Romney the Chickenhawk

Romney the Chickenhawk January 11, 2012

Here he is at 19, protesting in favor of drafting somebody else (since he had an exemption as a Mormon missionary–and being the son of a rich governor no doubt helped too).

And here he is explaining that none of his kids need to join the Army either. That’s for the little people. The way *his* sons fight for this great nation is… by supporting his run for the presidency. Such self-sacrificial love of country. No, seriously, he said it:

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. 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. I respect that and respect all those and the way they serve this great country.

As President, he pledges to start a pre-emptive war and send other people to suffer and die though. Needless to say, he also has the courage to torture.

What brave and self-sacrificing leaders we have. It will be far more than they deserve if our abused and exploited troops don’t mutiny against them someday.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Tominellay

    Hahahaha!! Great post, Mark!

  • Jack

    I once said that listening to Prime Minister’s Questions here in the UK was the best free comedy available, I take it back, watching the contest for the republican nomination from across the pond beats PMQ’s hands down. Apart from Ron Paul (and possibly Huntsman) they seem to have been taken directly from the cast of dumb, dumber and even dumber; for those of you who have missed my previous comments I shall recap:

    Rick Perry; the mouth moves, the lights are on but Mr Brain has long since vacated the premises.

    Rick Santorum should ask to be refunded the cost of his BA in political science as it didn’t equip him to realise that the creation of the NHS was NOT the reason for the decline of the British Empire ( I could tell you that and I don’t have a BA in political science), he also seems to think that torture and pre-emptive wars that cost trillions are good, wholesome family values.

    Newt Gringich is a serial adulterer who if elected will ‘love America so much’ that he will deal with the stress of the job by bedding White House interns on Air force One when he’s supposed to be at important political conferences.

    Romney is an empty suit who wouldn’t recognise principled decision making if it danced up and down in front of him wearing a sari

    I disagree with Ron Paul on some issues but I broadly support him on the basis that he has courage, convictions and has actually outlined a relatively good plan for America, how the rest were ever elected to any sort of office above that of village idiot remains a mystery.

    • SKay

      Obama is the least qualified of them all.

      • SKay

        “bedding White House interns on Air force One when he’s supposed to be at important political conferences. ”

        That’s more of a Bill Clinton thing.

    • “Newt Gringich is a serial adulterer who if elected will ‘love America so much’ that he will deal with the stress of the job by bedding White House interns on Air force One”

      Really? Most folks would actually have to wait for such a thing to happen before they judged him so harshly. Nice to see you’re jumping out ahead of the pack.

      • Jack

        “There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate. And what I can tell you is that when I did things that were wrong” – Newt Gingrich

        Dear Dave
        If Mr. Gingrich worked too hard as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and as a result allowed himself to have a prolonged sexual relationship with women who were not his wife not one but TWO times, each time divorcing his current spouse and marrying the women he was having an affair with, do you not think that electing him president (a far more demanding job) would be placing temptation before the weak?

        • Mark Shea

          Exactamundo. “I worked too hard and so I committed adultery, so give me even more power and overwork!” Any Catholic who cares about Gingrich’s soul is, by Gingrich’s own accounting, morally bound not to vote for him for the good of his soul, just as we are morally bound not to give an alcoholic a drink, no matter how much he begs for one.

        • And if I hadn’t spent the bulk of my adult life counseling people I might agree with the premise. But since I did, I don’t, if you take my meaning. But more worrisome is your assertion that Gingrich *will* sin. That you know this somehow. How do you, or Mark, or I, or anyone know such a thing? Where does that put our views of the Grace of God? Is it not sufficient? Sure, character does matter. The type of person they are. That’s why there are certain politicians I just could not vote for no matter what. But we must be careful how we say it. We don’t want to wade into the world of Catholic fundamentalism in order to score points against a politician that, in all likelihood, we wouldn’t vote for because of a thousand different reasons anyway.

          • Jack

            Dear dave

            Whether Mr Gingrich’s conversion is genuine I don’t know, that is between him and Jesus; I’m not saying that Gingrich will repeat his habit of committing adultery for sure if his is elected, but that due to his past of dealing with the stress of the job by having prolonged immoral sexual relationships, I believe that electing him to the presidency would place him in a very near occasion of sin and therefore that any Catholic who really cares about Mr Gingrich’s eternal soul will not vote for him.

