She shows up at rallies all the time with the same message. I have pictures of her outside the RNC and at one of the big anti-war rallies in March somewhere in my archives.

What do you say to someone like that? It's kind of sad...and pathetic...yeah, both at the same time.

- My blogments come a little late per the date of the original post Bill. But I have an idea of the emotional rip you feel when the clash of factual positions and ideals have elements of brutal truth and obvious falsehoods simulteaneously on both sides. I know and understand the range of feelings. The pure heart rending loss of self and kin when a loved one dies in a war and the optomistic belief in what must be done to preserve our way of life and defend our country. As one with a foot in each world, after a great many years of grinding it over I've come to the conclusion it reduces to just doing what you feel must be done. And if its hard for people of principle and relatively moderate and balanced thinking to reconsule, it just amplifies how impossible it must be for some others who are in a perpetual state of paranoia and insecurity. That the hard core isolationists cannot cope is not a supprise. That they are so intent to confuse internal personal issues with their politics, I imagine should not be either. But overall I cannot look in the eyes of a mother who has lost her son for ideological reasons she can never hope to understand and ask anymore of her. So if she copes, and vents, and resolves through activism I am compelled to give her that, and anything else she may ask within reason. - Thats just my take.. as a Father/Husband/Soldier... Great show of balanced humanity and understanding on your part in the interview.....

Thanks.

As a mother of a Navy SEAL, and the wife of a fighter pilot, who was born a conservative, I cannot even imagine the pain of losing a son, and I pray that I never have to.

My husband would tell you that I am the last person that has any empathy for someone who does not understand that "Freedom isn't free"; however, I do believe that this woman needs our prayers and not our condemnation.

She has paid the highest price for our freedom. May God grant her the strength to find peace.

Sorry. My sympathy for these people dwindles rather quickly. Like Berg using his son's severed head for a podium to preach from.

Everyone grieves over the loss of a loved one. I watched a woman bury her son (a good friend of mine's husband) two weeks ago. He was tasered by a cop and she's not walking around blaming the police chief.

Her son VOLUNTARILY chose his path. Bush did not force him to join the military. I think it's disgusting behavior that is inexcusable. I was in the military and had I been killed, I would expect my parents to understand my choice and blame those who actually pulled the trigger and not the President.

- Kathy - amen to that...

- Well its eems that AP has sued the Pentagon to release any remaining Bush service records. (One MSM coming to the defense of a beleagered compadre?)... but while we'er on the subject:

- Double Hmmmm ... Seems ole' John (pocketa pocketa pocketa) Kerry hasn't been quite forthcoming concerning his own records as he's claimed...He has repeatedly declaired that "[All] of my records are shown on my campaign website"...

Well....errr...not quite...

- Now the fearless confused Sen. is apparently calling the entire Navy department a pack of unprincipled liers... That scalawag bunch of Jing' Jus' Naval people say that there are some 31 pages of info that John won't release.(drudgereport.com)

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200409\SPE20040916a.html

- Maybe we'll get to see them by the time Hillery runs in 2008 if we even still care. After all Kerry does love to do 180's.

- There's this dicey business about the exceedingly long time, maybe as much as 16 years, that passed before he got his discharge....and that strange non-existant "V" thing...

- Maybe we should see if Rather wants to look into it.....

That war is an awful thing and in it bad things happen to good people is not an inconvenience but a necessity.

War needs to be costly and painful and uncomfortable. Understanding the grave nature of the sacrifices that come with waging war and the horrible consequences it will bring to good people should be a pre-requisite to anyone who chooses to wage it. Without this understanding, we have the awfulness of most wars in World history leading up to the immense slaughters of World War I where human life appeared to have no value to most of the European leaders.

Some people feel war is never the answer and the price is never worth it. Those people should vote against Bush.

Some people don't think the goals, achievements and potential outcomes with Iraq are worth the price families have paid in lost loved ones. If those people believe John Kerry will get us out of Iraq quicker and with less casualties. They should consider voting for Kerry.

The Bush doctrine appears to be that fighting this war in Iraq will eventually, down the road, prevent us from having to fight a more costly war on our own shores. If people share this belief, then Bush is probably their guy.

