2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders' stance on Vietnam continues to disappoint
I authored a column that appeared in The Des Moines Register entitled “How can Sanders be commander in chief?” (Aug. 27). Being a Vietnam veteran I wondered how Sen. Bernie Sanders, who claimed conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War, could become the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world and order his fellow Americans to go to war when he refused to go to war himself. The Des Moines Register also asked Sanders about this during an editorial board meeting on Sept. 3.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/caucus/2015/09/11/bernie-sanders-conscientious-objector-vietnam-war/72070980/
This is an article from The Des Moines Register from September. Worth the read including the links.
I know that this is not a good topic for the over fourth crowd, but do millenials care? They are really the first generation to be removed from current concerns about the draft. I state it's the complete removal of concern because it's the first generation in a while where many of their parents weren't a part of the draft either.
I passed it along to a couple of Vietnam vet buddies and some millennials to get their input. What say DU. Campaign issue or not? Positive or negative? I think it's very unique to the individual reading it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... into illegal, immoral wars. But that's just me. You apparently feel differently.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)As being different from what you state. Thanks.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... should have indicated so.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)There you go. Changed it to help in your confusion.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... and many other things that are forbidden to be discussed here.
RDANGELO
(4,157 posts)It didn't Kill W's campaign.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)It won't matter in which war they may have served. The CO status was not granted and Vets will wonder what Bernie was doing all those years until he got too old to serve.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... or that may solidify their currently held opinions. The swarming that we now observe appears to suggest that Bernie's fans are aware that this could be a troublesome issue for him.
randys1
(16,286 posts)someone like Cheney or W or any con running who will GLADLY send your son to die but will NEVER fight or have their family fight.
Yet here we are again, attacking one of our two great candidates instead of attacking the terrorists on the other side
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
bigtree
(94,261 posts)...that makes the argument, about draft resistors betraying those who opted to obey the draft law and serve, nonsense.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Sounds like a Libertarian or Republican, isn't that what they said about Bill Clinton?
Why do Hillary supporters keep dragging right wing talking points back here?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Thanks.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)With discussing articles from Salon and The Des Moines Register? Shit, I've seen people promoting articles written by libertarian and Paul supporter Goodman here. If you don't like the sources, move on.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251941346
And you complain about Goodman?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Racist and anti-Semitic? Or are you completely deflecting? What is your issue with the Register?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You complain about Goodman's articles while rec'ing threads that link to racist tea party websites, one that's owned by a Holocaust denier.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)To hi jack the op. Have a wonderful day.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But good luck with the right wing talking points about draft-dodging, that always goes over well with conservadems on DU.
I'm sure your target audience will eat it up not realizing or not caring that they're tarring Bill Clinton with the same brush.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Three posts in and this is the first time you address anything about the op, as incorrect as you might be. The Des Moinse Register and their right wing talking points.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Fact: that's a right wing talking point they also used against Bill Clinton
Fact: I addressed the article in my first post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=955488
You posted the op, now you have to deal with the fallout.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Even Sanders disagrees with you on this one.
Fallout? That is funny.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And yes, fallout - read the other responses, I predict there will be many more just like them.
So now I'm going to sit back and watch the show.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)because of how the draft dodger status would have followed him around. Luckily, Bill Clinton had the guts to tackle that stigma and lessen its impact ---- TWENTY FIVE YEARS ago. So Bill did the opposite of what you are claiming. He refused to be tarred by it. But it is laughable you trot Bill out if you think it helps Bernie; otherwise, he's under the bus.
More laughable that the new-found Trump advocates complain about RW talking points.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)Explain why a 74-year-old man who says he knew how to save us from eevul corporations back in the 70's didn't run for President sooner.
Explain why Bernie Sanders sat out 11 national elections in his lifelong political career.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)in his political lifetime. You're the Bernie fan. Explain it.
Hint: when you answer that you'll see how YOU were the.participant with the straw man.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Where's your evidence?
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)about an article about Bernie's draft dodging. You were even so bogus as to hide behind Bill Clinton.
So if you want to twist facts about Bill Clinton because it suits Bernie, and you want to attack people here when you are the one with the strawman, then you explain why Bernie sat out 11 national elections. You attacked, so you explain.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)This article is about burden of proof as a philosophical concept.
In epistemology, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
Holder of the burden
When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. [1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.[4]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
Here's your claim again:
Judging by the OMG it appears you think this fact is apparent to everyone but me, so it should be easy to find evidence to back it up.
Better get crackin, time's a wasting!
You wouldn't want people to think you made it up, would you?
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)Bill Clinton to do it. You attacked; you explain.
Explain why Bernie didnt challenge Bill Clinton TWENTY FIVE YEARS ago for the nomination.
You wouldn't want people to think you made up things so explain it now. What kept Bernie from running against Bill Clinton. Take your own advice and get busy, lol.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You still need to prove it if you want people to know you didn't make it up, so if you ever find that evidence feel free to post it.
Until then I'll consider it another failed smear attempt.
You have a nice day now!
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)since you can't explain anything you attacked about except to smear what your victim rec'd on a message board.
So...no proof of your attack either.
Anytime you want to explain why Bernie sat out these elections please do so;
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
The years that Clinton ran are especially important since you hid behind Clinton to prop up Bernie. So let's see your proof as to why Bernie didn't challenge Clinton in the 1992 and 1996 primary. Thanks in advance!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I "asserted" three things:
1) that the author used 'draft dodger' as a right wing talking point
2) that the op rec'd threads linking to racist tea party websites
3) that the burden of proof is on the person who made the claim
I provided evidence to back up my assertions.
