Audacity of Truth
Rahmbo:
"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn. He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."
-Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) on Obama's COS, 3/7/10
Velvet Lair- The adventures of the lady spider killer continue March 11, 2010
- Intermission February 19, 2010
- People who allow their dogs to poop in other people’s yards February 16, 2010
- Happiness is … February 16, 2010
- Consumed February 12, 2010
Anti-war moonbat questions Mitt, he gives a silly answer, but …
The Bush-hating anti-war (but ‘troop supporting’) moonbats in the blogosphere are having a field day with recent remarks Mitt Romney made in response to a question about whether or not any of his five sons are enlisted. Here’s the story, via AP:
BETTENDORF, Iowa – Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Wednesday defended his five sons’ decision not to enlist in the military, saying they’re showing their support for the country by “helping me get elected.”
Romney, who did not serve in Vietnam due to his Mormon missionary work and a high draft lottery number, was asked the question by an anti-war activist after a speech in which he called for “a surge of support” for U.S. forces in Iraq.
Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, also saluted a uniformed soldier in the crowd and called for donations to military support organizations. Last week, he donated $25,000 to seven such organizations.
“The good news is that we have a volunteer Army and that’s the way we’re going to keep it,” Romney told some 200 people gathered in an abbey near the Mississippi River that had been converted into a hotel. “My sons are all adults and they’ve made decisions about their careers and they’ve chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard.”
He added: “One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president.”
The audio is here:
If he’d have left off that last part about how his sons are ’showing support’ for this country, his answer would have been fine, but adding on that bit, as though somehow serving him by helping him get elected is even remotely equatable to serving this country in the military, was just silly – a bad answer.
However, what AP (not surprisingly) did not include in the piece was the actual question itself, which was:
Hi, my name’s Rachel Griffiths, thank you so much for being here and asking for our comments. And I appreciate your recognizing the Iraq War veteran. My question is how many of your five sons are currently serving in the U.S. military and if none of them are, how do they plan to support this War on Terrorism by enlisting in our U.S. military?”
Note that Griffiths (who the AP – surprisingly – notes is an anti-war ‘activist’) answers the question herself within the question. A better way to ask it (if she wasn’t so keyed up about getting the opportunity to imply that he and his sons were chickenhawks) would have been to say “how do they plan to support this war on terrorism?” Or “in what way are they supporting the war on terror?” Period. The end. But she’s answered it by essentially saying: Mitt, the only way your sons can support this war is by enlisting. And because they haven’t (which I’m sure she already knew) they’re chickenhawks, just like their daddy.
The comment about “appreciating” the recognition of the Iraq war veteran was flat out bogus, because if Griffiths (and other anti-war crusaders like her) really supported the troops, instead of trying to call someone out on the lame chickenhawk argument, they’d lobby Congress passionately to show support for the troops by not abandoning them in their hour in need, they’d make sure that our military didn’t have to wait on the Democratic Congress to try and figure out a way to show ’support’ for the troops while at the same time working hard to ’slow bleed’ the war. Furthermore, if clueless wonders like Griffiths really believed in the Constitution, they wouldn’t imply that people who supported this war but who didn’t enlist to serve had no right to advocate it, especially seeing as the military exists in order to protect each and every one of us in much the same way that police and sheriff departments exist to protect us locally – departments which we very much have the right to advocate do more or less to protect the citizenry.
But you see, the truth is that no, they don’t support the Constitution, and hell no they don’t support the military – the only time they ’support’ the military is when it’s a veteran who slandered the entire US military by testifiying about things he never saw, or a currently serving member of the military who has admitted he made up bad stories about his fellow soldiers, or military family members who have turned into raging Bush-haters, or one who claims to have served and seen war attrocities but who has done neither, or a veteran who has outrageously claimed it’s the “policy of our troops to [commit war attrocities]” …. and on and on. You get the picture. Essentially, if you’re an anti-war veteran or military family member who hates the President, then yes, they ’support’ you.
“Support the troops,” my a**. The only thing these people support is failure in the war on terror, because failure in the war on terror is bad news for the President. The safety, security, and reputation of this country be damned. BTW, I wonder how long Rachel Griffiths – and other ‘if you haven’t served or haven’t had a loved on serving you can’t comment’ ‘bats – tour of duty was in Afghanistan?