This woman has a right to wear that shirt and protest and she's 100% correct. Bush is responsible for her son's death. But every president in our history has been responsible for the deaths of many people for many reasons. It's an awful job with serious consequences and the best presidents understood this. The best presidents tried to obtain the best possible benefits for the country with as little cost of human life as possible.

How well Bush has done this is open for debate I suppose.

Bush is responsible for her son's death.

Not the people who planted the bomb he was trying to defuse?

Not the people who incited the bombers?

Not the people who funded the bombers?

Specifically her son?

Yes Bush is essentially responsible. Bush could have picked someone else's son (metaphorically) or could have chosen not to go to Iraq.

I think you misunderstand me. Bush's job is to make decisions which eventually have the outcome of causing deaths. It's the grave responsibility of any president.

Bush's job is to weigh the scales. It may very well be that the very best decisions for the whole country result in the death of this woman's son. Bush is responsible for that. He HAS to take that responsibility if he's going to lead with any credibility.

Any president who doesn't want to assume the responsibility of sending sons into harm's way where they may be killed has no business being commander in chief. If there's a good reason to risk people's lives, it is up to the president to make that decision and accept responsibility for those deaths that do occur.

Bush made that decision and I assume accepts that responsibility.

Mr. Vee:

I can accept "Bush is responsible", because, as commander in chief, responsibility goes with the job. FDR was "responsible" for tens of thousands of GI deaths in WW II, and so on.

Bus is not, however, "to blame" for the death of her son. That belongs to the people who killed him.

This mother is blaming Bush for her son's death, and that is out of line - no matter how great her grief.

Well "responsibility" and "blame" is at least partially an argument in semantics. And a mother who has just lost her son isn't likely to be rational nor is it fair to expect her to be. This is why cretins like Michael Moore who have used such women to further their own personal agendas are such low-grade filth.

A son who dies for a just cause is just as dead as a son who dies for an unjust cause. And its difficult for me, having not been in such a situation, to criticize a woman for her words after such a tragedy. Whether I believe Bush made the right decision or not, she lost her son in either case.

A president simply has to stomach his role in deciding to risk the lives of soldiers and make choices that often result in lost lives. Whether you can characterize that as "blame" or "responsibiity", the reality of the outcome differs little whichever term you choose. He has to make decisions, not regardless of the consequences, but in full knowledge of them.

{whew} I usually get attacked because of my apparant low-sympathy range. Glad others understand my point and don't think I'm cold hearted.

However, this lady should also have a "Thank you Mr. Kerry for killing my son" since he authorized the war too.

So where do I get my "Lee Iococca killed my next door neighbor's dog" T-Shirt?

yeah, bush is responsible for her son's death. are there other factual causes? yes, but the buck stops here and all that. that's what happens when you go to war. people die. clinton killed soldiers in bosnia too. its the awesome responsibility of the President. She has the right to be upset and can disagree with bush that the war was necessary. we can't expect everyone to be happy even though historically, 1,000 deaths (so far) aint much for a war. it doesn't seem to be affecting voters much.

I think it is silly to say that a president who sends soldiers to war is personally responsible for that child's death. It isn't like presidents want to go to war so somebody's child is going to die, but sometimes war is neccessary, and sometimes people die.

That said, I can understand why a parent or other loved one would blame Bush or a president for their loss, sometimes, when you lose somebody, you need to lash out at somebody in the grief, and the president who went to war is an easy target.

I think your view is justified, Sharp as a Marble. I have little sympathy for political activism disguised as mourning. I extend my sincere condolences to her a grieving mother, but frankly, I don't care if she thinks we should pull out of Iraq. When someone devotes their life to carrying around a "Bush murdered my son" sign it's pretty clear that they don't have much interest in rational discussion of the issues.

Of course Pres. Bush didn't kill this poor woman's son. He was (voluntarily) in the military, and the person who set the bomb killed him.

We can all appreciate the mourning she's going through. We can even agree that she's entitled to her political opinion on the war.

