So here's a story about Dean dodging the draft. It wouldn't be the first time people accused candidates of this, but Dean doesn't deny it.

Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/politics...&partner=GOOGLE

I personally think that he dishonors himself, his family and the anybody who's ever served, I shudder to think about another boy dying in his stead and wonder if he wonders who sacrificed their life for his, let alone whether or not he cares.

How does this make you feel about him personally after this?

Do you think this will hurt his run for presidency?


Also, I would rather not turn this into a thread about George W. Bush and his so-called desertion from the military as I don't believe that story and here's a link to dispute it just in case you thought about bringing it up. It's a story from a website that references a Bostone Globe's (of all papers) investigation into those allegations.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bush-desert.htm

It was already well known that one of Howard Dean's biggest drawbacks to obtaining the presidency was a lack of military service. However, as the sniping from his competitors and the GOP intensifies, this may become an issue. How serious of an issue would only be speculating.

But it certainly doesn't rise to the levels of hyperbole spewed forth by John Locke. There's no provision that says you HAVE to serve in the armed forces before you can be eliglible to become President of the United States. Which is fortunate because Vice-President Dick Cheney missed out on military service because he had "other priorities" rather than serve his country.

A nice attempt to head off at the pass any discussion of Dubya's military record, JL, but I'm going to ignore it. I can't blame you for trying to keep the focus on Dean rather than Dubya. Nobody's going to confuse him with Patton or MacArthur anytime soon.

I read your link about Dubya's military record and now you can return the favor:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html

And finally....

I personally think that he dishonors himself, his family and the anybody who's ever served, I shudder to think about another boy dying in his stead and wonder if he wonders who sacrificed their life for his, let alone whether or not he cares.

Do you mean Howard Dean or the present resident of the White House, George W. Bush? The same George W. Bush that has turned his back on the fallen soldiers of Iraq? The same George W. Bush that has yet to attend a single funeral or memorial of ANY of the 422 soldiers that have been killed?

Is THAT who you mean John Locke? Because when you want to talk about dishonoring himself, his families, his presidential predecessors (including Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton) and anybody who's ever served (including me) then you must be talking about George W. Bush.

And if you're not, you should be.

I don't think any less of Dean, and I have my own story.

In the spring of 1970, an 18-year-old boy tried to find work in the open pit iron mines of Minnesota. Mine after mine turned him down due to back X-rays that showed various problems.

One mine pointed out fused lower vertebrae. Another went with a missing vertebra. Another had an extra vertebra in there, and yet another had a weak vertebra.

Disgusted with this run-around, the young man went to college in 1971 after learning his draft lottery number was 265 (not likely to get drafted).

What does this have to do with Dean? Well, I bet Dean's draft lottery number was low, which means high chance of being drafted. That damn lottery number controlled all of our young lives back then.

How do I know? I was the guy trying to get the job in the iron mines.

If the GOP wants to make a fuss about Dean's rather logical and proactive move with the 1971 draft, I do believe the glass house will come shattering down.

JL, you shudder but you don't know what it was like in the early 1970s. The war had already been abandoned, and anyone going was just meat for the grinder. Everyone knew this, including the President and military brass.

My Vietnam veteran brother and all his veteran friends advised that I head up to Canada (just 100 miles away) or go to college for the S deferment, just to make sure. I opted for college.

So did Dean. It was the only thing to do.

Those who would make this an issue are simply displaying their ignorance.

This is just the way it was back then: the son of rich people didn't become cannon fodder over in Vietnam. The sons of poor and middle class folks did. And the sons of minority parents did so in disproportionate numbers. Bush got out of it, DeLay got out of it, Cheney made money off of it (ok, I'm kidding there )... Gore went as a photographer, because he was the son of a Senator, and more people voted for him than for Bush. But they voted that way not because of his "war record".

Non-issue. Next!

JL, you're close, but no cigar for you this time.

Dean does not say that he was a "deserter". Either does the story. It does say that he got a legal deferrment, based on medical records he provided. It was the military who granted the deferrment, based on those medical records. They apparently agreed with his doctors that he may not be physically capable of some of the duties that would be required of him.

Nothing to see here, move along.