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
30 Responses to “Anti-war moonbat questions Mitt, he gives a silly answer, but …”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Since Hillary voted to support the war, how long has Chelsea served in the military? Or is that only a valid point for Republican candidates?
This is, by far, the most idiotic argument I have ever heard. If you support the war you have to send your children to fight? By the same argument you can’t have an opinion on crime if your child isn’t a cop, you can’t have an opinion on abortion unless you’re a woman, you can’t have an opinion on, or help, the poor unless you are one.
I really wish these people would get a clue, this is quite tiresome.
I love the Abbey. It is so beautiful. I really kicked around taking the day off and going to visit Romney. I have some beautiful pictures there from a Christmas party I went to there a few years back.
– Lorica
LINK
Not everyone can be a soldier. Not everybody should be a soldier. This crap might be of interest back in the cannon fodder days.
By the same argument you can’t have an opinion on crime if your child isn’t a cop
Even better, try this: if your neighbor’s house is on fire, you can’t pick up the phone and call the fire department unless you (or someone in the family) has spent time riding on a ladder truck on the way to a three-alarmer. NC Cop is right, this is tiresome. And it’s stupid.
But here’s another angle: the left will only say this because they know they won’t get their wish.
Imagine if only veterans and active duty military could comment on war and peace issues. US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if these decisions left up to veterans and members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be more conservative and stand for less nonsense on issues of national security. I would be very happy letting them make the decisions about the course to follow in Iraq, while not letting Hillary, Pelosi, Kennedy, and their ilk have input. Maybe someone ought to ask Rachel Griffiths if she’d like that.
No tommy. There is NO point to be made about it.
You have stated your love for Clinton and he didn’t serve and committed troops and the military in a number of areas. It is not a prerequisite for:
1) being commander in chief
2) freedom of speech
You are ABSOLUTELY NOT persuasive on this point AT ALL.
You have NO IDEA how much 43’s family or family members or “cronies” are doing for veterans. None. You should be EMBARRASSED by your lack of due diligence on EVERY topic. You say things with such negligence.
What if we did that about you? When did you stop beating your wife?
On your last statement – Did we conduct WW2 swimmingly. Was WW2 without problems? Is there ANY war that is conducted perfectly?
GWR this would leave the majority of the left out as many of them abhor the Military and “all that it stands for”.
Ok let’s talk about this. One of the reasons that Walter Reed was in such horrible shape was the very fact that it was on the BRAC list to be demolished. What is the point in putting a huge amout of money into something that is going to be destroyed??? Walter Reed needs to be torn down also. 100 year old hospitals tend to carry staph in the building and that can cause complications in patients. Bethesda is 2 miles away, and the BRAC is doubling it’s size so it can handle the soldiers that are returning and those soldiers will have a nice new building to return too. Granted Walter Reed was in far worse shape than it should have been, but now they are talking about throwing millions of dollars at it to keep it open. It should be leveled and the remains should be hauled off to a contamination dump. – Lorica
Well before I respond to your comment Bak I am a little suprised by then end of ST’S posting specifically “BTW I wonder how long Rachel Griffiths and others-’ If you haven’t served or hadn’t had a loved one serving you can’t comment’bats-tour of duty was in Afghanistan? That to me ST is a backhanded slap in her face towards her honorable service in a combat zone just because you disagree with her political views. Not cool in my book. Bak you are correct on alot of points you made besides what you responded here in this one. But lets face it is very unlikely foe the near future(like within 5 to 10 years) that Iraq will be a functioning,secure Pro-American ally in the Mid-East. Hell an article Monday published in the Christian Science Monitor described how the security situation in Basra is going south of a turf war between several different Shiite factions. If that is accurate(and I wouldn’t discount what they’ve published…… Do you really expect extremists both Sunni and Shiite are going to sit down and make nice? Seriously man that’s pollyannish. And if “supporting the troops” means supporting a policy where servicemembers and start counting their tours in the sandbox on BOTH hands well this hole snipe thinks that doesn’t make alot of sense.
