The elephant in the room, so to speak, in the Cindy Sheehan story is why she is demanding a meeting with President Bush to discuss her son's death in Iraq when she already had an opportunity to meet the President in June, 2004, and walked away from the meeting not only neglecting to ask him why he "killed" her son, but praising him.

In the Associated Press report, "Peace Mom Returns to Texas War Protest,"  reporter Angela K. Brown attempts to justify this contradition by rewriting the history of the Iraq War. 

In an otherwise nondescript article, in the last paragraph offers her explanation;

"Sheehan and other grieving families met with Bush about two months after her son died last year, before reports of faulty prewar intelligence surfaced and caused her to become a vocal opponent of the war."

Sounds plausible, if not reasonable.  The problem is that it is not true.

Accusations that American intelligence, in regard to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, was flawed surfaced months before the death of Cindy Sheehan's son, Casey.

In fact, the issue was the lead question to President Bush of Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," February 8, 2004:

"Tim Russert:  And we are in the Oval Office this morning with the President of the United States.  Mr. President, welcome back to “Meet The Press.”

President Bush:  Thank you, sir.

Russert:  On Friday, you announced a committee, commission to look into intelligence failures regarding the Iraq war and our entire intelligence community.  You have been reluctant to do that for some time.  Why?"

This interview is from two months before Casey Sheehan's death in April, 2004, and a full four months before Sheehan's first meeting with the President. 

So now we have two questions.  What really influence Cindy Sheehan to become an antiwar activist (Michael Moore's misinformation, perhaps?)  And, why the press feels the need to cover it up.