Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I'm sure most of you have seen this by now but I think it's quite amusing. Markos Moulitsas made Tom Tancredo storm off the set of an MSNBC interview by pointing out that he was a chickenhawk.
I'll give Tancredo this much credit: At least he's consistent when it comes to the VA and wants to do away with it. You have to laugh at the people who simultaneously claim that government-run healthcare is a fascist plot to destroy our freedom and will kill off those who take part in it AND that our men and women in uniform deserve government-run healthcare.
But the faux outrage in this clip is funny. Yet another chickenhawk gets confronted with the fact that they refused to fight in a war they supported and they turn tail and run. Hell, it's no wonder they didn't go to fight; they can't even handle facing the reality of their own hypocrisy.
Politics
Comments
I'm with Michael Heath on this...we need to start confronting more politicians with their hypocrisy. This is a beautiful place to start. I think if these dumbasses start getting hit over the head more often, they will be less likely to do it.
Posted by: Scott Reese | November 10, 2009 9:38 AM
Gee, Tom Tancredo a chickenhawk. What a surprise, just like draft dodgers George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.
Posted by: SLC | November 10, 2009 9:41 AM
Is it really fair to criticize Tancredo for a medical deferment?
Posted by: Chilidog | November 10, 2009 9:57 AM
For a medical deferment for depression? You bet it's fair. Imagine what Tancredo and his ilk would say about a liberal claiming to be too depressed to be drafted.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 10, 2009 10:04 AM
I'm a big fan of Markos because he plays to win, a feature that should be followed by the Democrats, not avoided as they all too often do.
Their primary test right now is what ramifications Sen. Lieberman faces for planning to filibuster health insurance reform including a public option. The first tactic should be to publically expose how Lieberman's proclaimed positions are both ignorant, idiotic, and untrue. E.g., the public option isn't what incrementally drives significant increases in federal spending since the option's revenue base would be the same as the private insurers in the exchange (citizens premium payments plus government subsidies). The increase in federal spending comes instead due to the universal coverage mandate.
However the President's Economic team argues that its findings predict that universal coverage will increase GDP by about 0.5% per year, which equates to about $70 billion in increased annual economic growth while also bringing a host of benefits not quantified in the .005% (e.g., better students given less sick days, more hope among young people is also a strong causal factor in reduced teenage pregnancies and hope is a function of the quality of education and health care, ect.).
Obviously at some point the Senator should be threatened or stripped of his seniority and preferred committee assignments if he continues to filibuster his own caucus on their most important agenda item in generations. However, I'd argue that should be step two given that Mr. Lierberman's ego got ahead of his position. Therefore the Dems need a path to walk the Senator back to the fold. Publically "educating" the Senator by exposing his lies allows him to improve his positions based on accurate premises seems to me to an optimal tactic.
I'd love to hear how Rahm Emmanuel and Sen. Schumer want to approach the Liebeman problem. To date they've proven to be two of the best winners and tacticians in their party.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 10, 2009 10:05 AM
Ed, if it was a fake diagnosis, then yes, I would say critique away. Since we don’t know the circumstances, then I would assume that the diagnosis was real and in that case I don’t think it is fair to disparage someone about something like that. Saying “well they would do it if the situation were reversed” is simply not a valid excuse. Mental illness is a valid medical condition, and a treatable one at that. If he had a deferment because he had cancer which later went into remission would you make fun of that? Sorry but I have to call you out on this. It is not right and you know it.
Posted by: Chilidog | November 10, 2009 10:21 AM
As has been pointed out many times on this blog, it's not necessarily the position they take, it's the hypocrisy so often displayed when those whom they disagree with take similar positions and are criticized for it.
Are we to expect that this congresscritter was too depressed to serve inthe military, but perfectly capable of running a campaign for election at the federal level? What time frame are we talking about when the diagnosis for depression was made and the subsequent running for or serving in federal office?
Posted by: FastLane | November 10, 2009 10:33 AM
Actually, we know he wasn't hostpitalized for it. And we know of no records for treatment. Tancredo sure didn't react like someone who had depression; he acted like someone who was caught in a lie on national TV.
Markos was pretty sure Tancredo was faking it and acted accordingly.
