I'm not saying I agree with Bannon (much less Roy Moore) on much of anything, but I thought Bannon's criticism of Mitt Romney for going on an LDS mission to avoid Vietnam war was a topic worth discussing here. Quoting from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/steve-bannon-set-join-roy-moore-alabama-rally/story?id=51586835:


"But Bannon saved perhaps his more stinging attack for former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who he accused of hiding behind his religion to avoid service in the Vietnam War."

"'Judge Moore served his country in one of the toughest wars we've ever had, Vietnam,' Bannon said, 'Mitt, that's honor and integrity, and by the way Mitt, while we're on the subject of Vietnam and honor and integrity, you avoided service brother. Ok Mitt, here's how it is brother, the college deferments that's we can debate that, but you hid behind your religion. You went to France to be a missionary while guys were dying in rice patties in Vietnam. Do not talk to me about honor and integrity.'"

I'm a little confused by the attack though. Has Mitt come out against Roy Moore?

In any case, it's interesting to see how outsiders (to the Morg) view the issue.

"I'm a little confused by the attack though. Has Mitt come out against Roy Moore?"

Yeah. Romney said his election would be "a stain on the US Senate".

Strange turn from Bannon, Trump and his kids have never served. I have heard, more than once, mormon men saying the "served their country" by going on a LDS mission.

Thanks for the info, StillAnon!

"Serving their country" by going on an LDS mission is quite a stretch. How does it serve the country exactly? I can't think of any way in which it does. Self-serving tripe.

That said, I'm betting the Morg was pushing its missionary age young men to put mission before military service. It could very well be that Mitt, as a TBM, was just trying to do what his church indoctrinated him to believe was the right thing to do. Or Mitt really could have been trying to avoid Vietnam. Who knows.

I'd be curious to know if there Was there a big surge in missionaries during that time-frame. (If I had to guess, the answer is probably yes.)


In any case, Bannon's raising it strikes me as nothing more than a typical ad hominem attack to try and reduce the impact of Mitt's criticism of Roy Moore. You are right that it is a strange turn from Bannon, since it just highlights Trump's avoidance of the same war (for even less credible reasons).

Don't give Bannon too much credit--or too little.

He doesn't care that he contradicts himself because Trump never served. What he wants is to throw red meat to the Trump-Bannon pack. The members of that pack aren't bothered by Trump's or Moore's sexual behavior or by Trump's record of moral and policy contradiction. What they care about is attacking the GOP establishment, and Mitt is the perfect target for that.

I am a little surprised that Trump doesn't fully understand Bannon's intentions. Bannon gave a couple of speeches recently in which he mused about "Trumpism without Trump," meaning that the movement would survive Trump's demise. The implication was that there would be a new candidate, a new president representing the Breitbart insurgency. Who would that new leader be?

It seems pretty obvious to me. Bannon's ambitions are greater than simply orchestrating a movement in support of Donald Trump. In his most open moments he intimates that Trump may be dispensable.

The sexual behavior is unfounded on both Moore and Trump. 3 weeks and counting and Gloria Allred has yet to make the Yearbook available for forensic evaluation.

Trump has been Commander -In- Chief of All U.S. armed forces for the last 11 months. Few can say they have served in that capacity and donating his entire paycheck to boot.

Do you have to try or does this nonsense come forth naturally?

Clarify what you think is non-sense. I didn't see any.

Well, let's see. . .

Your first sentence is incomprehensible.

Your second sentence makes it appear that your first was intended to say the charges against Trump and Bannon are unfounded. But that second sentence--"3 weeks and counting and Gloria Allred has yet to make the Yearbook available for forensic evaluation"--is frankly bizarre. Charges are legitimate or illegitimate based on evidence; they are not illegitimate because you don't like them. Moreover there is no obligation on the part of Allred to make evidence available to anyone at this stage. Even if there were, there are still the statements of several victims, supporting statements from 30+ contemporaneous witnesses, and other documentary evidence. Anyone who can look at that evidence and dismiss it with the wave of a hand is either as partisan as Bannon or lacking in common sense.


Your next paragraph is also curious.
"Trump has been Commander -In- Chief of All U.S. armed forces for the last 11 months. Few can say they have served in that capacity and donating his entire paycheck to boot."
The point is that Trump never put himself at risk in Vietnam. It is therefore hypocritical to denounce Romney.

You can't make this stuff up.

Well, I guess you can.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, let's see. . .
>
> Your first sentence is incomprehensible.

You mentioned sexual behavior and said they are unfounded. It's a short sentence. Clear to me.

>
> Your second sentence makes it appear that your
> first was intended to say the charges against
> Trump and Bannon are unfounded.

Is there a sexual assault charge on Bannon? Or did you mean Trump and Moore.

