Originally Posted by djugurba

I'm sure 'mom' was supportive of her son's military service. He undoubtedly assumed that going to war was a logical possibility of his position. And, she would have been stupid not to assume the same.

The issue is not whether or not he should have expected to go to war, but under what grounds he'd be expected to die in a war. W's position of public trust demands that when he commit troops to situations in which they may be killed in action, he do so for valid reasons.

Her contention is that W. has betrayed a critical public trust by lying to both military and citizenry with regards to the need to go to war in Iraq. And, her contention is easily proven true. Thusly, she has a reason to complain.

She does not impugne her son's decision to serve in doing so. She does, however, take issue with the reasons given us for going into that war in the first place. Her son HAS died for nothing, and I think we'd all be pissed if in the same boat- especially if the one who made the decision to send him off was busy concocting more lies to keep sending more soldiers to their deaths.