A few things to consider for those who plan to vote for Mitt Romney concerning his service to his country:
From the time he graduated from high school in 1965, Mr. Romney received five deferments from serving in the military -- one at Stanford, one at BYU, two at Harvard and one for his Mormon mission. These were options available which he took advantage of, all the while giving strong support for both the war in Viet Nam and the draft.
During his campaign against Ted Kennedy in 1994, he stated to the Boston Globe he had not planned on signing up and serving in the military, yet in his failed bid to be the Republican presidential candidate in 2008 he told the Globe how supportive he was of the war and how he “longed” to be fighting in Viet Nam. Which is it?
He could have dropped his deferments after the first two and signed up in the Marines with me on the “Buddy System” in 1969. This may have given him his desire he so “longed” for.
Now he is talking tough and wants to initiate a unilateral attack on Iran if elected president. You can be sure none of his five sons will ever wear a uniform and be in harm’s way. After all, Mitt Romney said the best way for his sons to serve their country is to get him elected.
As usual, it’s the rich and powerful who start wars but they can’t be expected to soil their hands in actual fighting.
Charlie Osburn
Mesa
bubba posted at 9:08 am on Mon, Oct 8, 2012.
Romney, Bush and Cheney all had an exit strategey for Viet Nam (for themselves anyway). Fighting for our country is for the middle class and the poor. Just another Republican Chickenhawk.
DonMey posted at 9:13 am on Mon, Oct 8, 2012.
The deferments were legal, and Obama never served either. Non-issue.
chatmandu002 posted at 10:19 am on Mon, Oct 8, 2012.
Charlie,
As much as you wish to push the "red herring" about Mitt Romney and his so-called draft dodging, this is not the case. The four deferments were legal and were used by millions of others during the Vietnam war. Mitt Romney was registered for the draft but his number (300) wasn't called. Also, there has been no unilateral calls for war against Iran from Romney. I think you have been partaking of too much liberal/progressive coolaide.
Arizona Willie posted at 10:33 am on Mon, Oct 8, 2012.
DonMey --- it IS an issue when the candidate ducked service himself but is a hawk and wants to start wars when there is no chance HE will have to get shot at.
Have we not had enough of attacking countries that have not attacked us?
Bush started the Iraq war with no cause whatsoever. Iraq had done NOTHING.
Afghanistan allowed the Taliban safe haven while they planned 9-11 it appears, but the government of Afghanistan did not attack us -- we were attacked by a religious cult.
Al queda ( sp ) is a splinter cult of Islam.
To blame Afghanistan for that is like blaming America for that preacher down in Florida who burned the Koran.
Granted 9-11 was much worse than burning a book but the principle is the same. America allows that preacher safe haven to preach his hate just like Al queda ( sp ) preaches hatred of the United States.
But the government of the United States does not endorse the actions of that preacher and the government of Afghanistan does not ( necessarily ) endorse Al queda. The Government of Afghanistan was and is facing a situation with a religious cult that has the power and weapons to overthrow the legitimate government so the legit government was in no position to stop Al queda ( sp ).
The nation of Afghanistan did not attack us.
Pakistan, however, may well be up to their necks in Al queda ( sp ) and may well have been involved in the planning of 9-11.
Israel is more than capable of defending itself -- if need be.
For those of you too young to have been around then ... look up the 1967 war.
Israel took on multiple countries that had sworn to drive every Israeli into the sea --- and kicked their butts after they attacked Israel.
You'd think they would have learned better.
Most of the countries did, but Iran seems to have a low IQ.
If Israel needs to apply a little nuclear chlorox to the Iranian gene pool, so be it.
Israel has plenty of military power to defend itself.
There is no logical reason for us to single handedly attack Iran.
Unless they drink the stoopid juice and make the mistake of attacking us.
If Iran made the mistake of attacking ... say .... one of our carriers I doubt very very much that the Israeli's would lift a finger to defend our carrier.
It's a one way street with them.
Slabside posted at 12:29 pm on Mon, Oct 8, 2012.
"Bush started the Iraq war with no cause whatsoever."
Democrats gave their support by a 37 to 6 margin to a Republican amendment tacitly supporting the Bush administration’s policy on the Iraq war.
Max Baucus (Mont.)
Evan Bayh (Ind.)
