Well, at least that is his campaign message.
Perhaps Clinton was cowardly, but at least he wasn’t a hypocrite.
Actually, I’ll posit that he wasn’t a hypocrite, but for the same reasons that make Bush similarly not a hypocrite.
I was in the Navy from 1993 to 1998. These were busy years for the military. I personally participated in operations involving the former Yugoslavia.
There were service members killed in combat under Clinton’s watch.
Now, does Clinton’s status as a draft avoider invalidate his authority to send people into conflict? Or is this authority vested in his office, and accrues to him by his being legally elected to it, regardless of past history?
Something to ponder, anyway.
If someone was saying that Bush doesn’t have the moral authority to send troops into either Afghanistan or Iraq since he was a draft avoider, you might have a point. No one is saying that. What everyone is saying, and you are ignoring, or think is okay, is that it takes a major league hypocrite to pull strings to avoid going to Vietnam, and then be for sending others there.
We’re not saying he should have volunteered. Or even not taken legitimate deferments. It’s not that he was unique, Dan Quayle chose the pull strings to get into the Guard route too - but to the best of my knowledge, he actually fulfilled his committment.
Bush’s actions were a fine example of moral cowardice, and a shining exemplar to Moto of what we should look for in a President.
Is it posible he supported the war and felt that he could best address that support by ensuring it’s continuance from home, with reckless disregard to his own reputation, rather than hopping into the meat grinder and being deemed a “hero” for taking the easy, compliant road?
No, because he finagled his way out of it long before he worked on that campaign.
eh…retrospective details. He should still use it. 
Here’s where your argument loses steam: “actively worked.” Those around Bush in those years seem not to recall him working at all, actively or otherwise. 
It might be, if there were any reason to think he had. Instead, he spent those years getting drunk.
Nothing wrong with getting drunk.
Getting drunk and bragging about how drunk you got the next morning, to an officeful of people who are working a lot harder than you are, at the age of 26, that there’s something wrong with.
And here you all lose me, completely.
Was he supporting the war, or merely working on the campaign of a family friend who happened to support the war?
It’s a pretty big distinction, to my mind.
Which appears, from all reports, to be a very scary place.
War hero? What did Doggie Daddy do that was so heroic? Audie Murphy he wasn’t.
:wally
As for the other “war hero,” merely getting wounded doesn’t make one heroic.
My father was in the 10th Mountain Division with Bob Dole. My dad’s family’s Republican pedigree goes back at least as far as my great-great-grandfather voting for Abraham Lincoln.
But you know something? Dad might have gone through the war with Dole, and he mighta been a Republican by birth, but he voted for Clinton. Twice. Guess he knew something you didn’t.
Might want to ask him. Maybe he liked Clinton on the issues.
That’s always a defensible way to vote. I think, myself, it’s the only way to go.