Horsefeathers. Clinton may have been a chicken but he wasn’t a hawk. He was a very reluctant warrior at best. He at least was able to recognize a failed situation in Somalia when he saw one, cut his losses and withdrew. Unlike Kerry and Bush, Clinton didn’t have high connections to avoid Vietnam, but of course he was able to get a student deferment, similar to what Dick Cheney and Karl Rove received- two other genuine chickenhawks.
We all know that Bush is an “honorably discharged veteran” only through the magic of bureaucratic string-pulling. At that time, everybody knew that National Guard service was simply a way out of Vietnam. But even dodging the war wasn’t enough- he had to dodge the dodge and then lie about it.
Yes, but BobLibDem, he dodged and lied with guts and honor. More honor than that limp-wristed Frenchman of a Bostonian elitist, when he was pulling people out of the water and putting himself in harms way. Sissy! Now, if only he could have spun a satisfactory story about his ribbons, then, and only then, could we consider him a man of integrity!
That Clinton was a reluctant warrior is irrelevant. The president, as commander-in-chief, must be a warrior at times. The controlling factor here is not the president’s past history in the Guard, the jungle, or the halls of Oxford University. It is the results of the last presidential election, and the immediate national security circumstances.
I really don’t see why this isn’t clear to some people. It’s just plain common sense.
When I was in the Navy, I may have wished that my Commander-in-Chief hadn’t avoided military service in the Vietnam era. But I followed his orders because I was duty bound to do so. His orders carried as much moral weight as they would have if he had been a war hero like John Kerry.
As I said before, anybody who unduly criticizes Bush for his service during the Vietnam era while letting Clinton off the hook for an even greater offense is a hypocrite. There can be no two ways about it.
Let’s remember, Clinton’s opponent in 1992 was the youngest Navy pilot during World War II, a winner of the Distinguished Flying Cross. His opponent in 1996 was a double awardee of the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. He was also partially paralyzed in battle in World War II.
Neither of these genuine war heroes were able to beat a civilian. I’m not saying they should have - there are many issues in politics. But it just shows the limits of the “chickenhawk” label. The American public is smart enough to weigh military service along with other kinds of service, evaluate it along with other issues, and decide accordingly.
Did I miss something? Exactly what was Clinton’s “even greater offense?”
Um, that would be avoiding the draft entirely, and never entering any kind of military service at all.
Thank you for the clarification. Are you saying that anyone that received a student deferment is guilty of a great offense? If so, do you hold Cheney and Rove to the same standard?
I’m really trying to understand this. I can understand as a veteran why you might not like Clinton. I can also understand why Kerry’s throwing of his ribbons or medals or whatever they were might be offensive to you. What I’m having a hard time with is why Bush gets a free pass. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this.
Suppose for a moment that Kerry picks a fellow war veteran as his running mate. Then you’d have a Democratic ticket of two that actually faced enemy fire, vs. the Republican ticket of Bush, who ducked into the Guard and then out of the Guard and Cheney, who got both a student and a parental deferment. Why would veterans line up behind the GOP?
BobLibDem, that’s just the point. Nobody gets a free pass in politics. Kerry certainly doesn’t get one just because he’s a Vietnam veteran.
He’s answering every single question remotely related to national security with his veteran’s status. And that doesn’t answer any questions about, say, his record in the Senate on defense matters or veteran’s benefits. Or any other issues, all of which a voter must weigh before heading into the booth.
I’m a conservative Republican. I’d be inclined to vote for George Bush because his positions are more in line with mine. I wouldn’t vote for John Kerry, despite his status as a war hero, because I don’t agree with him on the issues.
I wish George Bush had a better record during Vietnam, though I see nothing inherently dishonorable about his service. Indeed, it’s similar to the service my father served as an Army reservist from 1966 to 1972.
I can’t speak for other veterans. But the Democratic Party has neglected national defense and a strong stance on international relations as party priorities for years. Bill Clinton even named a Republican as defense secretary, in part to counter this impression.
The most dovish, anti-military politicians in America are invariably found on the Democratic side of the aisle. Service members and veterans know this, and this accounts in part for the GOP’s historic strength with these voters.
I’d expect a dovish, anti-military President to make the following quotes:
The source of these reductions in the military- George HW Bush’s State of the Union Address, 1992.
How many of the military spending reduction votes that Bush derides Kerry for were at the request of his father?
I don’t know off hand. But it would be a far healthier debate than this Vietnam-era bullshit.
Besides, I’ve seen documentation of Kerry calls for massive cuts in defense spending in his 1984 senate run. That’s when we were still in the Cold War, and had big defense needs. We had to modernize the forces from Vietnam era equipment to some of the stuff we’re fighting with now.
John Kerry, at that time, as I said before, called for a 50 percent reduction in the Tomahawk program. I wonder if he’d relent in that view, considering how vital the Tomahawk has become as the Navy’s premier strike weapon.
Hey, I agree with that 100%. I knew we’d find common ground!
