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.