This doesn't make me feel less of Dean. I think we should stop concerning ourselves over who did what during Vietnam. It has become a no big deal type thing IMHO

At least he's honest about it. If he could come up with a platform now, besides anti-Bush, he may have a shot.

cusbilla

I've recently become turned off with Dean. First I find out that he apposed gay marriage and now he's a draft dodger who goes skying after avoiding serving his nation? Not good in my book.

If NiteGuy's comment is accurate



This is a non-issue. Dan Quayle, Bill Clinton, and George W. have already been given passes on their non-military records. By that I mean that they have been elected to a national office for less than stellar Vietnam participation.

Although Dean will have a little trouble with his record against other Dems, he should compare favorable with GWB's record.

I definitely don't think the quote from the start of the thread is near appropriate if Dean had a legal deferment.

However Bush could easily fit that characterization if there is credence behind the AWOL allegations. In my examinations of the issue, GWB has a gaping hole in his service record while he was dodging Vietnam service.
George W.'s Missing Year

He should be able to run his Vietnam record favorably against Bush, against other Dems like Clark he'll have problems.

Edited to add.

And JL, your link that is presented as a Boston Globe exhoneration (sp?) of the GWB service record, confirms the same information in my link that concludes that Bush did not meet his service requirements when he moved from Texas to Alabama.

He's the ONLY candidate running for president who has signed a law granting civil unions to gays. Where else you gonna go to get HOPE?

As for draft dodger, I looked it up:



That's the condition he has. Basically, one of the things you can't do when you have that is be a grunt in the field toting 100 lb packs on your back as you try to dodge enemy combatants.

I have serious back trouble as well, and I can ski (quite well, actually). I just can't stand for long periods on my feet. Everyone's back operates differently.

Had I been him at that time, I would have done almost anything not to become cannon fodder for a screwed up war to preserve a massively corrupt government from being overrun by a communist insurgency. You probably would have as well... had you been considered for the draft.

So in other words, it doesn't matter. His excuse is legit and there is no reason to persue it further

Nighttimer,

Apparently we'll have to agree to disagree. You see I think that your "straightdope" article was written by somebody on dope. While trying to link George Bush's family to Nazism they turn it around into a story about the Boston Globe's piece which I sited something from as well. No biggie there. Only the story I posted admitted that the idea was disputted, that they couldn't prove the allegation and that GW Bush was an excellent pilot who clocked in mre time than his Gaurds brothers . Nice try though.

Author/Musician,

Letting someone else die for you is diplorable. Cowardice and not agreeing withthe war are two different things, yet when you dodge a draft and let someone else take your place unfairly, they are fused as one.

AMF,

Blanket statements about Rich V. Poor? Okay, whatever. As for your non-Doctoral related diagnosis of Dean.... . Keep the jokes coming.

NiteGuy,

You mis-quoted me. I never siad Dean was a deserter. He would have had to show up in the first place instead of taking the little girls way out. He dodged all together.

Eyeore,

NiteGuy's comment is not accurate.


Finally I would like to speak to the heart of the matter. That being, you don't need to to have military experience to be the President, that's why we have Generals. However I don't like Dean's position on war and I don't think that he's fit to lead during the War on Terror. He may have been great at any other time, but not while the possibilities of necessary war exist and he might be the kind of guy who just doesn't agree with war all together. Further than that I would add that one who is willing to dodge the draft sends the wrong message to soldiers and other Americans. If you don't like your countries stand, just run away. Whether you agreed with the war or not, as a citizen he had a duty and obligation to fullfil. He didn't and so somebody more brave than him went off. I hope his replacemnet made it home safely.

First off JL- if you have not served in the military, by your own logic, you do not have any business commenting on the serving of others! I read the article, I served, will be back in within another 2 months (hey, I can now pass the PT test for 38 year olds LOL)- and Dean's reason for not serving is far more honorable than GWs OR Reagans OR Quayles. Clinton's was the most honorable- his big brain got him a deferment as a RHODES SCHOLAR FROM ARKANSAS- how often do products of public schooling from Arkansas become Rhodes Scholar? LOL

Rich guys getting out of war is no big suprise and is not a new thing- it is just incredibly hypocritical of the right, especially by those that have not even served themselves, to critisize another not serving, or giving thier own draft dodgers a pass due to thier privilage status!

