Mitt: Put up your sons, or shut up

Short and sweet: I am beyond sick and tired of Mitt Romney blathering on about how the US needs to stay in Afghanistan, keep up the good fight, end the war gallantly, blah blah blah…

This is epitomized by his constant nattering every time someone in the Obama administration says we’re going to leave. “Horror, he announced a deadline!” says Mitt. “We can’t do that! Our enemies are comforted!”

Horse cookies.

Mitt has no say. Mitt is a rich guy who thinks the poor don’t need any help, who thinks $370,000 in speaking fees isn’t much, and is so innured to the sufferings of the working class people he spent years firing that he really thinks it’s OK for a few hundred of America’s best and smartest and bravest to die so America leaves Afghanistan with”honor” or “victory” or some such.

Shut up Mitt. Your say your own military age sons are doing their national service by working in your campaign. If you believe so strongly in winning with honor in Afghanistan then send a few of them over in uniform, have one or two of them shipped home in boxes, killed in a war that has gone on, in fits and starts, since the British invaded more than 150 years ago.

Then talk to me about honor, or making sense, or anything else.

If you aren’t willing to do that, shut up. You have no skin in the game, and you have no right to risk the skins of other people’s sons and daughters.

It’s bad enough Obama has let that war go on this long. To criticize ending it just to play word games is beyond repugnant.

 

Share
This entry was posted in Blogging the Rambler and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to Mitt: Put up your sons, or shut up

  1. Ben Pales says:

    I aint no Senators son…CCR

  2. laytonian says:

    Well-said, Charlie.
    Where was Mitt during Vietnam? On a mission?
    Where are his sons during the “war on terror”? Working for Daddy’s election, because they each got their $100 million trust.

    And now that Donald Trump is Romney’s big endorser, how about Trump putting up a kid or two to fight in Afghanistan?

    The right tried to make a Thero out of Pat Tillman, a TRUE patriot who left his football contract to fight for his country. The right soon learned that Tillman was an athiest who had been killed by “friendly fire”. So Tillman, a man with more honor than any of Romney’s or Trump’s children, got HALF of a bridge named after him, instead.

  3. Sandra Ebarb says:

    Well put, Charlie. First we had Cheney who had “better things to do” than fight in Vietnam while my husband and brother were over there. Now we have Mitt talking big about Afghanistan. I believe we need compulsory service for EVERYONE at the age of 18 for 2 years.

    • Caril Jennings says:

      Yes, compulsory service. Then we’d have real war protests again. And, by that, I mean a GOOD thing (protests).

  4. Erick says:

    Not well said, not even by a bit. First, what kind of demand is that? You are seriously suggesting that Mitt should put his kids in enlisted service?? I mean, seriously? Perhaps, Mitt’s son’s might want to weigh in on that thought? Frankly, if Mitt did anything to enlist his son’s you would call it posturing. Secondly, if his son’s did enlist, they would of necessity be given special treatment, because they would be high priority targets. If that happened, you would be back here questioning their service. Your argument is a catch 22.

    Secondly, Romney never said that the poor “don’t need any help”. He said that he is not as concerned for the “very poor” as he is for the middle-class, because the “very poor” already have social safety nets from which they can benefit. You can debate whether the existing nets are adequate, but not that Romney in any way has said “to hell with the poor”. That is just ridiculous!

    As for firing people, that argument is wrong all around. Mitt neither “created” jobs, nor “destroyed” them. He simply bought companies, and either stripped them down and sold them for parts, or grew and developed them. The decision was never made with the wager earner in mind, for better or worse. It was made for profits sake. How many people does Staples employ? What about GodFathers Pizza? The arguments about Romney being a job destroyer via Bain Capital, are as bad as his arguments that he was a job creator.

    As for Romney’s wealth and speaking fees. Completely irrelevant. To Romney, those fees aren’t much relative to what he earned as and executive to Bain. To most Americans, it is atrociously huge. In either case, neither has any relevance to his candidacy??? I say all of this as someone who does not particularly favor Romney, by the way. Let’s just get back to reality.

    • lasvegasRichard says:

      Man are you WRONG. On all counts. Simply detached from the realities of war. Hey, just like Mitt.

      • Erick says:

        What “realities of war” did you think I was speaking about in my comment. I didn’t even address it. It comes across as though you started typing before you started thinking.