Here is your claim again:
If you can't provide evidence of your assertion I'll have to assume you made it up.
I won't respond to more flailing and attempts at deflection but I will keep asking for evidence, so as the saying goes, either put up or shut up.*
* note to jury: this is a common expression, I'm asking for the poster to back up a claim, not telling them to shut up.
Thank you for serving.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)why.
Explain why Bernie didn't challenge Clinton in the 1992 and 1996 Democratic Primary.
And how laughable that you used the excuse of a RW talking point about draft dodging and then promptly hide behind it to prop up Bernie.
Clinton did the opposite of what you claimed. He had the chiclets to blast through that talking point and prevail. Remember? Where was Bernie? Explain why he didn't run.
Explain why the draft dodger talking point is only RW when you want to hide behind it, but when I mention that's why Bernie didn't run at that time, you get confused.
Thanks in advance.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)R B Garr
(17,984 posts)and 1996. You invoked a bogus claim that talking about Bernie's draft dodger status was a smear on Clinton also when that is completely false. Clinton didn't let that stop him.
So where was Bernie. Explain.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)R B Garr
(17,984 posts)and 1996. You made the bogus claims thst Clinton was also being smeared by the draft dodger stigma when that is false. Clinton didnt let that stop him. TWENTY FIVE YEARS ago.
So where was Bernie? What is his excuse. Explain.
C'mon. You can do this.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)This article is about burden of proof as a philosophical concept.
In epistemology, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
Holder of the burden
When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. [1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.[4]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
I can keep this up all day, either provide evidence for your claim or I will assume it's a lie.
Last chance or it will go in the big book of Bernie smears.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)and as to why you made a bogus claim about Clinton being smeared by a draft dodger stigma when the opposite is true. He didn't let that stop him.
Explain why Bernie didn't challenge Clinton in 1992 and 1996. You can do this!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)R B Garr
(17,984 posts)Clinton in 1992 and 1996.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)R B Garr
(17,984 posts)You just had to find a way out. Obviously, explaining why you think Bernie didn't challenge Clinton was not an option for you. Ciao.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)No hard feelings, you did your best.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)challenge Clinton is what's on record.
What's also on record is that you claim to know what the RW draft dodger stigma was, but then stubbornly refused to admit you made a false claim about it affecting Clinton. Clinton pushed through it. Where was Bernie? When you answer that, you will have answered your own phony queries about "proof".
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I understand, it's never easy to lose.
Buck up, better luck next time!
Eventually people learn to stop making claims and asking others to disprove them.
I have faith.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)about Clinton being smeared by the draft dodger stigma but refuse to acknowledge that it was Bernie who was affected by it. Not Clinton as you claimed.
It's always noted when you step up the personal attacks that you are the one losing. Nice word salad strawman. I must have struck a nerve.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That's almost as absurd as claiming:
I think I'll leave you to your false claims now, you've gone through the rabbit hole and out the other side.
Bizarre.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)Clinton also when they mentioned Bernie's draft dodger status. Thats not true. Clinton pushed through that talking point and prevailed. Remember? Where was Bernie.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)I guess you're done here. You can't get much more obvious than this.
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #89)
Name removed Message auto-removed
treestar
(82,383 posts)that's a logical fallacy.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That makes her rec'ing those threads relevant to the topic at hand and not an attack.
Try again.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)Political cowardice?
The prospects didn't suit her opportunism?
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)Thanks.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)And then later found out we were all Charlie Brown when he tried to kick the football.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)A Clintonista war lover.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)is not an admirable proceeding. The topic at hand is could Bernie's Vietnam era actions come back to bite him.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)11. You now take issue....
With discussing articles from Salon and The Des Moines Register? Shit, I've seen people promoting articles written by libertarian and Paul supporter Goodman here. If you don't like the sources, move on.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=955506
12. And I've seen you rec threads with links to racist and anti-Semitic websites.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251876329
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251941346
And you complain about Goodman?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=955513
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... may be important for some, but I just can't see the importance of it.* It's a just website full of anonymous posters with different opinions. Sure, it's great fun to bicker, argue, snark, zing, be witty, laugh at others, laugh at one's self, poke-fun, exchange ideas and interact ... but beyond that, in my opinion, it's just not worth taking so seriously and personally.
(* Regardless of which side it may be.)
treestar
(82,383 posts)go looking at people's past posts to derail from the issue and try to make it about how "horrible" the poster is.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... and is a substitute for strength.
cali
(114,904 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)But your assessments of myself are always greatly appreciated. Why do most of your replies to me have to do with me personally? I couldn't even tell you who you support in the primary yet you make blanket statement after blanket statement about me personally.
Ohh well. You are good peeps.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)"Why do Hillary supporters keep dragging right wing talking points back here?",
the obvious (to me) answer is to deflect from HRC's own right wing positions.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But more and more it's looking like many of her supporters share them.
Just look at the ops in this forum.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)I have seen the hippie bashing meme,
the hysteria about raising taxes for healthcare,
and far too many other GOP points here all enthusiastically supported by some Clinton supporters.
They excuse too much of HRC's positions and behavior. Perhaps this is done to avoid disappointment if she becomes President. Low expectations lead to less disappointment.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Never thought I'd see that posted here, or flogged so hard.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)of many/most Hillary supporters and those rightwingers than you'll find any old hippy like me...
