I think the main point is the hypocrisy of supporting a particular war while simultaneously dodging it.
Did these particular conservatives support the Vietnam War at the time? I would bet most – if not all – did. So why didn’t they serve? It’s not just that they weren’t picked in the lottery, many of them seem to have actively weaseled out of it. Later many of them showed no hesitation jumping on Clinton as a “draft dodger.” But apparently that label can only apply to “liberals.” Double hypocrisy, really.
Clinton on the other hand opposed Vietnam. I would have more respect for him had he been more vocal in his opposition, but at least his avoidance was in line with his stated moral position.
Returning to december’s bullets:
Bad analogy. For the most part Thomas can’t control whether he benefits from affirmative action. (And surely believes he has not benefitted from aa.)
Bad analogy. Being black is an intrinsic characteristic. Johnson can’t decide to be black, unlike - say - deciding to support a war. A better analogy would be if Johnson thought the rest of the nation should adhere to the Civil Rights Act – but not him.
Incomplete analogy. Did you support the war at the time? Did you pull strings/use special favors to get these deferments (obviously not for some of them)? Do you now accuse other people of being “draft dodgers” if they received similar deferments?
Bad analogy. The point is elf6c has no record of hypocrisy. These are two different situations - elf6c may very well decide there is no moral case for war this time.
(note to red_dragon: Rumsfeld very much wants this war)
Like a lot of codgers, I have trouble with the idea of a person holding himself out, or offering himself for, public office now, when that same person did not have a sufficient sense of duty when of military age to offer himself for military service. It leaves the impression that the present holding out has more to do with personal aggrandizement that with civic responsibility. The same applies to the wind bag pundits who spend their time offering advice to and criticizing the decisions of public officials. I’m not as rabid as my father and his generation. Those old WWII vets would not vote for a man as dog catcher if he had not been in uniform. My father in law, as civic minded and duty ridden a man as I know, had trouble with this as a school administrator. He volunteered for the Army, the Navy, the Marines and the Coast Guard at the out break of WWII but was rejected for varicose veins. If he was rejected in those desperate times you can imagine how bad he was. He carried the stigma of no war time service all his working life.
As far as Vietnam is concerned, unlike WWII, this country never made a whole hearted effort to mobilize the military age population. While there was an active draft, the draft was riddled with loopholes such that anyone with any imagination and a few dollars could avoid conscription. There was at least one college in Iowa that lived some ten years beyond the time it should have folded by being an unabashed haven for young men looking for a student exemption. If any of our nation’s wars was a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight it was Vietnam. Vietnam, unlike WWII, was not a fight that took the nation’s best and brightest. A fair number of the best and brightest were nearly invited to stay home.
None the less, I am personally offended by the specter of national leaders and wind bags holding them selves out as super-patriots and all knowing when they passed up the opportunity to contribute a couple years of their callow youth to national service. I am also offended by the leaders and wind bags that obtained a soft berth in the National Guard and then hold that out as anything close to having been a real soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. That goes for President Clinton as much as President George W. Bush, Vice-president Quail, Pat Buchanan and Rush Limbaugh. If these guys are so enthused about having American service members put in harms way, I want to know where they were from 1965 to 1972.
I’m not particularly interested in taking sides in this debate, but this fact is, IMHO, somewhat irrelevant to the issue at hand: the time when he might have been expected to don a uniform and fight would have been in WWI, and he wasn’t yet in a wheelchair then - he contracted polio in 1921. [And yes, I know that he served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy during WWI; it can be debated whether this was a more valuable contribution to the war effort than being a soldier in the trenches, but it doesn’t change the fact that he didn’t see combat.]
I have no personal beef with the Guardian, but there are those unsavories who take anything that they see in the Guardian and automatically discount it as liberal claptrap. The fact that it’s in the UK makes people extra-critical when it attacks our leaders, because they, in fact, are not leaders of the UK.
