it's amazing the things these guys can say with a straight face..no shame at all
Posted by dennis at August 8, 2007 03:35 PMWhat would the volume level of the Repub Noise Machine be at if one of our goofball Dems had said such a thing?
How can such statements possibly play in the minds of the drooling militarist wingnuts that support this corrupt "party"? Complete cognitive dissonance?
Posted by euzoius at August 8, 2007 03:47 PMI just posted a link to this in a discussion at Pandagon: Generation Chickenhawk, featuring a cavalcade of visibly healthy young warmongers at the Young Repugs' Convention, lustily rattling their tiny plastic sabers, with their jaws a-flapping and their nostrils filled with war blood -- but alas, unable to go themselves.
There's college to attend and asthma, bad knees, ingrown toenails that prevent them, exactly, from defending their nation which they love more than scummy you and sucky me.
First seen here at Talking Points Memo.
Posted by Ellie at August 8, 2007 04:51 PM"...willing to sacrifice someone else's kids while his own kids stay at home."
When did Chelsea Clinton join the Military?
Hillary: chickenhawk?
Obama intimated that he -- as President -- would invade Pakistan.....
Curious, and even more curious.
Posted by And Bagley Was A Friend Of Mine at August 8, 2007 05:11 PMWhen Mitt Romney said he didn't serve because he was doing missionary work, I always thought he was talking about his religion. Now, after having seen a photograph of his extremely large, picture perfect family, I am convinced that his "work" had more to do with the missionary position than his religion. There are an awful lot of guys (many of whom never came back and whose names are now on a wall in Washington,
D. C.) who would have loved to have proven their patriotism in this way. What a hypocrite.
This should end his POTUS bid -- IIRC All of FDR's sons served in WWII. LBJ, Nixon, Bush and Cheney only have daughters; thereby escaping this most hypocritical response.
Posted by Marie at August 8, 2007 05:40 PMWhen did Chelsea Clinton join the Military?
She serves in other ways, but not on her back like the twin Buschco porcupines.
Posted by phidipides at August 8, 2007 05:48 PMShe serves in other ways, but not on her back like the twin Buschco porcupines.
Posted by phidipides at August 8, 2007 05:48 PM
Which ways would that be, big talker?
Posted by jj at August 8, 2007 06:02 PM"She serves in other ways, but not on her back like the twin Buschco porcupines."
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Good one Phidipides
Hey, there are drunken parties to attend, guys to screw, and keeping up with what elitist do. No time to serve our Country, but I bet they have a yellow ribbon on their hummers.
Posted by Judith at August 8, 2007 07:22 PMRomney Sons Campaign For Dad Over Here So They Don't Have To Campaign For Him Over There
While the U.S. Special Forces command refused to comment, sources inside the Pentagon confirm that a new elite commando unit, the “Flying Romneys,” has been formed to execute what may be the most crucial mission in the War on Terror: ensuring Mitt Romney’s victory in the Iowa caucuses.
The five members of the Flying Romneys — code-named “Matt,” “Josh,” “Ben,” “Craig,” and, most mysteriously, “Tagg” — were trained in the various clandestine arts of electioneering. While their full skillset is concealed by a haze of secrecy, it almost certainly includes glad-handing, baby-kissing (literal), ass-kissing (figurative), pretending to care about what people in Iowa think, smiling politely, speaking in platitudes, riding around in buses, and collecting gobs and gobs of money.
America’s allies were firm in their support for the Flying Romneys. “There’s only one way to defeat the insurgency that is tearing Iraq apart: electing Mitt Romney,” said Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. “I have faith that these five shadowy heroes can achieve that goal.” Afghan President Hamid Karzai said that a strong Romney showing in Iowa would be “better than a dozen victories over the Taliban in battle” for the stability of his long-suffering nation.
Reports that the Flying Romneys were using vote-gathering methods outlawed by the Geneva Convention were brushed off my military brass. “Everyone bearing arms for the U.S. has to do what they have to do to win this war,” said General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “It’s absolutely crucial that Romney come in first in Iowa.”