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They're not even trying to hide anymore, the masks have come off.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)"Why do Hillary supporters keep dragging right wing talking points back here? "
Maybe, because they're kinda right-wingy themselves!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I've never seen so many right wing talking points, all from one small but very vocal group of supporters.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)them to die by the thousands in immoral and stupid wars.
djean111
(14,255 posts)What would a candidate do TODAY.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Based on LIES.
Even Hillary's husband, BILL CLINTON. His Draft dodge didn't seem to hurt him:
Note: After the draft letter, below, there is a transcript of a February 1992 Nightline program in which then-Governor Bill Clinton discusses the controversial draft letter with Ted Koppel.]
"Dear Colonel Holmes,
I am sorry to be so long in writing. I know I promised to let you hear from me at least once a month, and from now on you will, but I have had to have some time to think about this first letter. Almost daily since my return to England I have thought about writing, about what I want to and ought to say. 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. In retrospect, it seems that the admiration might not have been mutual had you known a little more about me, about my political beliefs and activities. At least you might have thought me more fit for the draft than for ROTC. Let me try to explain.
As you know, I worked for two years in a very minor position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I did it for the experience and the salary, but also for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam. I did not take the matter lightly, but studied it carefully, and there was a time when not many people had more information about Vietnam at hand than I did. I have written and spoken and marched against the war. One of the national organizers of the Vietnam Moratorium is a close friend of mine. After I left Arkansas last summer, I went to Washington to work in the national headquarters of the Moratorium, then to England to organize the Americans here for demonstrations here October 15th and November 16th.
video
After one week of answering questions about allegations of draft-dodging and one week before the New Hampshire primary, a letter surfaces in which a young Bill Clinton thanks a colonel for "saving me from the draft."Clinton defends the letter and questions the motives of his accusers. (2/12/92)
hilo
Interlocked with the war is the draft issue, which I did not begin to consider separately until early 1968. For a law seminar at Georgetown I wrote a paper on the legal arguments for and against allowing, within the Selective Service System, the classification of selective conscientious objection, for those opposed to participation in a particular war, not simply to, quote, participation in war in any form, end quote. From my work I came to believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate. No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation.
The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake. Individuals had to fight if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case. Nor was Korea, an example where, in my opinion, certain military action was justified but the draft was not, for the reasons stated above.
Because of my opposition to the draft and the war, I am in great sympathy with those who are not willing to fight, kill, and maybe die for their country, that is, the particular policy of a particular government, right or wrong. Two of my friends at Oxford are conscientious objectors. I wrote a letter of recommendation for one of them to his Mississippi draft board, a letter which I am more proud of than anything else I wrote at Oxford last year. One of my roommates is a draft resister who is possibly under indictment and may never be able to go home again. He is one of the bravest, best men I know. His country needs men like him more than they know. That he is considered a criminal is an obscenity.
The decision not to be a resister and the related subsequent decisions were the most difficult of my life. I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability within the system. For years I have worked to prepare myself for a political life characterized by both practical political ability and concern for rapid social progress. It is a life I still feel compelled to try to lead. I do not think our system of government is by definition corrupt, however dangerous and inadequate it has been in recent years (the society may be corrupt, but that is not the same thing, and if that is true we are all finished anyway).
When the draft came, despite political convictions, I was having a hard time facing the prospect of fighting a war I had been fighting against, and that is why I contacted you. ROTC was the one way left in which I could possibly, but not positively, avoid both Vietnam and resistance. Going on with my education, even coming back to England, played no part in my decision to join ROTC. I am back here, and would have been at Arkansas Law School, because there is nothing else I can do. In fact, I would like to have been able to take a year out perhaps to teach in a small college or work on some community action project and in the process to decide whether to attend law school or graduate school and how to be putting what I have learned to use. But the particulars of my personal life are not nearly as important to me as the principles involved.
After I signed the ROTC letter of intent I began to wonder whether the compromise I had made with myself was not more objectionable than the draft would have been, because I had no interest in the ROTC program in itself and all I seemed to have done was to protect myself from physical harm. Also, I began to think I had deceived you, not by lies - there were none - but by failing to tell you all the things I'm writing now. I doubt that I had the mental coherence to articulate them then. At that time, after we had made our agreement and you had sent my 1 - D deferment to my draft board, the anguish and loss of self-regard and self-confidence really set in. I hardly slept for weeks and kept going by eating compulsively and reading until exhaustion brought sleep. Finally on September 12th, I stayed up all night writing a letter to the chairman of my draft board, saying basically what is in the preceding paragraph, thanking him for trying to help me in a case where he really couldn't, and stating that I couldn't do the ROTC after all and would he please draft me as soon as possible.
I never mailed the letter, but I did carry it on me every day until I got on the plane to return to England. I didn't mail the letter because I didn't see, in the end, how my going in the Army and maybe going to Vietnam would achieve anything except a feeling that I had punished myself and gotten what I deserved. So I came back to England to try to make something of this second year of my Rhodes scholarship.