Joe Biden (Del.)
John Breaux (La.)
Maria Cantwell (Wash.)
Jean Carnahan (Mo.)
Tom Carper (Del.)
Max Cleland (Ga.)
Hillary Clinton (N.Y.)
Tom Daschle (S.D.)
Christopher Dodd (Conn.)
Byron Dorgan (N.D.)
John Edwards (N.C.)
Dianne Feinstein (Calif.)
Tom Harkin (Iowa)
Fritz Hollings (S.C.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
John Kerry (Mass.)
Herb Kohl (Wis.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Joe Lieberman (Conn.)
Blanche Lincoln (Ark.)
Zell Miller (Ga.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Harry Reid (Nev.)
John Rockefeller (W.Va.)
Charles Schumer (N.Y.)
Bob Torricelli (N.J.)
Find some new material Willie.
Arizona Willie posted at 12:43 pm on Mon, Oct 8, 2012.
Yes, Slabside, after Bush lied to the Nation on TV and to the Legislators personally, they agreed to the war.
No one expected the President of the United States to blatantly lie
They ( military ) showed satellite pictures and claimed there were weapons of mass destruction there and they were sure of it.
So the Democrats trusted them.
Ooops.
They forgot what liars the Republicans are.
It is hardly legitimate to claim the Democrats supported the war when the only reason they did was because THEY WERE LIED TO and they trusted the President.
The whole country was lied to by both the Bush administration and the Armed Forces.
The military is ALWAYS eager to shoot something and play with their toys.
You want to count how many Democrats voted for the war.
How about counting how many times Bush stood there on television and claimed he knew for sure that Iraq had WMD's and he knew where they were.
Time after time after time Bush LIED to the country.
Slabside posted at 1:30 pm on Mon, Oct 8, 2012.
Oh, the liberal progressive cry of "Bush lied" Willie? I thought that childishness was beneath you. Guess I was wrong.
WMDs were found.:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/24/wikileaks-documents-show-wmds-found-in-iraq/
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918
Again, quite drinking Obama's Kool-Aid and start thinking for yourself.
DonMey posted at 2:32 pm on Mon, Oct 8, 2012.
"Bush lied" - How, exactly, did he lie to convince Congress, when certain (bipartisan) members of Congress have access to the same intel?
And Iraq did "nothing"? You obviously have a very short memory. Remember UN weapon inspectors being turned away? Iraq was on the same course Iran is today.
truth posted at 3:56 pm on Mon, Oct 8, 2012.
The Republican party would like you to join them in the upcoming election, we want to make sure not one illegal, Rosallo, Maritza or Ruben vote in this election.The voter - suppression campaigne of the Jim Crow are back in a big way, said The New york Times. And are even stronger with the Mormon Church beside them, just kidding. On the other hand if you want to donate 20 million or 100 million to the Romney - Ryan campain your donation will be accepte and kept secrete even if you are a Russian Mafia or a Mexican drug cartel leader or a Las Vegas billionaire all thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court.
truth posted at 4:19 pm on Mon, Oct 8, 2012.
DonMey, How did Bush lie, it would take a new book to explain how Bush lied, so to make it easy. All Bushe's lies came from one Iraq dissident who the Rest of Americans allies told Bush he was a lier. and don't forget the aluminum pipe from Africia. and how Bush and Chaney slandered them for telling the truth that Bush and Chaney lied. Why am I wasting my time going over all the lies Bush lied about and the Republicans can't remember or will only call them lies.
Accuracy posted at 5:48 pm on Mon, Oct 8, 2012.
Yes, President George W. Bush did apologize to Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-MalikiIraq's in 2008 for an American sniper's shooting of a Quran, and the Iraqi government called on U.S. military commanders to educate their soldiers to respect local religious beliefs.
So now, all of President Barack Hussein Obama's international apologies issued since entering office in 2009, is all Bush’s fault?
Bingo6 posted at 6:34 pm on Mon, Oct 8, 2012.
Seems simple to me if you want to sacrifice your children to the great outsorceror then vote for the tea party tool, Romney.
Want to end the madness in Afghanistan vote for Obama.
We don't need bumper sticker patriots who wrap themselves in the flag, real patriots live their lives unentitled. without needing your approval for their service to their country, either by military service or civic duty, they just do it.