    • ds

      I have no idea why you’d hold Ron Paul “apart” from the rest of those clowns.

  • Tim

    Why do you hate capitalism?

    • Mark Shea

      It’s my secret left wing liberal blood. I hate capitalism almost as much as I hate babies, America, freedom, and God.

      • kenneth

        Aha! That’s exactly what a clandestine Voris partisan posing as an atheist and hiding in the cover of Opus Dei’s cloak-and-dagger reputation would want us to believe! 🙂

      • Frank Weathers

        I knew it all along!

      • Gary Keith Chesterton

        At least you don’t hate Sarah Palin anymore.

        ..or DO you?

        • Mark Shea

          I hate her as much as I hate babies, America and God.

          • Gary Keith Chesterton

            And the Traditional Latin Mass, don’t forget that, you putrid scum.

  • Mark S (not for Shea)

    Well said!

    Romney supporters are hopping on the bandwagon supposedly because he is the best candidate to beat Obama. I just don’t see it. If a sweet lady in New Hampshire asking him an honest question can discombobulate him enough that he comes off like an elitist toad, can you imagine what Obama is going to do to him in a debate?

    Romney is an empty suit. It’s going to be painfully easy to show that once all the focus is on him.

    • SKay

      Has it escaped your notice what an empty suit we have now occupying
      the oval office at this very monent?

      • Meggan

        Maybe he does notice what an empty suit we now have. That’s probably why he doesn’t want the empty suit called Romney. Why trade one empty suit for another?

      • Mark S. (not for Shea)

        I didn’t vote for Obama — and won’t in 2012.

        But I’ll write-in Mr. T before I vote for Romney.

        • ds

          If you vote for Mr. T I will pity you, fool.

    • Dave

      Mark S, it appears to me that there is still a lot of empty space left on the Romney bandwagon – and a lot of citizens choosing to walk instead of ride at this time.

  • Talking Carp

    If I were prez, I’d say the same thing: all options are on the table. It is irresponsible to say otherwise. The only recent prez to say otherwise was the Jimmy the Pathetic and couple million people died as a result from embolded beligerents.

    By the way, are you that naive to think that BHO is not CURRENTLY using military action in Iran? Or do you think it’s a coincidence that seven top nuclear scientists have accidently bought the farm in last three years?

    Pax Chrissies of the world, wipe your eyes, have a coffee, carry a big stick, pray you’ll never use it.

    • Cinlef

      ” For what does it profit a man, if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul?Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works”-Matthew 16:26-27

      Acting rightly MATTERS MORE THAN PRESERVING LIVES (even if one grants the almost certainly false claim that US belligerence preserves lives)

      And to forestall the obvious replies, would I be willing to put Catholic morality above preserving my own life or those of my loved ones? Honestly I doubt it though I hope so. But if I failed to it would not be because I should value lives more than doing the right thing it’s merely because as a sinner I’m likely to succumb to cowardice and probably fail to do what I ought. Which is not at all something that ought to be lionized or taken as a guideline for behavior.

      • Talking Carp

        Well, I wont argue with your philosophy, that’s your judgement. But I will say that your philosophy contradicts The Church visa vis the just war theory.

        • Mark Shea

          So it’s just war to pre-emptively murder civilians because of something that might happen in a few years? Wow. The thing that Used to be Conservatism is really starting to give off an odor as it rots. Why not just abort children from dangerous demographic groups in case one of them grows up to be Hitler?

          • FrancoFan

            This is madness. Mohammedans being considered civilians ever is dubious enough, but when they are attempting to acquire weapons of horrific power it is insane. The leadership of the cursed Persians are just as willing to die for their false beliefs as you are for your hippie-drenched idea of what Holy Mother Church teaches. They will start a nuclear war with Israel, and the Israeli captains, when they see their homeland obliterated, will not settle merely for exterminating the Persians. They’ll strike out at Mecca and attempt to annihilate as many Mohammedans as they can in their death-throws.

            Needless to say, the loss of Moorish oil would destroy the entire global economy. *Billions* would starve. The well-armed will rape and eat the weak. I should note that Montana is right next door and it has a great deal of very well-armed people, so you are not only subjecting others to this holocaust. That at least shows courage.

