Jim Hanley writes…
By the way, when you say, "But saying that anti-war folks want to see soldiers killed is just plain misrepresenting a political opposition," you are correct in most instances. There is, however, a minority of the far-left anti-war movement that does things like marching under banners that say, "We Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Officers." I have been dismayed that the anti-war version of the Big Tent doesn't make any attempt to distance themselves from such.
You're right. As I always say on rare occasions, every political movement has its idiot element. (And I sometimes add that if you can't see the idiot element in your movement, you're it.)
I have seen some of the responsible anti-war leaders try to distance themselves from such clucks, but not enough. In any case, I do think that trying to characterize the anti-war movement by the wackos is just what I said: A misrepresentation of the political opposition. I also feel this way when the gun control folks try to pretend everyone who owns one is a super-paranoid militia member, when those who oppose women's rights try to paint every feminist as a dyke, or any of a dozen other extreme caricatures we could all name. Maybe there ought to be a slogan that goes something like, "When you have to define the other side by its looniest participants, it's because you're afraid to debate honestly with their rational ones." Preferably, something a bit wittier…