Besides, I brought some factual evidence to this thread to argue the point.
You, OTOH, are providing a list which you know is in error, and are inviting others to do your research for you.
Mr. Moto, I once again commend you for eschewing hardened partisan bickering since your trek into the desert and back.
Actually, it seems like all you’ve done is poked a hardened partisan stick at others since returning (see, e.g., your thread on how the Democrats will suffer due to opposition to the war).
Of course, it is fair to say that you have found a few errors on this particular list. The basic truth is, however, that those who brought this war onto us (and that starts with Bush, not Hussein, unless you are a completely hardened partisan moron), clearly dodged military service (Bush, Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, Perle…). In fact, I’d be interested to see a listing of the military service history of the folks from the PNAC.
I’m sure I’ll make note of your tearful rebuke of the hardened partisan positions here many times, but I suspect that it won’t prevent you from sniveling about how hardened and partisan folks on the left are when you make your reprise farewell, while failing to recognize that your primary contributions here both demonstrate and elicit nothing but hardened partisanship.
I think that a good case can be made that another war with Iraq was highly likely, but that still doesn’t change the fact that Bush el al picked a terrible time to initiate that war. Saddam posed no real threat us (WMDs or no WMDs), and going in without our full compliment of traditional allies plus the backing of the neighboring states was the height of folly.
Can you flesh out that argument more? I’m familiar with Bush’s military record (such as it is), but really don’t know anything about the others. Did they actually “dodge” the military, or did they just not serve? I know Cheney is taken to task for claiming he “had other priorities”, but that seems like a reasonable explanation to me. That’s why I never served in the military, and I suspect it’s an accurate explanation for pretty much anyone who didn’t. Clearly, if someone does “X” instead of “Y”, it’s because “X” was a higher priority. That’s true by definition.
I thought we agreed draft evasion was illegal, but draft avoidance was not. Clinton did not evade the draft, he avoided it; like Cheney and Ashcroft.
And you aren’t arguing from fact either, Hentor.
Bush is an honorably discharged veteran. He spent two years on full active duty learning how to fly one of the more dangerous airplanes the Air Force ever put into the sky, plus several more in drilling guard status.
Does it make him a war hero? Nope. But it doesn’t make him a coward either. In fact, crunching the numbers, it seems Bush was at least as much at risk flying the Delta Dagger than an infantryman was fighting in Vietnam.
Cheney got legal deferments. Now, we can surely argue whether the system was fair that granted them to him. I don’t believe that it was, and I’m happy that the system has since been changed.
However, I wonder why similar outrage isn’t directed against, say, Sen. Byron Dorgan. He never served, either, yet he had the audacity to vote to send our troops into harm’s way in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Positional authority counts. It trumps everything else. When Bill Clinton was president, it did not matter that his actions regarding the draft in the late 1960s weren’t strictly ethical. The mere fact that he was the elected Commander in Chief meant that his orders regarding the military stuck. and when I was in, I respected that.
Karl Rove was hired to do a job. His moral authority doesn’t mean squat. He has all the authority he needs from his position. He works for the President.
As for Byron Dorgan? He was elected also, and he has similar positional authority. Where his vote counts, it ought to be respected. And the fact that he isn’t a veteran doesn’t mean squat.
I doubt Kerry would have continued the Bush stupidity. While Shrub started it, Kerry could have ended it. , and may well have done so.
Gore would have had the option to go in and probably would have rejected it. Hell Bush is planning on Iran next. What a mess he has made.
I thought the rest of us agreed that you ought to retract your list.
I would say that’s a pretty dishonest method of argument. You’ve offered a list which has now shown to have had at least FOUR errors. Your response is apparently that you stand by the list, but for those four. This does not appear to be a good-faith offering of an argument, but a broad-brush attack where ytou make unsubstantiated allegations and require your opponents to disprove them.
Well, that’s not the way debate works. I could as easily refute you by saying, “Well, OK, the Republicans mentioned in your list were draft-dodgers, but so is every single member of the Democratic party ever elected to public office.”
An objector might respond, “What about John F. Kennedy? He served in the Navy - the famous PT-109!”
“OK, except for him.”
“And Jimmy Carter? He was a nuclear sub officer in the Navy.”
“OK, him too. That’s two. but every OTHER Democrat was a draft-dodger.”
