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?