Precisely what needs answering

Cindy Sheehan acknowledges that she has changed her tune about the President. Good. After all, admitting you have a problem is the first step in getting better.

Michelle Malkin, once again, is all over it: Liberals continue to claim hysterically that it is a right-wing "lie" that Sheehan changed her story about her meeting with Bush. Guess the Post is now a member of the VRWC.

Indeed. I've been wondering--and in fact, Michelle has asked the question as well--how exactly it is that everyone has so easily ignored the published fact of what Mrs. Sheehan had to say at the time she met with the President last year.

People change their minds. Given, however, her statements last year and the vivid difference between them and her current rhetoric, I've been saying for several days that in order to understand her we need to understand how and why she came to "change her mind."

Michelle's post quotes for you from the original hometown news article on Sheehan's meeting as well as her recent appearance on CNN. The difference is obvious, the reason for it not quite as much. Also read and ponder Robert Jamieson's piece at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (just a hint: Her accusatory tone suggests that she wants to flog the president with blame and vitriol and not have a meaningful, respectful dialogue.).

I guess if Mrs. Sheehan and her new-found champions on the left want to end the "smearing" of her good name, they need to tell us exactly how-and-why Cindy got from then to now.