No Sacrifice At All
Salon.com has a wonderful piece about Republican warmongerers and their unwillingness to send their children to the quagmire known as Iraq.
Republican Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) is an ardent supporter of the Bush non-policy in Iraq, and considered a presidential prospect in '08. According to Salon, he was recently asked by a reporter from the Boston Herald about the possibility of his own children serving in Iraq, since he thinks the cause is so noble.
He didn't much like that question. (What a shocker!) Romney responded: "No, I have not urged my own children to enlist. I don't know the status of my children's potentially enlisting in the Guard and Reserve."
The Boston Herald duly noted that Romney's voice became "tinged with anger" after being asked the question.
As I was writing this, I immediately thought of Elton John's song Sacrifice, which goes in part:
"But it’s no sacrifice
No sacrifice
It’s no sacrifice at all"
Quite appropre for the non-sacraficing warmongerers and their children.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Well I sacrificed and my family sacrificed for 20 years and I have encouraged my children to serve...will you?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/08/30 @ 10:46 PM — (Reply)
You are missing the point here. I am talking about many of the conservative Repugs who believe in this war and are advocating Bush's failed "stay the course policy." These same folks don't want their own children to serve in a war that they voted for and believe in.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/08/31 @ 08:39 PM — (Reply)
How may rich Democrats sent their kids to the service? You are missing the point if you love this country and that seems questionable you would be willing to defend it. With freedom comes responsibility and if you are not interested in accepting that resonsibility then I say take your government funded college loans, your welfare and leave my country.
Comment by — 2005/09/01 @ 07:38 AM — (Reply)
You seem to typify the classic Republican that doesn't get it.
This has nothing to do with "rich Democrats." I am specifically talking about the Republicans who continue to support this failed "stay the course" strategy of Bush's. And they have been cheerleaders for this war. Yet, they don't want their own kids to serve in the very war they say is honorable and just.
And what are we defending ourselves from in Iraq? We invaded a soverign country with no weapons of mass destruction. We invaded a country that never threated to attack us. Exactly what are we defending over there? We went into Iraq for 2 reasons: for their oil, and to install an Islamic theocracy.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/09/01 @ 08:03 PM — (Reply)
And what did Kosovo do to us? Yet Clinton started a conflict with it. Every European country and the UN believed Saddam had WMD. The oil bit is a bunch of bs. If we wanted the oil we didn't have to start a war we could have just lifted the sanctions. Think about it you are the leader of the US and you have just experienced 9/11. You have evidence (and believe like most of the free world) there is a possibility of Saddam having WMD. He has already used it on his own people. If you don't do anything and he uses them against you you will get blamed by liberal Democrats and their ilk that you didn't do enough. So you say to yourself I will will commit political suicide and invade a country for the oil. Come on. If this were true would you be paying nearly $3 at the pump. No! And the last thing we want is to install an Islamic theocracy...you do an injustice to the Iraqi's who have given their life for a free country. And you sweetheart typify the the typical Democrat who doesn't know the true nature of our enemy does not lie with the current administration but with the bloodthirsty Islamists who would like to do nothing more than put a burka on your face and tell you to shut up.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/01 @ 09:14 PM — (Reply)
BTW-We still have troops in Bosnia and have lost soldiers there. What was Clinton's exit strategy?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/01 @ 10:58 PM — (Reply)
And you are sadly mistaking if you believe that "every European country and the UN" believed Sadaam had WMDs. They knew he did not, which is why the DID NOT join us in the Iraq invasion.
And the United States had no evidence that Sadaam had WMDs. Where the heck do you get that B.S. from? Must be real nice to drink the kool-aid, huh?
And you say the last thing we want to do is create an Islamic theocracy? Again, B.S. That is just what we did in Iraq. Because of the Islamic law being put into the draft Iraqi constitution, women will have LESS rights than they had under Sadaam, not more. In fact, do you remember the woman from Iraq who sat in the box with Laura Bush during last year's State of the Union Speech? She was there supposedly to show Iraqi support for our invasion?
Well now she is angry. She has spoken out and said that George Bush is not the person she thought he was, and is angry that he helped push through this Islamic Iraqi constitution, just for the sake of saying Iraq has a new constitution.
Do your homework!
Comment by Shalana— 2005/09/02 @ 08:37 PM — (Reply)
Europe did know. Have you heard of the oil for food scandal? France, Germany...Russia all in bed with Saddam to make a quick buck on parts for weapons. I encourage you to do your homework and read the book by Khadir Hamzi who was in charge of Saddam's nuclear power program. Did you see all the Iraqi women with purple ink on their fingers who got to vote?????? and if Iraqi's choose a constitution with Islamic undertones at least they got to choose it. How much freedom do you think those women had in the rape rooms of Saddam Hussein? Do your homework Madam!
Comment by — 2005/09/02 @ 09:03 PM — (Reply)
And you say at least if their constitution has Islamic undertones it was a constitution of their choosing? Again, incorrect. There are many "secular" Iraqis being left out of the drafting of the Constitution. They are not being brought to the table, and the ones who are installing this Islamic law are trying to rush it through.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/09/03 @ 07:26 AM — (Reply)
It is not that they didn't believe they were there, they were afraid of getting their hands caught in the till. France told Saddam Hussein that they would vote no on the UN resolution because they felt that if they did the US would never go to war. France had been selling nuclear power plant parts to Saddam and Russia had been providing technical support. In exchange Saddam not only bought parts etc from France but helped to line officials pockets with UN money. (Read the Congressional report on the UN oil for food scandal)
The Islamic law you are referring to is different than the Sharia law that the Taliban and the radical's want to force on people. The secular Iraqi's (Sunni's) have chosen to be left out of the process because they were the minority and were in charge (sort of an apartheid, don't think you would approve of that). They saw the error of their ways after the first election. Hopefully they will do the same here. BTW did you know that Quebec has never ratified the Canadian constitution and two states initiallly (can't remember which, but I will find out if you want)never ratified ours. That's why Congress said that a it wasn't necessary to have unanimous consent to add an ammendment to our own.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/03 @ 08:28 AM — (Reply)
Shalana,
Please take a look at these two articles. Saddam was using money from the oil for food program to fund his regime. If you are intellectually honest you will see that. Certainly you don't believe that the Iraqi's were better off with Saddam do you? If you do where is your compassion now?
http://www.defenddemocracy.org//in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=276835
http://www.defenddemocracy.org//in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=282145
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/03 @ 08:40 AM — (Reply)