Future President Romney himself was taciturn on the subject, saying only that “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,” and adding that a new campaign medal, the 2007-8 Iowa Caucus Victory Badge, would be authorized by the military once he had been elected.
http://wonkette.com/politics/dept-of-alternative-service/romney-sons-campaign-for-dad-over-here-so-they-dont-have-to-campaign-for-him-over-there-287416.php
Posted by Judith at August 8, 2007 07:39 PMAnyone see TDS...it was hilarious on this. Jon did a funny bit on this on the opening. Talked about how he wanted to ensure the Romney boys had our support when they got injured by paper cuts or confetti in the eye....etc. Then later he had Biden who is running for President like Romney and whose son, aside from being the AG for the State of Delaware, apparently is in the National Guard. So Jon asked him if his son would be willing to sign up to help get Mitt Romney elected for President.
These elitist country club silver spoon fools are just so out of touch with the typical "average american" it is sickening. They just have such disdain for the masses and average people...it just radiates how they truly believe they are better than the rest of us. HIs boys are just like him...the snobbery, the entitlement mentality that pervades them...they're just too good and above it all to serve in the military and fight for the war...disgusting.
Btw, he sucked as Governor...just sucked.
Posted by emal at August 9, 2007 04:21 AMWould his kids service make him more qualified to make good decisions and to lead the nation? No. If he came out tomOrrow and said all five were joining the Marines would that make you all support his candidacy? I sure hope not.
Posted by snark at August 9, 2007 04:25 AMWould his kids service make him more qualified to make good decisions and to lead the nation? No.
I would think it would make him more hesitant to start wars of choice, make him think a little longer about the need for the geneva conventions. Yeah, I think anyone whose kids were in the military would make better decisions. At least if they cared about their kids. But no, I'd still never vote for the man who stuck his dog on top of his car for a twelve hour drive.
Posted by Sharon at August 9, 2007 05:42 AMI think the idea that presidents must have served in the military and their children must serve in the military is ridiculous. Women weren't drafted back when Hillary was that age--does that mean we shouldn't elect a woman? Why do their children have to serve. Now Romney's answer was stupid. I think the answer to that is "we have an all volunteer army, and it's up to each individual person to decide for himself if he wishes to serve his country in that way and we're grateful for those who do decide to serve in the military."
Posted by CG at August 9, 2007 05:50 AM"She serves in other ways, but not on her back like the twin Buschco porcupines."
Posted by phidipides at August 8, 2007 05:48 PM
"Hey, there are drunken parties to attend, guys to screw, and keeping up with what elitist do. No time to serve our Country, but I bet they have a yellow ribbon on their hummers."
Posted by Judith at August 8, 2007 07:22 PM
Happy to see that you two are as classy as you always have been.
Posted by And Bagley Was A Friend Of Mine at August 9, 2007 06:03 AMI would think it would make him more hesitant to start wars of choice, make him think a little longer about the need for the geneva conventions.
So we could achieve world peace by taking the children of every world leader and holding them hostage under the threat of violent death if the leader misbehaves.
Personally, I don't want my president making the decision about whether to use military force based on whether one of his own kids is gonna be put in harms way or not. It cuts both ways. If you think it would make a leader less apt to rush into needless violence it could also make a leader hesitate to commit when a real threat exists.
The whole "why don't their kids serve" argument is a red herring. What a candidates kids choose to do or not do has nothing to do with the candidates ability to lead.
Posted by snark at August 9, 2007 06:11 AMIf this War is so damn important to our very survival, ("fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here," remember?) then just why aren't more sons and daughters of our politicians fighting in Iraq? Mitt Romney is obviously stupid to have even made that comment.
I would rather vote for a man or woman who had a son or daughter in this War than a candidate who did not, just as I would prefer for my candidate to have served. The reasons are obvious.
Decisions of war and peace need to be made dispassionately. Not on the basis of emotion. War is terrible. People die. I'd rather vote for a candidate who values the lives of every soldier equally. A candidate who would be swayed on such an important issue based on the effect on their own flesh and blood is a less desireable candidate in my book.
Posted by snark at August 9, 2007 06:26 AMCompletely agree with everything you're saying snark and have felt that way for a long time. I don't want someone pulling out of somewhere just because his kid is in danger. I want them pulling out because it's the best decision. Likewise for going in.
Posted by CG at August 9, 2007 06:37 AMHappy to see that you two are as classy as you always have been.
And Bagley Was A Friend Of Mine
Obviously caustic sarcasm escapes you.
Posted by Judith at August 9, 2007 06:51 AMDecisions of war and peace need to be made dispassionately. Not on the basis of emotion.
Are you saying that one cannot dispassionately make decisions of war and peace because they have served or have children serving? I would rather have a president who knows the horror of war than one who sat on a bar stool drunk during the war.