    • Neal Cassidy says:

      How true. We should stay in Afganistan to the end. Now with Mitt’s kids of course but other people should be happy for their sons and daughters to produly serve.

  5. Bob Becker says:

    Mr. T’s right about the administration’s policy to get us out of the quagmire. He’s right to note that sabre-rattling Romney was safely tucked away on a church mission in France during the VN war. And he’s right to gig Romney for his implying that his children working in his campaign are performing public service in any way comparable to serving a war-time tour in the military.

    But he’s wrong to suggest that Romney has, somehow, the power to put his children, who are adults, in the military. That’s a decision for his children to make. Should one of them run for public office as a sabre-rattling candidate, he can be criticized for hiding in daddy ‘s campaign when others did not.

  6. Owain says:

    Charles, this is low, even for you. Stop infantizing members of the Armed Forces. We have an all volunteer force. It isn’t up the Mitt to volunteer his children. That decision, as responsible adults, is up to them. If they’ve decided not to serve, that is their choice, not Romney’s.

    If Romney becomes Commander in Chief, it won’t be a decision to send anyone’s children, sons or daughters, into combat. It will be a decision to send the MEN and WOMEN of the United States Armed Forces, all of whom volunteered for duty.

    • Bob Becker says:

      Looks like we agree on something for a change, O.

      Now about the all-volunteer army: whether that’s a good thing to maintain, in the bests interests of the republic, I’m not sure. A truly random draft in time of war has some advantages, not least of which is I think it reduces the willingness of administrations [both parties] to go on military adventures around the world that may not be strictly necessary. Public opinion swung significantly against the VN war when college deferments for the draft ended, and suddenly Little Johnny Middle Class faced not going to State U. to cheer the home team next year, he faced going to VN as an infantryman instead.

      I think it’s a distinct possibility that, had G. Bush had to resort to the draft to fill the armies we sent to Iraq, that we would would not have invaded in the first place. And there’s an argument to be made that relying on citizen-soldiers in times of national military crisis is a benefit, not a weakness.Though it would have to be an all-able-bodied-in-the-pool draft… no college deferments, no missionary deferments, no Daddy’s a VIP deferments.

      Granted, there are other advantages to an all-volunteer military with a heavy component of career military [training, experience, etc.], though drawing heavily on reserve and guard units as we did for Iraq and Afghanistan vitiates that somewhat.

      But on Mr. T’s being off base to blame Romney’s kids’ decisions on Daddy, we agree. Will wonders never cease…..

      • Owain says:

        As one who has served both under a draft and in the all volunteer force, I can say without a doubt, the all volunteer force is a far superior method of recruiting for the Armed Forces. When I entered service in 1971, morale and troop quality in all services was by all measures far below what we have today.

        With a 2 year conscription, you barely get individuals trained before they are mustered out of the service. What a supreme waste of resources. With an all volunteer force, retention is improved, morale is improved because with few exceptions, the people who serve want to serve instead of being forced to serve, and experience levels increase drastically.

        The purpose of fielding an armed force is not to serve some social need, or provide a feel good national service merit badge of some kind. The only purpose for the armed forces is to be prepared to support and defend the nation and the Constitution as stated in the oath of service, and to fight and win wars in pursuit of our national interests.

        All other considerations are secondary.

        • Bob Becker says:

          You’ve just expanded on the point I noted was the main one in favor of an all-volunteer force. And no where did I suggest “The purpose of fielding an armed force is… to serve some social need, or provide a feel good national service merit badge of some kind.”

          And we seem to have done rather well defending the nation and its interests in WWII with an Army and Navy and Marine Corps formed largely of citizen-soldier draftees.

          That aside, you’ve pretty much ignored what I thought, and think, is the main argument for returning to the draft: it operates as a break, a check, on military excursions by administrations that may not be necessary at all — yes, Iraq — and that would I think be less likely to happen if Presidents knew they’d have to start drafting reluctant citizen soldiers to carry them off. This is not, in my view, a trivial consideration.

          • Owain says:

            You are not the only person posting in this thread, Bob. With respect to the 2 year military service merit badge, see the post by Sandra Ebarb, above.

            I didn’t overlook your main point. That falls under MY main point, which is, the only purpose of the United States Armed Forces is to fight and win wars. All other considerations are secondary.

