# The white flag dem, GOP campaign is coming. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 9, 2005, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822 "2005-12-09T03:34:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/121 "2005-12-13T02:17:04Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Who’s in power? Who’s running the secret prisons? > Did some actual moral deficit ensure Kerry’s loss, or was it just that he wasn’t enough of a knight in shinining armor to entice the ivory tower crowd to come out and vote for him? When I suggested that you make your point using declarative sentences, I meant sentences ending in periods, not question marks. As it is, you’re being a putz: put up or shut up, eh? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/122 "2005-12-13T02:19:47Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > Well, those golden avatars you list above also bent over and gave The Chickenhawks the reigns. They’ve said nothing. Even McCain, who was royally screwed by “his party” laps it up because it’s all about party over country, isn’t it? > > -Joe I just tossed them in, to prevent someone saying “yeah what about blahblahblah”. But, in putting party above country, I’d call them sell-outs (trying to be nice). I still have no idea why on earth McCain continues to take their shit. Remember that old video where McCain told Bush how “mean” it was to sabotage him? He had been the target of “Rovian wrath”. How it hurt (awwww). Damn it McCain, you should have knocked him flat on his ass, on national TV. I’d have bought the DVD. But nooooo. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/123 "2005-12-13T02:27:00Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I just tossed them in, to prevent someone saying “yeah what about blahblahblah”. But, in putting party above country, I’d call them sell-outs (trying to be nice). I still have no idea why on earth McCain continues to take their shit. Remember that old video where McCain told Bush how “mean” it was to sabotage him? He had been the target of “Rovian wrath”. How it hurt (awwww). Damn it McCain, you should have knocked him flat on his ass, on national TV. I’d have bought the DVD. But nooooo. Pfft. He might still get his gold watch. Or, really, it’s because that’d be “bad for the party”…whether or not the party is good for the country is irrelevant, of course. In all honest, I’m sure McCain is holding out for one of them juicy cabinet jobs. Yeah, John-boy, that’ll make it all worthwhile. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/124 "2005-12-13T02:30:28Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > There were plenty of empty slogans and Swiftboating, but did you forget that? > As for the secret prisons, look no further that the White House. > > “Who’s in power” is no answer. Sure it is, when **LHoD** claims that there’s a big moral dimension to voting these days. Now _some_ people may have considered the swiftvet claims, vs Bush’s misleadership in the Iraq war and the abu Ghraib disgrace, and concluded that Kerry held the weaker moral position, but I’ll bet others heard the swiftvet claims, and simply decided to stay away from the polls. There’s no moral dimension to throwing up your hands and taking a pass on democracy. Lofty prose notwithstanding, and we’ve all heaed some _great_ excuses, the only thing a nonvoter actually accomplishes is the passive ceding of power to whichever side happens to win. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/125 "2005-12-13T03:22:17Z")
John McCain ‘did nothing’ because he _strongly supports the war_. He’s perfectly willing to take on Bush over all kinds of issues (for example, torture. And McCain is right). But on the war, McCain is solidly with Bush, and always has been. Go check out his speech at the last Republican convention. It was as hawkish as you’re ever going to hear. Never quit, never surrender, fight to the end. That was his message. 'Course, McCain is a problem for some of you, because he doesn’t fit the ‘chickenhawk’ label. It’ll be fun to see how McCain gets spun if he winds up being elected president and carries on ‘Bush’s war’. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/126 "2005-12-13T03:30:10Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > John McCain ‘did nothing’ because he _strongly supports the war_. I disagree with him, but he has “street cred” with me. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > He’s perfectly willing to take on Bush over all kinds of issues (for example, torture. And McCain is right). Absolutely, and I’ve praised him for that. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > 'Course, McCain is a problem for some of you, because he doesn’t fit the ‘chickenhawk’ label. It’ll be fun to see how McCain gets spun if he winds up being elected president and carries on ‘Bush’s war’. But he doesn’t just talk the talk, he’s been there and walked the walk. He also shows a hell of a lot more concern for the well-being of the military that has to fight. He watches to see where the money goes and raises holy hell when it gets “diverted” by political cronies. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/127 "2005-12-13T03:57:55Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > John McCain ‘did nothing’ because he _strongly supports the war_. He’s perfectly willing to take on Bush over all kinds of issues (for example, torture. And McCain is right). But on the war, McCain is solidly with Bush, and always has been. Go check out his speech at the last Republican convention. It was as hawkish as you’re ever going to hear. Never quit, never surrender, fight to the end. That was his message. > > 'Course, McCain is a problem for some of you, because he doesn’t fit the ‘chickenhawk’ label. It’ll be fun to see how McCain gets spun if he winds up being elected president and carries on ‘Bush’s war’. Wow, **Sam** , it must be tough to be as smart as you. I mean, knowing everything about everything all the time? O! The burden! McCain is solidly with Bush and always was? And you believe that because of a single speech. Ahnold spoke for Bush, too. Are they peas in a pod? Let me give you a little info for that big old brain of yours - McCain existed before Dubya got his stiffy for invading Iraq…and so did Dubya. Not everything in the world revolves around that. Of course, cowering in your own country while others do your fighting for you (because you’re such a believer!) makes you so neat. Kind of like a chickenhawk-once-removed. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/128 "2005-12-13T04:57:24Z")
