The father has absolutely no problem condemning the President and Rumsfeld, why would he not be free to condemn those that murdered his son in such brutal fashion? And his son, if he was the Bush supporter he says, could not be considered to be a friend to either terrorists or the insurgents in Iraq.
Isn't it just a little odd that if Nicholas was truly a Bush supporter and believed in why we are in Iraq, that the father would have come out so strongly against Bush?
Even though the father clearly comes from the other side, doesn't it strike you as being a bit demeaning to his son's own opinions, to what was supposedly important to the son?
After all, if Bush hadn't liberated Iraq there would have been no reason for the altruistic Nick to visit Iraq and help the people there. Helping the Iraqi's would never even be a consideration to anybody.
Just another inconsistency in the fathers behavior, although I don't profess to understand the Left. And grief is a powerful influence on the mind.
Prairie