And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been good to me and have a right to know what I think and feel. I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is disservice, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal. Forgive the length of this letter. There was much to say. There is still a lot to be said, but it can wait. Please say hello to Colonel Jones for me. Merry Christmas.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)did not, Sanders got a child deferment, Clinton did not, then Sanders applied for CO status, Clinton did not. Seems like Sanders qualifies for a draft dodger also.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You just can't help yourself can you?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I prefer the term "draft dodger".
zalinda
(5,621 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)R B Garr
(17,984 posts)Clinton tore through that draft dodger stigma TWENTY FIVE YEARS ago. Where was Bernie. Now is your chance to answer. C'mon! You can do it.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)But Clinton overcame it. Where was Bernie? Why didn't Bernie challenge Clinton in 1992 and 1996.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)Switching to lame personal attacks is a sure sign of defeat. Very predictable.
Explain why Bernie didn't challenge Clinton in 1992 and 1996. C'mon. You can do it. Common sense says it wasn't just one reason, probably several. Explain why Bernie didn't challenge Clinton.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I don't know, why?
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #135)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)You're saying ... what? That Bill Clinton weathered "draft dodger" attacks in 1992 and 1996 and so .....that makes Sanders being attacked with them now... what?
"where was Bernie"? Uh, okay. He should have weathered those attacks in '92 and '96 with Clinton, even though he wasn't running for President then?
Or, wait- now you're saying that because Bill Clinton was attacked as a draft dodger in '92 and '96 Sanders should have run for President against him, then, instead of now, because...
uh.....
nope, still not gettin' anything.
hmmmm.
Hang on, I'll figure this out.
...
Oh, okay, yeah, I got it! 
You're actually just mad at Sanders not about anything having anything remotely to do with any consistent ideological point about Vietnam or anything else, but rather because he's running against Hillary Clinton and it's her turn, dammit.
Ahhhhhh. It all makes sense, now.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I don't think logic is their strong suit.
I asked but never did see any evidence for that claim, I've never seen it before.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts) beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Damned pot smoking draft dodging commies just want free stuff and expect real Americans to pick up the check.
What decade is it again?
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)He gave his reasons for objecting to Bernie's CO status. Iowa is a caucus state. Candidates campaign there. They will be talked about. That Vietnam Vet talked about Bernie
I didn't attack Bernie. You obviously didn't read in context so this is a waste of time, but my comments were about using Bill Clinton as a shield for Bernie to attack other posters here when the rest of the time Clinton is savaged here by the same people. So phony.
And it's obvious that Clinton fought his own battles TWENTY FIVE YEARS ago about the draft dodger status whereas Bernie could have, but he didn't bother. Hmmm. Wonder why........
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)This is fascinating, usually I have to go to Creative Speculation for this kind of entertainment.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)about Bernie's CO status? You can contact him yourself to ask.
There's probably a Comments link in the article. 
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That's always a good first step.
Now we can dismiss it and move on to the next right wing attempt to smear Bernie.
Ciao!
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)Remember? So it's not made up. Ciao.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)Typical.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Namely, he's in the primary race. Full stop, end of story.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)hidden. It stopped being about anything but that when the first cartoon was posted yesterday. Obviously. 
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Hijinks ensue.
Amirite?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Why would Bernie have "fought this battle" 25 years ago when he's running for President now? Surely you understand the additional levels of scrutiny which accompany a Presidential campaign?
G_j
(40,569 posts)
earthside
(6,960 posts)Some of the these Hillarians have got to be ready to simply self-disintegrate ...
Those, like Bill Clinton and Bernie Sanders, who opposed the Vietnam War are now called "draft dodgers" by folks who claim to be liberals. I remember the Republicans in my youth calling anyone who tried to evade that horrible war a "draft dodger" and worse.
Yesterday, one of these Hillarians was touting the Reagan philosophy about how terrible it is for us to utilize the government by having programs to help pay for college, food, health care, etc. for poor, working, and distressed middle class Americans.
Hillary is driving the Democratic Party further and further to the right; her supporters are becoming reactionaries just like the Tea Party types are about Obama ... if Sanders is for it, they have to be against it.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Pot meet kettle - anyone not a Puritopian is a right winger in Bernie world. You guys are something. You sound like a former Naderite
earthside
(6,960 posts)Folks who call individuals like Bernie Sanders and Bill Clinton draft dodgers are not liberals.
Folks who espouse Reaganism as a way to oppose the economic reforms need to address income inequality are not progressives.
bvf
(6,604 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
bvf
(6,604 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)It's awfully hard to "stalk" someone on a site that has a built-in search box that permits users to see what other users have said in the past. You're going to need to find someone more sympathetic than me to listen to your complaints, grave dancer.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Stalking on an online forum is just so pathetic.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts) stupidicus
(2,570 posts)but do run and hide over that one eh
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Hippie bashing, CO bashing. What's next?
I opposed Vietnam too. There's 10 names from my high school on the wall, also the name of my cousin.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Hot issue in 2015? Or?
And Thank Goodness he won't send your kids/nieces/nephews/grand children off to a senseless War!
JI7
(93,614 posts)And people said same about John Kerry and he did serve . But they think him protesting the war made him unfit to be president.
.
Do you really have a problem with people for opposing the vietnam war ?
I don't think this view is worth considering or reading.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)cowardice.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)wilsonbooks
(972 posts)snip, By the later years of the war in the early 1970s, draft resistance reached its peak. In 1972, there were more conscientious objectors than actual draftees, all major cities faced backlogs of induction-refusal legal cases, and the Selective Service later reported that 206,000 persons were reported delinquent during the entire war period.[3] Yet draft resisters, combined with the larger antiwar movement on campuses and inside the military, was successful: there were too many people to punish or send to prison. So great were the numbers of draft resisters that in 1977, President Carter passed a general amnesty to all those who had fled abroad in defiance of the draft, allowing them to return to the United States, and out of 209,517 accused draft offenders, less than 9,000 were convicted.[4]
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Because he saw through an unjust war of aggression, and refused to participate 'when he had his chance'? Are you fucking kidding me?