All of Trump's sexual allegations lawsuits have been dropped. Many were Jane Does. Of the ones we have the names why did they drop the lawsuit? If it was valid shouldn't they still be fighting Trump? Did they run out of money. Trump certainly didn't settle with any of them. Also, Gloria Allred is the same lawyer representing Roy Moore's accuser. How stupid is that?



But that second
> sentence--"3 weeks and counting and Gloria Allred
> has yet to make the Yearbook available for
> forensic evaluation"--is frankly bizarre. Charges
> are legitimate or illegitimate based on evidence;
> they are not illegitimate because you don't like
> them. Moreover there is no obligation on the part
> of Allred to make evidence available to anyone at
> this stage. Even if there were, there are still
> the statements of several victims, supporting
> statements from 30+ contemporaneous witnesses, and
> other documentary evidence.

The evidence appears fake. He was Deputy District Attorney. Why sign it as the D.A?
Why use two different ink colors?
A yearbook in December? Don't they come out in End of May / early June.
The letter writing was different.
The accuser has had some legal cases that Roy Moore was a Judge at the time ruling against her.
The diner name wasn't a place the judge ever went.
People working there at the time never saw the judge.
The child locks on doors were even around at the time the event supposedly took place.

So that all looks bad. Allred was stuttering and couldn't 100% say the evidence in the yearbook was even real.

Anyway -- I predict Moore will win and this accuser will quietly go away.


Anyone who can look
> at that evidence and dismiss it with the wave of a
> hand is either as partisan as Bannon or lacking in
> common sense.

Lacking common sense may be that you believe the woman's case and dismiss all the things wrong with it.

>
and donating his
> entire paycheck to boot."
> The point is that Trump never put himself at risk
> in Vietnam. It is therefore hypocritical to
> denounce Romney.
>

The military service point is valid if you were to make it against candidate Trump. Now that he is President, to say he avoided service in Vietnam is just stupid because he's #1 in the armed forces today. Bannon does need to bring up this point because the presidential race is over.

I fear your credibility is a silent majority.

On this forum. You are correct.

In the wider (non-US) world too.

each ward could only send out 2 missionaries. I remember this because my cousin got to go on a mission instead of to Vietnam. My dad thought it was a travesty that my cousin's parents facilitated this. They had connections.

I don't think there was a rule about only 2 mishies per ward. My northern California ward always had several out at any given time. Of course, we also had one or two in the military.

I agree with cl2. There was a period of a few years in the '60s when each ward could only have 2 missionaries.

I wonder there were agitators accusing the church leaders to encourage young men to avoid the war by going on missions and to curve that attack against the church they limited who could go on a mission. So, if members wanted to avoid the war, well they would need to be in school or do whatever other method was used to keep busy and not fight in the rice patties.

Just Wonderin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How does it serve the country
> exactly? I can't think of any way in which it
> does. Self-serving tripe.

Think like a mormon.
Mormonism is not just another American religion, it's THE American religion. That declares the garden of eden was in America, that declares the "saints" will gather in America at the end of times. That promotes truth, justice, and the American way.

So missionaries aren't just spreading mormonism, they're spreading Americanism.

Or the mormon version of it anyway.

No, I don't agree with that -- but that's how many mormons think.

Also, America was God's favored Gentile nation because Nephi spoke about Columbus.

The Vietnam war is still the main go to war people really get attacked on if they didn't serve via the draft or volunteered to fight.

All the other volunteer soldier signups to serve since then kind of just becomes a resume builder for a politician and those who didn't serve just fill the blank with something else.

Much less in UT, but mormon politicians in other states probably don't get beat up as much for serving a mission rather than enlisting to serve in the middle eastern war theaters.

I also thought about the Trump kids not serving in the military as well. But since they aren't running for anything AND their father now has been the Commander-In-Chief of all U.S. armed forces for the last 11 months...it's kind of moot point to make.

Yes, Mitt came out strongly against Moore which was the cause of theattack. Bannon is ignoring the fact that Trump never served either and used a pretty flimsy excuse for his deferrment.

The Vietnam exercise in futility is getting to be ancient history. Viewed from a 45 year distance, it's easy to focus on the parts that best support one's point of view.

when I put in my papers for the mission, Vietnam was not a 'threat' to me. But when I was released, the two years had seen a huge escalation and I was now *meat*. But I was much too much a 'live-in-the-now' person (still am) to appreciate what a threat it was to life and limb. But the church took care of me.

By the time I lost my 2-S deferment, I had a appropriated a new point of view, which was no big surprise: my temple bride was pregnant with new life and I wanted to stay home and be a father. Thanks to the draft lottery, I got my wish.

Bannon does not appreciate the fact that missionary service was not a program set into place by los mormones as an escape from the draft. Were there members who used it as such? Sure, but with WMR's connections, he could easily have gotten into the national guard, or whatever. The odds are that Elder Mitt would have gone on his mission no matter what.