Too much caffiene today, Merijeek? ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/129 "2005-12-13T13:49:07Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Too much caffiene today, Merijeek? Nah, not that late. I’m an old man and need to get what sleep I can between crochety blowups. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/130 "2005-12-13T14:21:46Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > 'Course, McCain is a problem for some of you, because he doesn’t fit the ‘chickenhawk’ label. Says a guy who’s very willing to have the non-Canadians spend any number of lives in support of his lying idol’s war, but not his own. Tell us that after you’ve come down and enlisted - you \*are \* eligible, you know. Or, at least take a moment to consider what you’re posting before you post it - it would do you a world of good. McCain is a problem, not because he’s a chickenhawk, but because he’s a pol, playing his own game and concerned with his own image at least as much as with his own principles. He’s been quite successful working both sides of the fence here - he can tell the (dwindling number) of war supporters that he was always in favor of removing Saddam etc., while simultaneously showing the growing majority his stand on torture. Either way he looks both realistic and principled. But, of course, someone with a black-and-white mind like yours may have a problem comprehending that. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/131 "2005-12-13T16:56:27Z")
\*Note to Mods… These are just snippets. I will not intentionally violate coyrights, but I need some quotes to make a point. \* **Sam** , for this discussion, I’m not interested in McCain. I really dont care. I’m interested in the others, the Chickenhawks, who are behind the white flag ads, and the “you’re with us against us” crapola. They are the ones making the noise and questioning the courage of the rest of the people. They haven’t earned the right to do that. They never had it, and if they did, they threw that away years ago. Maybe some people need to be reminded **on a dialy basis** , just what sort of people these are. So here are just a FEW of them again. Let’s start with Chicken George himself. Bush - You know when a guy walks away from a National Guard obligation during wartime and gets away with it, he must come from “a good family.” Not that his daddy had anything to do with his getting a Guard slot in the first place - oh, no … Used family to join Texas National Guard , a draft-dodging tactic favored by “sons of the powerful” (Colin Powell/Memoirs). GWB went AWOL when National Guard introduced drug testing, remained **AWOL for 17 months- SEVENTEEN MONTHS** – in 1972-3. He was not disciplined for this in any way. In 2000, angry Alabama veterans offered a $3,500 reward to anyone who could prove that Bush had served in the state. There were no takers. Cheney - Says he had **"other priorities**." You bet he had other priorities. Imagine how early in life you must begin scheming to get away with what this guy has. He was too busy thinking about Halliburton to go fight Charlie. Started with student deferment; when rules tightened, married to get family deferment. When rules changed to exempt only married men with children, Cheney went to work, fathering a child born exactly nine months and two days after the rule-change. “\* had other priorities in the 1960s than military service.” Wolfowitz - Yet another Bush administration man in the Pentagon who has no idea what it’s like to wear a uniform. He got a BA at Cornell in 1965. Maybe if we’d had a guy as bright as he thinks he is in Vietnam, it would have turned out differently. Also, avoided military service during the height of the Vietnam War, due to **elusive medical problems which vanished** once that unhealthy draft ceased. DeLay - “I would have joined up but **those minorities took all the places** ” Limbaugh - alleged medical problem which RL has identified as either “anal cysts” or "an **ingrown hair follicle** on my bottom " Also eligible for exemption under Vietnam-era draft law on **sexual orientation**. “…and, upon taking a physical, was discovered to have a physical – uh, by virtue of what the military says, I didn’t even know it existed – a physical deferment and then the lottery system came along, when they chose your lot by birthdate, and mine was high. And I **did not want to go** ”. Ashcroft - To avoid serving in Vietnam, Ashcroft sought and received a military deferment because, he claimed, he was involved in work of national importance: teaching **business education at a small college** in his native Missouri. Rove - Lott says he (Rove) was so focused on his studies and student political matters, such as getting soda machines in the dorms, that he didn’t think much about either protesting the war or volunteering for it. Kemp - sought medical deferment (while playing in the **NFL** ). “ **Knee problem** ,” although continued in NFL for 8 years. Buchanan - Sought deferment (for bad knee). Robertson - His US Senator father **got him out of Korea** as soon as the shooting began. Then, on top of all the other stuff, the yellow cake, the Downing memo, the real CIA report, ALL the other crap there is … [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/\_/id/8798997?rnd=1134488766190&has-player=false](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/8798997?rnd=1134488766190&has-player=false) The fabrication might have ended there, the tale of another political refugee trying to scheme his way to a better life. But just because the story wasn’t true didn’t mean it couldn’t be put to good use. Al-Haideri, in fact, was the product of a clandestine operation – part espionage, part PR campaign – that had been set up and funded by the CIA and the Pentagon **for the express purpose of selling the world a war**. … By law, the Bush administration is expressly prohibited from disseminating government propaganda at home. But in an age of global communications, there is nothing to stop it from planting a phony pro-war story overseas – knowing with certainty that it will reach American citizens almost instantly. … In modern warfare, he believes, the outcome depends largely on the public’s perception of the war – whether it is winnable, whether it is worth the cost. … The key element of Rendon’s INC operation was a worldwide media blitz designed to turn Hussein, a once dangerous but now contained regional leader, into the greatest threat to world peace. … **Never before in history had such an extensive secret network been established to shape the entire world’s perception of a war. "It was not just bad intelligence – it was an orchestrated effort** ," … Indeed, Rendon is already thinking ahead. Last year, he attended a conference on information operations in London, where he offered an assessment on the Pentagon’s efforts to manipulate the media. There are the security leaks BY the administartion - WIlson and Plame were not the only ones. Then there is the way these chickenhawks treat those who did fight. Earlier this year, Republican leaders in Congress **blocked $2 billion** in emergency funding for veterans’ health care from the $82 billion supplemental funding bill. They felt that the money would be better spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we’re producing more and more injured soldiers for whom we cannot afford adequate medical care. Then the Bush administration requested a **mere 2.7 percent** increase in Veterans Affairs (VA) spending, even though the VA’s under-secretary testified last year that the VA health care