Will the MSM continue to cover for Willard's LIES about the Vietnam War?

Earlier this week, AP released a story of Willard's time during the Vietnam era.

From the AP:

Romney's (non) military record faces new scrutiny
By STEVE PEOPLES

On a stage crowded with war heroes, Mitt Romney recently praised the sacrifice "of the great men and women of every generation who serve in our armed services."

It is a sacrifice the Republican presidential candidate did not make.

Though an early supporter of the Vietnam War, Romney avoided military service at the height of the fighting after high school by seeking and receiving four draft deferments, according to Selective Service records. They included college deferments and a 31-month stretch as a "minister of religion" in France, a classification for Mormon missionaries that the church at the time feared was being overused. The country was cutting troop levels by the time he became eligible for the draft, and his lottery number was not called.

President Barack Obama, Romney's opponent in this year's campaign, did not serve in the military either. The Democrat, 50, was a child during the Vietnam conflict and did not enlist when he was older.

But because Romney, now 65, was of draft age during Vietnam, his military background — or, rather, his lack of one — is facing new scrutiny as he courts veterans and makes his case to the nation to be commander in chief. He's also intensified his criticism lately of Obama's plans to scale back the nation's military commitments abroad, suggesting that Romney would pursue an aggressive foreign policy as president that could involve U.S. troops.

A look at Romney's relationship with Vietnam offers a window into a 1960s world that allowed him to avoid combat as fighting peaked. His story also demonstrates his commitment to the Mormon Church, which he rarely discusses publicly but which helped shape his life.

Romney's recollection of his Vietnam-era decisions has evolved in the decades since, particularly as his presidential ambitions became clear.

He said in 2007 — his first White House bid under way — that he had "longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam." But his actions, Selective Service records and previous statements show little interest in joining a conflict that ultimately claimed more than 58,000 American lives.

How does one LONG to be in Vietnam, when one did whatever they could to AVOID serving in Vietnam. The religious deferments that Willard received were not automatic. Not every Mormon received one. He got one, of course, because of WHO is family is.

"He didn't have the courage to go. He didn't feel it was important enough to him to serve his country at a time of war," said Jon Soltz, who served two Army tours in Iraq and is the chairman of the left-leaning veterans group VoteVets.org.

Critics note that the candidate is among three generations of Romneys — including his father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, and five sons — who were of military age during armed conflicts but did not serve.

I'll be honest, I still don't get it.....Pappy Bush and John F. Kennedy served.....how the heck did George Romney get out of serving in WWII?

Read more »

General Paul Eaton Speaks About Bush Using Vietnam to Defend The Occupation of Iraq

I almost fainted when I heard Bush making this argument last week.

I think that anyone seeking the Presidency should be required to have a basic understanding of history & international affairs before they can even launch their campaign for the job.

Approximately 6 months ago Bush rejected arguments that Iraq was another Vietnam. However, as a way to defend the occupation, Bush now all of a sudden wants to use Vietnam as an example for staying in Iraq, saying that if the U.S. leaves Iraq, the aftermath could be like Post- U.S. Vietnam. But if you go back and look at history, the original argument for staying in Vietnam was that if the U.S. left, other governments in Asia would fall like dominos to Communism. However, after the U.S. exited, this domino effect of course never happened.

Bush is saying that thousands would die in Iraq.... this may or may not be true... But this is the case with any country in a Civil War and that wants to eject occupiers. Vietnam was in the midst of settling a civil war that we got into the middle of. They had already ejected the French and had no interest in allowing their country to be occupied.The U.S. only made the civil war worse there by prolonging an delaying it. This probably caused more civilian deaths than would have occurred if the U.S. had not occupied South Vietnam.

The same thing is happening in Iraq.... there probably would be civil war there if the U.S. pulled out... but there is a civil war now. But who's to say how bad this would be? I think the first thing that you would see if the U.S. withdrew would be an effort by Iraqis to get rid of Al Qaeda once and for all. I see this happening before Iraqis would turn on one another.

Then there are the fundamental differences between Iraq and Vietnam that immediately came to mind... General Eaton wasted no time pointing them out.

This reminds me of the comparison that Bush & Co. made between Post war S. Korea and Iraq. Now they are using Vietnam. Once again, there is very little comparison between the two in terms of the "Post war" situation. Although the insurgencies are similar.



Hear An Interview From the Tavis Smiley Program on PBS