            Your point is political, and as such, falls WAY down on the list of priorities.

            “For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
            But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
            An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
            An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool — you bet that Tommy sees!”
            Rudyard Kipling, Tommy

        • Bob Becker says:

          Reply to Owain:

          Oh, Owain… what a strange notion, that the military has one purpose only [to win wars], and is not a major player, and should not be, in matters political or social. The American armed forces have been a major political force in this nation from the earliest days of the Revolution, all through our history, and to the present day. Richard Kohn’s The Eagle and the Sword on the politics of the Continental army vis-a-vis the Continental Congress, and on the drive for a new Constitution. The Revolutionary armies were largely responsible for ending property qualifications for voting, which all Revolutionary state constitutions included. The first chink was taken out of the idea that you had to own a certain amount of property to vote by “militia suffrage.” Telling armed veterans who fought in the Revolution they could not vote when it ended because they didn’t own enough property was recognized immediately as a problem, and “militia suffrage” — service in the war of Independence — became sufficient to qualify as a voter in state after state. Voting thus separated from property ownership then began to collapse nationwide.

          Throughout American history, the army has been the employer of last resort, and recent immigrant groups over have gone into the army in disproportionate numbers. That’s where they got their first jobs, that’s where they became Americans not merely immigrants in America. A good number of the troopers who died with Custer were fresh off the boat and barely spoke English. And of course as immigrants flooded into the US in the late 19th and early 20th Century, the Army [and its allies in Congress] advocated universal military service as a way to Americanize [and Protestantize] all those Eastern Europeans and Southern Europeans and Irish washing up on American shores.

          And of course the mass mobilizations of 1861 and in WWII forever changed American society. The GI bill and other vet programs, as well as the war economy made us a predominantly middle class nation for the first time in our history [1945 to 1955].

          The military was here integration first took hold in the US in the fifties and sixties, with the general society following along. And the military, of course, has made hundreds of political careers from the Presidency on down.

          Military policy has been a major political issue throughout the nation’s history, including debates over whether we should fight at all. [War of 1812, Civil War, World War I, World War II, Viet Nam, Iraq.] Military procurement policy has massive economic impacts, and always has. Remember Ike on the military industrial complex and its impact on Congressional decision making.

          The purely isolated “only to win wars and nothing else” role for the military you posit has never existed, not from the day political appointee G. Washington took command of his rag tag volunteer force outside Boston in 1775 until the present day. It’s a nice theory, but it has no grounding in fact.

          • Owain says:

            All the things you describe, up to and including integration and beyond, have been the concern of politicians and civilians. In Utah, yes, local communities are worried about the economic impact the Hill AFB represents. To others, gays in the military and getting rid of don’t ask don’t tell is critical. To others, it’s women serving in combat roles.

            To those who serve, and particularly to those who fight, none of that is of importance. If you have a perfectly integrated military, if you have gays along side straights, women fighting alongside men, and every congressional district has it’s own personal piece of the pork pie, none of that matters if you can’t fight, and you can’t win.

            The ones who fight are the ones who die. That tends to provide one focus on what is of importance, and what is not. I may no longer be at the tip of the sword, but I have a good grip on the hilt, and I haven’t forgotten what is important, and what is not.

        • Bob Becker says:

          Reply to Owain at 8:53

          Your claim that all I wrote about was the concern of politicians, not those who served, will not stand up on the evidence. It was army leaders who pushed, hard, for UMT as a way to Americanize immigrants. It was the Continental Army Officer Corps that played a major role in the push for a new national constitution. And so on and so on and so on.

          The notion that American soldiers and veterans somehow exist and perform in blessed isolation from politics is a fiction. Just as is the notion that the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines as institutions exist in splendid isolation in re: politics and national social police is a fiction.

          You can pretend otherwise, but the facts to support the pretense are not there.

          • Owain says:

            Obviously, the armed forces do not live in political isolation. Politicians are endlessly politicizing the military, as is evident in the Presidents recent round of proposed cuts.

            Within the military, at least when I was flying, that was never the case. When it’s YOUR hide that is going to get shot up, you have a different perspective.

  7. laytonian says:

    I think many here have missed Charlie’s point.
    The chickenhawks who want MORE WAR, are those whose families do not participate in such wars.

    Maybe IF a Cheney, a Bush, a Romney or a Gingrich actually went to war, they may understand the human cost.

