For a neo-con to actually look at Bush's record and to acknowledge that (best case senario here...) he was mistaken about WMD's, that there most likely wasn't adequate or realistic preparation for the aftermath of the invasion; to site two very obvious examples -- would be as unpatriotic as burning the flag.

There is no room for any objective evaluation of the decisions and the results of those decisions if you are in the Bush camp.  That is why they truly don't get it when those of us who support Cindy Sheehan, do not revile her if we happen to disagree with her take on any particular issue. 

I do not know the reliability or accuracy of all the quotes attributed to her.  I also do not care if she feels that Israel has too much influence over our politics.  I do not feel scandalized that she would not have willingly sacraficed her son to Afghanistan.  The Fox (and others) news readers dredge up statements made to a "friend," at the onset of her grief, and want other people who are opposed to the war to agree that these "quotes" show that she is kooky.

These are the same spokespeople who are undaunted when they see the evidence that Bush wanted war prior to 911, that the WMD issue was cooked up, that Colin Powell pretty much prostituted himself in front of the UN.   They quickly trot out the talking points:  "All the other countries thought so too!  Clinton thought so too" (never mind that HE did not invade Iraq).

Bush is terrified of revisiting his decisions, and cannot manage in a reasonable way to say, "Yes, some of these events we did not plan for adequately, and we are addressing those areas in the following ways..."  Why?  Because the neo-cons need to have a god who gets their complete adoration and blind obedience.  Anything less would introduce a gray area -- a nuance -- that doesn't fit in with the you are either with us or you are against us mind-set.

The trouble with this is that once you have declared someone perfect, all their lies become truths; all their mistakes become correct; all their terrible consequences become something to fight to the death over. 

To president Bush and his handlers, a grieving mother's imperfect but highly effective protest becomes just another PR problem, rather than an opportunity to look at the legitimate concerns of more than half of our citizens.

What the Bush administration and their flacks do comprehend is that those of us who support her protest don't think of her as our god.  When they attack her we feel protective, even angry and insulted, but we don't feel blasphemed.  We respect her, and empathize with her, and, yes agree with most of what she says. 

Why doesn't the president answer the question, "What is the noble cause my son died for?"  Why?  Because the honest answer cannot be perfect, and no neo-con would accept it.

Jan Knaus