Where I differ, is with her heckling. She's entitled to her opinion, and can freely express it, and can get all the publicity she deserves from it. But to disrupt a speaker is simply rude. Disagree with her all you want. Make a big sign and walk up and down in front of the venue. But let the speaker speak uninterrupted.

So is a "John Kerry voted to send your son to Iraq unarmed and without body armor BEFORE he voted to give George Bush a chance to kill him" T-Shirt acceptable?

TEWSPilot -

Your t-shirt ideas are not very accurate.

#1 - The vote in question was AFTER George Bush sent her son to Iraq

#2 - All of the "no body armor" attacks (leveled on BOTH sides) aren't really 100% accurate in a political blame game/gotcha sense.

This woman has suffered a loss. (Actually, has anyone fact checked that?)

Okay...She diminishes her son's memory with her actions. I just listened to her on Mike Gallagher's show and when Mike rightly (heh) pointed out that her son CHOSE to join the military, her response was, "Well, there wasn't a war then."

Um...What the heck does she think the military is for??? What did he, a college graduate (he was an officer, a LT) think the military was for?

I object to the peacenik, Michael Moore type insult that "children" are dying in war. Her son was an educated adult who could have made other CHOICES. Adult children often make choices that their parents don't agree with. She is now using his death to push an agenda that he may not have supported.

I have a feeling that he would be embarrassed by her actions. They demean him and every other soldier, airman, Marine and sailor who made the tough choice to VOLUNTEER to serve in our country's armed forces.

From a proud military wife

Ok, Bill, I'll give her a pass as a grieving mother, but reasonable? I think not...

"And they’re scared, they’re afraid, they’re brainwashed and they want to come home."

That's a quote from you the earlier post that you linked. It's clear that this lady has bit hard on the ANSWER hook and that is unfortunate for her. She could choose to think of her son's death as noble, regardless of why he was there, since he was certainly saving innocent peoples' lives by defusing bombs. Instead, Ms. Neiderer's pain will be prolonged by regarding her son as "scared,...brainwashed".

Read this for the story of a great man and hero:

http://www.thnt.com/thnt/story/0,21282,904720,00.html

Army 1st Lt. Seth J. Dvorin was a great man. This Rutgers grad was a hero who knew precisely why he was serving. He saved 18 men with his unselfish bravery.

His mother and father are obviously in a great deal of pain, but his mother's tantrums are hurting his memory.

This is old news now, but let me try to state my point clearly since my jokes seem to fall flat. My next door neighbor doesn't wear a T-Shirt blaming Lee Iococca just because someone in a Dodge Ram accidentally ran over his dog.

Sedition: An illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government...not just protesting but intending to damage the war effort or undermine our national resolve to fight a war of survival. This is not Vietnam, but the same anti-American sentiment is being fomented, and much of it by the same people. Michael Moore's photo should accompany the text defining it in the encyclopedia.

My sympathies go out to this woman. Our little town of about 30,000 has lost 4 KIA in the war. About a month ago I was at a wake across the street for the latest, shot in the back by a sniper while on guard duty. He had been wounded at least twice previously but went back each time as soon as his injuries allowed. He left a young wife and a child. The people who came to the funeral and then attended the wake, many from his unit and many about to deploy willingly for the umpteenth time came from all over the country to show respect and compassion for the family of the lost hero and to demonstrate their resolve to fight this war to victory so that all the efforts to date, and his life, have not just been wasted.

***CLICHE ALERT*** Millions have put their lives on the line to protect that woman's right to do what she did, but when do the acts of these "useful idiots" cross the line from "free speech" to sedition? I have sympathy for her, but will some other family lose a loved one because her actions inspire some other terrorist to kill an American who might have thought twice otherwise?

A fairly bright fellow named Solomon said it a lot better than I ever could in the Book of Ecclesiastes, third chapter:

3:1
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

3:2
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3:3
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

3:4
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

3:5
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

3:6
A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

3:7
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

3:8
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

...and maybe he could have added "a time to suck it up and support the greater good even when we suffer personal loss".

Looks to me as if we are in a season of Sedition, and personally, I'd "Rather" keep my grief to myself than let it help spread this national cancer.