Isn’t it hypocritical for a candidate who received four draft deferments from the Vietnam War (including one for the puproses of prosletyzing Mormonism in France) to campaign as a defense budget hawk?
Cites:
Mitt Romney: 'I Will Not Cut The Military Budget' | HuffPost Latest News
http://guardianlv.com/2012/07/mitt-romney-draft-dodger-or-master-manipulator/
No, I don’t see how wanting to raise the defence budget is antithetical to not wanting to fight in Vietnam. The two things are only vaguely related.
If you want to accuse him of hypocracy, I’d say focusing on his actual pro-Vietnam war activism is a much better argument (but then, he might’ve been brainwashed).
Romney doesn’t seem like the neocon/chickenhawk type to me, just a GOP-strong-defense type. He himself, that is; no telling who he’d have in his administration, and I’m more worried about that, because he seems a bit malleable and/or might be beholden to those interests if he manages to squeak this election out.
No, it doesn’t.
I don’t think there’s any need to go there.
Not when you have a candidate who wants to cut taxes * and * increase the spending on the military by2 trillion dollars over 10 years. That’s just sheer lunacy, so you might as well just attack Mitt for sheer fiscal irresponsibility and having no fucking clue how to make hard (or even obvious) choices to resolve budget issues.
No. It’s hypocrisy to take deferments but support the draft and the war for which you’ve been deferred, but it’s not hypocrisy to take deferments and support a strong volunteer defense.
ETA: Which is to say that there IS hypocrisy in Romney’s Vietnam-era actions, but not in him wanting to be commander-in-chief of the modern US military.
**Is Mitt Romney a chicken hawk? **
No, he’s just a chicken.
Mittens is definitely not a chicken hawk, as those are very cool-looking raptors.
Mittens isn’t really a chicken either, as those are useful and tasty birds…
Would ‘empty suit’ be an appropriate description?
Not quite; he’d have to take a position in favor of ending registration to remove the hypocrisy of believing that the government has the prerogative of compelling service as long as it’s from somebody else.