It is questionable whether Bush would have made the same decision now. Considering that there is a decades-wide gap between his supposedly dodging service and his support for the Iraq war, it is a bit unfair to expect decades of his life to match up now. Rather like accusing a parent of hypocrisy when he spanks his child when he tried to avoid spanking when he was a child.
Monty,
Try going to this link:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/konformist/message/1614
Notice Ashcroft’s position was “arranged” for him. Does this sound like a guy who was ready and willing to go to Vietnam? Doesn’t seem so to me.
I looked up the above link for you. Now see if you can find how Ashcroft’s job was “vital”. Please let me know the Selective Service exemption for teaching law and how “vital” it is to the National Interest.
Spavined: The thing you missed, in your intentional refusal to understand the point, is that the president wasn’t “dressing up as a war hero.” He was wearing the appropriate gear for the flight to the ship. In other, simpler words: he was wearing exactly what the folks who fly the thing, even as passengers, wear. I suppose you’d rather he flew buck naked?
wolf: So you’re ignoring what the link you provided and what I said above. Just because your opinion has his job at the time not being considered critical, the powers that were–and they, not you–were the ones who got to decide that. How was it of national interest? Apparently, the board decided that teaching at a university, where he could educate some folks who would in turn get to serve as commissioned officers possibly, was a worthwile decision. You keep pointing out that he applied for a deferment, but you keep bitching about it being approved. If he really was a scoundrel (on this issue–I think he’s a scoundrel for others), he’d’ve done something else, like flee the country.
Notice that the link I mentioned said Ashcroft’s job was “ARRANGED by an SMSU professor”. (see ? it helps to know the “right” people). Also, further down the article, it states that “Under Selective Service guidelines in force in 1967, Ashcroft’s position was not deemed critical to the economy, according to documents examined by the Globe…”.
Maybe a good method to test public opinion of NOT having served in 'Nam would be to go to the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial Wall on Memorial Day. Then tell the relatives & friends of those who died in Vietnam “I would have gone to 'Nam but I was teaching law … OR … I was 2 pounds overweight…OR I had a bad knee but I was fortunate enough to be able to play pro football for the Buffalo Bills” I bet those excuses will go down very poorly with that audience.
No, I am NOT against anyone who had a draft deferment. But I like to see deferments that are somewhere within the realm of reality. Don’t you think the above 3 examples are “pushing it” just a bit? Perhaps visitors to the wall would like to know about some of the folks whose names AREN’T on the wall … and why.
Again, a highjack of a thread about military service as a qualification for public office. Apparently our friend Monty thinks this is a discussion of men’s clothing style.
Monty can you point out for my benefit the public policy or national defense considerations that required the President to fly onto a carrier kept circling off the West Coast for an extra day in order for the President to give the crew a nationally televised speech of congratulation? The President may well have been dressed appropriately for the flight–just as he would be appropriately dressed as the San Diego Chicken if public policy and national defense considerations compelled the President to entertain the crowd at a baseball game in San Diego. The whole thing was theater, show biz, smoke and mirrors. The fundamental and prominent reason for whole thing was produce a film bite for the presidential campaign. Nothing more, nothing less. If films of the thing don’t show up on the TV ads for the presidential election, I’ll eat my hat.
A buck naked Bush might well offend the Attorney General.
Shall we get back on topic, now?
Spavined,
Good point. George W Bush COULD have decided to land in a helicopter but it doesn’t have the same drama and impact as a jet fighter doing a “tail hook” landing. Plus (and I’m guessing here) helicopter attire is probably just a boring business suit.
No question - it was staged !!!
The last Democratic president also beat a decorated veteran for election in the first place.
And Reagan beat a former naval officer, Carter. And Carter replaced another formal naval officer, Ford.
In fact, I find this interesting.
Bush ® - avoided draft
Gore (D) - served
Clinton (D) - avoided draft
Dole ® - decorated war hero
Bush ® - decorated veteran
Bush ® - decorated veteran
Dukakis (D) - veteran
Reagan ® - avoided draft (sort of)
Mondale (D) - served
Carter (D) - naval officer
Carter (D) - naval officer
Ford ® - naval officer
Nixon ® - veteran
McGovern (D) - decorated veteran
Humphrey (D) - did not serve
Johnson (D) - decorated veteran
Kennedy (D) - decorated veteran
Nixon ® - veteran
Eisenhower ® - duh
Stevenson (D) - didn’t serve
Truman (D) - veteran
Dewey ® - didn’t serve
I find it interesting that this problem of served vs. not served hasn’t even come up since Eisenhower (and I don’t know if an issue was made out of Stevenson’s non-service, but I don’t think so).
And it certainly didn’t come up during the Reagan years.
So why now? Answer - Republicans made it a big deal with Clinton. Otherwise, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
Are we really back on this again? Face it: the Bush team did something smart and daring from a PR perspective, and it paid off as a great photo op. End of story.
It’s easy to say why it is a BIG issue now.
The people who were of draft age when the Vietnam War was in “full swing” are NOW the ones seeking or already holding political office. (Basically, folks in their early fifties).
Now all of a sudden the folks who weaseled out of the draft (particularly the hawkish right-wing types) are realizing it is getting somewhat hypocritical to take a firm, pro-war stance when they themselves took an easy “out”.
That’s why.
Maybe in another decade it will become inconsequential when people born in the 1960’s will become the primary office seekers and they were about 12 when the Vietnam War ended.
Last I checked, the Reserve Components qualify as Military Service. Now that some of y’all’re trying to make it an issue, here’s the lowdown on why it was a good idea to keep that ship where it was: those serving aboard were thrilled that the dude showed up when and how and where he did. It really gets your goat that many military folks like the current president, doesn’t it? FTR: I didn’t vote for the man.