Posted by: gwangung | November 10, 2009 10:36 AM
Michael Heath: I don't think there is that much you can do to Lieberman, especially sibce he isn't up until 2012. I don't think they have the balls to do it, but what I would really like to see the Dems do is call the Rethuglican's bluff and make them do an old fashioned filibuster. Shut everything down and let them talk non-stop on C-SPAN. Obama is a skilled enough politician to make the blame fall squarely on the Rethuglican's shoulders.
This idea that every single piece of legislation should require a super-majority is certainly not in the Constitution and we need badly to break the back of minority rule right now. California is completely paralyzed by the requirement that any taxes need a supermajority and the US is approaching that. Let's have the battle royal now over health care. It's important enough and I think Obama can win this if he is daring enough.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | November 10, 2009 10:47 AM
Tancredo, chickenhawk turned tail and ran? Oooh! I am surprised! How characteristic of these punks, Karl Rove, Bush II, Cheney, and of course, not to forget, Saxby Shameless Chambliss. Shameless holds something of a record for a chickenhawk, having won twice against military veteran opponents. Shameless is a country club fatcat + scumbag, who won the first time, calling his opponent the peerless Max Cleland a coward. The 2nd time Shameless won against Jim Martin, another veteran. The irony the 2nd time is pungent. Shameless is a rich kid who pulled strings to dodge the draft. Jim Martin, took time off from college, fooled the recruiting office, concealing evidence about his bum knee, to go to Vietnam. One guy lied to stay out, and the other guy lied to enlist. Which is why I am don't buy this entire hooplah about Memorial Day and Veterans Day and Support Our Troops. The GOPers, large swathes, rich and poor, will elect a draft dodging shameless any day over an honorable veteran. It has happened many times. Tammy Duckworth was accused by her country club opponent of wanting to cut and run, yeah right. Duckworth who flew choppers in Iraq and lost her legs in a chopper crash. The GOPers are a coalition of rich crooks and their lumpen flunkies.
Posted by: Rothfl | November 10, 2009 10:51 AM
From what I read, Tancredo was on medication for depression at age 17-18, and used that to avoid the draft at age 22. I.E., sounds like he was looking for anything he had at any point in his life that would let him dodge, and saw that.
Posted by: ThatOtherGuy | November 10, 2009 11:01 AM
While I agree with your principal, why should we give Tancredo the benefit of the doubt? After all, he acted exactly like the type of chicken Kos accused him of being: When attacked, he whined, took his ball, and went home.
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | November 10, 2009 11:28 AM
Umm . . . so I apparently am in the minority here, but I don't think the fact that idiotic Republicans would make fun of a Democrat for getting a deferment for depression means that it's okay to do it. That's that whole "two wrongs don't make a right" meme, which I tend generally to agree with.
As far as being deferred for depression goes, and I don't know the facts of his case, but I would be entirely supportive of not drafting anyone who had a history of depression. If there's one thing you don't want to do with someone who is depressed, or may be likely to become depressed again, it's give him access to weapons.
And finally, because I've learned that apparently I have to clarify this whenever I criticize someone criticizing a Republican, I do still know that Tancredo is a total douche, I do know that lots of people got "medical deferments" back then that were basically crap, and I do think that Markos had a point to make. I think he made it poorly though, and don't feel bad calling him out on that.
Posted by: ChrisZ | November 10, 2009 11:32 AM
Sorry but as we've learned from reactionary jackasses over the last 12 months, we're going to need to see some pretty explicit documentation of his depression.
And since the birfers have gone so far as to repeatedly suggest that official documents aren't good enough, I'm really curious as to what paperwork will be sufficient for tancredo to prove his mental illness.
Posted by: JohnV | November 10, 2009 11:54 AM
So, in June 1969 Tancredo went to take his induction physical and accurately described his medical history, as required. As a result of his physical, probably related to his history of depression, the army doctors decided that he was not qualified for military service except in time of national emergency. Unless there is something more to this story, I see absolutely no reason why Tancredo should be criticized for this. It's really a stretch to say that he was somehow personally responsible for his deferment -- it was the army doctors, not Tancredo, that decided he was medically unqualified to serve in the military.