JL- are you going to Iraq since you support the war?

I, too, do not see serving in a war as a requirement to serve a country - only as a requirement to start another war. Let's face it (like others have said), some people served by throwing a little cash at the army. These people claim they are the "truest" of Americans. And some are descendants of those injured or slain in war, children who hate the thought of war because of what it did to their parents. We call them the "Anti-Americans". I'm an anti-American, there goes my hopes of the presidency.

And this is by no way a means of changing the direction of this debate, but I have to say it: this 2004 election is a joke.

I dunno..those that serve are in a position to pay the ULTIMATE price for this country..ie for you and me. It also tells quite a bit about a persons character. Dean isn't fit to lead a high school football team much less the USA. Admiring someone for cut and running is fascinating. What good trait is that? Is it the academia equivilent to the Jerry Falwel "holier than thou?" Interesting. Mabe we should be more truthful...rather than progressive..regressive?

cusbilla

And it seems to me that the ones who are so gung-ho on others serving are rarely the ones who are serving. Why are there so many "Chickenhawks" out there? Maybe that's a question for another thread.

Not saying anyone here is doing that, but it seems that rating someone's personality on not wanting to be drafted into a war when you haven't ever been drafted or had to face that moment when your number is called is particularly callous.

If you have had your number called and you were able to answer the call, say, during 1969-1974, then more power to you and I humbly consider your opinion on this matter with much more gravity.

And there's a HUGE difference between getting a medical deferment and dodging the draft. Did he go to Canada? Did he try to use his father's considerable influence to, say, hide out in the Guard?

The Chickenhawks are like Monday morning quarterbacks who have never played the game.

How does this make you feel about him personally after this?

Do you think this will hurt his run for presidency?

that he dodged the draft so blatantly? I could see how he might lose the respect (and votes)of some of the men who DID or had no other choice but to serve including the parents of the dead, while he was shusshing happily along the slopes. they wouldn't be wrong either. personally I have never cared for him or his politics so my feelings haven't changed much.

will it hurt? I hope so.

CruisingRam,

My logic asserts nothing of the sort. My logic asserts that as a tax paying American I can (freedom???) comment on whatever situation I see fit, especially as a well informed tax payer.

My logic also tells me that being a coward for your life is nothing like GW Bush or Dan Quayle or Reagan. As I stated earlier there is nothing to back up anything people are saying about Bush, so repeating lies that Moveon.com sends you won't get any play here. At least try and have a credible link before you present falicy .

I also didn't know ronald Reagan was rich growing up and used so much of his affluence to get out of a war . Hello, anybody home?


Will I be going to Iraq??? Not anytime soon. If there was draft I would gladly go over. Does it make me less of a man because I support a war I haven't fought in? I supported WW2 after the fact and people don't tell me I'm not qualified to discuss that. What makes you think that you can denounce a war never having served, but you you can't support one never having served. Consider my tax dollars enough to voice an opinion. I'll consider the cowardice of Dean's dodging and wonder abouth the boy who took his stead and his family .

AMF,


Last I checked, chickenhawk was a term ascribed to people who pick up child prostitutes. Lastly there is no difference between dodging the draft faking an ailment. And I consider his belly-aching tactics to admittedly excuse him from war to be dodging. Perhaps if you don't like to call a spade a spade we could do the liberal thing and give it a new name like; heroic disallusionment .

Finally, I don't know that Bill Clinton has even one head that hasn't gotten him into trouble. Certainly his time in Moscow durring this scholalry period would shed some light on that subject, if he would answer the questions about it.

Didn't know about the child prostitute meaning. Guess I should hang out in better places

A "chickenhawk" has lately come to describe someone who thinks war is the answer to lots of questions... as long as it's someone else's child being sent off to fight it. Most of the neo-cons that are part of the current administration fit this description.