system needs a 13 to 14 percent increase annually to maintain their current level of services. Thousands of veterans of the first Gulf War are suffering the effects of exposure to depleted uranium, or have died from that exposure, yet the U.S. government **denies the effects** and continues to ship depleted uranium munitions for use in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some wounded U.S. soldiers have returned home from the current war in Iraq only to learn that they are being **referred to credit agencies** who want the soldiers to **pay for equipment** they lost when they were injured; or for charges for military housing. The Veterans Affairs Department is currently reviewing approximately one-third of the cases of veterans who are receiving disability benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). After conducting an internal study, the VA believes that they were too lenient in deciding which soldiers were eligible for PTSD benefits. Last year, the VA spent $4.3 billion on PTSD disability payments, and the VA hopes to reduce these payments by revoking PTSD benefits for many veterans. This will be the final insult to soldiers who were asked to fight a war in Iraq on false premises. Back to the White Flag again. Senator Miller said Now we are told that those expressions of concern about the misdirection of the Iraqi campaign demonstrated that `the national Democratic Party declared its surrender on the war on terror.'' Democrats were accused of giving `aid and comfort to the enemy,’’ according to another Republican Member who never served in combat. Let every American understand the meaning of these words: It does not matter who you are, if you have worn the uniform of your country, if you have risked your life in combat; to those who use these words on the floor of the House, it does not matter. Challenge the policies of the Bush administration and House Republicans in Iraq, and you are ``giving aid comfort to the enemy.’’ You are surrendering to terrorism. In other words, you are a traitor. That is what these Republican Members would suggest about Members of Congress. Well, according to the latest poll, 60 percent of the American public think the situation in Iraq is out of control. Have we become a Nation of traitors in the eyes of the Republican leaders of this institution? Mr. Speaker, this disgraceful, demeaning, and insulting rhetoric has no place in the Congress, it has no place in America, and it should be denounced by every Member of this House, regardless of party and regardless of one’s position on Iraq. The day we lose our ability to voice our heartfelt views without having our patriotism demeaned is a dangerous day for democracy. Some may argue that these are just the voices of an extreme, though powerful few. Some say it is just partisan politics. That is not the case. We have been here before. He goes on to talk about various other, as he says “vicious attacks”. Robert Byrd says That so many have sacrificed during this war in Iraq is reason enough to ask questions about our government’s policy in that faraway country. Our troops continue to shed their blood, and our nation continues to devote enormous sums of our national wealth, to continue that war. Whether one supported or opposed the war at its outset: no American must ever surrender the right to question the government. Since our country was sent to war on March 19, 2003, two thousand and seventy-three Americans have been killed. Nearly 16,000 troops have been wounded. Our military is straining under the repeated deployment of our troops, including the members of the National Guard. More than $214 billion has been spent in Iraq. Urban combat takes place each and every day in Baghdad. Veterans hospitals in our own country are threatened by budget shortfalls. And yet, Americans are still left to wonder, when will our brave troops be coming home? … Wednesday evening, the Vice President of the United States even claimed that criticism of the Administration’s war in Iraq was “dishonest and reprehensible.” The Vice President’s comments come on the heels of comments from President Bush, who said, “What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their positions and playing politics. That’s exactly what is taking place in America.” The President and the Vice President need to reread the Constitution. Asking questions, seeking honesty and truth, and pressing for accountability is exactly what the Framers had in mind. Questioning policies and practices, especially ones that have cost this nation more than 2,000 of her bravest sons and daughters, is a responsibility of every American. It is also a central role of Congress. … But instead of working with the Congress, instead of clearing the air, the White House falls back to the irksome practice of attack, attack, attack, obscure, obscure, obscure. The American people are tired of these reprehensible tactics. Circling the wagons will not serve this Administration well. What the people demand are the facts. They want their elected leaders to level with them. And, when it comes to the war in Iraq, this Administration seems willing to do anything it can to avoid the truth – a truth that I believe will reveal that the Bush Administration manipulated the facts in order to lead this nation on the road to war. Finally, after all the fine talk about the traitors undermining the morale and safety of the troops, how do they show their own respect? Instead of sending their bodies home with traditional military displays of courtesy, they are treated as cheap-ass **cargo**. Meanwhile remember when Rumsfeld said “… the army we have and not the army we wish for”? The company that makes the armor, has said that it was never contacted for more armor, and could have provided all that was needed. Soldiers and their families are forced to bu the armor out of their own pocket. BUT there is plenty of money to give away to cronies, for projects that are unnecessary and unwanted. [http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051204/news\_1n4adcs.html](http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051204/news_1n4adcs.html) Wilkes’ story shows how gifts, favors and campaign contributions can be used to gain lucrative business from the government. Over the past 20 years, Wilkes has devoted much of his career to developing political contacts in Washington. He and his associates have spent at least $600,000 on political contributions and $1.1 million on lobbying beyond the gifts mentioned in the Cunningham plea agreement, as they cultivated such politicians as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis. And since 1996, he has received at least **$95 million** in government contracts for the small family of firms based in his $11 million headquarters in Poway, including ADCS Inc. and Group W. … “An earmark is usually devoted to a particular company or particular project that is tied to a particular congressman,” said Michael Surrusco, director of ethics campaigns at Common Cause, a government watchdog group. Earmarks are typically added to budget