John McCain's younger son was in Iraq for a long stretch last year and this; the NYT deliberately didn't publish a photo or details, but he was there in Feb. when McCain clinched the nomination.

Also, Beau Biden is scheduled to go to Iraq on Oct 3rd.

It all worries me. It just takes a jackass with a scoop and no brains to do some serious damage to a bunch of kids.

I think it's actually so very good that both VP candidates have kids in active duty/serving in war zone status, because it can't be said that they don't have a palpably physical connection to the conflict, which is what a great deal of the Bush Admin, particularly the ones most eagerly pushing this conflict lacked and still lack.

I'm sure that, as with Prince Harry, there is an evacuation plan. I think that he was removed just hours after the report hit.

The NYT article had this classy quote:

"The despicable rumors that have been spread by liberal blogs, some even with Barack Obama's name in them, is a real anchor around the Democratic ticket, pulling them down in the mud in a way that certainly juxtaposes themselves against their 'campaign of change,'" a senior aide said.

WITH OBAMA'S NAME IN THEM!!!!

I could hurl.

Love Obama's response. Class act all the way.

I wish just once when "a senior aide" says something like that, a senior reporter would next ask "How can you say that with a straight face?"

"a senior aide" for whom?

I think it was Drudge who broke the news about Prince Harry.

Palin just hired a lawyer for the Troopergate thing. Obviously that's probably a smart thing to do regardless, but doing it now sounds to me like they're a little worried.

Also - here's the flip side to that NYT article:

Post headline: “Democrats Say Palin Initially Backed Bridge.”

The story opens:

Democrats accused Gov. Sarah Palin (R) on Sunday of misrepresenting her role in scuttling a controversial bridge project to a remote island in southeast Alaska.

But wait. Just a few paragraphs later we read:

While campaigning in Ketchikan in September 2006, Palin indicated support for the bridge project, assuming there was no better alternative. “This link is a commitment to help Ketchikan expand its access, to help this community prosper,” she told the local chamber of commerce, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News.

In other words, Democrats say Palin initially backed the bridge because Palin initially backed the bridge. Why isn’t that the substance of the headline? What kind of reporting is this?

There's that liberal media bias again. t bangs head on desk

"a senior aide" for whom?

Here's the article: [link]