He's in harms way, the Times wants you to know

In the run up to war in 2003 many critics to the idea of combat wondered if George W. Bush had a son or a daughter in the military at the time would he have made the same decision he ended up making. Would he have put his own son's life on the line?

He proclaimed that it was not an easy decision, and that the loss of life was something he thought about every day, even prayed about. He said, by far, that going to war was the most difficult decision he had ever made in his life.

John McCain, on the other hand, does have a son in the military. In fact, according to "McCain Is Vocal on War, but Silent on Son’s Service" in the April 6, 2008, edition of nytimes.com. John McCain has a son who is 19, in Iraq, and a lance corporal in the marines.

The article contends that while McCain has been an ardent supporter of the war and of the troops and their ability to assist the Iraqis bring stability to Iraq and, ultimately, the entire region. He has made little mention of the fact that he has a son about to be deployed over there and, presumably, in harms way.

Of course, McCain, according the the article, didn't even chose to be interviewed for the article the Times posted. In fact, McCain didn't' even want the article to be published, as, per the article itself, McCain does not want his son to become a target while he is in Iraq.

However, the Times seems to have little scruples in this area, as we well know now, they have released top secret information on many other areas and placed individuals in danger. Wasn't' it the times who released information about top secret military prisons in Europe that no one was supposed to know about for military reasons?

And, wasn't it the times who released information about the government program to spy on terrorists who were communicating with American citizens? Wasn't' it the Times who... oh never mind.

In this article, they did release this paragraph:

The McCains declined to be interviewed for this article, which the campaign requested not be published. “The McCain campaign objects strongly to this intrusion into the privacy of Senator McCain’s son,” Steve Schmidt, a campaign spokesman, said in a statement. “The children of presidential candidates in this election cycle should be afforded the same respect for their privacy that the children of President Bush and President and Senator Clinton have been afforded.” (To protect Lance Corporal McCain in case he is again deployed to a war zone, The New York Times is not publishing recent photographs of him and has withheld some details of his service).

Now, to be fair, I had no clue that McCain had a son in the military, let alone one who was deployed and had the potential to be deployed again (or perhaps is there right now) in Iraq. So, why would the Times release such an article?

I suppose the Times never ceases to amaze me. For years I have listened to conservative pundits complain about the times, and how it is the leader of bias, and I try hard not to believe what these conservatives say. But the Times keeps proving them right again and again.

While this article is absolutely fair, and it is not bias in the slightest, it was one story that didn't need to be reported. If nothing else, it makes me respect John McCain all the more, and disrespect the Times all the more.

Now, McCain has disagreed with Bush openly about his handling of the war, however he has agreed with the War in general. Now the purpose of the war is beside the purpose of this post, but one might wonder if Bush would have sent his own son to this combat zone.

I imagine he would have have. What do you think?