women throughout the world, become increasingly imperiled and insecure.”

Yes, what’s a little rape and torture under a leftist tyranny like Saddam’s As Anonymous writes:

“Just what oppressed Muslim women of the world need — a vagina movement. Yeah, that’ll help!…Put a burqa on it.”