On the right, a young Mitt Romney can clearly be seen protesting for the Vietnam War.
Did you ever think you’d see Mitt Romney on a picket line? Probably not. The Republican, he’s fond of reminding us, is a businessman, and businessmen are not in the, well, business of protesting.
But the 1960s were a crazy time for the United States, and Romney wasn’t immune to the scent of Vietnam-related uprising in the air. Only instead of picketing against the war, Romney fought for it by marching against a 1966 anti-war sit-in at Stanford University, where he was attending school.
A picture taken on May 20, 1966, clearly shows a 19-year old Romney, whose father was at the time Michigan’s governor, standing with pro-war University president Wallace Sterling. To the young Romney, anti-war activists hoping to end the draft — and the senseless deaths of nearly 60,000 young American men — should not sit-in, they should sit down and shut up in preparation for potential deployment.
But as BuzzFeed reported Wednesday, Romney had no chance of being sent overseas because he was already a registered missionary, and apparently religious proselytization was more important than an able-body. The site also spoke to one of Romney’s cohorts:
Carey Coulter, a conservative and anti-Communist student who had spent time as a civilian in Vietnam, was outraged and organized a counter-protest.
“We were there to get an education and these people holding the Administration hostage was antithetical to that,” he recalled to BuzzFeed in his first interview about the day.
…
“[Romney] just saw the demonstration, was sympathetic to it obviously, and came up,” Coulter said. He added that Romney hadn’t made the sign he’s carrying in the photograph.
Romney hadn’t organized the protest, and wasn’t part of Coulter’s later efforts to beat back a growing student anti-war movement.“I don’t recall ever seeing him again,” Coulter said.
That’s because Romney soon left for his missionary work in France, where, according to The Telegraph, he lived in a Parisian mansion. No wonder GOP celebrities like George Will and Donald Trump say Romney lacks the courage to lead — he’s been a coward all his life. And not only a coward, but a coward willing to send his fellow Americans to early graves.
Here, via the Daily Mail, is a newspaper clipping on Romney’s foul obedience:
January 06, 2012 at 12:23 pm, Juliet said:
Interesting that he offered to “handle” the press for Coulter (according to other reports) and ended up being prominently featured in all the shots! He handled ‘em, all right.
January 06, 2012 at 2:14 pm, Iggy said:
I see a photo of a 19 year old student protesting against a sit in…hence the sign says “Speak out ,don’t sit in”….not exactly protesting for the Vietnam war…
January 07, 2012 at 9:41 am, Suspicious Observant said:
I don’t see a single sign there that says anything anti-war on any of those signs. I think it is a stretch to say that this is an anti-war protest. I question this charge of him protesting Vietnam. It is suspect just by looking closely at all of the signs surrounding Romney. The first signs, almost look photoshopped. One of those signs also says, “Oppose Anarchy”… that doesn’t sound like something anti-war to me. Maybe this is the anti-Romney Republican people coming out with this to help bolster some of the other candidates in New Hampshire and South Carolina?
January 14, 2012 at 11:08 am, Anonymous said:
Please read the article again. He wasn’t protesting against the Vietnam War. He was protesting against the Vietnam War protestors who were holding a sit in at President Sterling’s office.
January 07, 2012 at 2:00 pm, Kazatrant said:
I see a coward is what I see.
January 11, 2012 at 6:20 pm, Hitobito said:
Mitt Romney is like others of his ilk. All talk no guts. Chicken hawks who will lead and send the “little people” to fight our wars. He was in Paris in a mansion as a Mormon missionary while the rest of us were volunteering for duty in Vietnam or getting drafted. I took two years of french in high school to say this: Il n’est rien mais un morceau de merde lâches.
February 01, 2012 at 10:05 pm, Wleming said:
heres to mitt the hero
another chicken hawk
likes to SEND people to war
but at himself, he balks
so onward and upward mitt
you butt kissing son of a gun
you got the guts of a banker
and the courage of a drone
February 29, 2012 at 11:51 pm, Tim Heming said:
A true "ChickenHawk".
June 06, 2012 at 7:05 pm, Vivek Jain said:
I'm puzzled why the larger point is obviously lost on so many people:
We the American people should oppose wars. Our political leadership and media deceive us. They lie to us, and keep lying to us. Much of the conventional history about wars is thin on the truth. Wars are not fought for democracy, or freedom, or human rights, or to fight fascism, or communism, or terrorism. Wars enrich a small group of elites, at the expense of the rest of us.
If the above is confusing or seems irrelevant, I would encourage you to read any of the following: Howard Zinn, David Swanson, Norman Solomon, Phyllis Bennis.