            Really, your entire weak, quasi-red republican approach to Our Faith enables horrors. You insist that locking up the Supreme Court is a bad thing. Ha! They should have been put in the darkest oubliette centuries ago. Democracy is fundamentally incompatible with the Faith. That has been shown again and again. And yet you won’t even vote for the clearly better side because they support defending humanity against the Mohammedan hordes. St. James the Moorslayer has no place in your house, no doubt. And so the abortion holocaust continues, the abomination of Sodom continues, and now Iran will be allowed to destroy the world. All because of hippiedom like Vatican II and democracy. Before the hippie Vatican II, the Church made no bones about *inventing* waterboarding in Santa Espana, motherland of all true Catholics.

            It is to be expected of Americans. Their first act in forming the nation was to show rebellion against God in overthrowing the king (for reasons other than rank heresy). When the Day of Judgment comes, all the generals of this wretched nation will have to answer why they allowed millions of unborn children to be aborted, why they allowed the family to be turned into a sewer by the sodomites, why they allowed Iran to destroy the human race. The Bushes and Reagan too. George W. Bush could easily have carted justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, and O’Connor to Guantanimo (America’s most blessed property, however ill-gotten from Holy Spain it was). He could have had the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts taken there and subjected to the toca. He failed. He will have to answer for it before the Highest Court.

            ¡Viva el Regente de España!

            • Mark Shea

              Mohammedans being considered civilians ever is dubious enough

              You and Osama bin Laden are peas in a pod. He murdered American civilians on precisely this basis–that nobody is a civilian. The difference is, you should know better because you have Catholic just war teaching under your belt. By your lights, it is legitimate for any American to kill any Muslim in the world in cold blood as an enemy combatant.

              Get off my blog. Fascists like you are no more welcome here than Catholics for a Free Choice.

            • Cinlef

              Right not entirely sure how to even begin to respond to this beyond a prayer that this is troll-ery .

              But if Mr Shea has banned you on the grounds that your either some sort of Falangist or troll doing a caricature of a Falangist not really much point

              • Cinlef

                “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.
                -Saint Augustine of Hippo Doctor of the Church
                Noted “weak, quasi-red republican”

              • Mark Shea

                I think he was quite sincere. That’s why he’s gone.

        • Dan C

          You are dramatically in error here. The Just War theory puts brakes on the utilization of war and there haven’t been many or any Popes since 1950 that have been war advocates. Most if not all denounced wars subsequent to WW2.

          You read Just War theory as perpetual Hall Pass to “War Whenever I Want To.” it is or.

          • Dan C

            Last sentence: It is not.

  • Talking Carp
    • Mark Shea

      Yay! We (or maybe the Israelis) committed an act of murder against a civilian! What a triumph for “conservative” Catholics to celebrate! Murderers for Jesus!

      • Talking Carp

        I think BHO gets an adrenaline rush out it. Remember that phot of him watching the OBL kill. He was a regular Jack Bauer. Power must be one hell of a drug. And by the way, liberal Protestants celebrated that one, not me.

        • Mark Shea

          You’re a fine one to talk with your pre-emptive murder talk. Takes one to know one.

      • Oregon Catholic

        You can’t discount the possibility that Iranians are behind this since they are bound to realize they could become nuclear fallout if this insanity isn’t halted.

        • Andy, Bad Person

          Yes, yes. Simply shutting down those nuclear programs is too hard. It’s much easier to just kill all the workers.

          • Oregon Catholic

            I meant civilians, not the gov’t

        • jacobus

          They’ve learned the opposite lesson.

          Countries with nuclear weapons: North Korea, Pakistanl…. don’t get invaded.

          Countries that give up nuclear weapons: Iraq, Libya…. get invaded!

          American foreign policy rules.

  • Kirt Higdon

    It is disgusting that the US is conducting or facilitating a terrorist campaign to murder Iranian scientists. “All options are on the table” is the slogan and policy of sociopaths. For any Christian or even a moral non-Christian, there are numerous options which must never be on the table because they are intrinsically evil.

    • Talking Carp

      Remeber the line from The Unbearable Lightness of Being, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if could make a decision and have two lives, and at the end compare which one turned out best.”

      Well, that’s not how it works. A well-placed car bomb in 1937 could have saved 50 million people. That’s a haunting fact.