Nitram
(27,741 posts)...war monger? The president takes an oath to defend the United states. A conscientious objector will not do that because he considers it immoral. It's not complicated. Unless Bernie was just pretending to be a CO to dodge the draft. Which would call into question his alleged impeccable honesty.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...but I sure as fuck do.
Paychecks don't make conscription different in principle from slavery.
A person who refuses to fight for profit or wrong-headed idealism ought to be more qualified for the presidency, not less. I am willing to assume that President Sanders would muster troops for the defense of our nation, or for an ally, and less susceptible to the whispers of the profiteers.
Oh, the idiot media will have endless fun with this, and we know exactly why.
Nitram
(27,741 posts)I'm talking about the meaning of being a "conscientious objector." My understanding has been that it is a refusal to engage in violence of any form for moral reasons. Am I mistaken in this view?
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Different people have varying standards as to when they might engage in violence, or tolerate it in others, and as to what sorts of violence are acceptable. One has only to read DU through a couple of wars or death-penalty debates to see that conscientious objection comes in many forms.
Nitram
(27,741 posts)...the Vietnam War?
Orsino
(37,428 posts)What needs clarification?
Nitram
(27,741 posts)I don't see how that is relevant to whether he could serve as Commander-in-Chief. I view his CO status as a non-issue.
Koinos
(2,800 posts)I find it hard to square Sanders' past CO application with his present positions on drones, military appropriations, the F35 jet, Israel's treatment of Palestine, funding of endless war in Afghanistan, and other hawkish positions. It is apparent that Sanders was only opposed to being drafted into the Vietnam war; he was not opposed to all wars. To receive conscientious objector status, one had to state and to prove that one was opposed to ALL WARS. During the Vietnam war, Quakers and certain other religious groups were more likely to receive CO status. Catholics and other Christians had a hard time with it, since they are generally not perceived to be opposed to all war. The Catholic "just war" theory was a problem for Catholic CO applicants.
I understand Sanders' situation. He did not want to fight in an unjust war. But CO status applications did not make distinctions between "just" and "unjust" wars. Many men chose prison over the draft. Some were totally anti-war and applied with sincerity for CO status. And others applied for CO status to avoid the draft.
Many of Sanders' positions in the present are anything but totally anti-war. Though Sanders voted against the Iraq War (every sane and informed and uncompromised senator did), he has been all too accommodating to increases in defense spending. And, on a personal note, his position on drones is disconcerting to me.
Moreover, it would be refreshing for Sanders to stand up to the Israeli lobby and strongly defend the rights of Palestinians not to be killed wholesale and to have peace in their own homeland. He has affirmed a two-state policy, but he needs to show a bit more outrage (as many conscientious Israeli citizens do) at what is being done to Palestinians by Israel.
I understand and sympathize with Sanders' outrage against billionaires, but there is another very big elephant in the room -- the American military industrial complex. We need to cease a policy of endless war, decrease military presence (bases) all over the world, spend less on obsolete-at-birth weapons like the F35, and put those trillions of dollars of savings into healthcare, education, infrastructure, transportation, and global warming. Endless war for resources and strategic advantage in the Middle East is trifling compared with the endless war our predatory capitalistic system has waged on the earth itself.
We have to stop making war against other human beings. We have to stop making war against the earth. Both types of war are as self-destructive as they are destructive of the enemies they target. I like hearing Sanders speak out against war, but I would also like him to speak out against the endlessly expanding military and the billions wasted on weaponry to enrich war industries. And let me add that the greatest profit from exports comes from export of weapons.
When it comes to war and peace, Sanders appears less hawkish than Clinton. Nevertheless, it appears that his "anti-war" stance of the 60's is no more. I suppose, like Kerry, his position has "evolved." I find military positions of both Sanders and Clinton to be very troubling; but at least they are not brandishing nuclear weapons, as Trump and his cohorts have. I would like, in my lifetime, to see a president who truly deserves a Nobel peace prize.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)earthside
(6,960 posts)The Declaration of Independence.
The entire basis for the nation is that freedom is an essential human right -- freedom is not a privilege granted to individuals by a king, pope, or, yes, even by a class of warriors.
Truprogressive85
(900 posts)Where was Bill Clinton during the war in Vietnam ?
still_one
(98,883 posts)could be used as justification. The difference between comparing Viet Nam to our "adventures" in Iraq and elsewhere is that there was no draft during those incursions.
His campaign answers it this way:
"As a college student in the 1960s he was a pacifist," Michael Briggs, campaign spokesman added in an email. "[He] isn't now."
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Anybody who thinks they make some kind hay about any other citizen in our county about it should be ashamed. Yea what the fuck were you doing to stop that piece of shit. What a crock of delusion, trying to make something out such a systematic failure of our country. Please take your right wing talking points somewhere else
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)One said to me after his platoon was wiped out
that 'I'm going back so you don't have to and I want you to avoid this war at all costs because its immoral and insane.''
He was given an honor guard at his funeral two months later.