bills after they have been passed by the Senate and the House and the differing versions are being resolved in a conference committee. Because those meeting occur outside public view, the earmarks can be a way of **avoiding scrutiny or accountability**. The earmarks were included in the budget even though the Pentagon never asked for funds for automated document conversion. In 1994, the General Accounting Office, now known as the Government Accountability Office, which monitors federal spending, found that the military **did not need** automated systems because it already had its own systems to digitize documents. That did not dissuade Audre’s supporters in Congress. So corruption and graft are more important than the soldiers, and more important than any mere war. One of the most vocal “attack dogs” was deliberately diverting money to his buddies, who then paid hi very well - Cunningham The Bush-Cheney campaign used Cunningham as a designated hit man in 2004. He went on national TV to attack Democrat John Kerry – “We do not need a ‘Jane Fonda’ as commander in chief” – and as someone who “would depreciate our military and our intelligence services in a time of war.” This was no aberration. In 1992, Cunningham branded Democratic nominee Bill Clinton a “traitor” for his anti-Vietnam War activities and said of all Vietnam War protesters, “I would have no hesitation about lining them up and shooting them.” … Duke Cunningham tearfully confessed that he had “demanded, sought and received at least **$2.4 million** in illicit payments” to steer from his influential positions on the House committees for defense appropriations and intelligence Pentagon contracts to the defense contractors whose bribes he had solicited. … For the **betrayal** of his office and his oath, and his serial criminal acts, Cunningham faces up to 10 years in prison. … It is his confession that he steered defense contracts because of the bribe money he took and not because the work of his criminal collaborator “was in the best interest of the country” – the country the California Republican professed to love, the country he sought to protect from John Kerry. Cunningham’s motive was not obtaining the best intelligence gathering or analysis, the specialty of one of his co-conspirator contractors, to protect and defend American troops at risk. No, it was to make a buck even if his corrupt accomplice corporation **failed** to protect those troops Cunningham insisted were his “passion.” Too bad the treason laws are so tightly written. If I had MY way, for deliberately stealing money that could have gone to the soldiers in the war he so staunchly supported, I think the son of a bitch should be branded a traitor. He talked about wanting to shoot people? SOme of us would like to shoot him now. Karen Kwiatkowski has some good things to think about. She’s the one who told us all about the neocon “Iraq desk” in the Pentagon, and how it was “inventing” justifications for war. No one in America wanted a brash and dangerous foreign policy pursued for the narrow and counterproductive interests. No one dreamed that in a modern information age, a war could be conducted for reasons never to be honestly shared with those same Americans who would send their beloveds to fight and die. The price for speaking out against any government program is often to be vilified, attacked, slandered, smeared and discredited. Neoconservative circular logic says those who disagree with their prescriptions must be crazy, because to be sane is to know – to feel – that neoconservative political desires are innately beneficent, noble and wise. Every critic of the lies leading to war has received similar, almost identical, treatment by neoconservatives, through whispering campaigns, quiet threats, false statements and newsy articles and opinion pieces built around a smear. So Sam, come one down and enlist. The Neo’s and chickenhawks can use a guy like you. Just don’t expect them to give you any support, equipment, decent pay, benefits, health care, or even a decent funeral. If your equipment and supplies are lost or damaged, expect calls from collection agencies. Just don’t expect any straight expanations, you will never get any. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/132 "2005-12-13T19:13:44Z")
This stuff is about on the same level as Bill Clinton murdering Vince Foster and then faking the suicide. > [@SteveG1](#): > > GWB went AWOL when National Guard introduced drug testing, remained **AWOL for 17 months- SEVENTEEN MONTHS** – in 1972-3. He was not disciplined for this in any way. In 2000, angry Alabama veterans offered a $3,500 reward to anyone who could prove that Bush had served in the state. There were no takers. What garbage. Yes, Bush was in the National Guard. He was NOT AWOL for 17 months, and I’d like to see you prove this claim. > [@](#): > > Cheney - Says he had **"other priorities**." You bet he had other priorities. Imagine how early in life you must begin scheming to get away with what this guy has. He was too busy thinking about Halliburton to go fight Charlie. Started with student deferment; when rules tightened, married to get family deferment. When rules changed to exempt only married men with children, Cheney went to work, fathering a child born exactly nine months and two days after the rule-change. “\* had other priorities in the 1960s than military service.” I bet it will be a shock to Lynn to learn that Dick married her to get a deferment. And that’s some potent Cheney sperm and compliant ova… able to jump on command only two days after the rule change, eh? > [@](#): > > Wolfowitz - Yet another Bush administration man in the Pentagon who has no idea what it’s like to wear a uniform. He got a BA at Cornell in 1965. Maybe if we’d had a guy as bright as he thinks he is in Vietnam, it would have turned out differently. Also, avoided military service during the height of the Vietnam War, due to **elusive medical problems which vanished** once that unhealthy draft ceased. Cite, for both the specific medical problems and that they vanished? This is the worst sort of sly innuendo. > [@](#): > > DeLay - “I would have joined up but **those minorities took all the places** ” Cite? > [@](#): > > Limbaugh - alleged medical problem which RL has identified as either “anal cysts” or "an **ingrown hair follicle** on my bottom " Also eligible for exemption under Vietnam-era draft law on **sexual orientation**. “…and, upon taking a physical, was discovered to have a physical – uh, by virtue of what the military says, I didn’t even know it existed – a physical deferment and then the lottery system came along, when they chose your lot by birthdate, and mine was high. And I **did not want to go** ”. John Kerry was also eligible for exemption under Vietnam-era draft law on **sexual orientation**. EVERY SINGLE PERSON WAS ELIGBLE FOR EXEMPTION under the Vietnam-era draft law on **sexual orientation**. Was Limbaugh EXEMPT under that draft law? > [@](#): > > Ashcroft - To avoid serving in Vietnam, Ashcroft sought and received a military deferment because, he claimed, he was involved in work of national importance: teaching **business education at a small college** in his native Missouri. So he didn’t lie. He didn’t cheat. He didn’t deceive anyone about his intentions. He claimed a legal exemption. Right? > [@](#): > > Rove - Lott says he (Rove) was so focused on his studies and student political matters, such as getting soda machines in the dorms, that he didn’t think much about either protesting the war or volunteering for it. So Rove didn’t volunteer. Is that the substance of this complaint? Do you want to stake your reputation for intellectual honesty on this board on these arguments? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/133 "2005-12-13T20:09:00Z")