      Deontology is dangerous. Pax Chrissies, Chamberlinians, appeasers are dangerous.

      • Mark Shea

        Thank you for that apologetic for cold blooded murder of civilians. A good abortionist in 1889 could have saved the world a lot of trouble. Welcome to the world of Planned Parenthood. You and them will get along just fine.

        • Dave

          Mark, at what point are the Israelis justified in stopping those hoping to destroy them with nuclear weapons – once the weapons have been launch? Would it make a difference if there has been a formal declaration of war by one side against the other? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called publicly for Israel to be wiped off of the map.

          Of course it is speculation at this point just who is doing this.

          • Mark Shea

            What part of “You may never, for any reason whatsoever, take innocent human life” is unclear to you, Dave? Do you not fear God?

          • Just want to make clear that this Dave isn’t the same as me. I will change my moniker to something more specific. Apparently, there are other guys named Dave! Who knew!?!

            • Dave

              Dave, I will change my name.

              Mark, my question is when does a person working on a weapon for the stated purpose of destroying an entire country and it’s people lose their status as innocent?

          • Dan C

            This is truly the hard question. At its extreme, the American system when viewed as evil is founded on its financial empire, making the Twin Towers a centerpiece of the foundation of our activities and thus are legitimate targets.

            We viewed munitions factories and military industries and the cities and communities that worked in tem as legitimate targets in WW2 and bombed Dresden and Nagasaki.

            This in particular is ethical “unknown territory.”

            • Timbot2000

              Nothing about Dresden was an Ethical unknown. It was a non-industrial city swollen by thousands of refugees from the fighting in the East. It was selected, on the admission of British bomber command, in order to inflict maximum civilian casualties. Churchill’s personal rationale in favor of the bombing was “when they are more afraid of us than we are of them, we will win”. What a guy! First Gallipoli, then this.

            • “the American system when viewed as evil”

              Nowadays, when isn’t it viewed that way?

  • Peggy R

    While none of the candidates is a perfect conservative and I worry that few of them think about rolling back the infringements on citizens’ rights, I am far more comfortable with any of the GOP candidates running the show than the current person, who also did not serve in the military and despises the military and our nation’s preeminence generally. At least we’d have economic and political stability, thereby allowing us to concentrate more fully on cultural concerns. Would the Dems really challenge a GOP candidate who did not serve, given O’s background? We are at a new stage where men after Vietnam (not Romney or Gingrich) have had a choice not to serve. We’ll have to have a new set of standards, I guess. Should Mitt have forced at least one of his boys to enter the military?

    Okay, on Mitt specifically, he had a religious waiver. What of men who were in Catholic or other seminaries at the time? Did they have religious waivers? Or perhaps some one went in the Peace Corps instead (assuming one could)? (Yeah, I have to admit France sounds like a pretty cushy missionary job, what with running water and great dining. I thought Paris pretty primitive in the 80s, myself.) Was that okay? It’s not clear that Mitt was demonstrating that others go to war in his place, but b/c students disrupted campus life with their anti-war activities.

    I have no idea what the current occupant is doing against Iran. I don’t think he cares to stop Iran, given that he had not a word for the protestors who sought freedom there. He has rejoiced in the triumph of radical Islam in several M-E nations this past year. No, I don’t want more war in the middle east. I think we should divest ourselves of that part of the world and be done with them economically and diplomatically.

    • SKay

      ” I think we should divest ourselves of that part of the world and be done with them economically and diplomatically.”

      I agree Peggy. When we elect a President who supports our own oil and gas industry and that of our friends again(of course the left will vilify him for that as we have seen before) we might begin to be able to do that.
      We are in this situation for a reason–the people who rant about our own oil industry and block drilling and building refineries-then rant about why we are in the Middle East. They rave about electric cars-yet a lot of our electricity comes from coal and they want to close the coal mines. We are moving toward other alternatives but we just are not there yet.
      Magical thinking does not work in the real world.

  • craig

    I’m not sure what else he could say about his sons. Are they adults, or aren’t they?

    • It takes a lot of chutzpah to say they are supporting their country by working for his campaign.

  • A little bad history in the article. Protesting in favor of the draft in 1966 was NOT an unpopular stand.

  • astorian

    Sigh… I know you have your mind made up that everyone except the insane Ron Paul is a warmongering chickenhawk, so I won’t even attempt to convince you otherwise.