First, when you talk fear constantly and involve this Country in a war that "threatens this Country," then just why are the children of our politicians not serving? I would think they would want to serve to defeat the so-called enemy. That's the point.
Posted by Judith at August 9, 2007 07:06 AM"I'd rather vote for a candidate who values the lives of every soldier equally."
Completely agree on that one.
Posted by Judith at August 9, 2007 07:16 AMI don't care if the candidate's kids fight in a war or not. But don't tell me zig-zagging across freakin' IOWA means anything more than "I got a glove box full of No-Doze and a whole lot of time on my hands."
Posted by MaskedVigilante at August 9, 2007 07:31 AMAre you saying that one cannot dispassionately make decisions of war and peace because they have served or have children serving?
Isn't the entire basis of the idea that if Romney's kids were serving in the military he would be less prone to support the war in Iraq? What other basis could there be to support that argument than a belief that it would affect him emotionally Judith? It's certainly not a strategic consideration. You WANT politicians to make decisions of war based on emotion. There is no other defense for asking that their kids serve. I do not think that such decisions should be made emotionally.
I would rather have a president who knows the horror of war than one who sat on a bar stool drunk during the war.
That's a pretty big strawman you just threw up there.
First, when you talk fear constantly and involve this Country in a war that "threatens this Country," then just why are the children of our politicians not serving? I would think they would want to serve to defeat the so-called enemy. That's the point.
And a bad point it is. Do you expect all children to make life decisions based on political calculations of their parents? Did we elect their children? Are all children beholden to the acts of their parents? I was under the impression that adult children and parents are distinct individuals free to live their lives as they choose. Maybe we should change the law so that the children of criminals do time for the crimes of their parents. It would be a great deterent, no? Don't do the crime or your kids will go to jail too!
Posted by snark at August 9, 2007 07:34 AMBush is having a news conference right now.
Posted by Judith at August 9, 2007 07:37 AMAre you saying that one cannot dispassionately make decisions of war and peace because they have served or have children serving?
In fact, if the answer to that question is yes, people can make decisions dispassionately even if they have children serving, then the entire issue is moot. Because it would make no difference to the decision making process whether they had kids serving or not. So the only reason to want Romney's kids to go to war is to punish Mitt Romney for supporting it. So you are in effect advocating the punishment of a politicians children for the acts of the politician. Not a very progressive idea. Or do you think so?
Posted by snark at August 9, 2007 07:39 AM"Isn't the entire basis of the idea that if Romney's kids were serving in the military he would be less prone to support the war in Iraq?"
No Snark. If politicians had their children fighting in Iraq, or they themselves had fought in a war, making decisions on war and peace may give them a better understanding of the consequences of those decisions before sending anyones children to war. If that is "emotional", then so be it.
You still missed the point about the children of politicians not being in Iraq. One would think that they would be signing up to fight the terrorists because of the grave danger, promoted by their parents. No one is saying they should sign up, just interesting that they don't.
Posted by Judith at August 9, 2007 08:12 AMNo Snark.
No. OK.
If politicians had their children fighting in Iraq, or they themselves had fought in a war, making decisions on war and peace may give them a better understanding of the consequences of those decisions before sending anyones children to war.
What would those consequences be? And what would their improved understanding of the consequences relative to peoples children be? That they die? That peoples children will be blown to bits? Can you tell me how that is anything other than an emotional consideration?
If that is "emotional", then so be it.
You just answered that it is NOT emotional. Which is it? And if it is emotional, based on your "so be it" comment, do you think that's a legitimate consideration when a president is being asked to make a decision about going to war?
You still missed the point about the children of politicians not being in Iraq. One would think that they would be signing up to fight the terrorists because of the grave danger, promoted by their parents. No one is saying they should sign up, just interesting that they don't.
I didn't miss it Judith. It's just a really stupid point. I hate to be blunt.
Posted by at August 9, 2007 08:29 AMSorry, that was my comment at 8:29.
Posted by snark at August 9, 2007 08:34 AMSnark, you are purposely missing my points. We should agree to disagree.
Posted by Judith at August 9, 2007 08:39 AMBagley, if you think that Chelsea Clinton's case is the same as Bush or Romney's kids' decision to play instead of fight while their dads send others to die, then tell me what war of choice did Clinton start that he called the greatest challenge facing our country?