As well, it also, in part, accounts for the gazillions of bucks we have poured into the military machine. As I’m sure friend Moto is aware, “account for” is a phrase given very liberal interpretation over at the Pentagon, overlooked in thier patriotic haste to do every thing possible to protect and serve Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Boeing. Have we the time to review, even cursorily, the scandals of waste, mismanagement, and sheer graft connected to our military budgeting over say, the past five years? I think not.
Mr. Moto presents an entirely credible image as a person of conscience, deeply concerned with truth and honor. He must therefore be troubled by his candidate’s efforts to slur and impugn the integrity of Sen. Kerry’s voting record, suggesting that somehow Mr. Kerry is uninterested in the safety and well-being of our soldiers. An alternative explanation, one that gets no notice in his haste to protect America from the insidious machinations of wimpy liberals, is the Sen. Kerry does not see the merit in squandering huge sums of money to protect us from non-existent threats by means of expensive, unworkable programs.
We are assured, for instance, that just a few more tens of billions of dollars, and we may rest in our beds secure from North Korean intercontintental missiles. We are assured that Operation Urgent Fury, the bold and decisive assault on Fortress Granada, has made us secure from the evil machinations of Cuban bulldozers.
As a conservative, friend Moto is, no doubt, deeply troubled by our government’s corruption and venality, the regrettable tendency of liberals to try to solve the problems of poverty by allocation of money. Oddly, this standard is not to be applied when it comes to the military, we are given to understand that skepticism can be directly interpreted as a lack of patriotism, a corruption of the moral fiber so dear to conservative hearts.
But surely there is room for question? Scandal after scandal marches across our headlines, Google “Pentagon procurement scandal” and you’ll need a shovel. Does Mr. Moto offer specifics, or does his Beloved Leader, the Man Who Fell Up? Can he point out for us wherein Sen. Kerry deliberately, and with malice aforethought, voted to weaken the defenses of our nation, the Shining Citadel on the Hill?
Mr. Kerry’s explanations for his voting records are entirely sound. He objected to “smoke and mirrors” budgeting practices, he was concerned with the means suggested to obtain the end, not with the end itself. That is his job, that was what he was sent there to do, to “advise and consent”. Are we given to understand, despite all evidence to the contrary, that every single military appropriations bill is a shining example of legislative excellence, immune to criticism by the Unworthy? Surely not.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon Mr. Moto to be specific, to point out precisely wherein Sen. Kerry has failed in his duty to protect the stockholders of Raytheon and General Dynamics. A blanket slur, even one knitted in the semblance of our flag, is not adequate.
I’ll be very specific, elucidator. Cutting the Tomahawk program in half in the mid 1980’s, as John Kerry advocated, would not have trimmed the fat in that program. It would have ended that program.
The Navy would therefore be forced to used carrier aircraft to attack more targets in hostile areas, especially those protected by antiaircraft defenses. That means more dead American pilots.
John Kerry should answer whether or not he thinks that was a good idea at the time.
I refer Mr. Moto to the Annenberg Foundation estimable project on culling out political hyperbole called FactCheck. For starters, this:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177
headlined:
**More Bush Distortions of Kerry Defense Record **
Latest barrage of ads repeats misleading claims that Kerry “repeatedly opposed” mainstream weapons.
I doubt he will find this particularly enlightening, I rather imagine he is fully aware of these distortions, but most likely regards them as “politics as usual”, unseemly, perhaps, but necessary if one is to keep power out of the hands of the Unworthy.
Of interest is this article in Slate:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/
"…The claim about these votes was made in the Republican National Committee “Research Briefing” of Feb. 22. The report lists 13 weapons systems that Kerry voted to cut—the ones cited above, as well as Patriot air-defense missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and AH64 Apache helicopters, among others.
It is instructive, however, to look at the footnotes. Almost all of them cite Kerry’s vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically…"
“…In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty…”
(emphasis added in appreciation of drollery…)
Do I claim this is a “slam dunk” (to use the phrase so enobled of late)? No, only that there is a great deal more to these questions about Mr. Kerry’s record on defense spending than Mr. Moto seems to sincerely believe. Quite a bit more.
Liberal Democrat Dopers, just a quick question.
If George Bush came home from Vietnam, chest full of medals, became a war protester, and then dedicated his life to public service, would you vote for him today?
Not a single one of you would, and for good reason. It’s because George Bush is a pro-life, tax-cutting, conservative Republican. And liberal Democrats don’t vote for conservative Republicans.
Why, then, should it shock you that this conservative Republican doesn’t want to vote for a liberal Democrat?
I’m not an idiot, you know. If I vote for John Kerry, and he gets in, he’s going to do things I don’t like. I’ll avoid this problem by not voting for the man in the first place.
Why, gosh, never thought of that! Boy, that sure exposes the hypocrisy at the very heart of all liberal politics, don’t it?
I have no inherent objection to tax cuts. I have an objection when those tax cuts favor those who don’t need the money. I have a concern when I am advised that better than half the corporations in America pay no taxes whatsoever. I am concerned with an administration eager to lift the dreadful burden of environmental regulation from the worthy shoulders of businessmen, as Mr. Bush has done with such wild success in Texas. (I am advised that the air around Houston is scheduled to be non-toxic in the very near future.)
