Protesting Mom at Crawford Is New to Bush Bash Sceen
Drudge has a developing story about the dead Iraqi War Vet's Mother protesting outside of Bush’s Ranch. Apparently, she has had a complete change of heart about how she feels towards her son’s death, the President, and exactly what transpired when the President came to visit her a year ago.
In 2004, she said “I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.[…] 'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together”
2004 Article: “For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle”
Now, in 2005, she says “It was -- you know, there was a lot of things said. We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity. And we wanted him to look at the pictures of Casey. He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name. He came in the room and the very first thing he said is, 'So who are we honoring here?' He didn't even know Casey's name. He didn't want to hear it. He didn't want to hear anything about Casey. He wouldn't even call him 'him' or 'he.' He called him ‘your loved one’. Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party.”
“Yes, he came in very jovial, and like we should be happy that he, our son, died for his misguided policies. He didn't even pretend like somebody...”
Now, I have not lost a child in war, and I have not personally met the President, but to me, there is something drastically different in these two accounts…
Where is the line between real emotion and feelings, and political statement? What would make someone change the way the feel this drastically in a year?
In 2004, she said “I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.[…] 'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together”
2004 Article: “For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle”
Now, in 2005, she says “It was -- you know, there was a lot of things said. We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity. And we wanted him to look at the pictures of Casey. He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name. He came in the room and the very first thing he said is, 'So who are we honoring here?' He didn't even know Casey's name. He didn't want to hear it. He didn't want to hear anything about Casey. He wouldn't even call him 'him' or 'he.' He called him ‘your loved one’. Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party.”
“Yes, he came in very jovial, and like we should be happy that he, our son, died for his misguided policies. He didn't even pretend like somebody...”
Now, I have not lost a child in war, and I have not personally met the President, but to me, there is something drastically different in these two accounts…
Where is the line between real emotion and feelings, and political statement? What would make someone change the way the feel this drastically in a year?