    But you MIGHT want to remember that the “rich governor” Dad you mock was George Romney, and that George Romney’s 1968 bid for the Presidency was derailed precisely because he had changed his mind about the wisdom of the Viet Nam War.

    In 1968, the “rich governor” you imply was some kind of uber-capitalist hawk was AGAINST the Viet Nam War! Of course, all anyone seems to remember about Romney’s campaign was that he said something like “I Was Brainwashed.”

    The reality is, George Romney supported the war in 1964, as most patriotic Americans did. The Johnson administration and the Pentagon assured him that the war was going well, and that we’d achieve victory and bring “the boys” home before long. By 1968, he saw that the war was NOT going well, and had turned against it.

    I’m pretty sure he MEANT to say something like, “The Pentagon sold me a bill of goods and told me we were winning. Now I know that wasn’t true.” Instead, he gave an inarticulate explanation for his change of heart, and by using the word “brainwashed,” came off sounding like a loony, which he certainly was not.

    Attack Mitt Romney whenever you think he deserves it, but remember that George Romney was NOT a rich hawk eager to send other kids off to war while keeping his own son safe.

    • Mark Shea

      I said nothing about George Romney being a chickenhawk.

  • astorian

    P.S. It’s lso worth noting that, while George Romney WAS a rich man, having served for many years as President of American Motors, he was NOT some kind of patrician.

    George Romney grew up lower middle class, and never even went to college. Very few corporate bigwigs can claim truthfully to be self-made men, but George Romney WAS.

  • Dave

    At what point does a person creating a nuclear weapon for the stated purpose of destroying an entire country lose his or her status as a innocent person?

    Dave, I’ll change my name.

    • Cinlef

      There are other reasons the Iranians might want nukes than to launch a suicidal nuclear attack on Israel.

      Put simply

      Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi both abandoned their nuclear program and were both deposed the first by an American led invasion and the second by a popular revolt supported directly by the military intervention of Western powers.

      By contrast North Korea & Pakistan have a nuclear deterrent and thus are at no risk of direct Western millitary interference despite the former being an insane pharaoh-esque dictatorship guilty of pretty much every human rights violation imaginable and the latter having its intelligence agencies directly supporting anti-NATO Afghan forces and having harbored Bin Laden himself for a number of years [which was the primary stated reason for invading Afghanistan].

      It is entirely rational for the Iranian government or frankly a typical Iranian on the street to therefore conclude that with a massive American military presence in the Persian Gulf, and with the US having just invaded 2 countries that directly border it that the only safeguard against an American invasion is a nuclear deterrent.

    • Mark S. (not for Shea)

      You’re confusing the leader of Iran with all Iranians. I’ve known many Iranians in my life. They are decent, hard-working people who love their families.

      You cannot damn an entire people because of their leader. If that’s the case, the U.S. is in a lot of trouble ourselves.

      • Dave (but not the Dave)

        No confusion here. This wasn’t an attack against the Iranian people. It was an attack on a single Iranian working on the government’s nuclear weapons program – a program that can reasonably be assumed to have as it’s goal the development of a weapon that can be used against Israel.

        • Mark S (not for Shea)

          That logic doesn’t work. By that argument …

          Many American civilians work for companies that supply weapons or materials used in weapons to other countries — some of them with regimes that are less than nice to say the least. But if, say, a Syrian murdered one of those American workers, it would rightly be seen as a criminal act of murder.

          Sorry, but there is a HUGE difference between killing in a just war and assassination. The former is morally defensible, if not good. The latter is absolutely reprehensible and can in no way be reconciled to Catholic morality or even Natural Law.

  • Hezekiah Garrett

    Wait!!! Did some GOP froot loop just blame Western decadence on the continued existence of Islam?

    Have you Republicans always been as disgusting as Dems, and it took me 20yrs to notice? Or did it just take 20yrs to compost to your present state?

    • Dave (but not the Dave)

      We are a long way from Barry Goldwater.

    • S. Murphy

      No, he blamed the continued existence of Islam on Western decadence…

      I think there’s been some composting going on with both parties – Mark’s ‘stupid evil party/evil stupid party’ tag is spot on; but in fairness, the dude is advertizing himself as a fascist-monarchist – and we’re not (yet?) at the stage where our elected ruler has to stage a public refusal of a crown.