And you can certainly comment on these events, JL, but you look like just a partisan hack when you can't admit the faults of the guy you support or acknowledge the ideas and wisdom of someone you don't.

amf,

This is exaclty why GWB is going to win 2004. "Chickenhawk?" ..please spare us the diatribe. I don't know ANY president at any time who enjoyed sending our soldiers into harms way. The problem, as I see it, is that we haven't produced the "big stick" in quite a while. People neither respect the might of the US or what the US is capable of doing. I know you are find this hard to believe but, NOT EVERY ANSWER CAN BE DISCUSSED AND SOLVED PEACEFULLY. To think anything else means you are irrational. I hate to break this to you but trying to be rational with irrational people usually generates an irrational response to fix the problem. Hello welcome to real life.

cusbilla

Why is it that some people cannot see the difference between "dodging" out of protecting your own country, and "dodging" out of protecting the armpit of Asia? Anyone that was able to get out of doing that, more power to them. I would have no problem dying for my country, but I do have a problem with dying for a country I have nothing to do with. Had I been alive at that time, I would have definitely dodged. As such, I will not criticize a candidate for doing that. Not to mention that he did not dodge, he was unable to serve for medical reasons, this is what the military decided, not anyone else.

And hiding out in the guard is dodging, in my book. After which he has the audacity to say "I've been to war".

Dean is a taxpayer, too, johnlocke. You have plenty of reasons, I am sure, to not vote for him, not the least of which being that he is not a pro-war, conservative Republican.

I would consider that getting a degree in medicine and working as a doctor was Dean's way of serving. The medical profession is an honorable one, and at least it shows that he had enough brains to get through medical school and a residency--which might not be said for Dubya. ("Yeah, it looks like a budget--it's got a lot of numbers in it!" Now there's a real MBA!! )

Anybody who thinks that the system of the draft was a fair system was stupid or not born yet. G. W. Bush served--oh yeah--in a gravy job where he could take off and help with Daddy's campaign. He did not volunteer to go to Vietnam, and nobody was going to send him. And there's that year AWOL and his failure to pee in the cup for the military medical doctor prior to the performance review. An oversight? I don't think so. These are not the actions of a responsible person. But they are part of that yawning chasm that Dubya calls his misspent youth. Would that we all could have our bad behavior justified because we were young when we misbehaved!

If you're not going to vote for Dean, don't vote for him for substantive reasons, not lame ones.

Huh?

John Locke do you even bother to read the links you reply to? IF you read it carefully and slowly you will notice that the person asking the question thanks Cecil Adams for dispelling the charge that Bush's grandfather Prescott Bush sympathized and profited from associations with the Nazis. Adams disagrees with the information you provided with YOUR link that Bush was such a superb pilot.

As regards your other point regarding "as a citizen he had a duty and obligation to fulfill. He didn't and so somebody more brave than him went off," that same standard could be applied to Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, and Rush Limbaugh along all the other chickenhawks who ducked military service or otherwise found ways to avoid going off to war.

But I'm not holding my breath expecting you to demand of conservative Republicans what you scorn liberal Democrats for.

And you don't have to wait for a draft JL before going off to fight and possibly die for your country. There are Navy, Army, Air Force, Marines and National Guard recruitment centers open and eager to send your tender young flesh off to Iraq or Afghanistan. Pick one and go walk the walk as well as you talk the talk.

Double standards, anyone?

I

Spare me. There is also alot of $$$ in being a doctor as well. If you think that is serving the country over serving in the military..PLEAASSEEEE. No one said the medical profession isn't an honorable one. And PLEASSE stop the diatribe on GW being stupid. Being a fighter pilot requires quite a bit of intelligence. What it shows that Dean has enough intelligence to know what he's doing..whether it's right or wrong is another question...kinda reminds me of another Democratic President...hmmm are we seeing a pattern here or what?

cusbilla

How can you conclude anything about leadership from Howard Dean getting a medical deferment so he didn't have to fight in Vietnam? If you want to look for leadership look at his record as governor of Vermont. Personality politcs and partisan mudslinging about fighting in Vietnam isn't going to fix the economy or win the war on terrorism.
How many lives did Bush save owning the Texas Rangers or being a failed oil tycoon?