    It’s easy to sit back and say MORE WAR, if you are not invested.

  8. Charles Trentelman says:

    As the very wise Laytonian has noted, it is easy to talk about wanting more war while safely leading from the far far rear.

    I don’t want anyone’s children in war, especially this exercise in futility. Not mine, not yours, not Mitt’s.

    Having said that, there was a time, even with an all-volunteer army, when the children of kings and presidents alike felt it was their duty, their solemn promise to their country, to serve, as an example if nothing else. Members of the Royal Family in England, people who certainly could get a cushy job flying a chair, have done their duty in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    LBJ’s son-in-law saw combat duty in Vietnam. His commanders worried he would put himself in too much danger proving that nobody was cutting him slack.

    But now? The moral imparitive to support the family business — in this case politics — by signing up to serve in the war daddy promotes seems to have gone away, at least in the Romney family.

    Owain can call them men and women all he wants, but Kurt Vonnegut Jr. had it right in “Slaughterhouse Five.” All war is a children’s crusade. Painting it in glory only makes the old farts who sit and home and fight vicariously feel better about the slaughter.

    • Owain says:

      Did you serve, Charles? If not, perhaps you should listen more closely to those who have. You might then have better insight into what you are talking about.

      • Bob Becker says:

        Well, O, my dad [draftee] served in WWII [CBI theater, in Kunming, China]. Based on a life time’s conversations with him until Alzheimer’s took him down a decade ago, I don’t think he’d disagree with what Mr. Trentelman said. Quite the contrary. Nor would other vets of VN, Korea, WWII I’ve known and with whom I’ve talked defense and foreign policy over the years, sometimes professionally, sometimes just friends over a beer or three. Some were colleagues of long standing.

        You seem to assume you speak for veterans. A little on the arrogant side, isn’t it, to assume that your views on all this represent the views of veterans, collectively?

        • Owain says:

          I speak for no one but myself, but just for grins, maybe you should run your question by one of the more prominant Mil-Blogs, such as Blackfive or maybe This Ain’t Hell. I suspect you’ll discover that my opinion isn’t as isolated or as arrogant as you would prefer to believe.

          You’d probably also discover that for those with long periods of service (I’m at over 40 years, USAF active duty, civilian defense contractor, and USAF civil service), we are just fine with having helped provide the freedom necessary for nitwits like Charles to make fools of themselves with nonsense like this blog posting.

          I never intend it that way, but I’m ok that’s the way it worked out.

          You’re welcome, Charles.

          • lasvegasRichard says:

            Never been shot at, seen your buddies blown to hell, and lived in constant fear for your life, have you?

          • willbike says:

            How long were you active duty USAF? Having a well compensated job as a civilian contractor and USAF “civil servant” is not service. My cousin thinks he is in the air force because he makes $20+ an hour at hill.

            Leaving home for minimal pay for years at a time is service. Nothing that goes on around here is a sacrifice. Anyhow, thanks for your real service, and you should be thankful for the civilian work.

          • willbike says:

            I checked out your military blogs. I would guess that there is a good chance they would agree with Charles. As an army combat vet I do.

            Just for grins you should check with the writers of those blogs to see if civilian employment counts as service.

    • Bob Becker says:

      The last time in the US a significant portion of the sons of the elite served was WWII. When Pearl Harbor happened, a significant number of young men at Harvard, Princeton, Yale and similar elite institutions volunteered. I forget the exact number, but something significantly north of half the members of Congress either had children serving during WW II or resigned and volunteered themselves. Korea and Vietnam took care of that. During the Gulf War, at one point, I think only one or two members of Congress had children serving there.

      It used to be, as you note, considered an obligation, a matter of honor, for the sons of the elite in the US to volunteer when the nation went to war. But not since WWII.

      There are two ways to look at that change: one, that it marks a significant erosion in the sense of obligation that comes with wealth and privilege, the sense of public service as an obligation among the wealthiest families of America — an American sense of “noblesse oblige.” Or you can look at it as an indication that, as a nation, we’ve been much less convinced [since WWII] that the wars we’ve fought have been worth fighting. [Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Gulf I, Gulf II, Afghanistan].

      Or maybe it’s a little of both.

