I’ve read about this, and I find the whole thing sad. To me, this particular situation has nothing to do with politics, and I don’t think there is anyone or anything to blame.
I feel terrible for the woman who lost her son. I feel worse for her that she’s unable to find some kind of resolution or understanding of it that enables her her to find her own way through her grief.
I feel bad that she’s fixated on Bush. She’s already had one meeting with him, and from the interview I read she apparently chewed him out some in that meeting. I don’t see how a second meeting is going to help her come to terms with the whole thing.
I think she’s making a mistake by trying to search outside herself for a meaning or way to come to terms with her son’s death, especially when the first meeting failed.
Even if I hated Bush I would have to concede that the fact that he’s made the effort to meet with the families of deceased servicemen a good thing. Whatever you think of the war it at least shows that he’s cognizant and respectful of the cost, and seeking to help the families of those who died come to terms with it.
I think it’s sad that this woman’s pain has become a cause celebre in the media, and that she’s being used by both sides.
If I were Bush I’d give her another meeting. I’d tell her that whatever she thinks of my leadership has no bearing on the fact of her son’s bravery and sacrifice. I’d tell her that I hope she finds peace and I’d sit there politely and let her say whatever she wanted to say.
If the media asked me about it afterward, I’d say that I thought she sought the second meeting sincerely, out of pain, and that I hope she achieved some measure of satisfaction from meeting with me again.
In the final analysis though, her son was a volunteer, and we no longer have the opportunity to know how he felt about his service and his sacrifice. Since he was the one who made it, as far as I’m concerned his is the only opinion that really counts.
