Romney's Military Record Being Scrutinized

[FordBuyer]

I have trouble with Commanders in Chief who want to sabre rattle, but when called didn't want to go. No one gets the chance to pick the war they want to be in. After 10 long years of war, you would think Romney would be more cautious with his words. Foreign policy to me is just as important as domestic policy and sometimes more so.

 

Click here: Romney's military record faces new scrutiny | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com

[cal50]

.........was not a factor for Obama so why would it be an issue for Romney?

Both did not serve.

 

~next issue please.

[retro-man]

He has a military record?

[FordBuyer]

.........was not a factor for Obama so why would it be an issue for Romney?

Both did not serve.

 

~next issue please.

 

There was a war and a draft when Obama came of age? Didn't know that. Obama hasn't started any wars, doesn't sabre rattle, and is cutting defense. I'm a couple years younger than Romney, grew up a few miles from his youth, and my father worked for his father at AMC before he went to Ford, and I used every deferment I could use much like Romney, and I got drafted, and would never put us into war as Commander in Chief unless there was no other way. And I would cut Defense spending also. So Romney's military record or lack thereof is pertinent if you want to be President. Kerry fought in Nam and that was used against him.

[cal50]

There was a war and a draft when Obama came of age? Didn't know that. Obama hasn't started any wars, doesn't sabre rattle, and is cutting defense. I'm a couple years younger than Romney, grew up a few miles from his youth, and my father worked for his father at AMC before he went to Ford, and I used every deferment I could use much like Romney, and I got drafted, and would never put us into war as Commander in Chief unless there was no other way. And I would cut Defense spending also. So Romney's military record or lack thereof is pertinent if you want to be President. Kerry fought in Nam and that was used against him.

 

 

 

Kerry being a hypocrite (and a puts) was used against him.

That and likely wounding himself and putting himself in for a purple heart are pretty weak if true.

(Grenades work both ways)

 

If you don’t like Romney that’s fine and you’re entitled but it’s a weak argument with the current election and candidates being equal in that aspect.

 

As to pulling strings the prize goes to Clinton avoiding military service which no one seemed to make any case of at the time but that’s old news.

Had he not been elected he would never hold a lower security clearance.

[napfirst]

Kerry being a hypocrite (and a puts) was used against him.

That and likely wounding himself and putting himself in for a purple heart are pretty weak if true.

(Grenades work both ways)

 

If you don’t like Romney that’s fine and you’re entitled but it’s a weak argument with the current election and candidates being equal in that aspect.

 

As to pulling strings the prize goes to Clinton avoiding military service which no one seemed to make any case of at the time but that’s old news.

Had he not been elected he would never hold a lower security clearance.

They have to use every deverison possible.....obama can't run on his record.....so expect to see more and more of this superfluous BS.....

[the_spaniard]

I don't know how big a deal this is, but I get the point.

 

Neither served, but Obama didn't dodge the draft. Romney did. If the roles were reversed, conservatives would be frothing over this like a t-bone, the way democrats are.

 

It will certainly be used to bolster the argument that Romney was a privileged rich white kid, a demographic that has a long history of dodging the draft. This will provide some more ammo for how out of touch Romney appears to be with the average person.

[RangerM]

It will certainly be used to bolster the argument that Romney was a privileged rich white kid, a demographic that has a long history of dodging the draft. This will provide some more ammo for how out of touch Romney appears to be with the average person.

Exactly what is it about Obama's past (exclusive Prep school from fifth grade until HS graduation, Harvard, Community Organizer) that would make him appear "to be in touch with the average person"?

 

True, Obama's father wasn't rich (although his grandmother was), nor was he an executive/governor, but they both grew up in relatively (compared to the "average" person) sheltered lives.

[FordBuyer]

Kerry being a hypocrite (and a puts) was used against him.

That and likely wounding himself and putting himself in for a purple heart are pretty weak if true.

(Grenades work both ways)

 

If you don’t like Romney that’s fine and you’re entitled but it’s a weak argument with the current election and candidates being equal in that aspect.

 

As to pulling strings the prize goes to Clinton avoiding military service which no one seemed to make any case of at the time but that’s old news.

Had he not been elected he would never hold a lower security clearance.