From my current perspective, I have absolutely no reason to harbor animosity towards any American kid who did whatever it took to avoid service in 'Nam. I realize that this may rub 'Nam vets the wrong way, so those who feel the need, don't invite me to play golf with you.

When you read the history, the whole history, 'Nam comes out as another routine blotch on American 'honor', as if countries really care about honor.

Thanks for your perspective, elderolddog. There's a lot of common sense packed in your response.

EOD says: "Bannon does not appreciate the fact that missionary service was not a program set into place by los mormones as an escape from the draft."

This was my thought too. You can tell that he doesn't have clue one about the importance of missions within the Mormon belief system. Especially for males, they aren't considered one option among other life choices - they are an integral part of the steps that young Mormons are expected to follow as part of their indoctrination.

I saw, as a convert, (therefore, outside eyes) that even now, many years after that war, there is a strong emphasis on young men going on missions and an equally strong negative reaction towards those who don't go.

On another note, I thought that Bannon's phrase about "...other Americans were dying in rice paddies" was extremely crass, especially to the ears of families who lost their soldier there. It was cringe-inducing. It was so poorly worded too, as if he was saying that Romney should not only have gone to that war but also been one of those who perished there. Maybe he does think that.

Things are getting pretty nasty. And grown adults are seeming not to care how illogical they are on some issues. As if people won't notice.

But yeah. I wouldn't say that missions are only one of many options for Mormon teen males, even now after all the decades since Vietnam. It's still a strict expectation with negative ramifications for those who don't go. I met "elders" who had either deferred or interrupted college and even promising athletic careers to fulfil the expectations of their family and community.

In the grand scheme of things both missions (LDS and the vietname war) amounted to a whole lot of northing.

Getting people recruited into the LDS scam church to get the morg more tithe money bogus because the promises are bullshit.

The politicians kept screwing up Vietnam and what they wanted to do and the country turned over in the political winds the U.S. was fighting against with soldiers stuck in the middle.

If you want to get all 'grand scheme of things', and you pull back far enough, nothing amounts to anything.

Few people either want to or need to adopt that perspective. Most of us have our moments of "shit be getting real now!!"

I'm very, very liberated by not having any need to prove a damn thing regarding what I believe. I'm just not inclined to care if people with agree with me or not.

Yet, while Bannon criticizes Mitt, President Trump had over four draft deferments either for going to an elite university or for a bogus bone spur medical deferment. Why isn't Bannon critizing Trump, who he so strongly supports? Because Bannon is a self serving hypocrite!

I wish my brother had used ANY excuse to stay out of Viet Nam. Agent Orange did not serve him well.

If only we had been Mormons then.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2017 01:52PM by kathleen.

Interesting strategy. I wonder if Bannon would have mentioned it if Mitt wasn't a member of an unpopular church. You can't really attack Mitt for serving a mission, but turn a blind eye to President Bone Spurs. I have no love for Mormons, but I thought Bannon's statement was in poor taste.

It was exactly what Bannon's followers wanted to hear. The reason Mitt was such a good target was because he represents the Republican establishment. That he was a Mormon was an added but peripheral benefit.

Politicians are not unduly preoccupied with moral consistency, to put it mildly. Bannon and Trump are extreme in this regard. Bannon is doing exactly what he must to enthuse his followers. That is all he cares about.

It's typical cheerleading. Making the best argument to excite the Alabama voters. Nothing new here.

Plus, there are some major legislation pieces getting stalled in the Senate and Roy Moore is big Trump agenda supporter so of course Bannon wants Moore to win and get his vote.

ON top of that, Roy Moore said George Soros needs to go to Hell.

Good for him.

Go Figure.

We have Mitt ragging about Moore looking for young impressionable religious girls to court when Mitt comes from a religion that thrived doing that.

Then we have Bannon ragging about Mormon missions when he is more racist than any Mormon.

Then we have Moore ragging about how the government needs to basically be God's Christian law based when Mitt lives in a state that is a theocracy.

Funny how they complain about the others not being the right kind of American but they have plenty in common if they look.

Well, Mitt didnt do it himself which is a big difference and I am sure he has managed to justify Smith's behavior along the lines of apologists.

I also had to womder about Bannon’s choice of words describing Moore having more “in his pinky finger”

These words are quite well known to Mormons and many could remember the enormous mojo in them while being pimply faced Aaronic priesthood gophers.

Not sure Bannon declaring war on Mormons in a Utah senate race is a wise decision.

I remember ‘Nam like it was yesterday. So many tourists. When we hit the beaches of Nha Trang, Charlie was waiting for us - with ice cold coconuts and alcohic beverages. We didn’t stand a chance.

45 years? Really? I think it can only help Mitt.