> [@](#): > > This stuff is about on the same level as Bill Clinton murdering Vince Foster and then faking the suicide. The difference being that people could sell videos accusing Clinton of murdering Vince Foster without anyone making a fuss, but anyone accusing Bush if shirking his military service gets shouted down by the Powerline/Little Green Footballs/mouth-foaming Bush apologists. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/134 "2005-12-13T20:09:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This stuff is about on the same level as Bill Clinton murdering Vince Foster and then faking the suicide. If only, for the country’s sake, if only. > [@](#): > > He was NOT AWOL for 17 months, and I’d like to see you prove this claim. [Tell Cecil about it.](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html) Only because a Congressman’s son was never formally charged with it. Yes, I know, to you nothing is real unless there’s a charge, but the rest of us live in the real world. > [@](#): > > I bet it will be a shock to Lynn to learn that Dick married her to get a deferment. I bet it will be a shock to think that many young women might have been interested in keeping their boyfriends from getting killed, and might have been willing to help? > [@](#): > > And that’s some potent Cheney sperm and compliant ova… able to jump on command only two days after the rule change, eh? As you, an alleged grown man, must know, the period of fertility is a little longer than a single moment, and the error margin around the standard nine months is similarly large. Only for one being deliberately obtuse would there be much of a coincidence. > [@](#): > > Cite, for both the specific medical problems and that they vanished? You got him there, chum. Wolfowitz instead used student deferments, like so many other men his age. But be kind; [it’s so hard to keep all the chickenhawks’ excuses straight.](http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0434,robbins,56166,1.html) > [@](#): > > Cite? (Re DeLay) [Cite](http://slate.msn.com/id/1002713/). I thought you lawyers didn’t ask questions if you didn’t already know the answers? > [@](#): > > rry was also eligible for exemption under Vietnam-era draft law on **sexual orientation**. EVERY SINGLE PERSON WAS ELIGBLE FOR EXEMPTION under the Vietnam-era draft law on **sexual orientation**. Was Limbaugh EXEMPT under that draft law? But not many of those eligible to use that ruse, possibly committing perjury while doing so, followed through. Limbaugh is therefore either gay or a liar, huh? > [@](#): > > So he didn’t lie. He didn’t cheat. He didn’t deceive anyone about his intentions. He claimed a legal exemption. Ah, your old reliable “if it’s legal, it’s moral” approach, once again. Do you ever stop to think there might be more to life than that? > [@](#): > > So Rove didn’t volunteer. Is that the substance of this complaint? Are you really that dense? The substance is that virtually all of those responsible for sending \>2000 American troops and, by their own estimate, 30,000 Iraqis to die would not risk their own lives for a similar cause. The substance is that they do not know the value of human life, or, if they do, think others lives are worth less than their own. And you’re defending them. > [@](#): > > Do you want to stake your reputation for intellectual honesty on this board on these arguments? Be very, very careful about that, in your position, friend. Be very, very sure you understand what is being said before you rush to find a way to denounce it. Don’t you suspect that you yourself just might have a reputation already for placing party before either country or morality, and that this post of yours doesn’t help dispel it? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/135 "2005-12-13T20:16:51Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Note first that I vote for Democrats more often than not, but only because they’re better than Republicans. Most Democrats are to my right. > I’ll take these in order. > > 1. False claims? Unethical. More so if they lead to death. Less so if they do not. Antiwar activists who make false claims are behaving unethically, but not as unethically as pro-war activists who make false claims. Interesting. Suppose an anti-war person said something like: > [@](#): > > I’ve looked at The Contract With America many times, both its small form and its book-length form. It says, paraphrased: > -They’re going to build a government that is based on Christian values. Since this “paraphrase” is a simple falsehood, would it be worthy of condemnation, or does the person get a walk on this? Or is it ethical to lie about your opponents’s positions, if they are pro-war? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/136 "2005-12-13T21:17:41Z")
[http://www.truthandduty.com/documents.htm](http://www.truthandduty.com/documents.htm) has some of the applicable documents, with a history. Note to mods again - this is a snippet… The text, the history given, and the documents linked in pdf form at the site all mesh. They also are available at [http://awolbush.com](http://awolbush.com) and [http://www.glcq.com/bush\_at\_arpc1.htm](http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm) All with phtocopied xeroxed goodness. > [@Mary Mapes](#): > > This is an explanation of the techniques I used to compare the Killian memos to the official Bush records that had been made public over the years. Before we aired our story on September 8, 2004, I had essentially tried to marry the Killian documents with the official record. **I was looking for anything that didn’t fit: dates, names, references to rank, and a variety of other factors. I was looking for a stopper, a place where the Killian memos clashed with the official record, something that would indicate to me that the new memos weren’t real.** > **I couldn’t find it.