Matt Davies for September 13, 2012

Dream on…

Obummer already beat Romney to it.http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1040161.1331863972!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/image.jpg

You haven’t clicked my link, have you? Obama’s the one with the heightened ego!

Ever since I got a good look at him during the clown car debates, I had the feeling that there was something wrong with Mitt Romney. And it’s not that he’s a multi-millionaire. We’ve had wealthy Presidents before. It’s not that he’s a conservative or a Mormon either.

Maybe it’s just his blind ambition. At least that’s a big part of it. Nevertheless, in the light of his “apology” and “sympathizing” accusations during the recent Middle-East crisis, I am now more certain than ever—there is something wrong with Mitt Romney.

Heck, I’ll be the first to raise my hand

Romney: Supported the Vietnam war, from the safety of France.Clinton: Opposed the Vietnam war, from the safety of England.

See the difference?

I guess you’re right. As the son of a wealthy and prominent political figure, Mitt would have been as safe from the Draft as Dan Quayle or George W. Bush. Bill, on the other hand, was a poor kid and would have been sent straight to the front lines.

You have a lot of nerve saying that with your history of hit and runs. BTW, with my links, they are PICTURES of the president. I have seen them on TV AND on SEVERAL websites. Just cause I don’t cite thousands of links doesn’t make it any less credible. Gotta get them SOMEwhere cause your CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS certainly won’t say anything bad about your beloved leader occupying the White House…

Interesting that NONE of the comments on this cartoon have said anything positive about Willard. NONE.-That pattern repeats on virtually every cartoon.

Would that every draftee who was sent to Vietnam against his wishes had dodged, instead. The Wall in D.C. could have been reduced to a tasteful plaque, with no change in the course of Vietnamese history.

“What if they put on a war and nobody came?”

If there are any posters here whose names ARE on the Wall, I should indeed be interested to have them pointed out for my benefit…

“I would not call mitt a draft dodger, tho if you want to…”-Willard is a draft dodger, but it is more appropriate to call him a ChickenHawk, since he also supported the Viet Nam war (as well as the invasion of Iraq).-He was very critical of the pullout of troops from Iraq. -ChickenHawks are always happy to invade somewhere sending someone else’s kids into harms way.-You’ll notice Willard’s own sons have never gone anywhere near the military — unless you count fund raising from defense industry executives.-Even the etch-a-sketch can’t erase that indelible stain.

Your response wasn’t an answer to that question, rhetorical though it was. Since the question was conditioned on NOBODY showing up for the war, it’s clear that NONE of the posters herein would be there. You should perhaps work on your OWN reading comprehension skills before criticizing others.

But for your benefit, I will rephrase:

“A war is being waged. The waging of the war requires a draft of unwilling young men (if the young men were willing, why should they need to be drafted?). There are both legal (deferments) and illegal (”dodging") methods of removing oneself from the risk of dying in the war. Were all young men who were unwilling to risk death in this war to avail themselve of one of these two options, could the war be waged using only those who were willing to fight in it?"

To continue:“Two young men, Bitt and Mill, were exempt from the draft by equally legal means. One, while safe himself, argued that the war was unjust, and no other young men should be sent to die in it. The other, equally safe, argued that the war was just, and therefore the draft and deaths of the unwilling should continue. Evaluate these two positions according to the following (real, relative, or perceived) factors:1) Cowardice/Bravery;2) Expedience/Principle;3) Selfishness/Selflessness;4) Hypocrisy/Consistency.”