Would Bush want his girls on Iraq's front line?

U.S. News- Washington Whispers ^ | 11/24/03 | Paul Bedard

[Pokey78]

It's a question every parent with a daughter in military service, or considering it, has mulled since Pfc. Jessica Lynch, bloodied and possibly raped, was rescued: What the heck were she and other female soldiers doing in the line of fire? The answer is simple, though little publicized: Rules changed in the Clinton years to get women closer to the front. "This is exactly what we warned would happen years ago," says Elaine Donnelly, head of the Center for Military Readiness, a group devoted to limiting female combat exposure. "We need brave women in the military," she says, "but no one's daughter should have to suffer an ordeal" like 19-year-old Lynch's. Even some Pentagon officials agree and would like to see new limits on female combat roles. But it's all up to President Bush, the father of twin 21-year-old daughters, who has yet to weigh in on the issue. Donnelly's attempts at an Oval Office visit have been ignored, so she has started a petition to get Bush to dump the rules. "He needs to give direction," says Donnelly. "We're tugging on his sleeve."

[Nick Danger]

Bruit physical strength matters in combat.

Nothing I said suggested that women should be in combat. My comment was directed strictly to the sort of woman who would say, "No woman should have to endure such ordeals." I might agree with her, but I don't want to hear it from her. From her it sounds like, "We women should be able to enjoy freedom, but you men should pay for it with your blood. We are too important to suffer when there are still men around to die." Not an attitude I want to hear. If she thinks she's some kind of Brahmin because of her plumbing, she can keep it to herself.

[churchillbuff]

Hey, idiot, it isn't "appeasement" to say that women shouldn't be in combat. If that's appeasement, then Churchill, Eisenhower and Patton were all appeasers. I'll support the president - - except when he's appeasing the feminists by continuing to send young girls into battle, which is a positively insane policy. Seems Bush is bold and courageous when it comes to standing up to somebody like Saddam -- whom it's easy to oppose -- but when it comes to standing up to Gloria Steinem and the feminists, Bush's boldness deserts him

[churchillbuff]

Would Bush want his girls in a building that was suicide bombed by foreign Islamic terrorists??

What does that question have to do with whether we should send women into combat? Thank God the feminists -- and fools like you -- weren't around to force Ike to include women in D-Day. Otherwise the war would have lasted longer and success would have been less certain.

[Jorge]

Of course Bush would say he wants his daughters on the front lines in a war. Right.
Dumb article.

[dangus]

His girls get busted doing anymore illegal activities, he just may *put* them on the front line.

[Darlin']

What an absurd question. First, no parent ever wants their child, male or female, to be in harms way but since our military is all volunteer joining up is a decision voluntarily made. Hopefully they consider the risks along with the benefits when making that decision. Second, Jessica Lynch wasn't in a combat unit.

[meema]

I'm with you. Neocons children should be the first to 'volunteer'!

The feminazis wanted the women to be Generals, and that means combat service.

[independentmind]

You denigrate the women who are out there right now covering your butt. Ergo, you don't sound self-serving, you sound like a pompous, ill-informed and condescending

And you sound like a self-important nitwit who vastly overrates her own intelligence. As for being a weak woman, most people who know me would laugh in your face at the suggestion. What I am is a realist. At least give me credit for being remarkably UN-PC.

[Old Professer]

I watched the Titans Jaguars game Sunday; one of the Titans cheerleaders looks like the front row of a Tote-the-Note used car lot

[austinTparty]

Try backing up your assertion with facts and reason. I have cited examples contrary to your argument (which cited none to begin with, being merely your opinion). By responding to those examples with an ad hominem attack, you do nothing to further your initial claims.

You want credit for "being remarkably UN-PC"? Take it. That does nothing to prove that women are emotionally unequipped to deal with combat.

[independentmind]

Try backing up your assertion with facts and reason.

Believe it or not, a large part of my career has been devoted to doing just that!

I apologize for indulging in ad hominem, but I don't think I was the first one. I should know not to post late at night, when I often tend to be grumpy.:)

Your question deserves some thought. I will not have the time in the next few days to respond, but will do so in the near future.

[chudogg]

What does that question have to do with whether we should send women into combat?

Nothing. It was a playoff of the title. The title implies that Bush sent us to War but is privledged in that his daughters will not fight. My statement was that Bush did not send us to war and that it came to us.

Thank God the feminists -- and fools like you -- weren't around to force Ike to include women in D-Day.

I don't know what exactly you saw in my comments that implied i was in favor of sending women in combat, i said nothing even close to that.

[Binghamton_native]

It appears that Elaine Donnelly did not use the words that were used in the title of this article. The title appears to be the words of US News' Paul Bedard. Elaine Donnelly was consistently opposed to the bending of the rules for women that were pushed under President Clinton.

[bushfamfan]

Even if George P. did put on a uniform-how realistic is it to have the nephew or close relative in the line of fire? He would become the focus of terrorist scums as would his unit. And you can be assured more attention would be focused on sure death of him if captured so he wouldn't even have a chance. And to bring up Bush's daughters in service, the same thing. I'm sure Uday would've enjoyed that. But they would be more at risk too. A top target. And for that matter, wouldn't it have been something to have Chelsea bombing over Kosovo?

[Cobra64]

What continent are you on? The Secret Service is responsible for protection of the President, not the CIA. In Europe they assume the Secret Service is the CIA, it's not (Hello! it's not). Initially I intended to ask what planet are you on?

I meant Secret Service. I hope you don't have to deal with people. You convey a nasty attitude.

[Rider on the Rain]

I regret conveying a nasty attitude.