      • Myth Buster says:

        Dying for the UN over the 38th Parallel, giving the keys to Detroit to Saddam Hussein and starting a war against him, hunting bin Laden in a field of heroin, hunting Saddam again, ousting US lackey Qadaffi are noble reasons to die; just not if one is Elite; eh Bob?

  9. The “Chickenhawk” argument claims politicians who do not serve or send their own children to war have no right to authorize or support one. This is not supported by the Constitution or common sense. If these pols support foreign aid, must their kids join the State Dept, or the Peace Corps?

    You can say that universal service or a draft will have particular positive results i.e. reluctance of pols to put their own, or their elite friends and funders kids at risk. But then you should be making an argument for those policies. Currently we don’t have those policies and we ask and expect our pols to act according to their best judgment and consciences when they must make life and death decisions about war. Saying that only those with skin in the game have that right is complete BS and seems to be sour grapes from someone who doesn’t like or agree with the decisions made.

    If you want to stop pols from warring then change the rules or elect ones who agree with you. Don’t complain that the rules don’t favor your team or wishes.

    Cordially,

    Uncle JJ

  10. PolishandProud says:

    You guys are comical the way you dance around the point by playing philadelphia lawyer, “Romney can’t legally place his boys in the military”. As if this ridiculous point renders the original statement moot. The point is simple,it’s easy to say stay in Afghanistan if no one you love is put at risk. Old men wage war and send young men to die…but not their own. Wise up. Romney is a politician not a leader and certainly not fit to be commander in chief

    • Erick says:

      Wrong – that is not what we are saying. This is not a defense of Mitt Romney, at least not from me. I think he is the wrong guy. I can even see the value, of a leader who has offered military service. However, the point of the post is that a Commander in Chief is somehow disingenuous in his declaration and support of war if they have never served. Perhaps there is something of an ethical dillemma there, but not entirely. More importantly however, is the fact that this should not be the test of war! Military action is justified, and by extension those who must make that call, on the grounds that it conforms to rules stated in the Constitution. The justification is the security and protection of the United States. If you disagree with Romney’s position on Afghanistan, then it should be based on these grounds, not whether his sons or loved ones are serving.

  11. lasvegasRichard says:

    No clown like Romney should ever, ever be Commander in Chief. This article is 1000% spot on.

    • Dave says:

      What about the NON-SERVER that is President now??? Where was your out rage when He was running for Election against a Long Serving Senator???
      I can hear the crickets chirping……

      • willbike says:

        He didn’t say that a person should have military experience in order to be president. I fail to see your point, or hear crickets.

      • laytonian says:

        The NON-SERVER did not start the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. The NON-SERVER is trying to clean up the mess.

  12. John.St.John says:

    That sir was by far the most eloquent rebuttal of the chicken hawk mentality of the Republican leadership (I use the word loosely) that I have read in quite some time. It is past time that our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers stopped dying for greed. We are not a nation of mercenaries at the beck and call of the corporations. We did not raise our children to be fodder on some foreign shore.

  13. Dave says:

    Wow, I stumbled on this by accident, looking for real news. Should have known I wouldn’t find any. The experience was a refreshing reminder of why I canceled my subscription many years ago! The Standard is nothing more than a ‘nesting place’ for liberal loons!

    • Decider says:

      Then unsubscribe here and seek comaraderie in that echo chamber existing in your own head — no liberals there, just a toxic stream of bitter malevolence to keep you.

    • laytonian says:

      So you stumbled upon a blog, and confused it with “real news”?

      Really?

      Thank you for NOT being a liberal. We’d hate to be diluted by non-thinkers like you.

  14. Myth Buster says:

    Tagg Romney is caught up in an $8.5Billion pyramid scam swindle; he’s busy. As to Afghanistan “We never made the case or proved Osama bin Laden was involved with 9/11/2001″ Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and FBI Director Robert Mueller all said this.

  15. Caril Jennings says:

    Thanks for seeing the real point of this essay.

  16. Decider says:

    I frequently listen to “old time radio” programs from the 1940-1945 era — then, every program stressed “buy bonds” or “save animal fats for ammunition production” or conserve national resources so necessary to those fighting over-seas, or especially, the patriotic exhortations that emphasized the SHARED SACRIFICE necessary to defeat tyranny. Their idea was that there needed to be “skin in the game” for EVERY American.
    Now Americans profit from war, have their taxes DECREASED if they’re rich and fight wars on the cheap. There are those in the Republican campaign who are so enamored with the spectacle of war that they seek to prolong it in order to thump their chest with patriotic zeal and seek to make war permanent, even though they have obviously insulated themselves from ANY PERSONAL SACRIFICES.

