Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, left, campaigned for his son, George P. Bush, during the younger Bush's successful bid for Texas land commissioner in 2014. (LM Otero/AP)

Fox News host Andrea Tantaros thought she smelled hypocrisy in Jeb Bush's plan to defeat the Islamic State, which he outlined during Thursday's Republican presidential debate in Des Moines.

How could the former Florida governor say the United States ought to "embed our troops with the Iraqi military" unless he was willing to send his own son to the front lines?

I've never bought into the thinking that only veterans or parents of veterans are qualified to discuss military strategy. Americans have elected 13 presidents who never served in the armed forces, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was commander in chief during World War II.

But even if you do subscribe to that philosophy, Tantaros's criticism seems wildly unfair because, as people all over the Internet quickly pointed out, George P. Bush is, in fact, a veteran who served an eight-month tour of duty in Afghanistan in 2010. He wrote all about in USA Today upon his return.

Tantaros didn't exactly apologize.

That link goes to her Facebook page, where she expounded, suggesting George P. Bush's service doesn't count the same:

Jeb Bush wants to send U.S. troops back to Iraq. Last night he said he wants to "embed" more American troops in the country. When I asked if Bush would be willing to embed his son this time around, the campaign responded by pointing out his son, George P. Bush, served in Afghanistan.

The men and women who choose to serve our great republic are to be commended, but George P. Bush's service falls into the realm of textbook special treatment for children of "political dynasties" with direct commission and online classes, not exactly standard fare in the U.S. military. His three weeks of direct commission training is far less than a plebe receives prior to entering the U.S. Naval Academy.

I appreciate George P.'s service — regardless of how outside the norm it is — but it most certainly offers no inoculation against political critique.

This is what you call moving the goalposts. What, George P. already served? Well, it wasn't really the kind of service I was talking about.

Nevertheless, Tantaros found an amen chorus on social media.

Look, I have no idea whether George P. Bush got special treatment. I'm not nearly familiar enough with his service record and how it compares to the norm to make that call.

But I would point out that Tantaros's criticism is rooted in the same soil as Dan Rather's infamous CBS report in 2004 on the service of George P.'s uncle, then-President George W. Bush, which conservatives cite to this day as an example of liberal media bias. Rather reported — and maintains to this day — that George W. Bush benefited from his family legacy when in 1968 he was assigned to a post in the Texas Air National Guard that kept him out of Vietnam.

That controversy was recently the subject of a big-budget film, titled "Truth."

The specific circumstances are different, of course. George P. was deployed, while George W. was not. Rather stepped down as the face of CBS News after the authenticity of documents used in his report proved dubious at best; Tantaros appears to have simply been unaware of or forgotten George P.'s service.

But in both cases, we're talking about efforts to diminish the military service of men whose shared surname might have conferred uncommon privileges. It's uncomfortable territory. And if it was dicey to scrutinize the military record of George W., a sitting president, then it seems extra dicey to parse the service of his nephew, a Texas state land commissioner.