In a thread about draft dodgers, you bring up Colin Powell?
He did not join ROTC as promised, and ROTC was a last-ditch effort made to avoid pending induction. In order to get in, he had had to call in favors from Senator Fullbright’s office and Cliff Jackson, an acquaintance now working for the Republican Party in the state. When he asked for the reclassification in late 1969, the new Nixon administration was already contemplating changes to the draft that would have made it unlikely that Clinton would have gone.
Indeed, soon afterward the lottery system started choosing numbers. Clinton drew a 311, and didn’t go.
All in all, he went to extraordinary lengths to avoid induction, using political connections and skipping commitments to do so. These facts are pretty much not in dispute, and the only controversy surrounding them is the level to which they matter anymore.
I find your distinction of who is and who is not a draft dodher quite artificial. I know a fair amount about this since I was a trained anti-draft counselor. We tried to get people out of the draft by any means necessary, This included:
[ul]
Not registering,
Student deferments,
Religious/concientious objector deferments,
Health issues,
And, if all else failed, going underground or fleeing to Canada/Sweden
[/ul]I have no doubt boil-on-his-fat-ass Limbaugh had strings pulled by his rich father. Clinton at least had the guts to openly oppose the war. W, in contrast, took time off from the National Guard to work on the campaign of a pro-war congressman. Clinton opposed the war and tried every means to get out of it. W supported the war and joined the National Guard to get out of it, then didn’t complete his commitment. I know who the scumbag is in that comparison.
He had no commitment to the ROTC unit. He was free to change his mind up to the time he reported for duty. He availed himself of that right, and was reclassified 1-A. For someone who considers draft-dodging a serious charge, you play pretty fast and loose with your facts.
Well, considering that he copied it from a glurgey partisan email forward, its lack of reliability is hardly a surprise. The “full” version comes with a list of Democrats who got medals. Ah, intellectual rigor. Mortis, that is.
It doesn’t matter if he had a commitment to the ROTC unit. He had a commitment to his draft board. They were the ones who gave him a deferment in the first place specifically so that he could pursue ROTC training.
For someone who would criticize Rick Santorum for simply not joining an all-volunteer force (from your list above), you seem to be giving Bill Clinton quite a pass here. Might I ask why?
For the same reason you are damning Bill Clinton and not Dick Cheney. Both used legal means to avoid the draft. Yet I don’t hear you excoriating the vice president.
Mr Moto
Perhaps Bill Clinton did not know the “right people” like John Ashcroft did. Maybe upon graduation Clinton could have had his civilian job designated as “vital”. However, if we adhere to the letter of the law (actually I think Monty is doing that more than you), then Clinton is a draft-dodger but good old John Ashcroft was in total compliance with the law.
I think a quote from Anatole France would be appropriate here:
“The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
Now that I think of it, this subject has been beaten to death on the SDMB (and I think I participated in every one of those threads). I wonder why Monty started this one right out of the blue.
What would you want me to say?
Look at Jim Doyle, governor of Wisconsin. He seems to have received a deferment after college in the late 1960s. Why isn’t he on your list, and why aren’t you criticising him as well as Cheney for using legal deferments?
If you like, I will stipulate that Clinton avoided the draft. Since draft dodging is indeed a loaded term, maybe this will defuse things somewhat.
Well he did get a student deferment :rolleyes: . Of course he joined ROTC and served in the Army for 35 years.
For the record, I am not criticizing Jim Doyle, who had a Peace Corps deferment. He also was obeying the law, playing within the rules, and performing useful service.
I am skeptical of people who only seem to place military service above other forms of service on those occasions where their opponent is lacking in that particular credential. It is a bit of a shallow argument.
I noticed Bill Frist was on the list that Fear Itself provided. He graduated college in 1974, and medical school in 1978. The world needs doctors as well as soldiers, so he doesn’t seem to belong on that list.
I never claimed my list was comprehensive. You compile yours, we’ll compile ours, then let’s compare them. Let’s see whose list is longer.
Stipulation accepted.
Like the income tax, draft avoidance is not a crime; draft evasion is. But pointing out draft avoiders in the Republican party holds substantially more meaning when held up against the hawkish history of the party, its devotion to military service and the shrill criticism levelled against Clinton for doing the same thing. Due largely to the incessant swiftboating by the right-wing lie machine, no one expects Democrats to be patriotic, or serve their country or defend their nation in times of war. Yes, Republicans must answer to a higher standard, since they placed themselves on that lofty pedestal to begin with.
Oh bull!
Pointing out draft avoiders in the Democratic Party ought to hold just as much meaning, given that party’s hawkish history and devotion to military service.
After all, it was Democrats who got us into both World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Plus, the last Democratic nominee put himself on a bit of a pedestal in this area, didn’t he? And didn’t numerous Democratic senators and representatives vote to approve military action in both Iraq and Afghanistan?
So add some Democrats to your poorly researched list, already noted as wrong in many parts. At least then you can be wrong in a bipartisan fashion.
Better yet, recant your list. It isn’t right or fair, and numerous people have told you so.
Why “Republicans”? How about anyone who places THEMSELVES on that pedastal? By the same measure that they judge others, they shall be judged against.
So if Rush Limbaugh slams Bill Clinton as a draft dodger, then he deserves to be slammed back twice as hard. But the mere fact that a person is a member of the Republican party does not mean they must answer to a higher standard. If they whine about draft dodgers and how kids today won’t make sacrifices then fine, fire away. Otherwise, if they avoided service honorably, so what?
I avoided service honorably, we’ve had a volunteer military since I was 10 years old or so. Does that mean I should shut my fucking pie hole during discussions of military topics? Does that mean I have no right to advocate for the use of military force, because I never volunteered for the military? Only veterans are qualified to hold opinions about war?
I don’t think “lied to his draft board” is correct. What seems to have happened is that Clinton used his connections to avoid the draft in much the same way Bush did, although Bush did actually join the National Guard, whereas Clinton did not sign up for the ROTC as he told Col. Holmes. From Col. Eugene Holmes (the guy to whom Clinton wrote his famous letter about the draft):
And from the letter he sent to Col. Holems, it’s pretty clear that Clinton “avoided” the draft, even by his own admission:
Clinton also opposed the war; therefore, avoiding it is neither cowardly nor unethical. In fact, it was his duty to do so, legally or otherwise. Going to war and killing people when you personally believe that to be wrong is one of the most vile things a person can do.
That’s quite different than supporting the war and avoiding going there yourself.
Mr Moto
It’s good to see that you have been courteously replying to all the charges that “Dopers” (including myself) have hurled at conservatives / Repubicans / war mongers, whatever. (Then again, I think the “charge hurlers” have also been respectful).
I find this laudable in comparison to Monty, whose replies have been something less than polite. As I said, I think it’s funny he started this thread “out of the blue” so to speak. I won’t say anymore because he isn’t online right now but Mr Moto, Monty could sure as Hell learn a lot from your message board etiquette.
Not out of the blue. Presumably in response to this thread. See post #10.
Because he was the voice of reason in the conferences. Those with no experience were more hawkish and wanted to control the services. They dodged yet somehow became experts on running the army and over ruled someone who actually did.