Romney Speaks Up for Sons' Decisions GLEN JOHNSON | August 8, 2007 01:06 PM EST | AP BETTENDORF, Iowa â 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." Romney's five sons range in age from 37 to 26 and have worked as real estate developers, sports marketers and advertising executives. They are now actively campaigning for their father and have a "Five Brothers" blog on Romney's campaign Web site. Romney noted that his middle son, 36-year-old Josh, was completing a recreational vehicle tour of all 99 Iowa counties on Wednesday and said, "I respect that and respect all those and the way they serve this great country." The woman who asked the question, Rachel Griffiths, 41, of Milan, Ill., identified herself as a member of Quad City Progressive Action for the Common Good, as well as the sister of an Army major who had served in Iraq. "Of course not," Griffiths said when asked if she was satisfied with Romney's answer. "He told me the way his son shows support for our military and our nation is to buy a Winnebago and ride across Iowa and help him get elected." The town-hall-style meeting was the first of eight events scheduled for Romney just three days before the Iowa Straw Poll, a nonbinding beauty contest among the Republican presidential contenders. In the days leading up it, Romney is airing a new television ad in the state in which he encourages supporters to attend the event, portrays himself as an outsider to Washington and takes swipes at both Republicans and Democrats there. "Washington politicians in both parties have proven they can't control spending, and they won't control our borders," Romney says in the ad. "I will, but I need your help to do it." While former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, who is considering a campaign are not participating, Romney has been actively organizing with the aim of gaining momentum into January's Iowa caucuses, which kick off the presidential nominating process. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070808/romney-iowa/
This whole chickenhawk thing is about as tired and wornout as Cindy Sheehan. Is Chelsea Clinton in the Marines? What about Edwards' kid? Did Edwards serve himself? Did Obama? Did any democrat candidate? Did any of their family members? Not that I'm aware of. We do know that Bill Clinton dodged the draft by signing up for the Reserves then welching when he got a high draft number. For some reason, the same democrats, like ZZZ, who run around screaming chickenhawk didn't have a problem with that.
excuse me, there are anti-war conservatives that have every right to point out the hypocrisy of filth bags like Romney and his chickenhawk boys. we are preaching no war.. no lies for war... and when someone like Mitt loves illegal war and wants to kill our sons and daughters you're damn right we are going to point out that his sons are big chickens. the idiot is still trying to link saddam to 9/11..... good thing george wussalottapuss shut him up at the debate. ron paul would have "schooled" him. mitt has the nerve to say that his sons are doing their part riding around iowa in an RV campaigning for him? he is scum filth. thats the way alot of these CFR candidates work. let the serfs die while they enjoy their millions.
i see our neocons haven't figured out the definition of chickenhawk yet so i thought i would help out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics) Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially if that person actively avoided military service when of draft age. The term is meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Generally, the implication is that "chickenhawks" lack the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war.
The whole concept of chickenhawk is bogus. I'll grant it's a clever bit of marxist political theater designed to shut up people lib's disagree with without actually having to argue the merits with them. Kind of like the mental condition homophobia, something they made up to avoid having to explain why teaching first graders about anal sex is a good idea. Romney may or may not be dead wrong on Iraq, but he's a fine and decent man. He has as much right to advocate a position as anyone else. I think it's fair game to point out that he, and most of the other candidates, have never served, so their views may be uninformed. That's a far cry from saying you can only advocate war if you served. BTW, did FDR have military experience? Did Truman? Did LBJ? Did Bill Clinton? They all sent men off to die in wars that their critics opposed.
I wonder if you can even see how foolish you come off... Your posts are one big diatribe on how wrong the liberals and democrats always are, how they are all Marxists...then you turn around and defend chickenhawk Romney by pointing out what dem presidents in the past did. So if then if Romney is right, then so was Clinton, FDR, LBJ and Truman. Do you get now how ridiculously absurd your reasoning process appears? There is so much logical inconsistency in your posts, the only explanation is that you are a full time student at Limfat's EIB... Oh, and you know that Mitt is a fine and decent man....
The point being what do Romney's adult children have to do with Romney's position on Iraq? As far as I can tell not one leading dem has served and yet ALL are preaching aggressive foreign policy stances including Obama who's made the unilateral bombing of Pakistan virtually a platform. It's you not AAA who persists in being an unimaginative partisan hack.
Cite me one piece of scandal about Romney, and I will gladly recant. The fact is, you can't. It doesn't necessarily make his political positions the correct ones or even make him a good leader, but unlike virtually all the other candidates, the man has led an amazingly exemplary life. As for the other presidents, it's not a matter of all being right or all being wrong. The point is, as Pabst points out, we have never demanded that a president be a military veteran before he was allowed to send troops into harm's way. If a president crossed the line into unethical conduct to dodge getting drafted, like Clinton did, it speaks volumes about his character. The fact that a rich guy with a Harvard education didn't join the army or coerce his sons into doing so, proves nothing however.