Just for the record, Franklin Roosevelt (1882-1945, Pres. U.S. 1933-1945), was 35 years old in 1917, when the U.S. entered WWI, and was serving in the Wilson Administration as Asst. Secretary of the Navy. I’m not sure what the upper end of eligibility was for the WWI draft, but FDR was certainly a little old to be an infantry private or second lieutenant, about the only jobs for which his lack of prior military experience qualified him . I suppose he could have gotten combat time in the Spanish American War as a drummer boy with his Uncle/Cousin Theodore or in the Phillippines as an 18-year-old, but it is plain to me that he served his nation better organizing Atlantic convoys that he would have as an over aged Doughboy. His situation was much different from the thousands and thousands of young men who sought student deferments, went to seminary, conceived children or angled for a slot in a safe NG unit to avoid being drafted. I often wonder how many of those late 1960s seminary students actually went into the ministry.
It is worth noting that FDR’s lack of military service was not thrown in his face during any of his election campaigns.
First, I’ll apologize for being unduly harsh earlier. I’m sorry astorian and chique
Back to the topic at hand, though, your pointing out others who have or haven’t served is irrelevant. The question is not whether military service is required to be an effective leader. The point of the OP is to point out the hypocrisy of those most eager to start this war, although they mostly sought ways out of service when they were of age to fight, not out of conscience but out of a desire not to get shot.
The hypocrisy of this hawkishness is most striking when compared to the stances of those who have both led and served in combat situations.
Al Franken did this whole subject much better in the “Chicken Hawk Brigade” chapter in Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot.
Yes, once again, the subject is hypocrisy. Someone calling for someone else to go risk their lives, while bleating about principle, has little credibility when they weren’t willing to risk their own. Note particularly that the most cautionary messages are coming from those who have actually been there and done that.
See, what the thread is about is political leaders with no military experience misusing the military once they are in office. Clinton is too shining an example of this to ignore, but the Guardian wanted to try.
And Clinton’s draft dodging wasn’t an academic deferral. I was talking about his promise to join up if he could be guaranteed a cushy, non-combat slot, and then reneging when his draft number came up high.
Of course, unlike Bush Jr., he never graduated, so Clinton abused that privilege as well, but the American public was dumb enough to elect as Commander-in-Chief someone who said he “loathed” the military. Then he tried to claim that as Commander-in-Chief, he was exempt from prosecution for adultery and lying under oath.
Again, someone with no regard for the military using it for his own ends.
Just like the thread is all about, don’t you think?
It’s all good. Just pop a valium next time, eh? ;)**
I thought Crusoe raised an interesting side topic, that’s all, and wished to weigh in with my two cents (despite being a vet of the non-combat sort). Now that I’ve spent it and since I’m of the non-confrontational sort I’m gonna back out of this thread before I get pasted again.
You lost me in you loathe for Clinton. He Graduated from Georgetown University (1968), attended Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, (1968-70), and graduated from Yale University Law School (1973). He didn’t graduate with his Rhodes Scholar degree (and apparently according to you, everyone who goes to a University, but doesn’t graduate is “abusing a privilege”), but from what I understand, G. W. Bush was never a Rhodes Scholar, so there’s really no comparison here, as they’ve both graduated with University degrees.
Yes he avoided the draft. I haven’t said any differently (however, he got an ROTC, and then a high draft number, not low as you state).
However, as I see it, this is a thread about “War-Hawk Politicians’ cowardly past…” I think that you would be hard pressed to show me how Clinton was a “War Hawk”.
I know this is going to surprise you Shoden, but ALL political debates DO NOT necessarily have to have a “Clinton is a liar and a schmuck” part in it.
If you would like to read further on my feelings to this, read Spavined Gelding’s beautifully written post about.
No need for apologies- this is the Pit, remember? If we don’t want to get smeared, we don’t post here in the first place.
Others have already pointed out that FDR didn’t get polio as a youth, he got it as an adult. So, his handicap was NOT the reason he never served in the military.
My main point was here, however, was that many of the non-vets being called “hawks” here AREN’T hawks! The Guardian piece, like many of the posters here, seems to assume that “right-wing” and “nuke the world back to the Stone Age” are synonymous. That’s not only false, it’s idiotic. ANd the Guardian undermines its own case by dragging in guys like…
Pat Buchanan. Folks, Pat is NOT a supporter of war against Iraq. And he didn’t support the last Gulf War. Buchanan is an America Firster, and isolationist. If it were up to him, the U.S. would call all its troops home and put up a wall to keep everyone else out. Peaceniks should have NO Beef with Buchanan! So, why bring up his service record (or lack thereof), when he is NOT urging the U.S to go to war?
