As a grieving widow, I wonder if Lisa Ramaci-Vincent has absolute moral authority? Maybe she should camp out in front of Tisch Hall in Ann Arbor until Professor Cole meets with her. I’m sure that the media would give it big coverage…

Apparently, many families with members serving in Iraq aren’t as impressed with Mother Sheehan as the MSM seems to be. And seems to want us to be.

[9 AM EDT Update]

Here’s a specific grieving father who says that Cindy Sheehan doesn’t speak for him. Does he (in defiance of the meaning of the word “absolute”) have less “absolute moral authority” than she does, Maureen? Or is it only grieving parents who are opposed to the war, and think that Bush did it for oil and imperialism, and is waging a nuclear war in Iraq, and should be impeached, who have that quality?

And he makes an excellent point. If, as she says, the moral authority of parents whose offspring (and no, they’re not children, despite your and others’ attempt to infantilize them for political purposes) are killed in Iraq is truly absolute, how does she reconcile these apparently conflicting views?

[Update at 11:40 AM EDT]

Mark Steyn has further related thoughts at The Spectator (registration required).

Apparently, Senator Feingold is going to call for a fixed date to remove troops from Iraq. This idea has been amply discussed in the blogosphere (short version of the criticism–it allows the “insurgents” to run out the clock, after which they can have their way with the Iraqis). But I need this explained to me:

Lileks has some thoughts on the Gaza pullout, and Cindy Sheehan.

I think many on the progressive left would not be troubled much if Israel just

…it would be a shame if something were to happen to it.”

The so-called “moderate Muslim leadership” in Britain is blackmailing the British government again:

The closure of mosques accused of “fomenting extremism” would amount to a collective punishment of the community, the statement warned.

It may “create fear” which could lead to “the very radical sub-culture which we all seek to prevent”.

Finally, the Muslim leaders said plans to deport foreign nationals to countries known for human rights abuses was “abhorrent”.

In other words, Britain had better continue to allow people to foment insurrection and religious hatred against non-Muslims, or there might be even more insurrection and religious hatred against non-Muslims. And Britain is apparently obliged to provide asylum to people who abuse that privilege to preach hatred against her.

…it would be a shame if something were to happen to it.”

The so-called “moderate Muslim leadership” in Britain is blackmailing the British government again:

The closure of mosques accused of “fomenting extremism” would amount to a collective punishment of the community, the statement warned.

It may “create fear” which could lead to “the very radical sub-culture which we all seek to prevent”.

Finally, the Muslim leaders said plans to deport foreign nationals to countries known for human rights abuses was “abhorrent”.

In other words, Britain had better continue to allow people to foment insurrection and religious hatred against non-Muslims, or there might be even more insurrection and religious hatred against non-Muslims. And Britain is apparently obliged to provide asylum to people who abuse that privilege to preach hatred against her.

…it would be a shame if something were to happen to it.”

The so-called “moderate Muslim leadership” in Britain is blackmailing the British government again:

The closure of mosques accused of “fomenting extremism” would amount to a collective punishment of the community, the statement warned.

It may “create fear” which could lead to “the very radical sub-culture which we all seek to prevent”.

Finally, the Muslim leaders said plans to deport foreign nationals to countries known for human rights abuses was “abhorrent”.

In other words, Britain had better continue to allow people to foment insurrection and religious hatred against non-Muslims, or there might be even more insurrection and religious hatred against non-Muslims. And Britain is apparently obliged to provide asylum to people who abuse that privilege to preach hatred against her.

Here’s a stupid question:

“President Bush, if your own two daughters won’t enlist, how can you expect anyone else’s children to join the military?”

This is like the idiocy of Michael Moore demanding the same thing of Bill O’Reilly. It presupposes that “children” join the military, and fantasizes that this happens because parents “send” them. Surely this formulation helps play into the little passion play we’re seeing down in Crawford right now, but it has no correspondence to reality. In this country, adults join the military, and they do so voluntarily. Many (indeed, most) of them have parents, but this is presumably a choice made by those adults, and not the parents, so this whole notion of “sending our children to war” is nonsensical.

Does he really expect the president to order Jenna and Barbara to enlist? If not, what’s his point? This isn’t about “people’s children” joining the military–it’s about people joining the military who happen (on occasion) to have parents. But that reality apparently doesn’t jerk the heartstrings as much.

John Podhoretz says that there may be much less to the “Able Danger” issue than meets the eye. This doesn’t, of course, relieve the commission of its (what I consider) disgraceful behavior in whitewashing Jamie Gorelick’s role, and allowing her to remain on the commission, instead of what she properly should have been–a witness.

Andrew McCarthy writes about hypocrisy in Turtle Bay.