 

Again, Romney's lack of miitary record at time of draft and Vietnam is pertinent if he going to call Obama weak on sabre rattling and question why he is not rushing into Syria and Iran. America is sick and tired of wars and all it cost in blood and money. So if Romeny doesn't like the heat, get out of the kitchen. The similarities between Bush and Romney are growing by the day. You would think the Republican Party would want a candidate as far removed from Bush as possible. Someone who was born into no privilege and some kind of war record like Vietnam or Desert Storm. The Financial Crisis of 2008 is not forgotten by most Americans and an equity fund manager now running the country is disconcerting in the least and downright nightmarish in the most. Furthermore, still not over Cerberus running Chrysler into ground.

[goinbroke2]

Like I said in another thread...THIS will be the focus for obama. He's a rich white guy just like Bush! I'm just a poor black guy, if you don't vote for me your racist.

 

ANYTHING to divert from obama's record.

 

 

[FordBuyer]

Like I said in another thread...THIS will be the focus for obama. He's a rich white guy just like Bush! I'm just a poor black guy, if you don't vote for me your racist.

 

ANYTHING to divert from obama's record.

 

Obama's record:

 

He got us out of Iraq

We will be out of Afghanistan in another year or so

Libya turned out decently

He gave go ahead to take out Somali pirates

He got Bin Laden

He bailed out GM, Chrysler, and the whole auto supplier base

He carried out Bush's TARP program

Credit is now unfrozen under him

New jobs have been created something like 27 straight months

Tax cuts have been given to small business and the American people in general

A Healthcare reform act was passed first time ever

Nation's deficit has gone up more than with any other President

He hasn't been very successful dealing with Republican, recalcitrant House

He hasn't really done anything to embarass his party or himself as in impeachable offense

He has kept his nose out of Iran, Syria, and North Korea and works through diplomatic channels instead of using American blood and tears

He uses drone attacks most effectively instead of American bodies

Under him, bank reform was passed that is more consumer friendly

The Michigan Recovery is basically because of him and no one else

American President can't solve Europe's present problems

He has been weak in helping to solve America's long term debt issues, but then the House hasn't been helpful at all and a roadblock in general

New tax revenues are needed to get deficit under control and Republicans are incapable of this at this time with moderates under attack

 

So yeah, let Obama run on his record. He has nothing to be ashamed of other than not working well with House that is one of the worst in memory.

[30 OTT 6]

Willard is a draft dodger just like slick Willy Clinton!

[RangerM]

So yeah, let Obama run on his record. He has nothing to be ashamed of other than not working well with House that is one of the worst in memory.

You're expecting people to have an awfully selective memory, if you expect them to believe that.

 

The 2010 elections meant Obama got the House he has as a direct result of his actions with a "friendly" House.

Willard is a draft dodger just like slick Willy Clinton!

Unless Mitt was called up for active service, and failed to show up (without a deferment), I'm not sure how you can conclude that. Same goes for Clinton.

 

Perhaps Dan Rather can come up with another memo?

[FordBuyer]

You're expecting people to have an awfully selective memory, if you expect them to believe that.

 

The 2010 elections meant Obama got the House he has as a direct result of his actions with a "friendly" House.

 

Unless Mitt was called up for active service, and failed to show up (without a deferment), I'm not sure how you can conclude that. Same goes for Clinton.

 

Perhaps Dan Rather can come up with another memo?

 

Hey, the hard core Republicans have a more selective memory as in completely forgetting financial meltdown of 2008 on Bush's watch, and the years it will take to recover. I also find it weird that only a few months ago hard core Repubs basically said Romney was Obama clone, but now as nominee he is saviour. Objectivity is a bitch sometimes. That being said, I won't shed a tear of Obama loses and I won't spend the next four years beating up on Romney and his failures either. However, if the financial system craters again on his watch and credit freezes and market plummets, I will vomit on his head.

[NickF1011]

hard core Repubs basically said Romney was Obama clone

 

Thankfully hard core Republicans are a small minority of the party.

[RangerM]

Hey, the hard core Republicans have a more selective memory as in completely forgetting financial meltdown of 2008 on Bush's watch, and the years it will take to recover.

I don't think anyone has forgot the recession (or "Great Recession" if you prefer). I think people expected things would be better now than they are. Obama was elected on that expectation. And things aren't much better; unless you're a member of a favored constituency.

