http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/opinion/15DAVI.html?th If you are a Curb Your Enthusiasm fan, here is an account of how Larry David and, apparently George Bush, risked life, limb, and even sacrificed a few weekends, defending America while boys were dying in Vietnam.
and what did Bill Clinton do in that time also? Its funny that all this nonesense didn't matter when Bill Clinton and Al Gore were running but all of a sudden it has become an issue.:shock:
CottonBowl, since when did it become a requirement that to be President you had to serve in actual combat????? And good point Sourdoughman....seems odd that it was OK for Clinton to do it, but its not OK when Bush did it? That's really odd isn't it?
When Bush played "dress-up" as a Navy combat pilot and landed on an aircraft carrier with a huge sign (ordered by his staff, BTW) that said "Mission Accomplised," and when Bush describes himself as a "war president" he himself made his service record an issue. When your president tries to identify himself with men and women who have gone into harm's way for political gain, he makes his own service record a campaign issue. You won't undertand that because you are just a lemming who thinks "Bush-good," "Clinton-bad." It is another reason why you are not worth responding to here. Bush himself made it an issue.
And when Bill Clinton sent troops into Bosnia, Haiti, et. al, HE made HIS service record (excuse me, lack thereof) an issue. George Bush put himself behind the stick of a supersonic fighter. Bill Clinton couldn't even get on an ROTC uniform at SooeyU for the yellow streak down his back. There's absolutely no comparison.
No, there is no comparison. Bush supported going to war in Vietnam. He thought it was a just and noble cause. .....It was a just and noble cause as long as he DID NOT HAVE TO RISK HIS LIFE in it. It was a just and noble cause as long as SOMEONE ELSE RISKED HIS LIFE for George Bush. Bush supported the war as long as someone else fought and died in it, and he did not.
And Bill Clinton avoided service because he didn't believe it was a "noble cause"? How convenient. Why not go for conscientious objector status? Maybe he was afraid he wouldn't be able to maintain his "political viability"?
I suppose you have proof of this? Maybe George Bush served in the military because it was the legal obligation of all young men his age to do so. that doesn't necessarily mean that he supported the war.
i think lots of things are just and noble and it doesnt mean i want to personally do them. i do not want to go to iraq, but i respect those who do go, same with vietnam. is that so weird?
The difference here is that you're under no legal obligation to serve. Bill Clinton was, and he ducked that obligation.
