Dead relatives don't validate opinions

I've pretty much said all that I feel like I can about Cindy Sheehan, at least without repeating myself. And since she's been out of the news for the last few days, there's nothing new to talk about anyway.

However, this is something that indirectly involves Cindy Sheehan that I've been thinking a lot about lately.

Last week, we ran a piece by Tony Snow of Fox News fame (that we aren't allowed to put on the internet due to copyright/contractual restrictions, otherwise I'd give you a link to it) that referred to Cindy Sheehan as a 'useful idiot' for the extreme left, as well as pointed out that her actions are quite a peculiar form of grieving, and that those supporting her now are likely to abandon her when her news peg fades.

In my opinion, these were all fair, accurate, and tasteful observations. There were no low blows, or mudslinging for the sake of slinging mud. But judging from the response we got in the form of Letters to the Editor, Snow's political opponents didn't agree with my assessment.

The angry, oft profanity-laden letters lambasted Tony Snow for being so heartless, and demanded to know how he dare attack a grieving mother, or discredit her political opinions. After all, since her son died in the war, doesn't that give her absolute moral authority in criticizing it? At least that's what [New York Times columnist] Maureen Dowd believes.

But does it? Seriously, does the fact that Cindy Sheehan's son died in Iraq give her 'absolute moral authority'? Certainly not.

As observed indirectly in the coverage of Cindy Sheehan, there are families of fallen soldiers that DO support the President and his policies, to the point that they want the crosses representing their children removed from the protest display near President Bush's ranch.

So, following the logic of Maureen Dowd, don't THESE parents have absolute moral authority regarding the Iraq War? But how can two polar opinions BOTH have absolute moral authority? Quite the paradox, isn't it?

Let's be reasonable. Cindy Sheehan, in all likelihood, didn't turn against the war and President Bush simply because her son died in the war. Odds are that she was against the war even before her son was killed, and would have been against the war if he was never in the military altogether.

For her supporters to say that her opinion is now somehow more valid is both inaccurate and intellectually dishonest, because they're not rallying in support of the other families who support President Bush.

For every Cindy Sheehan, there's a Deborah Johns. As far as I'm concerned, they cancel each other out. People are going to believe what they believe about this war, and using dead soldiers for political fodder or fundraising material — regardless of who does it — is pretty sad.

I also think it's sad that the media focuses on someone like Cindy Sheehan for weeks, but anyone on the other side is completely unheard of.