April 15, 2012 at 3:24 am, Lalo Alcaraz said:
Mitt Dodged the Draft all the way to Paris.
April 15, 2012 at 3:27 am, Juan Pablo Propio said:
Yup
April 15, 2012 at 3:34 am, John Juan Adams said:
Just like his buddies, Newt, Don Trump, Newt, and Karl Rove–many many more. All hypocrites, Chicken Hawks, Traitors and Cowards.
May 17, 2012 at 6:17 pm, Paul Saia said:
John Juan Adams Your 1000 % RIGHT must be in his DNA all his sons are CHICKEN HAWKS TOO
May 27, 2012 at 9:06 pm, John Juan Adams said:
ChickenHawks and Chicken SHITS just like their daddy–all born with silver spoons up their fannies. I still say THIS should be his theme song for his campaign http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvwQmxLaknc
June 06, 2012 at 6:37 pm, Vivek Jain said:
The Vietnam war was an imperialistic, immoral, illegal war. The Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg exposed the ostensible justifications by Washington policymakers, the establishment press, and the military leaders to be lies. Rice, iron ore, rubber, tin, petroleum–these are the interests that are mentioned in the Pentagon Papers.
It is indecent not to acknowledge the three million civilians who were killed by Washington's terrorism. How to memorialize them?
Who here has read Howard Zinn's collection of essays, "Zinn on War"? Or Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket"? Or David Swanson's "War Is A Lie"?
April 15, 2012 at 6:22 am, Jeff Goodfox said:
Well… well… well.
May 27, 2012 at 6:55 pm, Terry Roy said:
More like, coward, coward, coward.
April 16, 2012 at 2:52 am, Sheri Burwell said:
It'll all come back to haunt him! So be it.
April 17, 2012 at 7:31 pm, Timothy French said:
Surprised? no.
April 17, 2012 at 7:31 pm, Timothy French said:
Surprised? no.
April 20, 2012 at 5:14 am, Ria Hooks said:
Just like your friend Bill Clinton.
May 10, 2012 at 3:10 pm, Gary D. Vaughn said:
Bill Clinton gave back his deferment, If you would get the head out of Fox's ass and research, you would know this.
May 30, 2012 at 1:01 pm, Michael Lesiak said:
Not really sure what that has to do with Mitt's behavior?
May 31, 2012 at 2:49 am, Maggie Richards said:
AND President Bill Clinton did was not the son of a rich person.
June 06, 2012 at 6:03 pm, Ralph Casciato said:
The difference is, Mitt was a supporter of a war he didn't have to fight. He thought others should fight and die – but not him.
June 06, 2012 at 6:51 pm, Vivek Jain said:
Avoid the tribalism of the two-party system; the two parties are but wings of the same bird of Prey, as Upton Sinclair reportedly heard Eugene Debs say (h/t Paul Street). There is far more continuity between the administrations than the public is led to believe. Don't be manipulated into defending Clinton, or Carter or Obama; their policies are as atrocious as Reagan's or those of the Bushes.
Keep in mind that the enemy is the corporatocracy, the ruling class, and that there are no significant differences between the two parties.
Some books that speak to this are:
Michael Parenti's Democracy For The Few; Against Empire
Paul Street's The Empire's New Clothes
Glenn Greenwald's With Liberty And Justice For Some
Phyllis Bennis' Challenging Empire
and Lance Selfa's The Democrats: A Critical History (updated edition)
June 06, 2012 at 6:58 pm, Vivek Jain said:
Avoid the tribalism of the two-party system; the two parties are but wings of the same bird of Prey, as Upton Sinclair dramatically has Eugene Debs say (h/t Paul Street). There is far more continuity between American administrations than the public is led to believe. Don't be manipulated into defending Clinton, or Carter or Obama; their policies are as atrocious as Reagan's or those of the Bushes.
Keep in mind that the enemy is the corporatocracy, the ruling class, and that there are no significant differences between the two parties.
Some books that speak to this are:
Michael Parenti's Democracy For The Few; Against Empire
Paul Street's The Empire's New Clothes
Glenn Greenwald's With Liberty And Justice For Some
Phyllis Bennis' Challenging Empire
and Lance Selfa's The Democrats: A Critical History (updated edition)
June 07, 2012 at 2:13 am, James Brickey said:
Yes, just like Bill Clinton, except at least Bill didn't to go AND didn't want others to go and die. Romney didn't want to go but wanted others to die. On top of that, he has 5 sons who didn't serve, and he just attacked American families asking why more didn't serve their country by sending their kids to fight. Sick son of a bitch.
