My dear girl you are seeing the script used by Democrats since they became a political party. When a guy is rather squeaky clean all they can throw mud and figure if they say it enough times, it will take the heat off their candidate who may and usually is worst than the one they are casting mud at. The media is LIBERAL. Hollywood is full of LIBERALS. Democrats are LIBERALS. Go figure. There is honor among thieves.
2007-12-20 08:33:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
8⤋
There are a few reasons. First, Clinton never made it a secret that he was opposed to the Viet Nam war. Next, he didn't go to Europe to avoid the draft, he went because he was named a Rhodes Scholar, one of the, if not the, most prestigious honors a college student can receive. Yes, he did take other steps to avoid the draft, but he didn't use his family connections to get into the National Guard so he could avoid service while pretending to do his duty. As to the documents that you say were proven to be false, none of the documents used by CBS in that report were proven to be false. Rather lost his job and Bush escaped dealing with the mess because the Republicans got everyone to focus on the few documents that may not have been real. Once in a while, find out a fact before you post a question. You won't look so foolish.
2007-12-20 09:02:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Oh they did bring it up! You are probably too young to remember.
Regarding your after comment: The allegations about Bush being AWOL were NOT proven false. One document that was used as evidence was called into question (the Dan Rather thing) and even THAT wasn't proven false! Go back and Check! The truth was lost in the Rather situation. It was great subterfuge on the part of the Bush campaign.
2007-12-20 08:30:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by anonacoup 7
·
4⤊
1⤋
For eight years Republicans called Clinton a draft dodger (and worse). It was a little hypocritical to turn around and elect someone who not only joined the National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam but also was AWOL from duty for his last year. It should be noted that Dick Cheney avoided the draft using the same deferments that Clinton used. Wouldn't these people who criticized Clinton be more credible if they had voted for Gore and Kerry, who both did serve honorably in Vietnam?
2007-12-20 08:52:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by wyldfyr 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
the main difference is that bush got out of fighting a war (that by the way he agreed with) then started a war - no other president has started a war in the last 100 years. Bush asked millions of americans to do an unnecessary job - that he himself was unwilling to do
2007-12-20 08:44:24
·
answer #5
·
answered by PD 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Why do people act like Clinton never attacked/invaded other countries ?
Clinton attacked/invaded:
Serbia
Haiti
Kosavo
Sudan
iraq
Afghanistan
all without Congressional or UN approval
He also used the military in Somolia and Bosnia, but those had congressional and UN approval.
And just how do you go awol from the national guard ?
Awol is a UCMJ charge.
The national guard, is not under the UCMJ, unless they are federalized.
2007-12-20 10:13:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by jeeper_peeper321 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Bush joined the military. The National Guard are the ones left in the US to guard the country in times of war. He did his part and you're very right, Clinton ran to the UK to get out of joining the military. He loathed the military and it was one of the reasons he cut and slashed the military when he was in office and which made this country more accessible to the terrorists. Maybe you might find this of interest:
CLINTON’S DEC. 3, 1969 LETTER TO COL. HOLMES
"First, I want to thank you, not just for saving me from the draft, but for being so kind and decent to me last summer, when I was as low as I have ever been. One thing which made the bond we struck in good faith somewhat palatable to me was my high regard for you personally." - Bill Clinton
2007-12-20 09:13:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
They bring it up all the time like you just have.
Bill had the guts to admit he was against the war, even though he dreamed of being president of the U.S., while GW pretended to be for the war, but used his influence to get out of fighting the war.
Neither fought in Vietnam, but at least Clinton showed conviction by openly protesting the war, while GW demonstrated hypocrisy.
2007-12-20 08:40:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by poet1b 4
·
5⤊
1⤋
Maybe it has to do with starting wars against soverign nations that were no threat to us. One thing leads to another and, well you know how it is. a chickenhawk who wouldn't go to war and used daddy's influence and money to get out of it and then sends thousands of other people off to war vs a chickenhawk that doesn't sent thousands off to war in a country that was no threat to us. One was a Rhodes Scholar while the other got through collage on daddy's bribes of the university. A few minor differences there.
2007-12-20 08:36:23
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
Bill didn't go declaring war around the world to the same extent, and sending hundreds of thousands of troops to do what he avoided.
2007-12-20 09:07:16
·
answer #10
·
answered by . 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Apparently you were not into politics when Clinton was running for office...this was brought up and he was run through the mill just as much as Bush has been.
2007-12-20 08:40:53
·
answer #11
·
answered by Becca 4
·
4⤊
0⤋