I'm deeply offended by this post by a someone WHO NEVER HAD TO BE DRAFTED OR SERVED. ........NOR LIVED THROUGH THOSE TIMES..
dgibby
(9,474 posts)I was a Navy nurse, stationed at NRMC Oakland, Calif. We were a major receiving hospital for troops injured in 'Nam. I NEVER want to see that kind of carnage again as long as I live, so I have absolutely NO problem voting for Bernie, who knew that was was wrong and had the courage of his convictions when it mattered.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)In a ward of about 50 soldiers who had just come back from Nam with all sorts of horrific injuries...
Three died close to me during that week I was there.
Carnage?........ Yeah I saw it first hand in my early teens before
they started putting it on TV.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)I had one uncle in the Korean conflict, three others that served and a brother-in-law in Marines with two tours in Nan. I was not old enough to have served while Nam was going on. I was part of that early all volunteer military.
From what i can understand after fact, when i was retired out of the military, i succumbed to what might be now known as PTSD. I was a basket case for a couple of years, but after 37 years can say i am almost over it.
Yea, it's about how big your guns are, at least that what i figured out before they retired me.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)ShrimpPoboy
(301 posts)Although I think the answer for most of the population will be the opposite of the OP article's conclusion. Vietnam is widely considered a mistake now and while we (finally) thank those who served there, there seems to be a consensus that the people who didn't go weren't wrong for making that choice. I guess I just don't think the insult of "draft - dodger" has the same meaning it once had. Bill could never have become president if it was really a deal breaker.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Though I can tell the difference between opposing a particular war and opposing all war, the right cannot.
The right also refuses to differentiate that you can be opposed to the war and not hate the troops themselves.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)We never have and we damage the party every time we try to placate them.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, far more likely to extricate us from our current lost wars.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts) beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)in the face of certain people making bogus claims (upthread). It takes a lot of patience, but I'm glad you can force yourself to do it.
Now you owe yourself shower and a very nice day, bmus. 
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I learned a thing or three growing up as the only girl.
Don't get distracted, keep cool and hold your own.
My dad taught me that.
senz
(11,945 posts)Your dad sounds like a great guy. Nobody taught me anything, but I did learn how to run fast.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But I've seen you take on quite a few nasties before and you more than hold your own.
senz
(11,945 posts)you have to learn on your own.
Thank you so much for the compliment.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)On a liberal message board no less?
senz
(11,945 posts)draft dodgers!
Whee! Welcome to the Sixties!
If this was ever a "liberal message board," it sure isn't now.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)How ironic is it that Hillary supporters are using them now?
ybbor
(1,749 posts)You handle yourself so well when dealing with others! I, too, love your tenacity and always enjoy reading your posts. Thank you from the more silent/lurker types who inhabit this place. Keep up the good fight bmus, you are greatly appreciated!
P.S. I found this op from your post in another op and searching for it in this forum.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Posts like yours make me want to keep fighting.
ybbor
(1,749 posts)
840high
(17,196 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)He applied for conscientious objector status. By the time the examining board had finished with his application, HE WAS TOO OLD FOR THE DRAFT.
Poof. There goes your latest bogus attack on Bernie. Hope it hurt your candidate instead.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,957 posts)Even though I'm not supporting him in the primaries, I don't really care that Bernie didn't serve in Vietnam and I kind of doubt that many other people will. None of the Republican candidates AFAIK served in Vietnam (or the military) either.
Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts)....he's not quick to send someone else's child into battle.
I ran into more than a few Conscientious Objectors while in Sweden and none of them regretted their decisions.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)I was afraid of the scorn my family would face if I claimed conscientious objector status. So I went and I killed and tried not to get killed. Every time someone says thank you for your service, i tell them that working to elect Bernie Sanders is the most valuable service I will ever render.
No matter how much you need to believe it, there is no glory in killing others in an unjust war like Vietnam and the murderous escapades we are engaged in now due to failure to listen to those with foresight like Bernie. In some ways, Vietnam vets wanting to see merit in what happened are much more deranged than those of us who earned our PTSD.
As far as a poll goes, many need to believe things as you apparently do, but that does not make them true.
Wake up, Bernie is fighting for democracy a lot more directly and effectively than you or I ever did.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The author seems to think he speaks for all vets.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)from Alabama and Fla.
She doesn't know shit about the draft nor those times.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But I don't disagree with what you posted.
senz
(11,945 posts)
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)opening lines. I sure as hell hope you are writing this down somewhere or otherwise recording it, as it will be of immense value to historians.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)meaning I was in the army during the war but never even left the states. My brother is a Vietnam combat vet (CIB) and we have discussed the question of draft dodging.
School deferments-great if you could get them.Downside-no one should have gotten more than 4-no reason you couldn't take a break after the bachelors and resumed after a military hitch.
CO-valid.But of course to be a CO you have to oppose all war, not just the one you're being drafted into. Mixed feelings about this-If you have a moral right to object to all war it seems just common sense you should be able to object to a corrupt one....
Go to jail-Completely honorable
Go to Canada-Arguably valid. My brother states that amnesty to return undercut it's validity
Medical-Sometimes,but a lot of athletes turned out to have crippling handicaps that kept them safely non-military if you get my drift...
Early Marriages-Seldom spoken of but yeah, it was used. As was childbirth after laws were changed to draft married men without children. Elizabeth Cheney is one such deferment.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2004/03/elizabeth_cheney_deferment_baby.html
And at the bottom of the heap you get the dregs,people so worthless they would shit their pants and live in their own feces rather than serve their country.