Well, except there are two other possibilities, both of which could be honorable and non-hypocritical
-
Their views on the use of military force may have changed over the years. I’m only 27, but my views on various topics have changed since I was 17, for example. It’s probably highly unlikely that somebody would have the same views at 50 that they had at 20. They’ve had thirty years more experience, and different experiences, to alter their views.
-
Those people who are hawks now and either opposed the Vietnam war or never served might not have been against the idea of war…just the idea of war with Vietnam. It’s possible to believe both that we should have gone to war with Iraq and not gone to war with North Vietnam.
You just will not let go of it, will you Monty? A few observations if you please.
First, during the war in Vietnam anybody who was paying attention knew that the best, least dangerous way of making sure that you would not be put in a green suit, handed a rifle and sent off to a place where little people would shoot at you was to join the National Guard. It was a publicly announced policy of the federal government to rely on the regular forces and conscripts to fight the war. Joining the Guard was the best way out. If you were in the Guard you did not have to enroll in seminary and read all that boring Bible stuff to keep your exemption, you did not have to cut off your foot with a band saw, you did not have to go on a six month eating binge to become over weight and also unattractive to women, you did not have to haul your self to some foreign country with the prospect never being able to return. If you joined the Guard all you had to do was go to an abbreviated boot camp (unless you could get your self made an instant officer), put a weekend every month and go off on a two-week combination camping trip and beer bust every summer. The worst thing that would happen is that your governor would get all riled up and send you off to shoot a college students. The Guard was a safe billet. The only problem was that everybody knew it and it was very difficult to get into the Guard without considerable string pulling. If you were a senator’s son or a pro-football player you had a fair chance of a slot opening up. Other wise, it was off to Oakland Army Depot and the big bird to Tonsanout. Don’t tell me that our President is any sort of a veteran.
Please note that the National Guard of today and the National Guard of 1965-1972 are two different things. A fair portion of the forces in the field in Gulf I and II were NG–all honor to them.
Second, I doubt if any sailor on that aircraft carrier would not have been happy to swap the chance to be in the background of a Reelect the President film clip for the chance to be home one day earlier.
Third, political support by soldiers is an iffie thing. Most lower ranking EM are pretty well apolitical and senior people tend to go with simplistic and direct answers. I have yet to meet a First Sergeant who was a serious political thinker. The soldier culture is a macho culture and people in uniform who think different tend to keep their mouths shut.
So…Should women who run for the Presidency be held to this same standard?
There are plenty of ways to serve your country that don’t involve military service.
Besides, I prefer the courage of a Mohammed Ali who went to prison rather than be in the military.
Amen to that.
I’d like to make a suggestion to the Bush-bashers/Clinton-lovers posting here. The next time you bump into one of our brave service men or women, ask them who they would prefer to see as commander in chief: GWB or WJC. I don’t think you’ll be too surprised by what the most common answer will be.
Now we all know that a poll is not necessarily the right way to answer a question. But I think our military servicemen/women are uniquely positioned to offer some good insight.
And with that I’ll say that I wouldn’t trust Bill Clinton to be an ammo loader. The man simply had no idea.
AD: But I bet he could organize a damn fine commitee to examine the social impact of ammo loading on the working families of America.
A few IMO comments:
-
I do not think it is mandatory for a President/Commander-in-Chief to have served in the military. Competent leadership is competent leadership, and does not necessarily have to come from a battlefield.
-
I, personally, am not grossly upset that George W. Bush wiggled into the Texas Air National Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam. I simply see it as him doing the same thing Clinton did, namely gaming the system so he didn’t have to put his butt on the line.
-
What does irk me are the folks who bash one guy’s military non-service while complimenting the other guy’s military non-service. If you want to be outraged at Clinton/Bush for not serving in Vietnam, at least be equally outraged at Bush/Clinton for also not serving in Vietnam. Or, if you take the view (as I do) that it’s not a big deal, then make it not-a-big deal for both guys.
-
I have nothing but the utmost respect for America’s armed forces – anyone who is willing to risk his or her life for the country deserves nothing less. But in return for their commitment, I – as a citizen and a voter – have an obligation to make sure that these servicefolks are not risking their lives needlessly. If we’re putting their lives on the line, we are morally obligated to make sure that the conflicts we send them into are right and proper and just. The worst thing a Commander-in-chief could do is to needlessly endanger his troops for a petty cause.
All IMO, anyway, as if anyone cares.
RJUNG: I pretty much agree with everything you just said. The one thing I would add about Clinton though, is the famous letter he wrote to some Senator about wanting to make sure his military non-service and how he wiggled out of it did not appear in the public record and thus “compromise his future political aspirations” or something like that. Man, the guy was scheming about how to PR himself into the presidency when he was 18 for God’s sake! Meanwhile, Bush was whooping it up at Yale. Anyway, it’s a minor point and many, many individuals did all they could to avoid the draft in the Vietnam era. I lived thru that time (just young enough to have missed the draft), and it tore the country apart. I wouldn’t want to go thru that again. And, BTW, the situation now with polarized views on the Iraq war is nothing like the Vietnam era.
John Mace - know why Gulf War 2 produced NOTHING like the polarization, the anger and bitterness of the Vietnam Era?
- NO Draft
- It didn’t just drag on and on for YEARS with no progress and with HUGE casualties mounting up every day.
I am NOT minimizing what our troops recently did (and continue to do in Iraq). Just makes me wish we could have go into Vietnam with the same clear objective - either that or we shouldn’t have gone into Vietnam whatsoever. Seems half-hearted commitments can end up being very costly.