  17. Neal Humphrey says:

    Good point, Laytonian. ‘Just a side note about Bush. if you meant Bush Sr., he was a WWII US Navy pilot with extensive combat experience in the Pacific. The younger Bush served close to five years in the Texas Air National Guard, plus a post-discharge year in the US Air Force Reserves. The younger Bush missed combat in Southeast Asia because the aircraft he was trained on was taken out of service.

    Mitt Romney served his LDS mission the same years I did when we received 4D “divinity student” deferments to protect us from the military draft during our missions. We both missed getting drafted and the Tet Offensive.

  18. ctrentelman says:

    I have no clue why you guys seem to think that military service should be a requisite to be commander in chief.

    The civilians who set up our Constitution originally made a civilian the military’s commander in chief for very specific reasons — they fear the power of the military and don’t ever want it to be out of the hands of the true owners of the nation, the people. Civilian control of the military is one of the most sacred tenets of the Constitution and every military person has it drilled into his/her head.

    Former military exprience does not a great commander in chief make. Eisenhower was a great general, but his tactical decisions as commander in chief, especially regarding Vietnam, left a lot to be desired, if the outcome is any judge. Ditto Kennedy, who got us involved with advisors in a big way.

    Someone who has a lot of military experience may be a good president, but may not. I would worry that someone like Dave or Decider will become president who has too narrow, and too simplistic, a view of both the power and purpose of the military.

    Bush II is an excellent example — he is a former military person (sort of) who thought Iraq needed a military solution instead of a broader strategic and political solution, and we can see how well that one worked out.

    • Neal Humphrey says:

      Well Charlie – So we don’t need a commander-in-chief with military experience (agreed), just a president with sons who have military experience?

    • Decider says:

      Charles:
      ” . . .the power and the purpose of the military. . . ” was NOT the topic of your “Mitt: Put Up Your Sons or shut up” commentary.

      I AGREED with your characterization of Romney and his sons. Also, I wanted to add just how important the concept of “skin in the game” was to the country during WW2, and how important it is for EVERYONE now to partake in the commitment of a “shared and personal sacrifice” during time of war.

      OTHER comments have been made about whether the President should have military experience or not, and also about the “purpose of the military”, but choosing to misrepresent then denigrate my statements, in such a snide way, was surprising indeed.

  19. Myth Buster says:

    Bush Jr flew a total of 330 hours in the F-102 and failed to take a physical in 1972, 2 years into his 6 yr commitment to the TX Guard. 10,000 young men wanted a position in the TX Air Guard, yet a slot was wasted on Bush Jr.
    Sabaeans of Haran were known for leaving their religion and entering others; so what are you Neal? a Mormon? a Presbyterian who never uses a KJV?
    A Commander in Chief of the US Military should at least have respect for the lives he commits to foreign soil, right? Obama said he would bring the troops in Afghanistan home by his Inauguration in 2009. Still waiting aren’t we?
    Come to think of it, I’m still trying to find the word “Missionary” in the bible; maybe you can help.

  20. Myth Buster says:

    So Romney’s family flee the US to avoid anti-polygamy laws; flee Mexico to avoid Civil War, sue the Mexican Government and win; and now the son of Mexican citizens wants to commit American troops to Foreign wars for Israel. Good got it.
    Mitt can prove his father George was naturalized or he can pack his bags for Mexico.

  21. packsoldier says:

    Liberals love the idea of a draft because it means a broken, unusable military.

    • Doug Vincent says:

      @Packsoldier – tell that to the WWII vets. Right after you thank them.

    • J. Hartwell says:

      Pack,
      Bush broke that a long time ago. But since you’re for supporting the troops, I’m sure you were behind the idea of sending them over without proper armor. Right?

      But hey, “you got to war with the army you have…”

  22. laytonian says:

    I meant Bush Jr, who kinda served in the Texas National Guard on a sweet deal to keep his butt out of Vietnam — and who had children old enough to enter military service at the time he began the Iraq war.

    instead, the Bush Twins took a world tour of bars and lounges.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>