Being medically qualified to serve in the military is not a requirement that someone must meet in order to voice an opinion about United States foreign policy, including when and where it is appropriate to use military force. Nor is it a prerequisite to voicing an opinion on whether medical services are best provided to veterans through a government run medical system (like the VA) or by contracting private parties to provide that service. Nor is it hypocritical for someone who has received a medical deferment to be a "hawk." That would be like claiming that Krauthammer must be a hypocrite because he is medically unqualified to serve in the military. Or that any homosexual who advocated use of military force must be a "chicken hawk."
Now, look at this video again. The specific question at hand was whether medical services for veterans can best be provided by a government health care delivery system (VA) or whether it would be better to contract these service. In that context, Moulitsas took a cheap shot in bringing up the fact that Tancredo received a medical deferment in 1969, a fact which has absolutely nothing to do with the debate and which, by any reasonable interpretation, says absolutely nothing about Tancredo's character. Moulitsas also implied that the fact that he (Moulitsas) is a veteran gives him some special expertise in analyzing these issues; it does not.
Tancredo did the right thing.
Posted by: hedberg | November 10, 2009 12:08 PM
Really? I thought he made it quite well. He put Tancredo in a no-win situation. To defend himself, Tancredo would have had to have done something that is anathema to a populist pol (which is pretty much the entire right these days:) argue a subtlety.
Your concern (and I am not accusing you or chilidog of concern trolling) is ethically admirable (Tancredo's deferment might have been legitimate -- we don't know that it wasn't.) But as a political tactic, it is promoting a minor sin of assumption above the real practical benefit of shutting Tancredo down in a way that he could not counter without stepping out of his comfort zone. There's a reason that Tancredo had no option but to walk out, a reason that has nothing to do with Markos.
Posted by: Craig Pennington | November 10, 2009 12:13 PM
So storming off in a huff, thus negating any possibility for further input in the "right thing" to do? He could have done so much more, such as halt the conversation until an apology was given, or demand the moderator do his job: moderate. Storming off only makes him look more guilty.
Posted by: mercurianferret | November 10, 2009 12:14 PM
"Moulitsas also implied that the fact that he (Moulitsas) is a veteran gives him some special expertise in analyzing these issues; it does not."
Yeah, I mean, why should somebody who has actually been served by the system in question have any expertise over somebody who never has? Surely the "fact" that people have supppsedly told Tancredo how bad the system is - and I'm sure that everyone happy with their experiences would fall over their feet to tell him, so he must know the whole picture - trumps actual personal experience. My own experiences are ambivalent - I normally don't use the VA since it is farther away than my normal doctor, and they are underfunded as is - they have too much to do with too little. I'd still prefer that system, if it can be funded. as opposed to these private, for-profit companies that routinely refuse service to save their own paychecks.
Posted by: Badger3k | November 10, 2009 12:20 PM
Guilty? Guilty of what? Having been treated for depression as a teenager?
What Moulitsas did is a perfect demonstration of an ad hominem argument. How can you have a reasonable debate with such an intellectual onanist?
Posted by: hedberg | November 10, 2009 12:24 PM
@Craig Pennington #16
I don't think the medical deferment needed to be brought up. I think Markos could have just said "Well I actually am a veteran, Tom, are you? How about, rather than listen to hearsay about what veterans supposedly told you they want, we listen to what an actual veteran thinks?"
The reason I did not like the way Markos did it is that I think he implied that depression is not a very good reason for deferment. That was how I thought Markos's statement "I didn't get a deferment because I was to depressed to fight in war that I supported in Vietnam" sounded. I didn't think there was a reason to bring up the deferment, or the reason for it, otherwise. That is what I thought he did poorly.
Posted by: ChrisZ | November 10, 2009 12:29 PM
In the clip, Moulitsas does not claim that he has received medical services delivered by the VA and that his experiences with the VA indicated that the VA could provide better care than a private alternative. Like the vast majority of veterans (including me), it's probable that Moulitsas has received little or no health care delivered by the VA.
