| TheTip.org |
| Polls | Members | Refer | Forums | Write for TheTip! | Home | Impeach Bush |
Impeach George Bush
Military Records Controversy
Mr. Kerry served in the Navy in Viet Nam. Mr. Bush stayed at home in Texas and Alabama. So, where's the beef?
Source: The TIP, 2004-07-31
Candidate: TheTIP
The first question has to be: Why are we talking about the military records of the two presidential candidates 30 years later?
The answer is: Karl Rove, thinking that Howard Dean would be the Democratic candidate, put George W. Bush forward as the paragon of military duty - Bush served, Dean didn't. So Rove brought up the question, then Kerry used it to win the nomination.
Republicans insist that Democrats are Johnny-come-lately to the military. I suppose that the fact that Eisenhower was a Republican, they still think they own the military. What's missing here is that it isn't the military that counts. It never was. The question is one of hypocrisy.
We have to put the question in perspective. It was the 60s. Viet Nam was a war that was eating American servicemen for lunch. Why we were there in the first place was never adequately explained - we were told about the Domino Theory. Is that really a reason to go to war - a child's game? Are we at war in Iraq because of the Monopoly Theory?
But there was a draft on. When young men hit 18, they had to register, and they had to go unless they could think of a good reason not to go. And the government gave a few reasons.
A '2-S' deferment for full-time students.
A '1-O' deferment for conscientious objectors.
And a '4-F' deferment for physical disabilities.
Later, the government added deferments for men who could show they supported families and onother for men who's family had already lost a son to the military in Viet Nam.
No one was unaware of the system. There were young men who were eager to enlist at 18. Others went because they thought they had to. And still others sought a way out.
There were just as many ways out of service in Viet Nam as there were deferments.
If they had the grades and could find the money, college was a great choice. But it only deferred the draft for four years.
Getting married and having children was another choice, probably not as good as college, but if he could find a willing partner, it worked.
Going to Canada was an option that some men took. Some men made their lives in Canada. Others, when granted amnesty, returned home.
A lot of men, anti-war activists, bravely refused induction and risked jail.
And then there was the National Guard. If he knew someone, he might be able to get in. But because so many men were trying to avoid service in Viet Nam, the Guard's quota was quickly filled every year. It was a very easy out. Sure, he had to cut his hair, a small price in exchange for his life. And it was honorable. But make no mistake - the National Guard was absolutely a ticket out of Viet Nam. And it was a ticket that George W. Bush chose after losing his 2S deferment when he graduated from Yale.
That's fine. Lots of men did it. The problem I have with his choice has to fast-forward 30 years when Bush hypocritically pointed to his National Guard service as something other than draft avoidance. Especially his very spotty service. He didn't even show up most weekends. If he wanted to avoid the draft, I don't have a problem with it. But have the guts to be honest.
Other men of his generation are now in full public view. They all had choices to make 30 years ago.
Bill Clinton avoided the draft by remaining in school and leaving the country. He never denied his desire to avoid the draft. Then or now.
Al Gore served in Viet Nam.
Dick Cheney had a child, then another, when the government raised the bar.
And John Kerry enlisted and served two tours in Viet Nam. He came back a decorated hero and a changed man. It wasn't his own hypocrisy that forced him to sign up for service. And it wasn't his own hypocrisy that forced him to become an anti-war activist when he came back. It was the hypocrisy of his government - old men sending young men to die for a war we didn't have to fight and had no intentions of winning.
Warriors, men who have seen their friends and comrades chewed up and spit out by the war machine, do not send other men to war. George W. Bush was never a warrior. He avoided service and he avoided the war. Now he avoids the truth. When he sent American youths to serve and die in Iraq, when he put on a uniform, 30 years ago and now, it was the act of a coward and hypocrit. He had no intention of serving then. And he doesn't serve now.
John Kerry knows about war. He is neither a coward nor a hypocrit. And whatever else you may believe about his service to his country after the war - as a prosecutor, an Attorney General, or in the Senate - John Kerry won't send young Americans to die on foreign soil except as a last resort.
Add a comment to this Message in our Forums.
While you're at it, check out our forums too!
User Originated Comments:
Related News
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
owned by TheTIP.
[ Skip Next | Next | Random Site | List Sites |Previous ]
NEWS | ACTION | RESULTS | POLLS | MEMBERS | SEARCH