Stars & Stripes LTE: GIs not on Romney's radar
There's more to this in the comments. The author gives an excellent come-back to a response to his letter below:
http://www.stripes.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/gis-not-on-romney-s-radar-1.188953
GIs not on Romney’s radar
Stars and Stripes
Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2012
I was disheartened when Mitt Romney failed to even mention our troops in harm’s way when he gave his acceptance speech [at the Republican National Convention]. I was also not totally surprised. He sees service as something provided by peons, not offered by the elite. When asked why he had not mentioned the troops, his response was, “When you give a speech, you don’t go through a laundry list, you talk about the things you think are important.” Say what?
Like our last Republican president, he is the son of a politician who sees the presidency as nothing more than the ultimate trophy for rich kids. Also like George W. Bush, he has no plan beyond attaining power. And like Bush and the entire party, he has made a pledge to Grover Norquist that trumps his oath of office.
By the way, he says that his sons are serving their country by stumping for him. He, of course, spent the Vietnam years flitting around France on a bicycle. I’d really hate to see another guy like that commandeering an aircraft carrier and a fighter jet to glorify himself after invading the wrong country and declaring “mission accomplished” before the real battle begins.
My problem is not with rich folks, but with a party that advocates for no one else. The national debt has ballooned parallel to an upward shift of wealth — one-half of 1 percent of Americans now possess 50 percent of the country’s wealth, some $14 trillion — but the Republican Party says that those who benefited most from ignoring the bills should get even deeper tax cuts. They promise to trickle more this time. Ignore that they created no jobs, but rather hoarded under the Bush cuts. Just trust them.
I’m not a big fan of either party. My take is that Democrats are disingenuous but that Republicans are despicable. I pull the “D” handle to confound those who advocate for none but the top 1 percent. Considering Romney’s statement, I suggest that he doesn’t see the military as part of that 1 percent. Like Bush, he just sees you as servants at his disposal. He’s already banging the war drums to invade Iran. Don’t worry. It’s just an election strategy.
I served in the Army in Vietnam. My first loyalty is to the guys wearing the uniform right now. Romney and Paul Ryan do not relate to that. Obama didn’t serve either, but there were no conflicts going on during his service-eligible years. He’s been a responsible commander in chief who, like me, has the ultimate goal of bringing everyone home. I get no such signals from the party of chicken hawks.
I am advocating for the military to vote for their own interests. Nothing more.
Richard Hayden
Hiram, Ga
= new reply since forum marked as read
Last edited Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:11 AM - Edit history (1)
When Obama came on board, the letters section experienced a long breather.
When it comes to elections, it gets to the point that when the military is asked to deploy time and again for the last 11 years, when the suicide rate is sky high, the divorce rate likewise, when PTSD is so bad that no matter the treatment, soldiers aren't recuperating (we won't mention the TBI's), when our NATO troops (read "US TROOPS"
continue to get killed on a monthly basis, when social workers say that if they had a dime for every LTC who was abusing his/her spouse, they'd be rich...
if this is one's environment for the last several years, and he/she still can't figure it out at the ballot box, then there's not much more to be said. I personally threw my hands up. I'm glad this writer didn't.