 

I also find it weird that only a few months ago hard core Repubs basically said Romney was Obama clone, but now as nominee he is saviour. Objectivity is a bitch sometimes. That being said, I won't shed a tear of Obama loses and I won't spend the next four years beating up on Romney and his failures either. However, if the financial system craters again on his watch and credit freezes and market plummets, I will vomit on his head.

The same thing happened in 2007 and '08 with the Democratic primary. People have their preferences of nominee, but the idea that because their guy didn't win they will vote for the opposition or stay home is childish. I admit Romney wasn't my preference, but from my perspective he's still better than the alternative. (and yes, I voted for McCain in 2008 even though I didn't favor him, either)

 

Much of what happens in this country can be affected by not only what happens here, but also in Europe. The current gridlock isn't going to mitigate external economic forces, but given the choice between Obama's ideas and gridlock, I'll take gridlock as the lesser of two evils. Apparently the "friendly" Senate thought the same thing when they recently voted down Obama's proposed budget unanimously.

 

I'd hope you wouldn't have to shed a tear no matter who wins in November. Your life (and happiness) shouldn't depend on who is in the White House.

[grbeck]

Hey, the hard core Republicans have a more selective memory as in completely forgetting financial meltdown of 2008 on Bush's watch, and the years it will take to recover. I also find it weird that only a few months ago hard core Repubs basically said Romney was Obama clone, but now as nominee he is saviour. Objectivity is a bitch sometimes. That being said, I won't shed a tear of Obama loses and I won't spend the next four years beating up on Romney and his failures either. However, if the financial system craters again on his watch and credit freezes and market plummets, I will vomit on his head.

 

The policies that sowed the seeds of the financial meltdown were sown long before the George W. Bush administration, and they didn't involve "deregulation."

 

What I find amusing is that, if you look at the list you prepared of President Obama's achievements, except possibly for the health care law, they aren't really strong deviations from George W. Bush's policy. (And note that George W. Bush passed a prescription drug benefit for seniors during his term. Which Democrats promptly claimed wasn't generous enough, which seriously erodes their credibility as deficit hawks.)

 

The plans for withdrawal from Iraq were drafted by the Bush Administration, not the Obama Administration. He is basically following the Bush plan.

 

President Bush started the bailout of the automakers, and he probably would have followed a similar course in the actual bailouts (although he would have demanded more sacrifice from the union, which came out relatively unscathed).

 

President Obama's involvement of U.S. forces in Libya hardly fit in with his image as a peacemaker and was done with virtually no consultation with Congress. He has moved beyond the Bush Administration in authorizing overseas assassinations by American military and intelligence forces.

 

Hope and change indeed...

Edited June 6, 2012 by grbeck

[FordBuyer]

I don't think anyone has forgot the recession (or "Great Recession" if you prefer). I think people expected things would be better now than they are. Obama was elected on that expectation. And things aren't much better; unless you're a member of a favored constituency.

 

 

The same thing happened in 2007 and '08 with the Democratic primary. People have their preferences of nominee, but the idea that because their guy didn't win they will vote for the opposition or stay home is childish. I admit Romney wasn't my preference, but from my perspective he's still better than the alternative. (and yes, I voted for McCain in 2008 even though I didn't favor him, either)

 

Much of what happens in this country can be affected by not only what happens here, but also in Europe. The current gridlock isn't going to mitigate external economic forces, but given the choice between Obama's ideas and gridlock, I'll take gridlock as the lesser of two evils. Apparently the "friendly" Senate thought the same thing when they recently voted down Obama's proposed budget unanimously.

 

I'd hope you wouldn't have to shed a tear no matter who wins in November. Your life (and happiness) shouldn't depend on who is in the White House.

