Since some of the conservatives here like to bring up the fact that Clinton is a draft dodger, I thought I would ask this question. After all, we have already talked to death about Bush's "service" in the Air National Guard and Rush Limbaugh's butt cyst, so I thought I would bring up the name of yet another man who was all in favor of the Vietnam War and yet did not serve. Not only that, but over 30 years later, he had no reservations about sending thousands to their deaths, either. And to those of you who bring up Clinton ad nauseam, I have to say that at least he was a conscientious objector rather than a chickenhawk!:)
2007-10-02 12:24:53 · 13 answers · asked by tangerine 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
By the way, in a 1989 interview for the Washington Post, Cheney was asked why he applied for and received 5 draft deferments, despite his vociferous support for the Vietnam War. His response was, "I had other priorties in the 60s than military service." Wow! I guess serving his country or a cause he believed in wasn't on top of that list!
2007-10-02 12:30:43 · update #1
gary b: Neither did Bush, Rush, or Cheney, apparently!:)
2007-10-02 12:32:55 · update #2
Big Jon: Not only did Cheney support the war in Vietnam, he applied for and received 5 DEFERMENTS. Why? One can't help but think that if he supported the war so much, he should have gone and fought for what he believed in. Oh, but I suppose that "other priorities" are more pressing than standing up for your beliefs!:)
2007-10-02 13:12:37 · update #3
Cheney is too much of a puss, and he would rather say words and have people killed, than to do it himself, he is a coward, just like Bush and Clinton.
2007-10-02 12:28:42 · answer #1 · answered by masterplumber1975 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
The point of your question being?
There were a lot of people who didn't serve in Vietnam yet were supportive of the war. So what?
There were a lot of people who were in the military during the Vietnam war era, yet never served in Vietnam. So what?
There were a lot of people who didn't approve of the war or the draft, but also didn't run away to Canada or England to evade their responsibilities under U. S. law.
Both John Kerry and George Bush joined military units that they felt would never require them to serve in Vietnam. John Kerry guessed wrong, George Bush guessed right. But there were still a lot of National Guard soldiers that DID see service in Vietnam. Even the Coast Guard was involved in Vietnam.
p.s. - Billy-Boob Clinton was NOT a "concientious objector." He was in the ROTC and when called to serve and fulfill his obligations, he chickened out and RAN.
2007-10-02 13:10:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Sign of a chickenhawk - first to call for attacking, but also the first to move to the back of the line. Check out www.google.com chickenhawks to see about the other "brave" herows in the current misadministration, and on the radio, etc.
2007-10-02 14:48:28 · answer #3 · answered by Sp II Guzzi 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Cheneys "other priorities" included flunking out of college and two DUIs.
Given Cheneys skill with a shotgun he may have won the Vietnam war for us if only he had a spine.
2007-10-02 12:46:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
He had 5 student deferrments. Both he and Bush are a disgrace to my relatives who served honorably in Vietnam !!!!
2007-10-02 12:57:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Get your facts straight..Clinton was no concientious objector...he was in the ROTC in college (keeping him in school) but when it was time to pay them back for the free ride he was getting... he punked out like a little girl....wrote his commanding officer that he "detested the military" and wanted out. This was all done after the scumbag knew he had a high draft number.
2007-10-02 12:39:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
LOL, by this own admission he said " I had better things to DO" . I guess it might have interfered with his good times, being his had two DUI's
2007-10-02 12:27:29 · answer #7 · answered by jean 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Too busy supporting the war to fight.....other priorities. as a republican party apparatus suck up. he got rich at it.
2007-10-02 12:42:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The comment about Limbaugh REALLY adds credibility to your question. You can even do better than that, can't you?
2007-10-02 12:29:17 · answer #9 · answered by KRR 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
may be time are not suitable
2007-10-02 14:10:50 · answer #10 · answered by only kewal 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