Slabside posted at 8:37 pm on Mon, Oct 8, 2012.
@Bingo6: "Want to end the madness in Afghanistan vote for Obama."
And just what is the empty chair going to do? He has been in the WH for 4 years now and he has continued Bush's policies concerning the war(s). So if he is re-elected, POOF we are out of Afghanistan? Go get your wool sheared Obama sheeple!
wdgnas posted at 6:50 am on Tue, Oct 9, 2012.
don mey: barack obama was born on august 4, 1961. mitt romney was born on march 12 1947. DO THE MATH.
arizona willie and slabside: of course there were WMD in irag. bush 41 has the receipts.
Arizona Willie posted at 8:01 am on Tue, Oct 9, 2012.
wdgnas .. everyone knows it is perfectly fair to criticize Obama for not volunteering for the Diaper Division in Nam.
The Vietnamese kids would kill you so why shouldn't we have had a few babies in the field? Put 'em in a suicide vest. Yep. Why not?
Cerulean posted at 9:14 am on Tue, Oct 9, 2012.
Condoleezza Rice wrote a memoir wherein she “puts a spotlight on President Obama's success in Libya and President Bush's failure in Iraq. Under Barack Obama's leadership, it cost $1 billion and zero American lives to bring down the dictator in Libya. George W. Bush's Iraqi misadventure cost us $2 trillion and the lives of more than 4,000 brave young Americans.”
“George W. Bush's Iraqi misadventure cost us $2 trillion and the lives of more than 4,000 brave young Americans.”
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/brad-bannon/2011/11/04/condoleezza-rice-should-have-quit-over-iraq-war
JNelson posted at 9:16 am on Tue, Oct 9, 2012.
Bingo6......some truth in your heavily biased post, but really, compare the results for the country if Romney is elected and implements his policies which, according to you, will risk our children in unspecified foreign military adventures to what surely is going to happen if Obama retains office and continues his policies of bankrupting the country completely along with turning the US into just another pathetic Western European clone like Greece.
DonMey posted at 9:17 am on Tue, Oct 9, 2012.
Nice attempt to distort what I said. I never said Obama should have served in Vietnam. I said he never served, as in, neither candidate has military experience.
Romney wasn't a draft dodger, and neither of them served in the military, so any claims of military backgrounds on either candidate is completely pointless.
Truth - You're scary stupid.
Cerulean posted at 9:18 am on Tue, Oct 9, 2012.
Romney is more like Bush. He has said as much. He said he would increase military spending and continue to cut taxes. He wants to 'create jobs' by waging war with Iran.
xyno posted at 9:55 am on Tue, Oct 9, 2012.
Romney wants 47% of us to have are own planet. This is why he wants to bomb bomb bomb Iran
Arizona Willie posted at 10:23 am on Tue, Oct 9, 2012.
No DonMey you said " The deferments were legal, and Obama never served either. Non-issue. "
Which is a comparison of the military service of both people when you say " either ".
Obama was an infant but Romney was 17 or 18.
So it would be ridiculous to have expected Obama to have served in Vietnam -- which is the war people complain that Romney ducked.
Romney < COULD > have served but chose to run to France instead.
Obama < could not > have served because he was too young.
So we should not compare military service of Obama and Romney but we < SHOULD > compare military service of Romney and others of his age group.
DonMey posted at 10:56 am on Tue, Oct 9, 2012.
Willie - The military doesn't only exist in times of war. Obama could have volunteered for the military when he turned 18, just like Romney could have volunteered, rather than be assigned a valid draft number based on what he was doing.
And yes, it IS a comparison of their military service, as in they both have the same: none. Stop being obtuse.
Accuracy posted at 11:18 am on Tue, Oct 9, 2012.
Wrong Arizona Willie…
Barack Hussein Obama “COULD HAVE SERVED” in the military service . . . But never wanted to join US military.
On the patriotism issue; Barack Obama has said he considered joining the United States military when he left school but decided not to because the Vietnam war was over.
"And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honorable option”, said Obama in 2008. “But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren't engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it's not an option that I ever decided to pursue."
Maddog posted at 11:21 am on Tue, Oct 9, 2012.