Most of the above were eligible for deferment, or honest draft resisters,or Ted Nugent.
Conclusions: A mixed bag or more actually a spectrum. In reality for the most part only those who were not in Vietnam even though they were eligible know where on that spectrum they fall.
Nitram
(27,741 posts)There was no way they could have known they would ever be given amnesty. Many of us considered the CO process totally bogus because it gave a free pass to certain religions, but made it impossible to reject the Vietnam War as illegal, immoral and pointless.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)But my brother kinda rejects anybody getting a do-over...
I think a lot of people really don't get what the draft was really like. All the guys who got drafted are over 60 now and younger folks chat like it was a game without realizing that losing the game could leave you 40+ years dead...one more faded memory.
Nitram
(27,741 posts)So a lot of stuff went though my head at the time.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)
senz
(11,945 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)jalan48
(14,914 posts)Even MLK spoke out against the Vietnam War as being racist in nature. I'd prefer a candidate who took a principled stand than one who simply bent over for the MIC and said yes sir.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)I suppose we can take your disappointment as support for needless wars and all the death and human misery that accompanies it then, no?
Thanks for the disclosure, but it's really unsurprising to most arounfd here I am sure.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)I see little difference in the result of being too rich to fight and conscientiously objecting.
However, it is a question he should be required to answer. The job requires him to serve as the military commander of all armed forces.
At this time, however, he does not conscientiously object to others going to war in his place. His policy is to use diplomacy first.
As a disclaimer, I do not support Sanders in the primary.
democrank
(12,596 posts)marched against the war along with a zillion others which included conscientious objectors.
My recently-deceased partner was a Vietnam Vet who returned home with a solid anti-war position. My partner had a great deal of respect for Bernie Sanders and voted for him every chance he had because Bernie is one of the finest veterans` advocates this country has....and he has had vet`s backs for a very long time.
In my eyes, the Vietnam-era people I`m disappointed in are the Barco-Lounger warhawks like Dick Cheney who got one deferment after another simply because they had the right connections....connections the blue collar millworker`s sons didn`t have.
mgmaggiemg
(869 posts)objector during the Vietnam war is not incompatible with being a patriot....most vietnam vets understand why the war was unpopular with the American people and also understood how discriminatory the draft was....most military people understand why voters protest the draft and the war....
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)You think US involvement in the Vietnam conflict was a good thing. Thanks for being transparent -- it helps me to judge your opinion in the proper context.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)since my conscience strongly objects to the draft itself, and to violence of any kind, personal or national, as anything but a last defensive resort, I certainly am not disappointed. If I were male at the time, I would have been a conscientious objector, myself. I wasn't male, and I was too young in '73 when the draft ended, but I knew exactly where I stood, even then.
I'm obviously not a millennial. I was a teenager when the draft ended, and my first husband served at the tail end of the Viet Nam era, offering me an up-close and personal view of why young people should never be forced into the military or into military action. While my first husband is not alive to offer his pov about Sanders, I know that he supported the end of the draft and the use of conscientious objector status.
Millennials ought to be paying attention to concerns about the draft; after all, if those who are perpetually calling for it to be reinstated are successful, who is going to be served up to the military on a platter?
yuiyoshida
(45,406 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Tue Dec 29, 2015, 10:31 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Sanders' stance on Vietnam continues to disappoint
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251955465
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Article is by a right wing Republican who calls Senator Sanders a "draft dodger". On du2 mods would lock these threads now it's up to juries.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Dec 29, 2015, 10:37 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The person who sent the alert wrote: Article is by a right wing Republican who calls Senator Sanders a "draft dodger". On du2 mods would lock these threads now it's up to juries.
Agreed.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What the hell is up with this alert?! I'm a Sander supporter, but you should be allowed to debate the candidates and their positions. This is hyperventilating sensitivity. I hope this goes 0-7 and the alerter gets blocked from alerting for awhile. Jeez.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If there is further information to be added about the source or the author of a piece, I think it's more appropriate to make a post about that, rather than alerting on a post that has generated more than 100 responses. Why not take the time to explain why a conscientious objector isn't a draft dodger, instead of sending out alerts?
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)That Bill Clinton went to great lengths to avoid the Vietnam-era draft, that he used political connections to obtain special favors, and that he made promises and commitments which he later failed to honor, are all beyond dispute.
Although what he did may not have been against the law, Clinton's broken promises and contradictory statements about his efforts to avoid the draft were prime examples of the kind of self-serving doublespeak that later earned him the sobriquet "Slick Willie." As Maraniss concluded in his Clinton biography, First in His Class:
"It was just a fluke," Clinton would say decades later, when first asked how he had made it through this period without serving in the military. But of course it was not a fluke. A fluke is a wholly accidental stroke of good luck. What happened to Clinton during that fateful year did not happen by accident. He fretted and planned every move, he got help from others when needed, he resorted to some deception or manipulation when necessary, and he was ultimately lucky.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/felon.asp
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts) onenote
(46,139 posts)By way of background: I sought and obtained an CO during the Vietnam War. Before doing so, I considered moving to Canada and also explored ways of obtaining a medical deferment. After I submitted my CO application but before it was granted, I was called for my physical (I had a low draft number). I changed my address, which required a rescheduling of my physical. Before the rescheduled date arrived, I received my CO. As it turns out, despite having a low number (below 50), I would not have been called for service.