 

I'm actually surprised MI is as good as it it right now considering what we went through with GM and Chrysler almost being liquidated as there was no private capital for managed bankruptcy, and auto suppliers many of which are in MI would have gone down with ship also. I never expected the economy to come ROARING back to life after frozen credit market and the trauma it caused. I'm shocked the S&P got up to 1370 or so as I didn't expect that until 2015 or so. The missing link is the housing/construction industry and that will be another couple years no matter who is President. Being retired, I'm also thankful for the low inflation rate and self servingly want a slow recovery that keeps a lid on inflation that kills people on fixed incomes even with investments. The key is recovery and consistent gains month after month. An economy roaring back to life will bring super inflation as in sky high fuel and grocery prices as our blown out infrastructure can't support super growth anyway. Slow and steady ahead. Unfortunatley, 6% unemployment will be about as good as it gets with over 3 million jobs going begging because present unemployed don't have the job skills to fill them. About the only new jobs Romeny will create is for redecoration of White House if he and Mrs. get in and the moving company.

[FordBuyer]

The policies that sowed the seeds of the financial meltdown were sown long before the George W. Bush administration, and they didn't involve "deregulation."

 

What I find amusing is that, if you look at the list you prepared of President Obama's achievements, except possibly for the health care law, they aren't really strong deviations from George W. Bush's policy. (And note that George W. Bush passed a prescription drug benefit for seniors during his term. Which Democrats promptly claimed wasn't generous enough, which seriously erodes their credibility as deficit hawks.)

 

The plans for withdrawal from Iraq were drafted by the Bush Administration, not the Obama Administration. He is basically following the Bush plan.

 

President Bush started the bailout of the automakers, and he probably would have followed a similar course in the actual bailouts (although he would have demanded more sacrifice from the union, which came out relatively unscathed).

 

President Obama's involvement of U.S. forces in Libya hardly fit in with his image as a peacemaker and was done with virtually no consultation with Congress. He has moved beyond the Bush Administration in authorizing overseas assassinations by American military and intelligence forces.

 

Hope and change indeed...

 

I don't have any faith in Demos or Repubs when it comes to deficit. What Washington probably needs is an emergency manager like Detroit to stave off bankruptcy.

[Imawhosure]

Even Bill Clinton (the democrat demi god) says we are on the wrong track, etc, etc. Now if you want to be partisan, fine my friends. Don't even take GW into consideration.

 

IF your guy, Bill Clinton, who you claim had a great economy and knew what to do, is basically dissing Obama and his ideas, who do you believe! Us and Clinton, or Mr 1.9 percent growth who drove us 5 trillion more in debt?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

The Obama ideas must REALLY SUXORS when more, and more democrats are basically throwing Obama under the bus in public. If you want to stick with your community organizer, go ahead. It just shows how hard headed you can be. You are basically lambasting Romney for doing what had worked for 100 years prior, and choosing OBAMANOMICS which hasn't worked yet, has never worked, and is so bad some of his own party are throwing him overboard.

 

So, if any group is totally partisan and won't listen to any kind of reason, that my liberal ideologues would be YOU! Remember this---------->liberals can NOT win a Presidential election, without convincing some republicans to switch sides, then garnering some of the indpendent vote.

 

On the other hand, conservatives do NOT need any of you to vote our way to win since you are less than 28% of the population, all we have to do is get our people to want to vote, and garner reasonable independent support. Biggie Deficit has insured a HUGE republican turnout this time around, and Biggie won the indpendent vote by 14 pts last time, this time he is down by 5pts for a turn around of 19pts. TRANSLATION LIBERALS----> BIGGIE IS TOAST!!!!!!!! But you shoulda figured you were in deep doo about 15 seconds after Wisconsin!

Edited June 6, 2012 by Imawhosure

[Mark B. Morrow]

The policies that sowed the seeds of the financial meltdown were sown long before the George W. Bush administration, and they didn't involve "deregulation."

 

What I find amusing is that, if you look at the list you prepared of President Obama's achievements, except possibly for the health care law, they aren't really strong deviations from George W. Bush's policy. (And note that George W. Bush passed a prescription drug benefit for seniors during his term. Which Democrats promptly claimed wasn't generous enough, which seriously erodes their credibility as deficit hawks.)

 

 

 

Actually the Democrats' objection was that the plan was overly generous to the drug companies by prohibiting the government from negotiating for the lowest prices. It really makes no sense that American drug companies sell the same drugs at lower prices to Canada and other countries.

 

The plans for withdrawal from Iraq were drafted by the Bush Administration, not the Obama Administration. He is basically following the Bush plan.

 

 

Which the Republicans like McCain have complained bitterly about, trashing Obama for leaving Iraq and planning to leave Afghanistan.