As to “pro-life”…ah!..such an artful phrasing! Goodness, who isn’t “pro-life”? Personally, I think abortion is repugnant. I would be very distressed if it became, like it became in Soviet Russia, the primary option for family planning. But it isn’t my body, and it isn’t my choice to make. Further, to cut off funding for desperately needed family planning programs in third world countries simply for advising on the facts of abortion is revoltingly ideological. It doesn’t toss out the baby with the bath water, it calls in an airstrike on the bath tub!
So, yes, of course, vote any way you like. But be so kind as not to present your prejudices as hard-won facts. If you have the facts, bring it. As to baseless slurs and innuendoes, you can rest assured your efforts are needless, that is in the skilled hands of professional scoundrels. Those fellows over there, wrapped in patriotic bunting.
I guess I qualify to answer. No, I would not vote for Mr. Bush in that scenario. But I would respect him more. I have the world of respect for Bob Dole and George HW Bush, two very courageous men who served their country well. But I don’t base my vote on military service or lack thereof. Each of us places different weights on the importance of military experience when we look at candidates. But if I did value military service higher as a voting criteria, I’d definitely give the nod to Kerry over Bush, particularly if Kerry chose a vet as a running mate. I’d say it would then be two eagles vs. a duck and a chicken- pardon the fowl language.
Calm down, elucidator.
I was merely pointing out that Republicans tend to vote Republican, and Democrats Democratic. BobLibDem in particular seemed puzzled by this simple point, lost as is was in the swirling controversy of draft-dodging and medal-tossing.
And you can’t argue with my main point, can you? Did you vote for George H.W. Bush, war hero? Did you vote for Bob Dole, war hero? Betcha you didn’t. Be honest now.
Excuseay Mwah, but did I ever suggest that war heroism, or lack thereof, was of any significance to my personal vote? I have personally known men who would be at the very top of my list for comrade, in the unlikely event that aging hipsters are suddenly thrust into foxholes. Several of them are splendid fellows who would make excellent administrators. Several others are borderline psychos who should be kept locked up until needed, and then unleashed.
Mr. Kerry runs on his veteran’s status, and I shrug. If that works, fine, and he has earned the right to use it to his advantage. But if he is a political cynic, merely leveraging whatever means at his disposal, he certainly went about it in an odd way. Aligning himself with the anti-war movement in 1971 was not a move of political calculation, I can attest with complete assurance that it was not a popular opinion. Boy, can I attest!
So your insinuation that I offer a double standard as regards veteran status falls upon sharp ears, yet, it falls. Flat. If you had told me in 1971 that Mr. Kerry might make a credible run for the Presidency, or that an avowed draft-dodger like Clinton might be elected, I would have wondered what you had been smoking. And likely would have asked to share.
Mr Moto
In the primaries (since the Democratic nominee was “locked up”) I did vote for Bob Dole (1996) and John McCain (2000). AND had John McCain received the Republican nomination I would have voted for him. He had the option to leave a prisoner of war camp yet chose to stay with his fellow prisoners. (I believe it was because he too had an influential Dad (in the military) and could have taken the easy way out - but didn’t). I notice you have avoided mention of John McCain.
As for George Bush Sr., I thought it was sleazy of the media to second-guess what he did when he ditched his plane at sea and his fellow crewmates died. Ditching a plane at sea is not the easy task that people imagine it to be.
For those interested, here is what John Kerry advocated in his 1984 Senate campaign regarding defense. Hyperlinks are to scanned images of his campaign flyer.
http://users.wi.net/~johnh/KerryOnDefense1984_1.jpg
http://users.wi.net/~johnh/KerryOnDefense1984_2.jpg
Now, in addition to cutting Tomahawk, as mentioned above, what else did John Kerry call for?
He called for cancellation of the Marine Corps’ Harrier jet program, which provides air support to Marine forces on the ground.
He called for cancellation of the Aegis cruiser program. Aegis cruisers, and now also Aegis destroyers, are vital parts of carrier battle groups, providing air defense for the carrier itself. In addition, the cruisers and destroyers carry the Tomahawk missiles that give the Navy additional strike capability. I was proud to serve on an Aegis cruiser for two years, so I know first hand what capabilities it provides to the Navy.
He called for cancellation of the F-15 and F-14 programs. Our military is now, in 2004, critically short of fighter aircraft. This problem would have been disastrous if these aircraft programs had been cancelled in 1984.
He called for cancellation of the Navy’s only long range air-to-air missile, the Phoenix, with nothing to replace it.
Now, I know a campaign document doesn’t translate to votes on the floor. And it’s possible that John Kerry came to his senses later. But this flyer is not reasonable in the context of the threats in the world in 1984, and John Kerry was irresponsible in advocating these cuts.
For those wanting a debate, here’s something to debate. It has nothing to do with medals, medical records, SUV’s, or ski slopes. And it has a direct impact on the sort of fighting force we’re fielding today. If John Kerry had his way, in 1984, they’d be fighting in Afghanistan with the same gear he had in 'Nam.