I understand and have no problem with Bernie seeking CO status. And I have no problem with Bill Clinton seeking deferments. Frankly, I have no problem with anyone having used whatever measures were available to avoid serving (so long as they were not publicly supporting the war at the time).
That all being said, and as someone who is supporting Bernie in the primaries, the fact is that Bernie's stance will hurt him with some people (just as Clinton's stance hurt him). Is it insurmountable? Hopefully not. Is it somewhat different that Clinton's deferments? Yes.
The difference is -- and it appears that Bernie already is struggling with this -- that the legal standard for CO status at the time of the Vietnam War was an avowed opposition to participating in any war -- not just the Vietnam War. On the one hand, it appears that Bernie has stated that he sought his CO because he was opposed to "that" war. But that wouldn't have met the legal standard. Therefor, and the campaign apparently has made comments along these lines, Bernie's request for CO status was based on his claim to be a pacifist (not a selective objector to the Vietnam War). I have no problem with Bernie having stated he was a pacifist, whether true or not, if that is what it took to get a CO. But if he says he was opposed to the war but not a pacifist there will be those who will criticize him for being dishonest. And if his campaign says he really was a pacifist then but isn't now, some people are going to stop listening at the "Bernie was a pacifist" and refuse to support him for that reason.
Again, I'm perfectly comfortable with Bernie's position and hope that, just as Bill Clinton's deferments didn't keep him out of the WH, Bernie's pursuit of CO doesn't cost him votes that he otherwise would be likely to get. But the world is a different place today than it was in 1992 and being labeled a pacifist, as opposed to someone who was just trying to avoid the draft, could be more damaging.
cali
(114,904 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)why I had so many problems locating the thread.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I should follow your lead.
stonecutter357
(13,045 posts)
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)Views change over time as have mine. The sixty's were a tumultuous time and someone said you had to have lived through it to understand it, which is very true. Sanders would make an excellent President, IMO, and Hillary would make a good choice for VP..
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)The alternative is the candidate that voted to send us to Bush's war in Iraq. Yeah, that one worked out well for the country...
And we have to give him points for being open and honest about refusing to go to war in Vietnam - he went for CO status, because he felt the war was wrong. No bone spurs, or anal cysts, or getting rich daddy to have him sent to a Mickey-Mouse stateside assignment instead of to the front lines.
No. He said it straight up, he refused to go to war because he felt the war was morally wrong. That's the honesty that earns him my vote.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)that time:
"We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it."
John Kerry is of course a veteran of distinction himself.
The Double Standard Crew works overtime......
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a Presidential primary.
The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our Nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation. We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it.
Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?
Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?"
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/74986/john-kerry-bill-clintons-vietnam-record-jonah-goldberg
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 30, 2015, 08:32 PM - Edit history (1)
Opposing the war was also a courageous act, the protesters didn't want anyone else to die for a lie.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)respond to John Kerry's very clear definition of the Democratic point of view about the service issue. The OP rejects that point of view, apparently.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Dunno why, maybe because the indent doesn't show up on phones? Anyway my take is that it won't be an issue in the primary and will only be an issue in the general if the GOP candidate has done mil service but I can't think of any who have.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)or ill intended. I'm a Democrat of a certain age and I already defended Bill over this endlessly, this Party turning even in part on any candidate over this issue is as John Kerry said back then, saddening.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)That's where the article is from and that's probably as far as Senator Sanders is going to get.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America?"
That's the question for the OP and those engaged in this seance of Spiro's unholy spirit.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"A president is also commander in chief, the man we empower to send sons and brothers, fathers and friends, to war.
George Bush was 17 when they bombed Pearl Harbor. He left his high school class, walked down to the recruiting office, and signed up to become the youngest fighter pilot in the Pacific war.
And Mr Clinton? When Bill Clinton’s turn came in Vietnam, he sat up in a dormitory in Oxford, England, and figured out how to dodge the draft."
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Bernie was a conscientious objector 50 years ago and he would be reluctant to send soldiers to war now unless necessary. Isn't prudence what we want and need?
At least he didn't make up a story about trying to join the Marines.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)I love how the base assumption is that the status quo war-loving American politician is desirable and any alternative couldn't possibly work. Maybe the reason the US has brought so much chaos to the globe is because we don't have enough leaders like Sanders. Objecting to the immoral Vietnam war is far - FAR - from a disappointment.
djean111
(14,255 posts)How disingenuous.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I wonder where she went?
Tien1985
(923 posts)My Dad was in Vietnam as a medic.
The fact that Sanders was a conscientious objector is a perk.
Screw the draft.
frylock
(34,825 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)Nice one!
Maybe they should use Porter Wagner for their campaign song! LOL
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)It's ok to get deferments for any reason on planet earth, and still be Commander in Chief, but be a CO and not qualified?
It is a WTF moment in time!
Are you kidding?
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)because that's not how getting into wars works. A Bernie presidency may require him to send troops into harms's way and I think he would do what was necessary to protect the US. Where would he be getting his intelligence information? One place if the NSA. Then there's the very very secret Defense Intelligence Agency. And like the current president, he'll have to evaluate the completeness and veracity of the information he is given and THAT? is no easy task.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)before they were even born. Maybe you should head over to a nursing home or a VA hospital you might find some people there that care, but they are probably Republicans.
ImaPolitico
(150 posts)…. knowing that some other American was sent in Sanders place because of his refusal to serve?