 

President Bush started the bailout of the automakers, and he probably would have followed a similar course in the actual bailouts (although he would have demanded more sacrifice from the union, which came out relatively unscathed).

 

 

Nonsense grbeck. The Unions gave up all of the gains thay made over the last decade and then some. The only thing that was in a sense preserved was the deferred compensation that the workers already earned. The pension liabilities would have been placed upon the taxpayers through the PBGC id Romney had his way. That's not unusual as Bain did the same thing with pension obligations of companies it bought after they leveraged the assets and walked off with their consulting fees and front loaded profits.

 

Management gave up very little in that their bonuses in past years that were based on sweetheart contracts were not clawed back despite the incompetence of those CEOs and managers.

 

President Obama's involvement of U.S. forces in Libya hardly fit in with his image as a peacemaker and was done with virtually no consultation with Congress. He has moved beyond the Bush Administration in authorizing overseas assassinations by American military and intelligence forces.

 

The same Republican leaders who chided Obama for not sending U.S. troops into Libya, are now complaining that we haven't done so in Syria. I'd rather send drones into Pakistan than troops. After 10 years, thousands of American dead and over a Trillion Dollars, they want a war with Iran. They have no idea of how to pay for it or who will fight it, but they can't wait to start it.

 

Hope and change indeed...

[FordBuyer]

 

Good stuff Mark. You took no prisoners with your debate skills.

[Happy Gilmore]

Good stuff Mark. You took no prisoners with your debate skills.

 

He actually proved once again he is a mindless Liberal drone who will lie and twist in order to try and prove a point. Intelligent people see through. You didn't.

[cal50]

Good stuff Mark. You took no prisoners with your debate skills.

 

 

You mean opinion skills, but fun to read.

[grbeck]

Actually, the Democrat's objection was that theplan was overly generous to the drug companies by prohibiting the government from negotiating the lowest prices. It really make no sense that American drug companies sell the same drugs at lower prices in Canada and other countries

 

Here is what the Democrats said when the plan was passed, as quoted in The Washington Times:

 

Democrats say it provides skimpy drug coverage and undermines traditional Medicare by tilting the field toward private health plans.

 

"We've only just begun to fight," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, told seniors at a rally against the new law yesterday. Mr. Kennedy and Rep. John D. Dingell, Michigan Democrat, are set to introduce a bill today that would make several major changes to the new Medicare law, including beefing up the new drug benefit by filling in the measure's coverage gap. (emphasis added)

 

"Beefing up the new drug benefit by filling in the measure's coverage gap" will make the plan more expensive. In other words, just as I said, the main criticism of the plan by the Democrats was that it wasn't generous (i.e., expensive) enough, which undermines their concern about government spending.

 

Here is what a column in that right-wing rag, USA Today, said in 2005:

 

But differences between the Bush approach and the ideas Democrats had quickly emerged. Democrats actually wanted a more costly benefit than the one Bush was pushing. They wanted broader coverage and lower deductibles.

 

So when they complain now about the cost, it has a somewhat hollow ring. If they got their way, the cost would have been even higher. (emphasis added)

 

The simple fact is that the Democrats were complaining that the plan wasn't generous enough. If they had gotten everything that they wanted enacted, the final plan would have ultimately been even more expensive.

 

Drug companies sell drugs for higher prices here so that they can recoup their cost of development. What's unfair is that Canadians and customers in other nations are allowing Americans to bear all of the R&D costs. Companies have to recoup their costs and make a profit. They are not charities.

 

Which the Republicans like McCain have complained bitterly about, trashing Obama for leaving Iraq and planning to leave Afghanistan.

 

That still doesn't prove that Obama isn't following the plan that the Bush Administration drafted. The withdrawal from Iraq was drafted by the Bush Administration. The fact that Republicans are criticizing the plan doesn't change that fact.

 

Nonsense grbeck. The unions gave up all of the gains they made over the last decade and then some. The only thing that in a sense preserved was the deferred compensation that the workers had already earned. The pension liabilities would have been placed upon the taxpayers though the PBCB if Romney had his way. That's not unusual as Bain did the same thing with the pension oblications of companies it bought after they leveraged the assets and walked off with their consulting fees and front-loaded profits.

