The Unalienable Right
Friday - April 10, 2020

« « Member of NY Philharmonic busted on gun charge… | MAIN | Tolerant Peaceniks for Death and Intolerance » »

“Absolute moral authority”? MoDo absolutely thoughtless

Maureen Dowd serves up a typically dishonest, snarky, and vapid commentary in today’s NY Times. It’s not normally something we would read, but one particularly asinine line was highlighted by NRO’s Media Blog.

Dowd ends her column:

“Selectively humane, Mr. Bush justified his Iraq war by stressing the 9/11 losses. He emphasized the humanity of the Iraqis who desire freedom when his W.M.D. rationale vaporized.

But his humanitarianism will remain inhumane as long as he fails to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.”

But what in the world does that mean? In World War II, American mothers, Japanese mothers, and German mothers lost their sons. In Afghanistan, American mothers, Afghani mothers, and Taliban mothers lost their sons. In Iraq, American mothers, Iraqi mothers, and terrorist insurgent mothers lost their sons. Some of those American mothers support the president and the war in Iraq, and some, like Cindy Sheehan, oppose the president and the war.

So which of those mothers, in Maureen Dowd’s world, have “absolute moral authority”? All of them? Do the terrorist insurgents’ mothers have absolute moral authority in Dowd’s mind? Do mothers who support the war in Iraq? What does it mean to have absolute moral authority? Any mother of any person killed in any war has a veto over all national security decisions? If one grieving mother speaks out against a war, we pack up and go home? When any mother loses a child in war it’s a real tragedy. But that doesn’t mean their opinions carry more weight or they have a veto over national security policy.

What’s obvious is that the only thought Dowd had was to come up with a clever ending for her column. An attempt at moral seriousness about such a serious subject would clearly be too much to expect.

Update: Donald Sensing with similar thoughts.

posted by: The Editors @ 2:39 pm August 10, 2005


  1. […] As we noted earlier, Mrs. Sheehan’s foreign policy views deserve no special consideration because she is grieving. Cindy Sheehan is an anti-war activist. She co-founded an anti-war activist group, Gold Star Families for Peace. She has aligned herself with other leftist anti-war groups, like Code Pink and She has every right to be against the war, and to state her case. But many on the left are responding to any criticism of Sheehan with emotional cries like “how dare you attack a grieving mother?” When you start an organized activist group and engage in public political commentary, you aren’t immune from criticism because you’ve lost a loved one. It just isn’t fair to claim Sheehan can say anything she wants, including some pretty nasty personal attacks against President Bush’s character, but it’s out of bounds for anyone to respond. But of course the president’s enemies in the anti-war movement have no interest in fairness or honest debate. […]

    Pingback by The Unalienable Right » MSM Spinning for Sheehan — August 11, 2005 @ 10:57 am August 11, 2005

  2. […] Previous: MSM Spinning for Sheehan Tolerant Peaceniks for Death and Intolerance “Absolute moral authority”? MoDo absolutely thoughtless posted by: The Editors @ 10:34 am August 15, 2005 […]

    Pingback by The Unalienable Right » Newsweek - Breaking: President Bush is not a heartless automaton — August 15, 2005 @ 11:03 am August 15, 2005

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed for this post.

All comments are moderated, they will not appear immediately. Comments judged by the editors to be obscene, libelous, or otherwise inappropriate will be deleted. Comments will not be deleted because they disagree with the positions of this site. Respectful dissent is encouraged.

The opinions expressed by commenters are their own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the owners of this website.