WarLover Pataki does not want son to serve in Iraq
It is time we put operation Yellow Elephant into action here in New York State.
I got this heads up via DailyKos:
New York Press : Fortunate Son
During the run-up to the invasion, Pataki was one of Bush's biggest war whores in the Northeast, taking his pro-war stump speech on the road to warn New Yorkers about the imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Since the governor's support for the war has yet to waver, it is more than a little annoying to hear him publicly wishing for his son's deferral.
Sheryl McCarty, who I admire and think of as one of the best editorial writers this city has, ranted away about this issue back on June 30th:
Newsday.com: Ship young Pataki straight to Iraq
I'm sure Teddy Pataki is a nice young man. And the fact that he signed up for the Marine Corps' officers training program while he was still an undergraduate at Yale suggests a willingness to serve his country.
But I would be really mad if 22-year-old Pataki, whose father is Gov. George Pataki, got to skate through the next three years of the Iraq conflict in law school.
The governor, who proudly announced last week that his son has been commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Marines, also noted that Teddy Pataki hopes to defer his military service for three years until he finishes law school.
Coming only days after 20-year-old Marine Cpl. Ramona Valdez of the Bronx was killed by a suicide bomber in Fallujah, to suggest that Lt. Pataki be allowed to pass the next three years studying torts and contracts seemed positively obscene.
It was another example of how politicians wage war but expect other people's children to fight them.
Pataki's son is of serving age. So are Michael Bloomberg's daughters. What other politicos who supported the war have children of serving age who can go and fight this war they so wanted, so needed and are so hell bent on not letting go?
The US Armed Forces have not been able to reach their quota for recruitment. They were down by 42% back in April. I am sure there as more than a few warmongering banana Repuglicans with kids of serving age, able bodied and just itching to go and finish the job in Iraq.
So who else should we add to the list?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Parenting | Politics | War | George Pataki | Republican Party
Chickenhawks
Submitted by mole333 on 8 July 2005 - 7:16am.
I think her beef is that Republicans, including Pataki, are so fast to send others into combat, but don't do their part. The contrast between Kerry's war hero status vs. Bush's AWOL/deserter (I have heard debates as to whether he was legally AWOL or deserter) status was the perfect illustration of this. Even Reagan tried to create a combat history for himself, but was really making movies for the troops.
There does seem to be an overall hypocricy in the Repub party where they extol our military and push to have people who have already served re-enlisted and to have kids pressured into signing up...but how often do they or their kids serve? That, I suspect, is what is the beef here.
There's a 42% drop in enlistment
Submitted by Liza Sabater on 7 July 2005 - 6:58pm.
So many people in the Reserves and National Guard who were already done with their service have been re-enlisted with basically what is a draft; being denied their full college benefits and sent to war. They are the ones being denied not even career options but LIFE OPTIONS.
Why would I feel sorry for this shmuck, so of a politician? Let him serve. He and his family wanted this war? Let him serve and be a true patriot. Let the government stop re-enlisting retired personnel who want to go on with their lives. Teddy Pataki can serve and die for his war and country if need be.
Where's the Beef?
This is a little embarassing to read. I mean, embarassing for you.
While I don't know a whole lot about the military, I do know that when you sign up, you chose a "Military Occupational Specialty" (MOS). This MOS is usually in line with your individual career path.
If Pataki's son wants to grow up and be a lawyer, he would have been presented with a JAG-related MOS option by his recruiter. All JAGs, it seems, go through the same process as Pataki's son (i.e., going to law school first). Why should he be treated any differently than any other Marine?
Instead of just going right to law school out of Yale, he opted to enlist in the Marines first, he should be treated differently? His seems like the kind of self-sacrifice that the son of a wealthy politician should be lauded for, not singled out and castigated for.
Exactly what is your beef? Because he's the son of a Republican politician, he should not have career options? He should be forced into a combat-related MOS because of his father's politics?
I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of folks in the military are not in combat units. It takes 4-5 Marines to support every combat-trained Marine.