Geez, these GOP talking points are more and more stupid every day.
Posted by Steve Soto at August 9, 2007 08:49 AMSnark, you are purposely missing my points.
I assure you that is not true Judith. Your point seems clear, Mitt Romney supports the war so his kids should be clamoring to sign up. The fact that they are not means that they are either hypocrites or cowards and it casts a shadow over Romney's leadership abilities as well. If your point is anything other than that you have not made it clearly enough and I'd appreciate your clarification. And if that is your point I completely disagree.
Posted by snark at August 9, 2007 08:51 AMWhich ways would that be, big talker?
I don't remember the Cintons making it a campaign issue or calling what she does "serving in other ways." Since you're a guy who would sell his grandchildren to a Tijuana donkey act for a buck and call it service, you tell me.
And on this idea that some folks want dispassionate robot-like decisions from their president, it's not going to happen because we are not electing robots. We are electing a person. What we hope for is rationality and compassion...traits we rarely get in a president and that certainly never knocked on the doors of the Buschco clan. One also hopes that they don't use soldiers as political props, do attend a soldiers funeral or two, and don't block the nations access to news of the suffering of our soldiers.
So Mitt's kids are serving the country in another way? He's the one who said it. The boys said it (link below). So how are they serving the country? It becomes a very fair question when he uses it in his campaign. So are they voluteering in VA hospitals, in shelters, to help the elderly? Do they go to the home of an 18 year-old soldier who got turned into mush in Iraq and comfort the parents? If these over-enabled fucknuts are serving in other ways, please let us know about that service. Otherwise, stop telling me about that "other service" bullshit. Having your dad's campaign give you money for keeping your hair straight and neat is not service of any type. It is nepotism and the fact that the boys can't get other work that pays as well. Tell me they chose not to join and I can run with it from there, but don't call the bullshit they are doing service.
Posted by phidipides at August 9, 2007 08:57 AM
And on this idea that some folks want dispassionate robot-like decisions from their president, it's not going to happen because we are not electing robots. We are electing a person. What we hope for is rationality and compassion...traits we rarely get in a president and that certainly never knocked on the doors of the Buschco clan.
A president does not need to have a child serving in the military to inform him/her about the correct decision to be made. Making the argument that a president's own childs well being being directly on the line when that president is faced with a decision to commit forces to hostilities is a desireable thing is a bad idea. No one said that a president should not care about the consequences of war. But the idea that the well being of a specific individual should affect such a decision is ridiculous. And that is what is being promoted in many of the comments. The idea that if George Bush or Mitt Romney would have a child be a member of the first wave of an invasion force that it would affect their decision making. Not something I want in my president. Maybe you do.
Posted by snark at August 9, 2007 09:07 AMAnd for the record Romney didn't say that his kids 'serving' by working on getting him elected "counts as much as the sacrifice made by our men and women in Iraq". He said they're serving their country in other ways. He made no equivilance to our forces in Iraq. His comment was stupid. A stupid politicians response to a loaded question.
Posted by snark at August 9, 2007 09:19 AMHis comment was stupid. A stupid politicians response to a loaded question.
Yes, that question caught him off guard.
That is why the repukes need more "You-Tube" debates. Something to keep them honest. They get scripted questions in a closed forum.
God forbid if they had to stand outdoors and receive off the cuff questions coming from Americans with tough questions for them to answer.
I think the Dems are killing the republi-cons in the debate process.
Posted by Seven of Six at August 9, 2007 10:56 AMI think the Dems are killing the republi-cons in the debate process.
100%.
Posted by snark at August 9, 2007 11:03 AM
That wasn't my point Snark. Let's just say I have failed in communicating my thoughts on the subject.
Posted by Judith at August 9, 2007 12:02 PMI'm sorry,but zooming around the country in a luxury winnebago upholding your father's lies and flipflops so he can run for an office he's NOT qualified for is NOT "supporting our country." It's called "Acting in one's own (or one's family's) best interests."
By NO stretch of the imagination could I even consider that Mitt Romney running for president is good for this country. He's abused his wife publicly, lied about his views, barely served as governor of Massachusetts, and he dodged the Viet Nam war. He's a phony.
So, no, waving Romney ass around the country is NOT serving it.
Posted by dejah thoris at August 9, 2007 07:28 PMWHAT? Another GOP draft dodger? Say it ain't so. I'm shocked!
Posted by Judith at August 9, 2007 08:36 PM