** I wanted the panel to know that far from simply taking documents and rushing them onto the air, we had done a complicated and multifaceted check on how these new documents fit with the ones we knew to be real, and used that comparison in making a judgment that the story was ready to air. > … The Killian memos, **when married to the official documents, fit like a glove**. There is not a date, or a name, or an action out of place. Nor does the content of the Killian memos differ in any way from the information that has come out after our story, and most of which is from the Associated Press and its lawsuit filed to force production of long missing documents. > In order to conclude that the documents are forged or utterly unreliable, two questions must be answered: 1) how could anyone have forged such pristinely accurate information; and 2) why would anyone have taken such great pains to forge the truth? If Bush served so well and so honorably, where the fuck are the documents to prove it? The military is usually very good at keeping records (unless maybe some big shit doesn’t want them found???). There are plenty that say Bush was a screw up and a no show. > [@Killian documentation discussion](#): > > CBS 002069 24 June 1973 KILLIAN TO “SIR” > > It is unclear to whom the memo is addressed, but clearly it is intended for someone north of Killian in the chain of command. > > This June 24, 1973 memo appears to be addressed to someone who had a staffer call Killian concerning the evaluation or Officer Efficiency Training Report on then-lieutenant Bush. > > By this time, Lieutenant **Bush had been away from his unit for nearly a year**. > > The reference in that “Neither Lt. Col Harris or [sic] I feel we can rate 1st Lt. Bush since **he was not training with the 111th since April 1972** ” is significant. It was reported recently for the first time, that Bush’s last flight in an F-102 was on April 16, 1972. This is a document I received from Bill Burkett on September 2. I did not use this document on the air. USA Today, which also received the document from Burkett, did use it on their Web site linking to their story on September 9. > > The memo includes a crucial line in it, however—when Killian says “His recent activity is **outside the rating period** ,” a point that becomes important when read with the next official document. > [@more Killian documentation](#): > > It is a Statement of Points Earned by Lieutenant Bush . . . beginning May 29, 1973, when he returned to his unit, the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron in Houston. > > In the previous Killian document, when Colonel Killian references the “recent activity is out side his rating period,” it is clear tha t the May ’73 activity is what he is referencing. > > Officer Efficiency Training Reports or OETRs are done on a time period that runs roughly **from April 30 of one year to May 1 of the next year**. > > Lieutenant Bush’s **reappearance in late May of 1973** did not fit into the rating period for which Killian was being asked to evaluate Bush. > [@still more](#): > > In this informal memorandum, Killian says that “Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges” about Bush. And Killian says “Harris gave me a message today from Grp regarding Bush’s OETR.” He writes that “Staudt is pushing to sugarcoat it.” It goes on: “Bush wasn’t here during rating period and I don’t have any feedback from the 187th. I will not rate. Austin is not happy today, either.” From “The Nation” [http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041011/baker](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041011/baker) > [@Nation](#): > > A new source has emerged with what she says is personal knowledge about why George W. Bush prematurely left his Texas National Guard unit in 1972–because **nerves, fear and a possible drinking problem** were affecting his ability to pilot his F-102A plane. If true, this information further confirms a growing body of evidence that Bush has not been candid about his departure from his unit. At various times the President and his spokespersons have offered shifting rationales, from the planned eventual mothballing of the F-102As, to his doctor’s unavailability to give him a flight physical, to a professional opportunity in another state. > However, Janet Linke of Jacksonville, Florida, says that it all came down to an inability to perform. Hmmmm. Nerves and fear. Fear from the War President? From the guy who told the terrorists to bring it on? Mercy me. [http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040920/20guard.htm](http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040920/20guard.htm) > [@US News and World Report](#): > > A review of the regulations governing Bush’s Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an **inappropriate–and less stringent–Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty**. Because Bush signed a six-year “military service obligation,” he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush’s own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending **only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period**. The White House has said that Bush’s service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush **still fails the Air Force obligation** standard. So there. **Bush was getting daddy or someone to pull strings for him - first, to get into the Guard and therby avoid the draft, and then he tried to get strings pulled to transfer, and finally he had “help” in avoiding AWOL charges**. I know many people (including Cecil and myself) have posted this info before. I am not going to post it again in the immediate future. In the future, you (Shodan or Bricker or whoever) can provied some cites of your own. Prove Bush did finish his commitment. Now. Are there any cites proving Bush did more than drink heavily, fail to fly properly, get grounded, and then disappear? There are still groups offering BIG rewards for anyone who can produce reliable (as in not forged) proof that Bush completed the commitment he had signed up for. Big money. To date, none of it has been collected. I will get to Rush Limbaugh in a moment. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/137 "2005-12-13T21:45:43Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > If Bush served so well and so honorably, where the fuck are the documents to prove it? The military is usually very good at keeping records (unless maybe some big shit doesn’t want them found???). There are plenty that say Bush was a screw up and a no show. Not so at all. One of my first jobs as a government contractor was in support of a project called RCAS - the Reserve Component Automation System. RCAS was designed to bring computer automation support to the record-keeping and mobilization requirements of the Army Reserve and Army National Guard. In support of this contract, I spent considerable time with our test sites: the 99th Army Reserve Command in Pennsylvania and the Iowa State Area Readiness Command, as well as driving around Iowa and Pennsylvania to subordinate units of the Iowa ARNG and 88th ARCOM respectively. Recordkeeping by reserve units ran the gamut from excellent to non-existent. As part of my company’s propsal for wokr on RCAS, we highlighted the cases of several ARNG and AR soldiers that were unable to get promotions, travel expense reimbursement, or even timely pay for active duty or training weekends due to their records being lost, misfiled, or simply never completed. (In fairness to Iowa, I will say that we had to look long and hard before finding some