It’s always interesting in that, generally, the same idiots who shriek “chickenhawk” and “you aren’t military so STFU” are the same ones who seem to feel no such self restriction on commenting on things like Global Warming if they themselves aren’t scientists, and who endorse the ramblings and rantings of people like the Goracle, who not only is most assuredly not a scientist, but who got a C and D in the only two wussy science courses he took in college. Yet another example of liberal hypocrisy, I’m just shocked, shocked I tell ya!
Huh? Did you not understand my point, Tommy? She never indicated whether or not she served in Afghanistan. My question was rhetorical and went to the heart of my point: If you’re going to label people like me “chickenhawks” for not volunteering to serve in a war I support, then certainly you need to clarify whether or not you (or a loved one) volunteered to serve in Afghanistan (since that is a war almost everyone supported) and if you didn’t, explain why the “chickenhawk” argument doesn’t apply to you.
LOL Sev – preach it!
While we’re on the subject of global warming…
LINK
The way they handled that, with no fanfare and erasing the past data without telling anyone, GWR, is right in line with Orwell’s Ministry of Truth and making things “non” like erasing people and making them NonPeople. This is really huge news, that despite their continued tinkering with the data and “adjusting” it they have been forced to admit that the current warm period is less than that in the 30’s, before CO2 from industry started raising atmospheric levels. Now that’s an “inconvenient truth” for them.
Well first of all I’d made a mistake and I fouled up in stating that Ms. Griffiths is a veteran. She isn’t her sister is. I’d also disn’t call ST a “chickenhawk” Secondly I would need several waivers for myself to re-enslist for both criminal and medical reasons. So that is one reason why the “chickerhawk” argument doesn’t apply to me. Another is that fact I already have served in another war honorably. My biggest problem I have when the discussing Iraq and terrorism with right-wingers is that for 3 1/2 years as chaos grew and grew in the sandbox the problems were downplayed by the 43 Admin and used as portray dissent with the war as unpatriotic. It floors me it really does sometimes that the fact that the people running the war,running the executive branch,running the legaslative branch and in numerous cases PROFITED from the war( i.e Tommy Franks book sales,Tenet’s,Bremer’s,etc to say nothing about executives running Halliburton,Blackwater and KBR) has the audacity to try to blame Democrats as being “soft on terrorism”. Hey listen I’ll be the first one to admit that the current leaders leave alot to be desired. It’s also true that many Democrats don’t view what is going on overseas it’s the nation of the U.S.A is at war.Just only 43’s supporters are at war not them. And since 43 is screwing it up and they’ll benefit from it they don’t care about the the well-being of our servicemembers all that much. Sorry about the length of this rant but I get ticked off discussing Iraq. You know I mentioned Walter Reed in an earlier post and part of the reason why I get so ticked at our current political leaders in both parties is when Sen Bob Dole was appointed to head the commision to find out how the system broke down and how to ensure that it doesn’t happen again to have veterans who have lost limbs wound up living in such squalor one the first things he said was ” Where were the veteran service organizations?” That statement IMHO sums up the whole point of my rant. Since “supporting the troops” has turned into nothing more than a cliche since the folks who have the power and the resources to properly fund our servicemembers don’t have any personal stake in what goes on they as through their actions it’s not their problem. Just another talking point to score political points.
Hmmm…I’d rewrite this a bit
My biggest problem I have (sic for grammar) when discussing Iraq and terrorism with left-wingers is that for 3 1/2 years as the war effort ebbed and flowed in the sandbox the problems were exaggerated and used for such crass partisan reasons to beat the administration around the head that it became impossible to get a real feel for what problems were real. It was too bad that such braying and defeatism was portrayed as somehow patriotic instead of seditious.
Romney suffers from Politician’s Motormouth Syndrome. It’s manifested by an inability to stop talking even when saying something stupid, plus an incapacity to recognize and identify BS.
The only reasonable answer for Romney would have been along the lines of “If you want my sons’ opinions, or comments, or intentions ask them. Next question?”
Idiot lefties just cannot understand the concept that a) the US military recruits adults, not children, and b) parents don’t “send” their children to war. They also cannot understand that the chickenhawk argument (which this was) is an assault on the Constitution.
