Mitt Romney and Sons and Chicken Hawks

Here we go with the "chicken hawk" crap again.

It's one of the lamest arguments that the Left has ever utilized.

On the campaign trail today, Mitt Romney, once again, had to answer for his sons' lack of military service.

BETTENDORF, Iowa -- 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 posed the question by an anti-war activist after a speech in which he called for "a surge or 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, and 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."

Back in May on 60 Minutes, when Mike Wallace did an interview with Romney, his wife, and sons, Wallace brought up the same question about military service.

(Excerpt)

"Three of you went to Harvard Business School, one to medical school. All married. Nobody seems to have rebelled, gone off the rails. How come?" Wallace asks.

"Where a lot is given a lot is expected. So we have to live up to that standard," Craig Romney tells Wallace.

While all of them have served their church doing missionary work around the world, their answers vary about putting on a uniform and going to war.

"I feel guilty having not done it," Josh Romney tells Wallace.

"I’ve seen a lot and read a lot that has made me say, 'My goodness, I hope I never have to do that,'" Ben Romney says.

"Not one agreed or thought about serving in the military," Wallace remarks.

"There are other sacrifices to make as well. And I hope to be able to make a sacrifice of that caliber at some point in my life," Matt Romney says.

"Did you ever serve in the armed forces?" Wallace asks Mitt Romney.

"I did not," Romney replies.

Why not?

"I was at college. Then I went off and served my church for two and a half years in a mission," Romney replies.

And because of his high lottery number, he was never drafted to serve in Vietnam, something he says he regrets to this day.

In his typical accusatory tone, Wallace suggested that Romney and sons were hypocrites and unpatriotic for not serving in the military.

Not only is that absurd, but CBS and 60 Minutes should steer clear of referring to presidential candidates and their military service.

The Dan Rather story that relied on fake documents to trash George W. Bush and his National Guard service is still too fresh.

CBS should avoid anything that brings to mind that disgraceful episode.

The real issue in both the 60 Minutes interview and this AP account is the effort of liberals to cast disgrace on conservatives regarding their military service.

How many times have you heard libs, like blowhard Michael Moore and lib Queen Bee Maureen Dowd, say that President Bush's twin daughters should be over in Iraq?

I've heard it countless times.

The notion that one cannot support military action unless one has personally served in the Armed Forces or one's children have served is positively ridiculous.

Romney's sons and Bush's daughters didn't dodge the draft.

They didn't volunteer. There's no disgrace there.

Most 37 to 25-year-old Americans, roughly the age range of Romney's sons, have not served.

It's ludicrous to suggest that a candidate's kids must serve in the military in order for that candidate to be considered eligible for commander-in-chief duties.

Romney shouldn't have to explain why his sons didn't serve in the military.

Back to the AP story--

...The woman who asked the question, 41-year-old Rachel Griffiths 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."

Just yesterday, AP pulled the same thing, highlighting an individual who was dissatisfied with a Republican candidate's response.

Yesterday, it was Thomas Fritzsche who wasn't happy with Giuliani's answer about his faith.

When Fritzsche was asked if he was satisfied, he replied, "Of course he didn't answer my question."

Now today, Rachel Griffiths said that she wasn't satisfied with Romney.

It seems that AP stumbles on a lot of dissatisfaction in Iowa, doesn't it?

Griffiths' brother served in Iraq. Terrific. She should be proud of his service.

I'm grateful for his contribution and all that members of the military and their families have sacrificed for our country.

That doesn't mean that I think Romney's sons should be attacked for not serving or that they are weasels for not fighting in Iraq.

Are we to assume that because Hillary Clinton didn't volunteer for military service or because Chelsea Clinton hasn't signed up that a President Hillary wouldn't have the moral authority to act as commander-in-chief?

Bill actively dodged the draft yet he sent Americans into harm's way. Was he a chicken hawk, as well as a hound dog?

The fact is none of the top tier '08 Democrat presidential candidates spent any time in the military and neither have their children. (Settle down, libs. I acknowledge that Obama's kids are too young right now.)

According to the chicken hawk argument, no Dem candidate is fit to employ the services of the U.S. military if need be. Such a president would put the U.S. in a dangerously weak position on the world stage.

Of all the top presidential candidates, only John McCain (if you can still consider him in the top tier) would have the authority to act as commander-in-chief.

The chicken hawk argument is lame.

The point is it's irrelevant that Romney's sons have not served in the military, completely and utterly irrelevant.