JL, How do you know Howard Dean is a coward? He hasn't been cowardly in his political career, he signed an unpopular civil unions bill. He definitely wasn't cowardly when he was a doctor saving lives, by that logic Lawrence Taylor, Martin Luther King and Gandhi were cowards because they didn't serve in the military.

So there are a lot of bucks to be made in the medical profession. Maybe like in the stock market? Or maybe like in oil wells? Or maybe like in campaigning for Daddy to become President?

Dean didn't hide out in Canada; he had a medical deferment. He did not have to become a doctor, because his family was wealthy and he could have taken another job that required less study. Again, if you're going to condemn Dean, it's pretty weak condemning him because he didn't go hunting Viet Cong in the jungles but took the initiative to better himself and become a physician.



I am sure it required a lot of intelligence. Whether he still has that intelligence after using cocaine and drinking is not for us to know, I guess. I just know that all of his press conferences are very carefully orchestrated and that he is given few opportunities if any to speak "off the cuff" for fear that he is not going to sound intelligent or informed. Karl Rove is truly Dubya's "handler."



Bill Clinton, for all of his flaws, was legitimately elected to two terms. Bill Clinton has plenty of smarts, and until his eleventh-hour pardoning of some pretty unsavory characters, I saw him as having very good intentions for the country. He is a leader, but not a wartime leader.

Dubya got us into this war. There is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was connected to the 9/11 attacks. Dubya used some pretty specious arguments to get the most recent installment of the "War on Terror" started by invading Iraq. Now our military is in more danger than ever from groups that never did fight fairly and are harder to engage in battle. Tens of billions of dollars are being used to continue the occupation and the battles with insurgents.

Sure, Dubya's answers are right in there with mother love, apple pie, and (most exploitatively) the flag. Wrapping something inside of the Stars and Stripes does not make the action right or wise. But the defenders of his actions insinuate that those against this most recent war are 1) unpatriotic, 2) communist, 3) ungodly or 4) just plain hateful. Slinging mud at the opposition does not make one's own position any cleaner, however.

I reiterate: Dean's lack of a service record is irrelevant when considering him as a presidential candidate, especially when our current President's service record is hardly exemplary.

Watch Dean's poll numbers, as he has been consistently in the lead over the other nominees, but if they begin to drop and remain lower...he's in trouble. The nominees are bashing Dean because the Party doesn't think he can beat Bush and he is famous for bashing the Party which the voting Democrats love.

There was a discussion among former generals and the topic was, "Do high ranking ex military officers make good Presidents?" The general consensus among the generals is "NO" because the scope of their expertise is very limited. To me, the primary problem with General Clark is that he has a VERY selective memory, and is self-serving. Can't even begin to imagine him in dual service-as President of the United States while "playing" General in a war that he thinks is wrong...the real Generals in this war, I am sure, would have a problem with President Clark trying to surpass them.

Never forget all the fuss about Clinton's dodging the draft...but I am willing to bet if he could and would run for President again that he would win. Voters are fickle...one minute a leader is a hero and the next minute he is a bum.

Hey, there are bums in the military and heroes that never served in the military and vice-versa. How can we forget Timothy McVeigh and most recently Malvo, the ex-military sniper?

Dean's mouth is the cause of his greatest headaches and will be if he should become our next President. And as I emailed the other nominees, "Talk is cheap! What are your specific remedies for all of our current problems? How much are they going to cost? And where are you going to get the money to pay for everything on your "Bash" list? Let's see how they arrive at unknowable figures.

I still believe that Dean will be the nominee for 2004!

I just love the way DNC junkies bash Bush. What does Dean offer? What makes him special to be the Democratic nominee for 2004? So far the lot of people running for the DNC nomination is like watching a Jerry Lewis telethon..only the Jerry Lewis telethon is more amusing. Is this really the best the DNC has to offer?

I see a pattern here of nothing but bash GW and praise Dean for dodging the Draft..BTW he even admitted to doing. We have some on here disputing that claim EVEN THOUGH DEAN SAID AS MUCH! Can we come back to reality and get off the "hate" GW bandwagon for a second to think logically?

Like I said before, if you are going to run a campaign that promises everything, thats divisive, and offers nothing other than anti-Bush rheteric you are setting yourself up for utter failure.

cusbilla

Y'know, truthfully, I have no idea what you're talking about. Re-read my post (slower this time).

