The Wall Street Journal ran the inevitable op-ed from a grieving parent whose child was killed in Iraq, which begins, “I lost a son in Iraq and Cindy Sheehan does not speak for me.”

This was inevitable because Sheehan and others like her are being treated like martyrs. Maureen Dowd wrote that “the moral authority of
parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.” No, it’s not. As horrible as losing a child is, parents whose children have died in Iraq are citizens just like the rest of us. (To his credit, the author of the Journal op-ed recognizes this fact, and disavows Dowd’s claim.)

Surprisingly enough, Ana Marie Cox put it best on Wonkette:

Over at The Corner, Kate O’Beirne finally suggests what we suppose is inevitable, that anti-war grieving mother Cindy Sheehan should be countered
with pro-war grieving mothers: “Surely a fair number of such family members
are in Texas? Let’s hear from them. . .”

Is that what the debate has come to? Which side can corral the saddest crop
of widows, parents, and orphans? Call it a harms race. Better: an ache-off.
We hope the grimly absurd image of two competing camps of mourners
illustrates why it is we’ve been somewhat reluctant to weigh in on Sheehan’s
cause: Grief can pull a person in any direction, and whatever “moral
authority” it imbues, we can’t claim that Sheehan has it and those mothers
who still support the war don’t. The Bush administration knows all about
exploiting tragedy for its own causes, including re-election. Whatever
arguments there are against the war in Iraq, let’s not make “I have more
despairing mothers on my side” one of them. The only way to win a grief
contest is for more people to die.

Amen. Let’s have a real debate over the war, not an “ache-off.”