Tommy,
I’m going to call you on your moonbat spewings. Prove point by pointless point your spewings about who profited off this war. Just make sure you include the Kerrys, Kennedys, Feinsteins, Reids, Soros, and Buffet in your answer. Otherwise stuff it in your bong.
PCD I just named Bremer,Tenet and Franks as 3 individuals who were involved at the highest levels when it comes to Iraq. As far as your list of names you have printed they may have profitted if they bought stock in KBR,Halliburton if they chose. So what I did notice is you didn’t mention one word about how the 43 Admin didn’t properly fund the VA in dealing with wounded veterans health care. You also didn’t mention that I was also critical of the leaders of Democratic Party. Explain to me how that makes me a moonbat PCD?
Because your accusations don’t hold water…
When did you stop beating your wife??
Perhaps it’s that you continue to blame the Bush admin for funding, when it’s Congress that controls the budget, not the executive branch. Didn’t you have any civics or US government classes tommy, or were you too blitzed during them to remember anything?
The BDS-everything is Bush’s fault meme is getting a bit tiresome.
It never ceases to amaze me that those who think Clinton was such a great president seem to forget the fact that he was a draft dodger who fled when his country asked for his service. Yet these same people berate others for not immediately enlisting in an all volunteer military.
What Romney should have said was: “I haven’t encouraged my sons to enlist, I haven’t discouraged them either. If they want to I will support them.”
So good to have Tommy back to give us a practice for when the real trolls show up.
Begin with this bleat:
So, what you’re saying is, when the troops are in harm’s way, you have no problem with cutting off their intelligence, contriving fake stories of so-called atrocities, demeaning them as Nazis, and encouraging the enemy to hang in there. Because that’s what your side has been doing in the name of “dissent”.
Next, Tommy tries to argue that playing footsie with terrorists or their backers doesn’t mean the Dems are soft on them:
To paraphrase Forrest Gump, soft is as soft does. You want to shake the impression that you’re soft on terrorism? Act like it. Stop assuming the worst about your own government while making excuses for terrorists. Understand that the enemy in Iraq is AQ, and support the mission of destroying that bunch instead of declaring defeat at every possible turn, like Harry Reid does. Or promising to make nice with their suppliers, like Obama does. In short, when it comes to terrorists, grow a set.
As for people making profits, since when did that become illegal? Has anyone been indicted for anything illegal in connection with that? No?? If you’ve got evidence, let’s have it…or better yet, let the appropriate DA have it.
Better sit down before you read the next one:
Tommy, you’re actually right on something here. You’ve seen through the Dem’s smokescreen and exposed their ‘we support the troops’ for the nonsense it is.
Consider this, Tommy, because it should tell you a lot about the difference between the leftists and the conservatives: Conservatives want the U.S. to win – no matter who the President is. We’ll be just as determined to crush AQ in 2009 even if the Dems win the White House. The left, on the other hand, wants the US to lose if they’re not in charge. For us it’s country first, then party. The left has it the other way around.
Uh oh…bad news for Tommy’s side. The positive news out of Iraq even has some Dems singing a different tune:
Democrats praise military progress
And we’re not just talking Joe Lieberman here.
Durbin? Dick “our troops are Nazis” Durbin?? There must be a hockey game going on in hell right about now…
So my question is this: if the surge continues to show better and better results, what’s the over-under on how long it takes Hillary or Edwards to make another 180 degree switch and suddenly be once again in favor of the war?
Really? My questions is, was there ever a time when our troops were losing?
NC Cop, no, there wasn’t. But until this, you couldn’t find a Dem, except for Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller, who would admit it.
23, GWR,
Hillary will change on a dime. Not her dime of course.
Edwards is locked in.
Both are shysters. Maybe they’ll meet in Hell to join in that hockey game. I bet Hillary commits I high sticking offense first.
GWR…I’m glad to see the dems make these statements. I’m happy to see them support the troops. Basically, these are the kind of statements that will let AQ know they have lost, and that the American people have the will to see this thing through.
The only reason I can see the dems make these statements is that they are convinced we are going to finish this thing off. And if these dems are convinced, then I’m convinced.
Let me add, I was convinced before, but getting Durbin and Levin to change thier tune was like getting Baghdad Bob to change his.