Vietnam became a non-issue when you libs elected Bill (I’m in Russia bad mouthing the US) Clinton. Second; Vietnam never attacked us, threatened us, nor did they seek or possess WMD's. But your liberal President and Congressmen back then started a war that cost us 58,000 servicemembers. Saddam Hussein did threaten the United States and Israel and did have some chemical weapons and was wanting a nuke. The intel that "Liar" Bush used was obtained during the Clinton administration. Clinton said that Iran had WMD's and wanted a nuke and called Hussein the biggest threat to America. Iraq has also threatened the US and Israel and is in the process of building a nuclear program. As far as Afgan goes we haven't attacked their Government we attacked their terrorists.
Arizona Willie posted at 11:53 am on Tue, Oct 9, 2012.
Slabside ... the WMD's you refer to were decades old leftovers that didn't get destroyed but were nevertheless worthless.
Here is a quote directly from one of the articles you refer to: The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added. "
They found about 500 worthless rusted out old shells that were more dangerous to someone handling them than to an enemy. They could not have been safely fired.< br>
Hardly justification for the claims Bush / Cheney made.
pnutman posted at 12:07 pm on Tue, Oct 9, 2012.
Whether Romney served in the Military or not, is a moot point. Obama never served
and look what a disaster Af-Pak has been for this sitting President?
1st he sets a date for withdrawal (Taliban and AlQUIDA loved that advance warning.)
blew his quest to close Guantanamo Military prison.
Then he sends additional 60K troops to Afghanistan, Both Al Quida and Taliban waiting in the "weeds." Then he sets a withdrawal date, attempts secret talks with Taliban which was a disaster. Now he recommends that Afghan President (the corrupt figure head) that Karzai talk to the Taliban. In between all of the above,
Obama, on the Intelligence of DOD and CIA info, allows the HIT on BinLaden.
Golly, even Alfred E. Newman of MAD Magazine could have easily made that call.
Now he professes that the AlQuida has been diminished along with the Taliban.
The man has "nuclear respritory visions." Remember why we have troops in Afghanistan in the first place. Have we succeeded? The answer is NO, a total
disaster with both Bush and Obama to blame. Once we made our inital incursion and brought back alleged Alquida leader's and personnel, we should have
brought our troops back home, instead of nation building. Remember Obama supported the Afghan debacle. A lost war ala Vietnam, even the Russian's were smart enuf to "bogey" out of that state, cutting their losses. Afghanistan will continue living in the "Stone Age" profiting on their Opium crop and doing their business as usual.
DonMey posted at 12:31 pm on Tue, Oct 9, 2012.
Willie - Not sure where you got that quote, but if it was from the UN report, they also state there is evidence WMDs were sold on the black market while everything was going on, and the "good" ones were probably most likely to have a buyer.
Bluepoet posted at 3:17 pm on Tue, Oct 9, 2012.
I think it may be an obligation, as a republican, to be a military hawk...
It certainly seems that way, although, I admit, I'm not about to learn the secret handshake, and study the Lying Liars handbook, just to find out.
It's really no different, for Democrats, either...they just become hawkish, when the money starts rolling in...
It's called Political pragmatism--(in all other countries, it's called graft).
Arizona Willie posted at 9:10 am on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.
DonMey, Slabside provided 3 links for his claim of WMD's being found in Iraq.
The first was to the NY POST, a right wing newspaper which resulted in a 404 error page not found.
The second was to a right wing web site quoting Wikileaks ( which has long been discredited as a valid source since anyone can edit the information ... it isn't reliable ).
And the 3rd link was to the Defense Department which contained the info that there were only about 500 old shells found and they were badly degraded and couldn't be fired.
They did include a self - serving claim that the ingredients could have been salvaged as re-used ( even though the nerve gas and mustard gas were themselves deteriorated ).
There was NO claim that any WMD's had been sold -- in this article by the Defense Dept.
To claim that these rusted out old shells constituted fearful WMD's was .. as my Grandaddy used to say ... picking fly cr*p out of the pepper.
Or it's like claiming the Democrats controlled Congress the first two years of Obama's term because they ... technically .. held a numerical edge and ignoring the fact that the southern Blue Dog Democrats are actually Republicans who run as Democrats and they vote with the Republicans virtually 100% of the time --- which, in fact, gave Republicans control of the House.
But, right wingers aren't fond of letting logic and facts get in the way of their dreams.