See, Rudy Would Have Just SUCKED at Combat, is All….
By Mona
.
Greenwald has a must-read post (brief ad click-through) on the combat-avoiding antics of Mitt Romney and “tough guy” Rudy’s draft-dodging. About Rudy (italicized emphasis is mine):
Tough Guy Rudy Giuliani’s, whose deferment request was denied in 1969, [placed] him at imminent risk of being drafted, when he somehow convinced the federal judge for whom he was clerking “to write to the draft board, asking them to grant him a fresh deferment and reclassification as an ‘essential’ civilian employee.” The very idea that a first-year judicial clerk, just out law school, is “essential” for anything is absurd on its face. Yet the swaggering tough guy Rudy Giuliani used that blatant lie to ensure that someone other than himself was sent to fight in Vietnam.
To go from the insightful to the nauseatingly, pathetically ludicrous, Real Clear Politics “defends” against Greenwald’s smackdown of warmongers who love the notion of sending other people off to their wars by musing:
Perhaps Rudy or Mitt would’ve been a liability on the battle field.{…}Our troops fight to preserve the civilian government we have established, and they are the strongest, smartest and bravest the world has ever seen. Wishing to replace them with Rudy, or Mitt, or any other seemingly hypocritical war supporter is an insult to their capabilities and their heroism.
As to the RCP sentence I bolded, there are many hilarities to be spun there. I solicit them in comments.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 15, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
I can actually see that logic. Faintly.
On the other hand, wanting Rudy/Mitt/etc. to be on the receiving end of an IED or a sniper bullet in Baghdad instead of some young guy doing his job is rather appealing.
Comment by Moe Blues —
November 15, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
We’ll ignore the staggering illiteracy for the moment and simply note that the past tense need not be applied–both Mitt and Rudy would be liabilities to today’s fighting soldiers whether either one of them was on the battlefield or in command from Washington.
Comment by KCinDC —
November 15, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Yesterday I heard John Bolton on the radio explaining that really he would’ve volunteered for Vietnam but by the time he had an opportunity the hippie traitors had already lost the war for us, so he wasn’t going to go fight only to have Ted Kennedy give it all back to the Communists.
Comment by Tony P. —
November 15, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
Rudy and Mitt are garden-variety sissy-hawks, so why is half the country prepared to countenance either one as President? Because the whole country has gone bonkers, that’s why. As evidence, I cite this sentence from the RCP snippet:
More precisely, I cite the fact that Serious People on the Left as well as the Right make a habit of mouthing such mindless pieties, confident of hearing a devout “Amen!” from the congregation.
I call bullshit. Whatever “our troops” are fighting for in Iraq, the preservation of our civilian government is not obviously it. And the conceit that modern-day American soldiers are an amalgam of superhero and Boy Scout such as humanity’s blood-soaked history has never seen? Balderdash — or at least, willful parochialism.
This idolatry of “our troops” is political correctness run amok. Unchecked, it can lead to widespread acceptance of the notion that the nation exists to support its military, instead of the other way around. One wonders if it hasn’t already.
– TP
Comment by KCinDC —
November 15, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
Perhaps it does show how far we’ve advanced in overcoming gender stereotypes that a man with a lisp can successfully present himself as a tough guy. Then again, it worked for Mike Tyson too.
Comment by Joshua Holmes —
November 15, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
I think there’s a moral difference between working to avoid being drafted and signing on the dotted line for the military. I don’t support either one (anarchist, ldo), but today’s military are volunteers, not conscripts.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 15, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
I’ve never seen Rudy knock anyone out or bite someone’s ear.
Comment by Gary Farber —
November 15, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
“I’ve never seen Rudy knock anyone out or bite someone’s ear.”
Have you ever seen him in the presence of a ferret?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 15, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
No?
Comment by bystander —
November 15, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
…volunteers, not conscripts?
Can we still make that claim in the face of stop loss procedures and the National Guard redeployment one day short of qualifying for the GI Bill’s benefits?
Comment by ajay —
November 16, 2007 @ 5:17 am
In other words, they’re volunteers like battered wives like being beaten up. They entered that marriage voluntarily, didn’t they? What are they complaining about?
Comment by DangerMan —
November 16, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Perhapth it doeth thow how far we’ve advanthed in overcoming gender thtereotypeth that a man with a lithp can thuccethfully prethent himthelf ath a tough guy. Then again, it worked for Mike Tython, too.
Not that far, apparently.
Comment by DangerMan —
November 16, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
In other words, they’re volunteers like battered wives like being beaten up. They entered that marriage voluntarily, didn’t they? What are they complaining about?
No, it’s like they are battered girlfriends who accept the engagement ring with broken fingers and say “I’m sure it will be alright. He loves me.” They knew before they made the commitment, see?
Comment by Derek Copold —
November 16, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
“Volunteer” does not equate to “mercenary” or “useful pawn.” Many come from backgrounds where service to country is a moral obligation. Blowing off hardships imposed on the military by foolish policies because its members are “volunteers” is bullsh*t. You’re punishing those with good character and rewarding the weasels like Guliani and Cheney, as well as Bill Clinton–who didn’t mind sending kids off to fight his own personal crusades.
Comment by ajay —
November 19, 2007 @ 6:57 am
Bill Clinton–who didn’t mind sending kids off to fight his own personal crusades.
Newsflash, Derek – cruise missiles are unmanned.