good examples of this; mostly, Iowa’s Guard was squared away. But not all. And in Pennsylvania, at the 99th ARCOM… we didn’t have to look hard at all; these problems were rampant.) So I can tell you from personal experience that the LACK of records in a reserve or guard unit means absolutely nothing. It may mean, as you seem eager to conclude, that the indivdual in question was AWOL. Or it may mean that no one took the time to keep the records straight. > [@](#): > > Bush was getting daddy or someone to pull strings for him - first, to get into the Guard and therby avoid the draft, and then he tried to get strings pulled to transfer, and finally he had “help” in avoiding AWOL charges I agree that Bush likely had strings pulled to get him into the Guard. There’s no proof of that, but I agree it’s the fairest inference, given the reality of the times. I don’t agree that there’s proof of his being AWOL, nor do I agree that’s the fairest inference. I’ve seen too much reserve component record-keeping to believe otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/138 "2005-12-13T22:42:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > One of my first jobs as a government contractor was in support of a project called RCAS - the Reserve Component Automation System. RCAS was designed to bring computer automation support to the record-keeping and mobilization requirements of the Army Reserve and Army National Guard. [Hijack]Small world. I use to work for the defense contractor that wrote RCAS.[/hijack] However, **Bricker** , nobody remembers seeing him either. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/139 "2005-12-13T22:56:22Z")
[QUOTE=bup] [Hijack]Small world. I use to work for the defense contractor that wrote RCAS.[/hijack] Really!! I was the project lead for a support contract for the PMO RCAS. I was with the PMO from source selection, just after Star Carey took over as PM, through competition through award and initial fielding. Were you in Vienna? > [@](#): > > However, **Bricker** , nobody remembers seeing him either. And that, too, is hardly meaningful. I don’t imagine Lt. Bush was a gung-ho guy or particularly memorable. The question is – do the same people remember every other single pilot that was there for drill? Or is it that they simply don’t recall everyone that showed for drill? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822/140 "2005-12-13T23:14:08Z")
Aside: Rush suggested that Vince Foster was “murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton.” Let’s get the lying accusations and the sources rigtht there. [http://www.webguild.com/sentinel/draft\_dodgers.htm](http://www.webguild.com/sentinel/draft_dodgers.htm) > [@Sentinal](#): > > Rush Limbaugh - Sought deferment for ingrown hair follicle on his ass. > **[RightWingLies.com is for sale | HugeDomains](https://www.hugedomains.com/domain_profile.cfm?d=rightwinglies&e=com)** > > Choosing the right domain name can be overwhelming. Our personalized customer service helps you get a great domain. > [@Rush Limbaugh's Hypocrisy](#): > > As for Limbaugh himself, the broadcaster stated that he was not drafted during the Vietnam War because he had been classified 4-F after a physical found that he had an “inoperable pilonidal cyst” and “a football knee from high school.” He added: “I made no effort to evade it or avoid it.” > That the disqualifying condition was a pilonidal cyst and not a bad knee seems to be borne out by Limbaugh’s own comments on his draft status: > Limbaugh’s draft status arose during a 1992 appearance at the 92nd Street YM-YWHA in Manhattan. ABC newsman Jeff Greenfield, acting as moderator . . . posed to Limbaugh a written question from the audience about whether he had ever served in the military. > In response, Limbaugh chose his words slowly and cautiously. He seemed to be saying that he had not known ahead of time that whatever physical condition he had in 1970 would free him from draft consideration. > “I had student deferments in college and, upon taking a physical, was discovered to have a physical – uh, by virtue of what the military says, I didn’t even know it existed – a physical deferment and then the lottery system came along, when they chose your lot by birthdate, and mine was high. And I did not want to go – just as Governor Clinton didn’t.” … > CALLER: And Rush you never mentioned how you dodged the Vietnam draft. > LIMBAUGH: I didn’t. > CALLER: Yes, you did. You claimed you had a boil on your butt . . . > LIMBAUGH: No, you see, that’s part of popular mythology that is out there that I have not whined nor complained about, Greg. But that is just a bunch of internet BS and hyperbole. Never happened. Was not the cause, wasn’t the case. [http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300010753&tstart=0&start=-1](http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300010753&tstart=0&start=-1) > [@History Channel](#): > > Rush Limbaugh? Avoided Nam due to unmentionable physical problems with his tushy. A REAL MAN! [http://www.exile.ru/2003-April-06/feature\_story.html](http://www.exile.ru/2003-April-06/feature_story.html) > [@The eXile](#): > > Rush Limbaugh > Position: Talk-radio host > Draft-Dodging Strategy: alleged medical problem which RL has identified as either “anal cysts” or “an ingrown hair follicle on my bottom.” Also eligible for exemption under Vietnam-era draft law on sexual orientation. > (RL, 1992): and, upon taking a physical, was discovered to have a physical – uh, by virtue of what the military says, I didn’t even know it existed – a physical deferment and then the lottery system came along, when they chose your lot by birthdate, and mine was high. And I did not want to go – just as Governor Clinton didn’t." > Military Unit: Rear Guard > **[Did Rush Limbaugh Avoid the Draft Due to an Anal Cyst?](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rush-limbaugh-draft/)** > > "Anyone who has listened to Limbaugh's program can imagine the dripping scorn he would bring to the revelation that a prominent Democrat had skipped a war over something like that." > [@Snopes](#): > > Claim: Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh was disqualified from the Vietnam-era draft due to a pilonidal cyst. > Status: True. > The best story concerns Rush Limbaugh, the ferociously bellicose radio personality, who allegedly had either “anal cysts” or an “ingrown hair follicle on his bottom”. It is not my custom to mock others’ ailments, but anyone who has listened to Limbaugh’s programme can imagine the dripping scorn he would bring to the revelation that a prominent Democrat had skipped a war over something like that. Also, in his case, a pain in the arse is peculiarly appropriate. > When Rush Limbaugh first came of draft age he held a 2-S (college deferment) Selective Service System classification as a student at Southeast Missouri State University in 1969-70, but after he dropped out of college at the end of his first year he no longer qualified for a student deferment and was subject to being reclassified as 1-A (available immediately for military service) and