When somebody brings up the fact that President Bush is a chickenhawk, his supporters have brought up Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, two other war presidents who didn't serve.
(Well, they served in the milita whatever the hell that means, and, no, Bush didn't serve. When you can't be bothered to show up for your one weekend a month it doesn't count as service.)
Anyway, while Lincoln and Roosevelt may not have served, they are different from Bush for a few reasons.
1. Lincoln and Roosevelt didn't lie and weren't just waiting and praying for excuses to rush into their wars. The other side threw the first punch. (If you bring up 9/11, I'm referring to the Iraq War, NOT the Afghan War.)
2. Their wars were about a little bit more than corporate profit.
3. Lincoln and Roosevelt may not have served in war, but their kids sure as hell did. Lincoln's son volunteered as did all four of Roosevelt's sons. Jenna and Barabara Bush have yet to raise their right hands.
2007-08-18
12:56:41
·
13 answers
·
asked by
ThatOneDude
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
whyareyouaposer I DID serve, you moron. US Army, four years
2007-08-18
13:07:38 ·
update #1
Also, poser, you think that might have had anything to do with who his dad was? No, of course not.
You obviously haven't watched the interviews of the people in his unit saying he was never there.
2007-08-18
13:08:47 ·
update #2
hemihead, you ever hear of Ft. Sumter?
2007-08-18
23:16:26 ·
update #3
You're right, Leo, it is voluntary, and Lincoln's and Roosevelt's sons VOLUNTEERED.
I wasn't talking about Bosnia, but yes, if Chelsea had been the right age, she should have gone.
2007-08-18
23:18:01 ·
update #4
Also, Leo, if you don't believe number one I strongly suggest you read PNAC.
2007-08-18
23:22:10 ·
update #5