[This was supposed to be an "Easy Call," posted in the section of the Scoreboard reserved for short commentary on matters where the ethical verdict is neat, clean and clear. My webmaster gently and correctly pointed out that I was out of my gourd.]

Cindy Sheehan's grief over the death of her soldier son in Iraq has induced her to accuse President Bush of mass-murder and not caring about the deaths of American soldiers, to make herself the poster-girl for anti-war and anti-Bush activists, and to camp out in front of the President's home in Texas, "waiting for an answer" from the Commander-in Chief. Her question: "Why was my son's death a noble one?" Sheehan's feelings of bitterness and anger at those who sent her son into war have undoubtedly been held by millions of mothers since the first spear was thrown in anger. We should sympathize with her devastation, but the President has no obligation to provide this particular mother with a personal audience or to subject himself to public cross-examination that impugns his character and motives.

Sheehan, it should be clear by now, isn't interested in hearing Bush's explanations; she is simply exploiting her special status as a grieving mother to exert disproportional power over public opinion and the Iraq policy debate. She appears to believe that the fact that she lost a son gives her enhanced credibility as a foreign policy analyst, though her comments belie that theory. An example of Sheehan's acumen in this field was her recent statement that terrorism could be eliminated if the U.S. would get out of Iraq and Israel would exit "Palestine," which, by the way, is Israel. Wow, Cindy! Why didn't anyone think of that before? It's so simple!

Sheehan's naiveté marks her as blissfully unaware of the six decade complexities of the Palestinian problem that have stumped the greatest statesmen and stateswomen of our time, and she is satisfied not to consider such nagging details as the likelihood that a total success for the objectives of Palestinian terrorism would almost certainly guarantee more world terrorism, not less. She is unburdened by accountability, responsibility, or objectivity, yet is exploiting (aided by a voracious news media and an alliance of anti-war and anti-Bush activists) her own son's death to get disproportional leverage for views that are neither sophisticated, enlightening, original or constructive. Hers is a vigil fueled by emotion, and her ad hominem attacks and willingness to be manipulated by anti-war forces (her ad for Move-On.Org is just one example) tip the appropriate response to her conduct from sympathy into annoyance.

Her shrill attempts to embarrass the President simply take time and attention away from legitimate debate about the Iraq war that needs to be undertaken at a level far beyond Sheehan's maternal rage and simplistic pronouncements. Her apparent hope is that her tantrum can serve as a "tipping point," a catalyst to turn public opinion against the war. Undeniably, national policy has been upended by equally undeserving events. But the only people who want policy to be determined this way are those who have no regard for democratic decision-making.

Cindy Sheehan has a legal right to express her opinion, but she has an ethical obligation to express it responsibly, legally, and respectfully. Hurling hatred down on leaders who make difficult decisions in wartime is not responsible, helpful, or fair. Hers may be an effective anti-war protest, but it is an unethical one.