I trust you see the flaw in this method of argument.
As always, the person making the claim is required to bear the burden of proof. A person posting a list and making a claim might rely on their own reputation for honest, good-faith debate as establishing a prima facie case for their claim - “My post is my cite,” as it were.
You, on the other hand, don’t seem to be interested in that. As counter-examples surface to vitiate your list’s trustworthiness, you don’t seek to independently validate what you’ve posted.
So – let me knock off two more: Saxy Chambliss, who was medically 4F due to abnormal tracking of the patella, and Rudy Guiliani, who was 1A after his graduation for a year, then reclassified as 2A, civilian occupation deferment, as an essential civilian employee as a judge’s clerk. That deferment ran one year and Guiliani was reclassified 1A; he drew a high lottery number and was never called.
At this point, I’d say your list is shit: if you have any claims about anybody, post your claim and some supporting documentation. The simple posting of names has zero credibility left.
Why? We can’t even agree on what “Draft Dodging” means. As far as this thread goes it ranges all over the place.:
Does it mean:
Someone who flees the country to evade the draft?
Someone stays in the country, but fails to report when ordered by the draft board?
Someone who believes the War* is immoral or illegal, and uses every legal means to avoid conscription?
Someone who believes the War* is just and necessary, but has priorities other than military service, and uses every legal means to avoid conscription?
Someone who is eligible to serve, but elects not to?
The definition we agree on will greatly influence the length of my list. The only ones I am excluding at this point are those who were not old enough at the time the draft ended. I will eschew any other retraction until we can agree on what the hell a “draft dodger” is.
*for the purposes of this definition, “the War” refers to the Viet Nam Conflict.
I agree that the list has been shown to be essentially worthless.
I’m also going to (somewhat warily) agree with the point I think Mr. Moto was making in his last post (#85): it is completely irrelevant to me today whether a politician avoided or evaded the draft thirty-five or forty years ago legally, illegally, or by skating though on a technicality.
What matters is what that politician does today, what effect his policies and votes have on the country today, and this whole fussing about how people didn’t go to Vietnam thing has no relevance to that.
Just a stipulation: Whether someone served, and their record when they were in, is a sign of character that can be evaluated when voting for someone. I don’t think anyone will argue that point.
I don’t think military service ought to be the sole criterion on judging a politician’s character. Again, I don’t think this is controversial either.
Once a politician is in office, they have all the authority they need to make decisions that may impact the military solely by virtue of the trust the voters have placed in them. At that point, their status as a veteran, civilian, or draft dodger is a moot point.
I don’t know if I would consider mere service, or lack thereof, as a sign of character, but if you want to, feel free. Exceptionally good or bad service would show character.
Certainly, I’m not going to say military service is completely beside the point when forming an opinion of a politician and deciding whether to vote for that person. I’m saying that in regard to arguing whether a vote or a policy made by that politician is good or bad, it’s beside the point there.
I think we’re largely in agreement on this point.
I agree that “draft dodger” is not a term remarkable for its razor-edge clarity of definition.
I’d say that there are these broad schools:
[ol]
[li]Legally cognizable instances of dodging the draft: being ordered to report and failing to do so[/li][li]Illegally manipulating the system: bribing the draft board, blackmailing a doctor into finding you 4F, claiming a student deferment with forged transcripts – all of these might result in not being drafted, but the result was procured illegally[/li][li]Legally but unethically manipulating the system – lying to the draft board concerning future intentions to joining, pressuring the draft board into issuing undeserved deferments, claiming to be gay if you’re not, claiming to be a conscientious objector if you’re not – all of these might result in not being drafted, but the result is unethically (but legally) obtained[/li][li]Joining the Armed Services in such a way as to minimize or eliminate the chance of seeing combat – joining the Guard or Reserves, joining the Coast Guard, pressuring armed services to assign you to safe areas or occupations[/li][/ol]
In my view, items 1 and 2 clearly establish “draft dodger.” Item 3 might be called that, but it gives rise to an almost impossible to define standard, with advocates for each side arguing about whether a particular action was unethical. In the majority of cases, lacking a clear and definitive standard for “unethical,” I think arguments would reach an impasse. I would argue that for this reason, we cut off the definition at 2.
Finally, I’d argue that item 4 should certainly not be considered draft-dodging.
Here’s a thought: let’s go with the definition in the OP.