K, after another look this little list is even more insubstantial than I thought. First, let's go back a little to untwist this particular "substantial debate". My original statement, from www2.techstocks.com :
Not many people of that [Clinton's] age who went to college ended up going to Vietnam. There were many ways out. I think there were maybe 2 players in the NFL who served in 'Nam, and those guys weren't the 4F type. I don't think there's many in Congress who served either, in that age cohort. John Kerry, but he's the wrong side of the aisle again. There was always something.
In the usual substantive K technique, this statement gets turned into something else entirely:
Well Daniel - since you seem to imply that our current crop of politicians lacks the service experience so easily derided here, try just a handful of those who served in that era (there are more):
I never derided service experience, though I guess you could say I wasn't totally impressed by Dan Quayle's line-jumping PR unit reserve stint. I don't equate that kind of service to that done by the working stiffs who faced the draft and took the heat in Vietnam. As for implications, that sounds like a bit of innuendo to me. Now, on to your list.
Ed Bryant (TN) US Army 1972-1978
Nice 6 year hitch, if he signed up in '72, it's pretty improbable he went to Vietnam.
Nathan Deal (GA) US Army 1966-1968
That one looks legitimate, a draft-style 2 year hitch.
John Duncan (TN) US Army National Guard 1970-1987
National Guard. Nothing wrong with the National Guard, honorable service of our country. But, it was also another way to avoid going to Vietnam. The kind of thing most of the NFL guys did, if they had to.
Solomon Ortiz (TX) US Air Force, 1960-1962
Pre-Vietnam, except in the secret "advisor" / CIA stage. Short hitch, you couldn't volunteer for 2 years during the real war, unless you volunteered for the draft. He gets credit for doing service independent of Vietnam buildup draft pressure, though.
Go back to my original statement, K, then, if you wish, continue on your sinuous "substantive debate" trail. The peak draft years were what, '65-71 maybe? '72 was the first lottery, things were winding down fast and there can't be more than a few from that year who went to Vietnam . Who in Congress faced being drafted and going into combat, and actually did regular military service? You gave one name above that seems to that criterion.
Military service is something to be proud of. It's not an obligation, it might be a good idea if it was. Older guys with service careers have my complete respect, especially guys like McCain and Stockman, who endured more than anyone ever should as Vietnam POW's. But if you look at Clinton's age cohort, who faced the draft, there aren't a lot who will measure up to the older generation. Of course, there's Sen Bob Kerrey, D-Nebraska, the only current member of Congress holding the Congressional Medal of Honor, but he's the wrong side of the aisle. Then there's Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, but he's the wrong side of the aisle too. Is that the "more" you were referring to? Want to point me to some leading lights in the Republican party, of the younger generation, with a similar record?
Cheers, Dan.
P.S. For innocent bystanders who think this "substantive debate" thing tiresome, it's another irony thing I like to beat into the ground, Letterman style. Goes back to my first online meeting with K. After engaging in the same kind of reinterpretation of something I wrote that we see above, he gave me this line.
It is a weak point from which to engage in a substantive debate.
Substantive debate is what we're all about here, isn't it, K? As in the ever popular Limbotic derision of anybody outside the conservative camp. Like all the idiots who voted the wrong way last week. But that's supposed to be FUNNY, right? And I'm humorless for not getting the joke. I see lots of funny stuff here, but not the LOL kind. |