It looks like you've gone off on a rant because you don't like what Democrats stand for and dislike seeing Bush's problems and foibles pointed out. Or are you one of those "chickenhawks" I referred to that loves to use the "big stick" (what a funny testosterone-based phrase, by the way) as long as it's not your neck on the line?

Try not to take it so personally, cusbilla.

And, based on my reading of people here and elsewhere, a Dean vs. Bush battle will be exciting, because BOTH SIDES are energized. I don't hear the same energy from Kerry, Gephardt, Clark, etc. fans.

amf,

This exactly what I mean..WHAT DOES THE DNC STAND FOR? I mean really?

cusbilla

Couple of observations:

1) Sending convicted criminals to Vietnam was an alternative to jail back in the latter years of that war that really wasn't a war but a police action.

2) No real combat Vietnam veteran would consider Dean a coward. None have considered me a coward, and I know plenty of real combat vets. Have partied with them on Memorial Day at The Wall, rode with them in the Rolling Thunder Rally, and helped raise holy hell over agent orange and other veteran issues.

Folks who think Dean is a no-issue basher candidate are also displaying ignorance.

Anyone who wants to gain knowledge rather than simply spewing forth strange brews of bad logic can go visit the source:

Dean's Page

I don't think it matters what Bush & Co. did about Vietnam. They are held to a different standard than the rest of us. If they did nothing, that's just fine. Neither for nor against that "war," they knew that their destinies differed from everyone else's.

I agree that Bush & Co. fit JL's definition of coward. All of the heros of that era are dead. Combat vets will know what I mean. War has not changed in this manner since its inception. By JL's definition, all are cowards who did not fight and die, no matter what the reasons for fighting.

George W. Bush will be visiting Fort Carson today. Military families are divided on the Iraq issue, as is America. There's little wonder to this. Bush & Co. learned nothing from Vietnam and are thus doomed to repeat the mistakes.

IMO, those who push for wars in which they will not fight are worse than cowards. There are words for these types, but I refuse to let the profanity bot make them all ######-####### and ###-#####. So I guess "chicken-hawks" will just have to do.

You're right on, here. My father did THREE tours in Vietnam, and he never criticized a single person for not going, or attempting to dodge it. He thought it was a gross, immoral war. He didn't even criticize Clinton on that one, and he's a strict conservative who hated Clinton.

Dean had a legitimate medical deferment. Had I been a man up for the draft back then, I'd have waved my flat feet at the recruiter's face (sadly, I think that's no longer disqualifying). I don't know much about Dean, or his stand on any issue, but as far as this goes....nothing to see here, let's move along.

Clearly Dean's presidential run isn't running out of gas. According to recent polls Dean is leading Kerry by 3% or (9%) in Massachusetts, 21% in New Hampshire and is leading the Iowa Caucus by 10%. Add to those great poll numbers the two new super-delegates for Dean and the Dean campaign looks quite healthy.

No, I don't think it will harm him in the least.

But I hope he never tries to live up to my idol, George Bush. Every time I feel bad and need to be motivated, I get out my picture(which I keep above my bed) of George in his magnificent flight suit on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. The goose bumps just go up and down my spine, it is so inspiring. It is hard to describe that feeling.

Well you know, George is just a natural born leader. He was born in a poor one room cabin with a dirt floor and look where he is now, all of that with no ones help. Makes me proud to be an American.

AM,

Here is one of many. I suggest you learn to use a search engine BTW.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../24/wdean24.xml

cusbilla

Of course the first thing on that web page is an attack on GWB. Thanks AM for making my point on the ignorant ranting and the lack of observation and analysis. Once again..no chance on beating GWB with his message confused behind the hate Bush crowd. It should be interesting this year though...I have my popcorn machine ready to just listen to the idiots come out.

cusbilla

How does this make you feel about him personally after this?

Dean's medical deferment doesn't make me feel one way or the other. Some men and women are able to join the military, others aren't. I don't place my vote for president on whether the person served our country.

The man is obviously trying to serve our country by running for president.


Do you think this will hurt his run for presidency?

