Questioning Bush's Sacrifice for a 'Noble Cause'

And Sheehan has suggested that if the Iraq cause is so noble, he should send his little "party animals" to serve there.

This is a newer version of the old chickenhawk argument - that is, that the administration is filled with hawks who avoided military service themselves. The current argument focuses on the question of whether children of today's Iraq war supporters are urging their children to fight in a war they deem noble.

Some on the right are defending the president, arguing that the entire issue is just a subterfuge to detract from the left's hatred of the military and distaste for all wars. And Sheehan - who they characterize as a kooky nutball - is just the left's latest spokesperson.

"War is a nasty, grisley business - I'd prefer that women didn't have to endure it," wrote blogsforbush.com. "They are, of course; and I stand in awe of the courage and dedication of our female servicemembers...but trying to make this conservative feel bad about President Bush's daughters not serving in combat is akin to trying to make me feel bad because [m]y 10 year old nephew isn't serving."

Other critics on the right note that lefties didn't demand that President Clinton urge his daughter to enlist when America was fighting wars in the Balkans.

But critics on the political left argue back that Clinton didn't lead the nation into a dubious war based on false premises. And his supporters didn't accuse those who opposed his military actions of being unpatriotic.

They argue that there is an appropriate precedent for asking the question.

"Back in 1993, when Bill and Hillary Clinton moved to Washington, they decided to enroll Chelsea in a private, rather than public, school," Richard Bradley wrote in HuffingtonPost.com. "Because the decision seemed to contradict the Clintons' stated faith in public schools, the press asked the Clintons about that decision, and they had to defend it-publicly. (And unlike the Bush daughters now, Chelsea was a minor.)"

So the Bush twins should be fair game as well, he reasons.

"It's pretty simple, really. The military doesn't have enough soldiers; the president believes that this is a good and just war; he has two daughters who could enlist in the military, but haven't. These things don't add up.

"So here's a question I think a White House reporter should ask the president: President Bush, if your own two daughters won't enlist, how can you expect anyone else's children to join the military?"

The president's children are grown and free to do what they want. It seems absurd to criticize them for not enlisting. But that's not the point, the war's critics say. The question is whether the president urged his daughters, or his other enlistment-age relatives, to join a cause he has described as noble. And the answer to that question is still unknown.

Comments can be sent to Terry Neal at commentsforneal@washingtonpost.com.