Someone should ask Mitt why not one of his five boys have served in our armed forces; not even the Reserves; not even the Civil Air Patrol.

He was all too eager to send my son off to Iraq; to come back in a box, or maimed, but he didn't care to have any of his boys at risk.

Is wearing a flag on your lapel good enough, these days? I guess it is for the rich.

That post at June 3, 2008 6:01 PM did not come from me.

Nobody alleged Mitt forced anyone to go into the military, so get your facts straight name-caller, hide behind fake name, guy.

Romney did champion the continuity of the wars and in many of his stump speeches offered to get more of our armed forces on the ground to ensure victory.

Many of us can accept that approach, but when a man has five healthy sons and not one serves in any capacity, while many families have sacrificed their only son to this contrived "war on terror" then the Romney position is seen as at least weak and by most citizens, hypocritical.

This phony war on terror is why we need Congress to reassert its power and prevent Presidents from deploying troops without a declaration of war. Congress has allowed Presidents to overstep the original war powers granted to the President to allow for rapid response to cold war threats.

No more undeclared wars.

I just want someone to say to Mitt that when one of his boys goes, then we can send our sons, but since he isn't risking his sons, why should we?

What kind of dumbsh1t expects everyone to join the military when there isn't a draft and then sh1ts his pants over the fact that his so-called son is allowed to sign up voluntarily?

Ha!

True, true.

Discussion Guidelines

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, Live Discussions and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features. It is our hope that you'll take the opportunity to interact with leaders in our community, with the journalists, editors and management of The Washington Post and with other washingtonpost.com users.

In order to keep these experiences enjoyable and interesting for all of our users, we ask that you follow the rules outlined below. By participating in Live Discussions or Reader Forums, or by submitting comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party and that you will remove the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, or that is otherwise inappropriate. You will indemnify Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, its employees, agents, and affiliates from any and all claims and/or damages (including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees) resulting from any claim brought by any third party relating to content you have posted. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence will not be tolerated. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties. You further understand that, on the unmoderated discussion forums, washingtonpost.com does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, washingtonpost.com may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site.

3. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

4. The discussion forums are for text only. Use of graphics and audio is not appropriate.

5. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk. Washingtonpost.com is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability.

6. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to washingtonpost.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

It is good to see the Comment Nazis hard at work.

Sieg Hiel!