Dick Armey. As other posters have noted, Armey is NOT a supporter of war against Saddam Hussein. So, why does the Guardian bring up his service record (or lack thereof)? A man can’t be a “chicken hawk” without being a hawk, can he?
Jack Kemp. I’ve long been an admirer of Jack Kemp, but I can’t think of more than 2 or 3 occasions he’s ever talked about ANY foreign policy issue. Kemp’s main concern (enemies would say “obsession”) has always been lower taxes, lower taxes, and still lower taxes. It’s hard to imagine why he’s labelled as a “hawk,” when it’s always been his libertarian economic beliefs that endear him to the right. So, why bring up HIS service record, when he’s NOT one of the guys beating the drums for war?
The Viet Nam war has been over a VERY long time. You can’t make facile assumptions like “left = peace-lover” and “right = war-monger” any more. Not if you expect to be taken seriously, at any rate.
It is a concern when those who are the most hawkish are also those who dodged combat when their own skins were on the line.
It is also a concern when the Super Hawk crowd (Perle, Wolfowitz) are the ones who lack combat experience while the Ordinary Hawks (Powell, Kissinger, Scowcroft), who display more circumspection, have a little or a lot of military background.
It is complete hypocracy when those same hawks pose as Super-Patriots. (eg Stallone & Gingrich, but not Perle).
Spavined Gelding, that’s something that’s honestly never been clear to me. The hypocrisy of dodging military service out of a desire to save your own skin then later becoming elected to a public office and supporting a war initiative is one that disgusts me, and I’m with you on that. But when it comes to a politician who shows consistency in opposing military action, does it truly matter if he or she served or not?
There are many people who choose not to serve because violence and warfare are against their principles, not merely because they wish to stay out of harm’s way. I would hope that many of them find some other, non-violent way to do good in their nation or the world, of course; talking the talk and not walking the walk makes you as much a coward as the open draft dodgers. It’s that much more convincing if the service or work puts them in harm’s way, though I don’t think anyone should have to seek out danger to prove their bravery. I find it a terrible shame that “serving your country” is only understood to be serving your country in warfare. There are other, IMO nobler ways to give of yourself for your country, and the world.
When a politician is consistent in speaking out against military action, I would no more label them a coward than the war hawks. Neither of them are going to be personally fighting, and it takes guts to stand up for what you believe in, no matter how you slice it.
Grelby, maybe I should quit while I’m ahead in this game. But I won’t. I have no problem with people who chose not to be available for national service of one sort or another. My problem is that I was taught and believe that there are some things that are incumbent on leadership. Along with the idea that the leader does not eat or sleep or go into town to have fun until he knows his people are taken care of goes the idea that the leader does not require his people to do something unless he has either already done it himself or is willing to do it himself. I do not like the idea of a President, or a Cabinet Officer, or Congressman faunching at the bit to send American armed forces into hazard when that person was not available to be put at risk when it was his generations turn to be on the firing line. I have even more trouble with the President or Cabinet Officer or Congressman who chose not to be in harms way has the tumidity to suggest that people who are not eager to, for instance, invade some Middle Eastern country are not sufficiently patriotic. Coming from the mouth of those who actively evaded war time service, the argument that it is unpatriotic to oppose a particular war is dishonest at worst and unseemly at best.
Unfortunately, this hypocrisy in in the *wrong order. * A man chooses not to serve when he’s young. By the time he’s the President, leading the nation into war, it’s too late for him to go back in time and enlist. We may be disgusted at the individual, but it may nevertheless be necessary for the country to go to war.
A President may have dodged the draft, but he cannot dodge the decision of whether or not to support going to war. If we don’t want to risk being disgusted by this sort of hypocrisy, we need to always elect a leader who served in the military. Otherwise there’s always the risk that a draft-dodging President will be called upon to lead the country into battle.