Conservatives took President Bush’s cue yesterday and turned the spotlight on Tammy Pruett, an Iraq mom whose husband and five sons have all served in Iraq. Under the headline, “Move Over, Cindy: Bush Singles Out Other Military Mom,” Matt Drudge said that Bush had taken “direct aim at Cindy Sheehan” when he highlighted Pruett during his speech to Idaho National Guardsmen.

But last night, when Tammy and her husband Leon appeared on CNN, they weren’t exactly reading from President Bush’s script:

CAPT. LEON PRUETT: You know, Paula, I guess Cindy and the other folks that have lost loved ones over there, you know, we grieve with them and we’re sorry for their losses and empathize with them and their families and what they’re going through.

We don’t have anything against anybody that wants to protest or do anything like that. That’s wonderful. Isn’t it right — isn’t it wonderful that we have that right in this country to be able to do that?

ZAHN: Tammy, do you think Cindy is dishonoring the service of those that are currently in Iraq fighting?

T. PRUETT: You know, that’s a really tricky question.

Personally, as a mother, I feel her pain. Obviously, I can’t feel it to the extent that she does. But I totally empathize with her feelings. It wouldn’t be the way that I would choose to honor one of my sons if it happened to our family.

UPDATE: Crooks & Liars (as usual) has the video.

President Bush’s message on Iraq over the past few weeks has been consistent: don’t worry about the persistent violence because the political process in on track. Here’s Bush on August 11:

I had a meeting with the defense team and earlier this morning with Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld…We discussed recent developments in Iraq, including the political progress that is taking place in that country. Despite the acts of violence by the enemies of freedom, Iraq’s elected leaders are now finishing work on a democratic constitution.

Unfortunately, that talking point won’t work anymore:

Parliament announced it had no plans to meet Thursday night and no date for a future session, signaling Iraqi factions were failing to reach agreement on a new constitution before a self-imposed midnight target.

Dan Bartlett better get to work.

During a live press conference, Cindy Sheehan responded to yesterday’s remarks by President Bush, which echoed Move America Forward’s “You Don’t Speak for Me, Cindy!” tour. Bush claimed that Sheehan “doesn’t represent the view of a lot of the families I have met with” who have lost their children in Iraq. Here is Sheehan’s response:

You know, I never ever got up here and said “I speak for every single Gold Star family, I speak for every single military family.” I’ve never said that. But I know I speak for thousands of them. I know we speak for thousands of them. We want to know, what is the noble cause our children died for? What is the noble cause they’re still fighting for and dying for every day? …

And there are other people who disagree with our position who have lost their children. I know with Karen here, and Melanie and Susan, we respect their rights to their opinions. At the end of the day…or at the beginning of this quest, we started in the same way — with our loved one coming home in a flag-draped coffin. And if there is any family who says that they believe their child died for a noble cause, I say that is your right, if that helps you get through the day, if that helps you in your pain. Because we might not have the same politics, but trust me, we have the same pain. And we do what we have to do to get through our pain, and we hope they respect us for that. We respect them in any way they have to do to get through their pain.

“Parliament announced it had no plans to meet Thursday night and no date for a future session, signaling Iraqi factions were failing to reach agreement on a new constitution before a self-imposed midnight target,” AP reports.

After a less than enthusiastic response to his suggestion that America should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (the editorial pages of virtually every major newspaper in the country condemned him yeserday morning), Robertson claimed that his comments were “misinterpreted.” Now that this has been shown to be blatantly untrue, Robertson has apologized. Sort of. At least that’s what you’d think if you read the headlines this morning:

The New York Times: “Broadcaster Offers Apology for Calling for Assassination”
USA Today: “Robertson issues a denial, then an apology”
The Wall Street Journal: “Robertson Apologizes For Chavez Remarks”
The Washington Post: “Robertson Apologizes for Calling for Assassination”
The LA Times: “Robertson Apologizes for Chavez Remarks”

But what the papers fail to note (or note only in passing), is that Robertson’s apology statement (read the whole thing) concluded with an argument that attempts to shore up his original call for assassination:

The brilliant Protestant theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who lived under the hellish conditions of Nazi Germany, is reported to have said:

“If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can’t, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver.”

On the strength of this reasoning, Bonhoeffer decided to lend his support to those in Germany who had joined together in an attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Bonhoeffer was imprisoned and killed by the Nazis, but his example deserves our respect and consideration today.

There are many who disagree with my comments, and I respect their opinions. There are others who think that stopping a dictator is the appropriate course of action.

This contradicts his apology. Indeed, Robertson seems to be raising the stakes: he cites as an analogy a “brilliant” man who tried to kill Hitler, believing it to be the Christian thing to do.

Still, I’m sure Robertson will clarify his comments. Again. For the third time.

pushes Pruett as antidote to Cindy Sheehan.