drafted. Selective Service System records show that Limbaugh was reclassified as 1-Y (qualified for service only in time of [declared] war or national emergency) on 24 November 1970, which effectively ended his draft eligibility and ensured that he would not be called for service. … > What was the basis of Limbaugh’s 1-Y classification? The Selective Service System records still available indicate that the classification was not assigned on psychological or moral grounds, but because of a physical problem. And since there are no records indicating that Limbaugh was ever examined by a physician at an Armed Forces Entrance Examining Station (i.e., he never underwent a pre-induction physical), the 1-Y classification was almost certainly assigned based on a report Limbaugh had his own doctor prepare and submit to his draft board. … > As for Limbaugh himself, the broadcaster stated that he was not drafted during the Vietnam War because he had been classified 4-F after a physical found that he had an “inoperable pilonidal cyst” and “a football knee from high school.” He added: “I made no effort to evade it or avoid it.” … > Asked about Limbaugh’s “football knee from high school,” [Ryland] Meyr, the coach during his lone year of play, said he did not remember any injury. … > It’s highly unlikely that Limbaugh only “discovered” he had a high school football knee injury several years after the fact or was unaware that a bad knee was reason for a physical deferment, so the pilonidal cyst is the far more probable explanation. … > **[The Majority Report](https://majorityreportradio.com)** > [@Majority Report](#): > > As for Limbaugh himself, the broadcaster stated that he was not drafted during the Vietnam War because he had been classified 4-F after a physical found that he had an “inoperable pilonidal cyst” and “a football knee from high school.” He added: "I made no effort to evade it or avoid it."2 (Technically, Limbaugh’s classification during his primary year of draft eligibility was 1-Y, not 4-F; he was only reclassified as 4-F after the 1-Y classification was abolished on 10 December 1971.) > Which of the two stated medical reasons was the primary one behind Limbaugh’s 1-Y classification is difficult to determine directly since individual medical files held by his draft board have long since been destroyed. Some, such as Limbaugh biographer Paul Colford, imply that Limbaugh’s knee injury was minor or non-existent: > Asked about Limbaugh’s “football knee from high school,” [Ryland] Meyr, the coach during his lone year of play, said he did not remember any injury. [http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/10/09/092738.xml](http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/10/09/092738.xml) > [@Blogcritics](#): > > the definitive book on rush limbaugh is the biography, “the rush limbaugh story” by paul colford. > chapter two, entitled “beating the draft,” deals entirely with how the self-proclaimed “great american patriot” managed to escape service in vietnam. > limbaugh, who obtained a medical deferment from his private physician due to an ingrown hair on his rear end, later told several different lies concerning his “non” military record: > > 1. limbaugh once claimed the deferment was for a “football knee,” which colford’s research proved to be false - it was in fact a pilonidal cyst on his derierre, which some vietnam vets have compared to nothing worse than a PIMPLE ON HIS ASS; > > 2. limbaugh said that he “would’nt have been drafted anyway because he had a high draft number” - the truth is his number of 127 in 1971 was WELL BELOW the cut-off point of number 190 that year; > > 3. limbaugh claimed that he recieved the deferment which spared him from vietnam before the draft was announced - colford’s research proved that this too was a lie, that rush did not seek out the deferment until AFTER the lottery and learning that he would indeed be drafted. > > this is the same rush limbaugh who used to rail against bill clinton, “never trust a draft dodger.” > > i agree, rush… [http://www.infoshop.org/octo/matrix/index.php/Limbaugh,\_Rush](http://www.infoshop.org/octo/matrix/index.php/Limbaugh,_Rush) > [@The Matrix](#): > > Rush Avoided the Draft > An interesting note about Rush Limbaugh’s life is that durring the Vietnam War Limbaugh, a man who repetedly attacked Bill Clinton for being a draft dodger, did in fact avoid the draft himself. He recieved a 1-Y deferment because he had a pilonidal (anal) cyst. [http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2005\_10\_30\_patriotboy\_archive.html](http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2005_10_30_patriotboy_archive.html) > [@Jesus General](#): > > Like you, I’ve had enough of liberal irresponsibility, but for some reason we seem to be losing traction on this issue. I think the problem is that there’s no real spokesman for the cause. But I think I have the perfect person in mind: > America’s Anchorman, Rush Limbaugh. > He’s been such a powerful voice for us disillusioned conservatives that I’m sure he’d just jump at the chance to assist you in this cause. Plus, he once had an anal cyst that was so heinous that it kept him from his strong desire to defend our freedom in Vietnam. He could certainly teach the Richard Paey’s of the world a thing or two about “playing through the pain.” [http://www.geocities.com/fountoftruth/sendin.html](http://www.geocities.com/fountoftruth/sendin.html) > [@Doug Newman](#): > > I have an idea about where President Bush can find the manpower to fight his war in Iraq. Instead of hitting up the French abroad or the National Guard and reserves at home, send in the chicken hawks! > There are millions of these chicken hawks across America. They know who they are. They think President Bush walks on water. They brand anyone who criticizes his policies as liberals, communists or Al-Qaeda supporters. They think that bumper stickers saying “Iraq First. Then France.” are rip-roaringly funny. They cheerlead for Bush’s military missions as if they were rooting for their favorite football teams. > And they have never lifted a finger to serve in the military. … > Many of those who scream the loudest in favor of the Iraq war never spent a day in the military. Limbaugh, Hannity, Bennett, Perle, Wolfowitz…the list of politicians and pundits goes on and on. The only member of Congress with children currently serving in the military is Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD). Imagine a platoon composed entirely of chicken hawk politicians’ sons staging a midnight raid on Baghdad. > Imagine monkeys flying out of my eyeballs. > Leona Helmsley once remarked that “Only little people pay taxes.” I guess only little people fight wars. [![](https://liberalslikechrist.org/chickenhawks.jpg) ](https://liberalslikechrist.org/chickenhawks.jpg) [http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/davismi/nuderush.html](http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/davismi/nuderush.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-flag-dem-gop-campaign-is-coming/334822.md?page=8)