June 15, 2012 at 7:03 am, Paula DeMartino said:
Ria, Bill Clinton was a STRONG opponent of Vietnam war. He went to college on scholarships & Oxford via Rhodes! He participated in heading up Moratoriums against drafting young men into Vietnam. He wrote to ROTC in 12/1969 "No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation. The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake. Individuals had to fight, if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case…" Clinton WAS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY & FOR THE RIGHT REASONS. As for Romney, he was a priviledged bully then as he is now. He shows signs of severe pathological disassociation with reality in the many lies he tells & the way he treats others who are not of his socio-economic status. He had the GULL to protest & picket a war which he knew he had NO CHANCE of being drafted into because he was a Mormom missionary who RAN TO FRANCE TO SPREAD MORMOM CRAP WHILE LIVING IN A PARISIAN MANSION!
June 15, 2012 at 7:03 am, Paula DeMartino said:
Ria, Bill Clinton was a STRONG opponent of Vietnam war. He went to college on scholarships & Oxford via Rhodes! He participated in heading up Moratoriums against drafting young men into Vietnam. He wrote to ROTC in 12/1969 "No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation. The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake. Individuals had to fight, if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case…" Clinton WAS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY & FOR THE RIGHT REASONS. As for Romney, he was a priviledged bully then as he is now. He shows signs of severe pathological disassociation with reality in the many lies he tells & the way he treats others who are not of his socio-economic status. He had the GULL to protest & picket a war which he knew he had NO CHANCE of being drafted into because he was a Mormom missionary who RAN TO FRANCE TO SPREAD MORMOM CRAP WHILE LIVING IN A PARISIAN MANSION!
June 15, 2012 at 7:07 am, Paula DeMartino said:
2b clear, he protested THE PEOPLE protesting & sitting-in against VIETNAM – NOT THE WAR BUT THE PEOPLE AGAINST THE WAR. What a brave little boy he was. Rove, Bush Jr., and the rest of the chosen sons (and Romney's 5 sons) never would or could handle military service.
June 15, 2012 at 7:07 am, Paula DeMartino said:
2b clear, he protested THE PEOPLE protesting & sitting-in against VIETNAM – NOT THE WAR BUT THE PEOPLE AGAINST THE WAR. What a brave little boy he was. Rove, Bush Jr., and the rest of the chosen sons (and Romney's 5 sons) never would or could handle military service.
June 28, 2012 at 10:09 pm, John Juan Adams said:
AND CLINTON Was not Pushing war and running away. The was HorseMitt Romney.
June 28, 2012 at 10:09 pm, John Juan Adams said:
AND CLINTON Was not Pushing war and running away. The was HorseMitt Romney.
August 08, 2012 at 10:51 pm, John Juan Adams said:
Nor was Clinton a stinking CHICKEN SHIT HAWK war supporter like Mitt For Brains Romney. Old Mitt for Brains. All for the war, as long and he was in France playing fancy pants Sissy Boy. LIKE CCR sang FORTUNATE SON.
May 27, 2012 at 8:17 pm, Laura Bradley-Seaquest said:
I would disagree. Romney supported the troops by opposing the anti-war crowd and served his country by supporting his father. There are other ways to serve than the military and let's be honest. The military is not seen as upwardly mobile. It's for those who have nothing else to do (usually the poor). So, how could Romney serve in the military. It would be ridiculous.
May 27, 2012 at 9:13 pm, John Juan Adams said:
Hmmm, tell that to John Kennedy.
May 28, 2012 at 4:55 pm, Gerard Heck said:
The poor have nothing else to do? So they are picked to die instead of a rich person? That's absurd….
May 28, 2012 at 5:48 pm, Victor Fondrk said:
Well, he could have been drafted, like I was. Except he was/is protected by the LDS.
May 30, 2012 at 12:59 pm, Michael Lesiak said:
That's one of the most convoluted/illogical pieces of reasoning (if you can actually call it reasoning) that I've heard in quite some time.
May 31, 2012 at 3:32 pm, Martemis Marta Collier said:
And also tell it to Bill Cosby, Malcolm Forbes, Julia Child (yes – she enlisted in the military!), Wendy's founder Dave Thomas, Ed McMahon, Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, Mel Brooks, Jimmy Stewart, Elvis Presley, and NFL's Pat Tillman. https://www.facebook.com/LauraSeaquest face it – Romney will only support this country as far as it serves to line his pockets. He is an exploiter and a coward who grew up with privilege and opportunity.
May 31, 2012 at 3:34 pm, Martemis Marta Collier said:
Oh yeah – and I forgot all about Ken Berry. Remember him from F-Troop? Search around the web and you will find that he was "discovered" performing in a military talent show.
