A youthful George Washington admitted to his father that he did, indeed, cut down the cherry tree. Modern scholars regard this story as fiction but the importance of the myth survives to the present day. Now President George W. Bush has admitted that he overstated the danger of the weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's control: "I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course. Absolutely." After weeks of hiding behind British Prime Minister Tony Blair, U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and George Tenet, the head of the CIA, the president has finally claimed responsibility, "Absolutely," for lying and exaggerating about the danger presented by Saddam Hussein. But what does it mean for the president to take personal responsibility?

This presidential credibility crisis is only the most recent one in our history, some far more important than others. For most Americans, taking responsibility for a lie means that they are ready to accept punishment for their sins. Punishment is meted out and all can get on with their lives. Ask two who did not take responsibility for the error of their ways: ask Bill Clinton about the impeachment that resulted from his lie to the American people about the sexual affair with "that woman, Monica Lewinsky." Or ask Richard Nixon who was forced out of office for committing an illegal act during the course of an election, covering it up, and nearly bringing the United States government down with him. Yet as egregious as these acts were, no lives were lost in either case. No proud American youth put on the uniform of our Armed Services and carried a gun into battle believing that s/he he fought for the honor of our country only to learn the bitter truth: That the president sent him/her to fight for a venal purpose. Or maybe he was picked off by a sniper, or an Iraqi dropped an explosive on his Humvee from an overpass and he never knew that his life was wasted.

Like salt in the wound is another fact: President Bush, who recklessly tells the Iraqis who are picking off our soldiers, "Bring 'em on," as he stands in front of a portrait of President Teddy Roosevelt on horseback, is all too willing to don the flyboy get-up for a campaign photo opportunity but when he was engaged as a pilot in the National Guard during the Vietnam war, he went AWOL. And still he is the president. How could that be? Could it be that the class privilege that allowed him to enroll in the best schools in the nation even though he was a mediocre student, also excused him from meeting the minimum standard required of members of the armed services? Apparently so.

During World War II and the Korean conflict, men from all classes were drafted. During the Vietnam War, Americans still expected a certain level of fairness. Even though many college men were granted a deferment from the draft, all were assigned a lottery number and college ROTC programs trained and commissioned First Lieutenants who led their forces into battle and fell with them. In the thirty years since the end of that conflict, the United States has engaged in several armed conflicts: Iraq I, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, as well as Iraq II. The reservists who make up the post-Vietnam all-volunteer army are primarily working-class men and women, augmenting their incomes by going to reserve meetings one weekend a month. Many of them are immigrants who wish to shorten the path to citizenship by joining the armed services. The brass can argue that the recruits knew there was a possibility that they might have to fight and while that is true, the advantages that soldiers of past generations had appear to have disappeared. The families of GI's often lack the necessities they need to survive; with the closing of military installations all over the United States, there is little base housing for them. We have all heard stories of military families who are receiving food stamps. Food stamps are not in themselves shameful but they send a subtle message, that the armed services are composed of the most impoverished class of our society.

One does not see well-educated Wall St. brokers or lawyers or physicians lining up to donate a weekend a month to our national security. Are there any Harvard or Yale graduates in Iraq? As French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre drolly observed, "When the rich wage war it's the poor who die."

This shameless change to a fighting force composed of working class people deepens the class divide in our country and raises a question about patriotism. If all our warriors are working-class, how do the upper classes express their love for our country? President George H.W. Bush flew many missions for our country during World War II. President George W. Bush failed at the oil business, owned a baseball team, and until he became president did little that indicated any love of country. Now he dresses up like a fighter, throws around bold words, and is praised as coming into his own as the commander-in-chief but what has be done to show his love of country?

What will the all-working class volunteer army mean for our country in the future? Will the declining status of national service among the upper classes and the working-class's bitter lesson of Iraq II, that a dilettante president plays fast and loose with their lives--lead to an army composed of thugs because no one else will apply? Something must be done immediately to remedy the situation before we come to that crossroads. Otherwise, all our fine words about equality are but window-dressing.

"Where have all the soldiers gone? Gone to graveyards every one. When will they ever learn?"

©WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS GONE, Pete Seeger, 1961 (Renewed) Fall River Music Inc

Rosa Maria Pegueros is an Associate Professor in the Department of History & Women's Studies Program at the University of Rhode Island. She can be reached at pegueros@uri.edu

###