President Bush is reported to have said, regarding the dead soldier’s mother, Ms. Sheehan, and her demand to talk with him, “I think it’s also important for me to go on with my life.” This seems to me to be the wrong answer. Almost 2000 U.S. solders have no lives to get on with, and many more will have to get on with lives that have been shattered by physical or psychological maiming, not to mention thousands of Iraqis.

But neither should he necessarily agree to see her. Presidents cannot afford to become too emotionally involved with citizens (as Edmund Morris Pointed out). Doing so can lead to Jimmy Carter’s failed hostage rescue mission or Ronald Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal.

His answer should not be couched in terms of getting on with his own life, because the war in Iraq is his war, even more than Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson’s war. The war with Iraq was undertaken because of the personal will of President Bush. In doing so he had to overcome the reservations of Brent Scowcroft, a number of retired generals who had experience in the Middle East, many professional Army officers, his Secretary of State, and the objections of most of our allies. That President Bush was able to overcome all of these obstacles and shift war efforts from Afghanistan and invade Iraq was due to his impressive ability to use political power to achieve his policy goals.

So the appropriate answer about his refusal to meet with Ms. Sheehan would be that he has to fulfill his duty as President, whether to figure out how to “win” in Iraq or how to extricate our troops. The need for some relaxation is legitimately part of being able to carry out his responsibilities effectively. But the need for him to relax should be couched in terms of his duties as president, not getting on with his own personal life.