June 02, 2012 at 1:33 pm, Gerard Heck said:
Your comment would clearly define the separation of the 1% from the rest of American citizens. It would also destroy the premise that "All men are created equal". In a conservative world all men are not created equal and do not deserve equal rights or equal opportunity. In a progressive world it is just the opposite if men are willing to work hard for that same equal opportunity. That is why part of governments' role is to structure the economy so that all have a fair shake….at the same time it is not governments' role to give a hand out but instead a hand up.
June 04, 2012 at 12:44 am, Noah Zark said:
You repeat a liberal canard. Today, at least, the volunteer services attract men and women who are better educated than the general public, and come from average middle-class backgrounds. The services do not want people who cannot read, write or reason: the weapons systems used in soldiering today require too much intensive training to allow that. In addition, to achieve a major's rank requires a Master's degree, which the Army (at least) will help you pay for while on active duty.
June 04, 2012 at 4:03 am, Gerard Heck said:
Your comment would clearly define the separation of the 1% from the rest of American citizens. It would also destroy the premise that "All men are created equal". In a conservative world all men are not created equal and do not deserve equal rights or equal opportunity. In a progressive world it is just the opposite if men are willing to work hard for that same equal opportunity. That is why part of governments' role is to structure the economy so that all have a fair shake….at the same time it is not governments' role to give a hand out but instead a hand up.
June 06, 2012 at 6:00 pm, Ralph Casciato said:
Yeah, taking an hour out of your busy day to hold a picket sign (risking all that sun damage) and campaigning for your Dad is totally the same as dying in Vietnam. Or losing a limb, or becoming paralyzed. Right wing logic is awesome – you don't have to make any sense whatsoever!
June 07, 2012 at 4:40 am, Gerard Heck said:
Somehow I think Laura Seaquest planted this comment to see what kind of reaction she could get from other commenters. For her to be serious about what she said is rather unbelievable or just a blatant attempt to be caustic.
October 19, 2012 at 1:24 pm, Roy Rone said:
ATTENTION: MRS JONES….YOU ARE A NUT!!!!!!!
May 27, 2012 at 8:58 pm, Michael Lesiak said:
Just another typical chicken-hawk; the Republican Party is full of them.
June 06, 2012 at 6:38 pm, Vivek Jain said:
President Obama has increased the size, cost, privatization, and global presence of the U.S. military. He has, with his War on Libya, established the prerogative to take the nation into war against the will of the United States Congress. He has created drone warfare on a significant scale. He has enlarged and formalized due-process-free imprisonment, and cemented in place warrantless spying and the power to abuse prisoners. He has expanded the use of assassination, including of U.S. citizens. President Obama has radically expanded claims of state secrets to protect the crimes of his predecessor, and made greater use of the Espionage Act to punish whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined. Obama has formalized, legalized, systematized, and normalized what was illicit under Bush. He has pursued base construction and expansion of missile "defense" systems to the detriment of U.S. relations with China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan, among other nations. Like all presidents during this permanent war, Obama is a war president. Unlike all other Nobel Peace Prize recipients, Obama praised war in his acceptance speech. In November 2012, U.S. voters are likely to face a choice for president between two major party candidates both of whom favor outrageous spending on war preparation, with the range of debate likely at best to extend from spending 60% of discretionary spending on the military to 70%. This spending benefits a very small and very wealthy elite, but does serious damage to 99% of us.
- David Swanson, The MIC at 50
June 06, 2012 at 6:43 pm, Vivek Jain said:
Howard Zinn said, "The Democrats and the Republicans do not dispute the continued corporate control of the economy. Neither party endorses free national healthcare, proposes extensive low-cost housing, demands a minimum income for all Americans, or supports a truly progressive income tax to diminish the huge gap between rich and poor. Both support the death penalty and growth of prisons. Both believe in a large military establishment, in land mines and nuclear weapons and the cruel use of sanctions against" ordinary people everywhere.
War-based government, economy and foreign policy smothers the possibility for Democracy, for rule of law, for dissent, for (lowercase r) republican government.
November 04, 2012 at 12:16 am, Jaime Martin said:
You're off topic.
June 08, 2012 at 11:47 am, Glenn Mc Laughlin said:
He was for the draft as a missionary and his father was the Governor, I will not vote for this man. It would be George Bush all over again
July 25, 2012 at 12:49 pm, Former Navy SEAL Launches PAC To Fight Obama - Page 3 - Political Wrinkles said:
[...] that he didn't. The Hypocrisy Behind Draft Dodger Mitt Romney Lecturing America About Sacrifice Mitt Romney loved Vietnam draft he purposefully avoided | Death and Taxes [...]