As to the substance of the argument, I think that Tancredo is probably wrong. I think it is very likely that veterans eligible for VA health care benefits, particularly those with service related disabilities, represent a unique health care population which could be best served by a dedicated health
Posted by: hedberg | November 10, 2009 12:41 PM
hedberg, perhaps you didn't notice that television is a visual media, not a court of law. What appears is just as important (and sometimes more) as what actually is. Tancredo took the apparent truth (that he didn't go to Vietnam) and demanded (not asked) for an apology for what he took as an insult to his character without discussing why he didn't serve in a war he supported. With only the demand for an apology with no reason opens him up to making him appear to be unreasonable. (Seriously, have you no empathy so as to be able to figure this out?) At the end of the clip, if someone was either supportive of Markos' POV, or against people who support warfare but haven't served in the military, they would be likely to view Tancredo as guilty. (See? How difficult was that?)
Was Markos correct on the facts? Was Tancredo correct in storming out? Those questions are not addressed - let alone answered - during this clip. One is left to make up their own mind based on what they saw, felt, and knew of the situation. (Just like you did, I did, and everyone who watch it do.)
To recap: The appearance (i.e., the "look") of guilt is subjective; in the eye of the beholder (i.e., the person watching the clip). The fact of guilt is never explained in the clip, meaning the only thing the viewer has to go on is the statements and actions presented in the clip, their own values, and whatever they knew (or decided to learn) about the situation they were viewing. So as you so glibly asked, "Guilty of what?" Guilty of looking guilty, of course. (But I thought that would have been obvious. Apparently not.)
Posted by: mercurianferret | November 10, 2009 12:43 PM
I'd be depressed if I though I'd be drafted too.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 10, 2009 12:45 PM
As many seem to have missed, it is the hypocrisy - Tancredo supported the war and got out of it. Just like John Engler, who was - literally - a few pounds overweight and was told to come back for another physical later and actually GAINED weight. Like Limbaugh who lambasted 'draft dodgers' yet got his family docor to write a note getting him out fo the draft for a condition that isnot even looked for in draft physicals and for which Limbaugh's father was not deferred for in WWII.
Two wrongs DO make a right when we are talking about conservative hypocrites as far as I am concerned. Those left of center need to stop letting the mouth-breathing bombastoids walk all over us.
Good for Kos!
Posted by: slpage | November 10, 2009 12:58 PM
My big brother was killed in Viet Nam. He was drafted. While I was at my HS prom he was lying dead, overnight, with seven other members of his platoon.
My hate for draft dodgers like Cheney and Tancredo will never diminish. That doesn't mean I am against the military. I myself served for over nine years.
Chicken Hawks are NOT patriots.
Posted by: Sherry | November 10, 2009 1:01 PM
hedberg, perhaps you didn't notice that television is a visual media, not a court of law.
You're right, I missed the fact that this recording was of part of an MSNBC program and not of a court proceeding.
Tancredo took the apparent truth (that he didn't go to Vietnam) and demanded (not asked) for an apology for what he took as an insult to his character without discussing why he didn't serve in a war he supported.
That's not accurate. Moulitsas said, "I'm a veteran. I did not get a deferment because I was too depressed to fight in a war that I supported ... " There is no other way to interpret what Moulitsas said than to recognize that it was an insult to Tancredo's character and that it was an attempt to claim superior expertise on the question.
With only the demand for an apology with no reason opens him up to making him appear to be unreasonable.
The reason for demanding an apology was obvious. I'm not the only one who figured it out, either. All those praising Moulitsas for insulting a "chickenhawk" figured it out.
(Seriously, have you no empathy so as to be able to figure this out?)
Now, that's a bizarre question.
"Guilty of what?" Guilty of looking guilty, of course. (But I thought that would have been obvious. Apparently not.)
And, why do you think he's looking guilty? Because, as Moulitsas implies, he's guilty for getting "a deferment because [he] was too depressed to fight in a war that [he] supported..."
This is the most surreal exchange that I've had in a while.
Posted by: hedberg | November 10, 2009 1:07 PM
As many seem to have missed, it is the hypocrisy - Tancredo supported the war and got out of it.
I don't have any special knowledge about how Tancredo was declared medically unqualified to serve. It is my presumption that as a result of his medical examination that army doctors made that determination and that the basis was his history of depression. Being declared unqualified to serve based on a legitimate medical condition is not draft dodging and does not make someone a hypocrite for supporting the use of military force.