  • victor simon

    I think your assessments of Romney & Gingrich are correct.
    I don’t even begrudge you the “intermittently visible” and “vengeful badger.”
    I agree with pretty much all you’ve written on Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry, and most of what you said about Cain.

    But I think it encourages everyone’s worst impulses, does absolutely no good, and is completely uncharitable to drag up some act of apparent hypocrisy from the age of 19 when the guy is now 60 years old. Granted, it was a major issue — war. But at least have the decency to give him a chance to respond and explain, and then criticize THAT — what the 60 year-old might say about what the 19 year-old did. But just to drag up that old picture and say “Look what a jerk this guy is! Look what he did when he was 19!” — I think that’s contemptible.

    Who is ever going to run for President when even faithful Catholics use such a liberal interpretation of the “sins of the tongue?”

  • SKay

    It looks like Mitt was protesting the ” sit ins” -that took over the administration building and that were interupting the classes etc. –not supporting the draft. His sign says -Speak out -don’t “sit in”. The rest of the posters were supporting the predident of the university–not the draft.
    We were a military family at the time and I remember well how ugly these “sit in protesters” got as time went on and how they treated those in a military uniform. The behavior of some of the OWS protestors reminds me of that time. Unrepentent terrorist Bill Ayers(weather underground) and friend of Obama has recently said he wants to give classes to these protestors on how to protest. What could go wrong there?

    I think it is interesting — that Van Jones(communist-by his own words))a former Obama administration official has said that they intend to use the OWS to help Obama get re-elected. No surprise there-that is what it was always about. As I saw him say in a speech on video–” bottom up, top down, inside out.”

    Sarah Palin’s son served in the military-in the Middle East. I don’t see anyone saying she should run for President because of that.
    I don’t think it is about the children of the candidate.

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    The British have a long history of sending the sons of the aristocracy, even of royalty, to fight on the front lines. The Prince of Wales’ younger son, Prince Harry, was off serving with his unit in the Middle East until news of his presence there was leaked to the press, jeopardizing the safety of his unit.

    Although our own troops being sent into harm’s way always have my gratitude and support, I will support our political leaders, who send them, on the day that all or nearly all of them begin to send their sons and grandsons, their nephews and cousins, and their buddies’ sons and other relatives into harms’ way, to get shot at and blown up, to grub around in the sand and the mud, to be away from their wives and children for months at a time.

    Our country has been at war in nearly every generation; I want to see the generality of Presidential candidates, as well as Senators and Congressional reps, state governers, CEOs, lobbyists, presidents of financial institutions, those who hold high office or positions of power and influence – sending their boys to enlist and go overseas.

    Like the British aristocracy have done for generations.

    When I see that day, then and only then will I lend my political support to what I now see as overseas adventures. Then and only then will I encourage the boys in my own family to serve.

    • craig

      Duty and service to the nation is how a hereditary aristocracy earns its legitimacy, its stipends and privileges. All generations of aristocrats will be rewarded under the system, therefore all in turn ought to serve. The children of elected representatives cannot be held to the same standard, because they do not stand to inherit their parents’ positions.

      I don’t have any love for Romney, but it grates on me when people try to use the decisions of adult children against their parents. It seems to me to disavow the entire distinction between adults and minors, and help prolong society’s popular idea of adolescence well into the twenties. We need far less of that.

      • Marion (Mael Muire)

        I understand your distinction, Craig. “Duty and service to the nation” is not something that the American upper class possesses much of any longer, if it ever did.

        And in the case of a country with elected representatives who lack any ethos of “duty and service to the nation”therefore, no one ought to be sent overseas into harm’s way.

        The elected representative’s boys don’t go; the bank presidents’ boys don’t go; the lobbyists and the CEOs’ boys don’t go; the coal miners’, factory workers’ and day laborers’ boys don’t go, either.

        Nobody goes.

        The only persons who are going to send my baby boys into harms way are persons whose own ethos of duty and service to the nation have inspired them to enlist and to serve in harms way and/or are sending their baby boys into harms way.

        If their lack of duty and service to the nation were such that they were not willing to go and/or won’t send their own, then mine don’t go either.

        And I don’t support their damned overseas adventures.