I don't think this will have any effect on his candidacy or nomination, of which I expect him to receive.

How does this make you feel about him personally after this?

It doesn't change my mind towards Dean. I do not feel that a President needs to have served active duty. It is certainly not positive, but not negative either.

Do you think this will hurt his run for presidency?

I think it is much more likely to be brought up during the Democratic primaries, especially by John Kerry, who is lagging badly.

I have no doubt Dean is wanting to serve his country by running for the office of the President of the United States. BUT, in my opinion, only true narcissists strive for a position like this. Which there is nothing wrong with it, someone has to sit in the oval office and better him than me!

My only concern is, if he had such a back problem, what was he doing snow skying after being disqualified because of back problems? I'm not saying that I'm calling him unpatriotic or anything like that, but for me it does raise questions about his character.

I still like him. I think i have forgiven him for that "confederate flag" comment. I agree that it does not matter if a candidate has served in the army or not, as long as they serve the presidency well.

This "Draft dodging" report is just mudslinging that is usual in political races




Maybe when the votes from military men come out, especially ones who have served years in Vietnam

cusbilla,

Seems that Dean has attracted more than enough money to counteract the Bush ad in Iowa.

And just why is the GOP running an ad when this is a Demo caucus? Eh, whatever, the message is that you're unpatriotic or soft on terrorism if you don't go with Bush.

How convenient.

Point is though that Dean still attracts the money even though he got out of the draft on medical reasons.

For others, the skiing thing is irrelevant to back issues. Skiing stresses the legs a lot more than the back. Carrying heavy packs and slogging through the jungle -- that stresses the back.

So after the mines turned me down due to back issues, did that stop me from doing heavy lifting? Naw. It was all *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** to begin with. Dean's back really is weaker than average, so he didn't go work in a warehouse, right? He went into a profession where strapping orderlies do the heavy lifting.

Well, I gotta go back to reading "Google for Dummies" now

AM,

And good for him raising that money. There should be no cap..otherwise you are basically stiffling free speech. Un-patriotic..I would phrase it as do-nothing. We've seen where that got us.

As for Dean being hurt? Ehhh, I dunno, I don't think you need to be in the military to run for office and be a good Pres. It doesn't hurt to serve though.

I think the Democratic candidates are going to eat their own in the next few months...should make for some great tv and one-liners.

cusbilla

cusbilla,

I suppose it doesn't hurt to have served your country through the military. It also doesn't hurt to have served your country as a doctor. As for Bush, his service was minimal. Dr. Dean served for many years.

And it is harder to save lives than to take them. Not that Bush took any. He never saw combat service.

Maybe the perfect combination is to have served in the military as a medic.

I could agree with that. I don't quite equate being a doctor to being in the military though. Basically someone putting their ^&* on the line so that you and I can live free is something special and should not be cheapened nor ignored as a character trait. Kerry and Clark know thins and so do all vets.

cusbilla

Guess that means I get your vote? LOL

Dean's service and reasons were honorable, GWs, Quayle, Gingrich, etc were not.

CR,

You got it!

cusbilla,

Right. GWB never put his "BEHIND" on the line. From what I see, he's never gone an extra mile for anybody.

Just as military service should not be disregarded, it also should not elevate past what is deserved. Equating Natonal Guard service to, oh say, Marine service isn't right either.

Nor should what one does in cvilian life be elevated past what it is. And it should not be disregarded.

So, doctor or MBA? MBA, doctor. Which is more admirable?

"I cut jobs!" vs. "I save lives!" See what I mean?

There is a fundamental character difference.

Removed profanity filter bypass attempt - Jaime

AM,

I am not obsessed with GW the way you are. I am simply stating that you are incorrect..no a better word is naive to think being a doctor relates to serving in the military in a war zone. If you notice I don't have your GW phsychosis.

As for cutting jobs one only needs to look at the "Clintonian" recession we just weathered and put blame where where blame is due...if there is such a thing in our market based economy not that I expect you to understand business cycles or the history thereof.

For running the USA give me an MBA any day over a Doctor. While the Doctor (to me) may be more admirable, the MBA will get the job done. I guess it has more to do with thinking rather than feeling.

cusbilla