 

I seem to recall that it was taxpayers who propped up GM anyway, and that money will never be fully repaid, especially considering that the new GM was allowed to carry over tax write-offs from the old GM.

 

At any rate, it doesn't prove that Bush wouldn't have eventually bailed out at least GM, which was my original point.

 

Incidentally, this is what Steve Rattner, the president's hand-picked "auto czar," said in The Detroit News recently:

 

Yet Rattner acknowledge that American automakers still have substantially higher labor costs than their foreign competitors - a gap he wishes the task force had done more to close.

 

"We asked all the stakeholers to make very significant sacrifices," he said. "We should have asked the UAW to do a bit more. We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay."

 

Remember, this is Steve Rattner, the president's hand-picked man, talking, not Rush Limbaugh or a writer from thetruthaboutcars.com (which, for all of the bashing that site endures on this site, was quite prescient about the eventual fate of GM and Chrysler).

 

The "givebacks" were largely regarding pay and benefits of workers who hadn't even been hired yet, not existing workers, along with the demise of the Jobs Bank and changes in work rules.

 

If you expect us to wail about the demise of the Jobs Bank and changes in outdated and inefficient work rules, or view their elimination as "concessions" that turned GM and Chrysler workers into abused serfs straight out of a Dickens novel, I can tell you that this will be a tough sale in the real world.

 

The 2011 contract included $12,500 in bonuses for workers over the next four years, along with wage increases for entry-level workers. Given that a few of my friends have either lost jobs outright (and their employers weren't bailed out) or taken pay cuts or freezes to keep their jobs, I'm not seeing any real sacrifice here...

 

Management gave up very little in that their bonuses in past years that were based on sweetheart contracts were not clawed back despite the incompetence of those CEOs and managers.

 

Since 2000, management level employees have given up salary increases and seen dramatically higher increases for health care and prescription drug co-payments while the UAW did not. They were making sacrifices long before the 2008-09 bankruptcy proceedings.

 

The same Americans who chided Obama for not sending in ground troops into Libya...

 

Not quite. Here is what the Republicans said, according to the Wall Street Journal:

 

Republican leaders in Congress said Sunday the U.S. should consider providing arms, intelligence and training to opposition forces fighting to overthrow Libya's Col. Moammar Gadhafi, a move that would mark a sharp escalation in Washington's involvement in the conflict.

 

This is different from sending in ground troops.

 

Here is a story from Politico:

 

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has introduced a resolution on Libya that bars the use of any American ground troops in the North African nation and notes that President Barack Obama did not ask Congress for authorization to engage in a bombing campaign with NATO.

 

Republicans in the House of Representatives introducing a resolution that bars the use of American ground troops in Libya is not synonymous with chiding the president for not doing so.

 

I'd rather send drones into Pakistan than troops. After 10 years, thousands of Americans dead and over a trillion dollars, they want a war with Iran. They have no idea of how to pay for it or who will fight it, but they can't wait to start it.

 

And many of same Democrats and liberals who had their undies in a twist over drone warfare and virtually everything else that the "warmonger" Bush did have apparently been struck by amnesia, or at least laryngitis, since President Obama took office. Since assuming office, he has, in virtually every respect, doubled down on what the Bush Adminstration was doing.

 

If you are saying that some Republicans are hypocritical, or that their criticisms are often politically motivated...I doubt that most posters on this board would disagree. I certainly wouldn't.

 

But when you try to paint these actions or traits as being unique to Republicans, or that Democrats are saints in this regard who would never, ever do this..well, that's good for unintentional hilarity, but not accuracy.

 

The simple fact is that President Obama spent most of 2008 bashing everything that Bush did, and his followers painted his inauguration as some sort of new era in American history. He and his ardent supporters therefore bear the burden of explaining why he has continued so many Bush policies, or even instituted new policies that are even "worse" by his previous standards, and why this is all just fine. Lots of us would like to know, although I'd imagine the explanation would require more twists, turns and fancy footwork than an entire season of Dancing With The Stars.

 

Among those who would like know, by the way include leftist Glenn Greenwald, who has been very critical of the President in Salon.com (note that he is not a Republican by a long shot, and his work has not been published in The National Review or Weekly Standard).

Edited June 7, 2012 by grbeck