Every mormon guy I knew with a low draft number was sent on a mission. My brothers # was 4. He went to Bolivia.

As many of you pointed out candidate Trump never served the military and neither did any of this children. The same can be said for some other former high level Government officials and their children.

Trump isn't in this Senate race. He Supports Roy Moore.

Willard trashed Moore and naturally, Bannon is going to attack him for that and focus on the negatives that cut the wounds.

By the way, Doug Jones, the Democrat in this Alabama Senate race never served the armed forces either.

This about if Roy Moore is fit to serve on the Senate .Basically a person either believes his accusers or Roy Moore . What I fimd pathetic are people like McConnell who belive the women but still support Moore .By the way as a I want all sexual abusers out of government . I,wanted Bill Clinton out of government . I want Franken out I want Conyers out .being a basic decent human being and not a molester does matter

"By the way, Doug Jones, the Democrat in this Alabama Senate race never served the armed forces either."

Yeah- he was also a U.S. prosecuting Assistant AG.He prosecuted KKK members that bombed a black church as well as prosecuting the Olympic Park bomber. The man has more credibility in his little toe than Moore, Trump and Bannon combined.

I see that Sen. Hatch responded in typical fashion but nothing from Romney yet.

They probably had a lot of people joining the JWs back then too.
They are conscious objectors, so I wonder if they all got out of it. I didn't join the church until the early 80s, so I can't say about the Vietnam situation, but I can see a lot of young guys in the church being " motivated " to go on a mission back then, not knowing how long the war was going to last. I wonder if any got called after they served a mission still( the really young guys).
I know that living near a couple of military bases when my husband was in, the church had tons of military and later, a military ward.
The young adults though, had big groups of single GIs. A lot of them served missions before they went in, so they could of been pressured still to go on a mission first

To be fair, lots of young men back then were trying to figure out a legal way not to serve in Vietnam. It was a deeply unpopular war.

Having said that, the Mormon mission comes at a time when young people, particularly young men, might otherwise be drawn to military service. Yes, a Mormon can do both the mission and the military sequentially, but the mission does tend to complicate matters. I have to wonder if the Mormons have a lower rate of military service than other groups (or not.) I think it's a fair topic for discussion.

Several comments here re: Trump being Commander in Chief, yet it makes me angry to see him salute the military personnel always waiting for him as he descends the stairs of Air Force One upon returning from a trip.

I know what you mean; I hated Obama's half salute too. Most of
the time he looked perturbed that he had to salute back.
A lot of the modern presidents didn't serve though.Things were probably different in the old days, where a lot of the Presidents were prior military.
I think the same thing ,by calling Presidents with no military service " Commander in Chief". It takes a lot of getting used to.
( Unless they actually listen to their military advisers)

Some may be old enough here to remember what a fiasco it was, with government lies promoted by the media...until massive protests and the tide began to change. Would starting a nuclear war leveling North Korea be 'serving our country'?

At one time, wrkng on a RR was considered an Essential defense industry. I was in the PNW, wrkng on the RR, my draft board was in MN, so I didn't worry after my mish.

Was anyone punished for refusal to join the military after being drafted? IDKnow...

Cassius Clay, aka Mohammed Ali, was sentenced to 5 years in prison for refusing to be inducted. That was in April of 1967. He stayed out of prison pending his appeals and later that same year, in a 8 - 0 decision (Thurgood Marshall recused himself), the conviction was overturned by The Supremes. (Diana Ross also recused herself.)

Clay had declared himself to be a Conscientious Objector and his draft board had rejected this assertion and ordered him to report for induction. He showed up, but refused to step forward when called, so boom, he was arrested.

The conviction was overturned on the basis of the Supreme Court's finding that Clay's draft board had never declared WHY they rejected his claim to be a Conscientious Objector.

Here's a quite interesting read by a gentleman one year younger than me, written this year, regarding his anti-war, anti-draft activity and the consequences he suffered. It's not that long...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/opinion/vietnam-war-draft-protests.html

That is a moving article by, and about, a principled man.

It is unfortunate that the United States again finds itself in situation requiring such men.

Did mitt get the fake bone spur deferment also ?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did mitt get the fake bone spur deferment also ?

You must have a source on the "fake bone spur". Care to share?

Bone spurs were the reason Trump used to gain one of his deferments.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bone spurs were the reason Trump used to gain one
> of his deferments.

Yeah. Is there a source that his bone spurs were fake?

Just Wonderin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> "But Bannon saved perhaps his more stinging attack
> for former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney,
> who he accused of hiding behind his religion to
> avoid service in the Vietnam War."

There is devout MORmON Idiot Romney, attacking Moore over dating young /under age girls, when Romney's beloved MORmONISM was started by a Pervert -Joseph Smith who married / RAPED teen age girls.

There is the most stinging criticism of idiot Romney.