War Proponents Would Vote "NO" if Their Children Could Be Drafted. Barlett, Perino War Eligible

Sunday on Meet the Press, Charles Rangel, Chair of Ways & Means, stated that Iraq War supporters to whom he has spoken would all vote "No" on the war if their children could be drafted. Yesterday, Dan Bartlett, White House Communications Director, and Dana Perino, press secretary, attacked Matt Dowd's conversion claiming, as Dowd had said, that it was his own son's deployment to Iraq that triggered his enlightenment.

Both Bartlett and Perino volunteered that having a son deploy to Iraq would certainly effect someone's views of the war. Bartlett and Perino are both of military age---what about the press asking each of them, a) if they personally support the president's Iraq War policies; and b) if so, why have they not volunteered? What about asking the White House for a list of administration children between 17 and 40, and a list of those who have volunteered for Iraq? What about asking Bush if his views would change if his daughters could be sent to Iraq? If he says, "no", ask him why they have not volunteered?

In the spring of '04, when I had the opportunity of asking Jeb Bush, toe-to-toe, whether any of his children would be volunteering for Iraq, he said, "No, I don't believe they will". When I asked why not, he provided a lame excuse and then became visibly red-faced and enraged. Radical rightwinger Bill Kristol first lied about his age to a Seattle audience, claiming he was too young to have served in Vietnam, and then, matching the Bush redface, angrily shouted, "Why should I? Why should I?" when he was outed. He said his son was in ROTC at Harvard, no mention of his older children who were out of college volunteering.

Consider how sick, pathetic, cowardly and perverted the people to whom Rangel referred (mostly members of Congress, one assumes from his context) must be. Proclaiming the fall of civilization if we withdraw from Iraq in one breath, yet willing only to send other peoples' children to continue the fight, and accusing those who realize the futility of further military action by limiting the president's authority to pursue an open-ended, unaccountable war policy of not supporting troops. How did our society create such people? Why are they allowed to escape this basic question? Why are they not exposed by the press? Are the honorable so honorable that they will not challenge the dishonorable? Ask Adam Putnam, a 30-ish member of the House Republican leadership, why he himself is not volunteering for Iraq? Remember, he tells his constituents that the future of civilization is at stake, and when all know the military is exhausted, and new volunteers are highly desirable.

Consider the arrogance of the White House, accusing (!) Matt Dowd of changing his views because his son was about to be deployed. Why doesn't the so-called WH Press Corps ask the White House for a list of administration children between 17 and 40, and for an accounting of who is deployed to Iraq? I learned last night of a National Guardsman who served two tours of duty in Afghanistan, thought he was finished, and is now going to be redeployed to Iraq---someone who supported the Afghanistan venture, but is vehemently opposed to Iraq. Because the Bartletts and Perinos and Putnams, and others who question the patriotism of war opponents do not volunteer themselves, other peoples' children have to bear the burden of their misguided, unaccountable policies.

If they want to support the troops, let's see them volunteer or shut up.