        I support sending our boys overseas when everyones’ boys go. Until then, mine stay home.

        • Marion (Mael Muire)

          it grates on me when people try to use the decisions of adult children against their parents. It seems to me to disavow the entire distinction between adults and minors, and help prolong society’s popular idea of adolescence well into the twenties. We need far less of that.

          That’s right. Therefore when our ethos of duty and service to country challenged elected representatives want to send American kids overseas to get blown up and shot at, we should have a mandatory UNIVERSAL DRAFT: everybody goes – rich college kids, middle class kids, working class kids, poor kids. All of them. Zero exemptions; Zero deferments.

          Now we have overcome the problem of “prolonging adolescence”; these young men go right into boot camp and six weeks later are boarding troop carriers to join the fighting overseas.

          “What?” you ask. “If there were a draft, and the middle class and wealthy were drafted, too, that would erode support for these wars! Middle class and wealthy families, too, often lack an ethos of duty and service to their country, and won’t want their sons sent oversas. This will make these wars unpopular with the public, and influential people will demand that they be ended!


          Wouldn’t that be a shame?

          Either a war is worth fighting, and everybody fights it together, as we did in World War II . . . or it’s not worth fighting at all, and nobody fights it.


          • craig

            The point is that elected representatives are just that. If the people don’t like their ethos, they can elect others to replace them.

            “…these young men go right into boot camp and six weeks later are boarding troop carriers to join the fighting overseas.”

            Wait a minute — which is it, are they young men or ‘baby boys’?! This is what I’m talking about re: prolonged adolescence — you want to treat your own adult children’s life decisions as your call, not theirs. And if your own ‘baby boys’ chose of their own free will to serve, what would you do, disown them?

            • Marion (Mael Muire)

              The Good Lord saw fit, in His wisdom, not to send children to my husband and me, although we were open to life and would have welcomed them.

              Not heart-broken about it, though.

              (As it hath seemed good to the Lord, so let it be done. Blessed be the Name of the Lord.)

              Nevertheless, my nieces will always be my – and their own parents’ – “baby girls”, even the ones with Ph.D.s. My nephews will always be my – and their parents’ – “baby boys,” even when they’re husbands and fathers of their own families.

              And anybody who is wanting to send my nieces or my nephews, or someday, my great-nieces or great-nephews or any of my babies into harm’s way had BLOODY WELL BETTER HAVE THEMSELVES AN ETHOS OF SERVICE AND DUTY TO THEIR COUNTRY . . .

              one that sends themselves and their families overseas to where the fighting is.

              Or else, I will do all that I can to stop them. And encourage others to do so, as well.

        • Tom Connelly


          Did you support sending our boys (and girls) to Afghanistan in 2002? I doubt that our upper class was particularly well represented in that war.

          • Marion (Mael Muire)

            Sure I did. We all did. After 9-11. We all got behind the President.

            That was before we learned about the recycling tours of duty – the same unit being sent back over again and again, to be punished by the enemy. Guys watching their buddies survive 2 or 3 tours, then get blown up on the 4th. It’s not fair, and it’s not right.

            It’s a shameful misuse of our wonderful, loyal, and dedicated troops. Those who send them, without sending EVERYBODY over to help them, ought to be ashamed of themselves.

            You send guys into harms’ way, then you send everybody. A draft. Like in World War II. That’s the model. I support what we did in WWII.

            Even in VietNam there was a draft. But there were college deferments. Forget those. Everybody should go.

  • astorian

    One question: TODAY, of course, Pat Buchanan denounces all American military involvement around the world. But to put it mildly, that was not always the case. During the Cold War, he was always eager to send troops off to fight communism. And as recently as the Nineties, during the worst days of ethnic strife in the Balkans, Pat was demanding that we send troops to supports the Croatians.

    Of course, during the Viet Nam war, Pat got a deferment do to what Mike Royko laughingly called “an owie knee.”

    So… does Pat’s CURRENT isolationism make him okay in your book? Or does he still qualify as a chicken hawk?

    • Mark S (not for Shea)

      Pat also doesn’t think the U.S. needed to enter WWII.

      Oftentimes, Pat Buchanan isn’t a chickenhawk so much as a koo-koo.

      • William

        Pat’s new book is fantastic! In fact, it’s so good, it got him kicked off of MSNBC!