I have a family member who had polio as a child and was unable to enlist in the army during WWII as a result. I don't think anyone would have called him a "chicken hawk" for being medically unqualified but supporting the American effort in WWII. I see no reason why Tancredo's medical deferment was any less legitimate. How about Barney Frank? He supported the war in Afghanistan, but, as far as I can tell, never served in the military. Does that make him a chicken hawk? I don't think so.
Posted by: hedberg | November 10, 2009 1:22 PM
That Tom Tancredo is "guilty" of getting a draft deferment is a subject of debate. What isn't subject to debate is that Tancredo is a lying fuckbag and a xenophobe. My heart does not bleed for him. He who lives by demagoguery and sound bites can damn well die by them.
Posted by: democommie | November 10, 2009 1:31 PM
Back in 1992 one question was whether someone who had fraudulently dodged the draft was morally qualified to be Commander in Chief. I admit that at the time I was inclined to answer in the negative. Clinton's deceitful and illegal draft avoidance, in my mind, disqualified him. But, we had an election and, as far as I'm concerned, the issue was settled. Clinton became President and was the CIC, whether any of his detractors liked it or not. That, in my mind, should have settled the question. I know of nobody in public life whose draft avoidance during the Vietnam war was as ignominious as was Clinton's and yet I recall nobody on the left chastising Clinton as a chicken hawk when the American military bombed an aspirin factory under his command. Yes, he was criticized, but was he ever called a "chicken hawk?" Maybe by some right wingers, but I don't recall it. If Bill Clinton's not a chicken hawk (and, I don't think the label fits), then nobody is.
Posted by: hedberg | November 10, 2009 1:45 PM
@hedberg #29:
You're not familiar with Bush/Cheney then? Or the fact that, unlike Bush/Cheney, Clinton actually subjected himself to a draft lottery.
Nor are you familiar with the fact that, unlike Bush/Cheney, Clinton did not support the Vietnam war in any way, shape or form. No way does he qualify as a chickenhawk.
Posted by: Robin Levett | November 10, 2009 2:31 PM
Oh, be fair, Robin Levett. It's not like Cheney got defered five times. Oh.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 10, 2009 2:36 PM
hedberg - Methinks you don't understand the term for chicken hawk. It's not whether the intelligence community makes a mistake which is acted on in good faith and more importantly; where your population of examples is a population of one out of many opportunities to engage militarily. Instead the term is usually reserved for politicians who voluntarily did not serve, like Clinton, but also consistently advocate for military action, even prior to other options being considered or attempted and where other options are arguably a wiser course of action.
I would argue that Mr. Clinton is about as far from a chicken hawk tree one can get when compared to a population of those that avoided military service. His decisions at the time he made them with the intelligence he had and after due consideration of other options would argue he either used militarily force prudently or not enough (e.g., genocide in Rwanda) - but certainly not too much. Mr. Clinton concedes his failure to engage in Rwanda.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 10, 2009 2:43 PM
hedberg, just an FYI: Bill Clinton is no longer in office.
As far as the discussion as to whether one needs to be a veteran to be qualified to discuss VA healthcare, I'd certainly agree that one doesn't. However, the point was precipitated by Tancredo repeatedly demanding "talk to veterans, talk to veterans". Kos' rsponse was perfectly justified, if rather harsh.
I guess progressives could just sit back and be nice all the time whilst being constantly compared to Hitler/Stalin by elected representatives, pundits and talk radio hosts. And lose on substantive issues every time.
Fuck. That. Remember, Republicans turned this into a contact sport, and they deserve no exemptions from having their own shit thrown back in their faces.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | November 10, 2009 2:46 PM
You're not familiar with Bush/Cheney then? Or the fact that, unlike Bush/Cheney, Clinton actually subjected himself to a draft lottery.
Clinton avoided being drafted by enrolling in ROTC at Arkansas and not meeting any of the requirements. If he enrolled for the purpose of avoiding the draft with no intention of ever meeting his ROTC obligation, and it appears obvious that he did, that's fraud. When Clinton learned that the lottery for his year group made it very unlikely that he would be drafted, he abandoned his deferment.
I don't know anything about Cheney's deferments, but I've never heard them described as fraudulent. Even though it appears that he may have received preferential treatment in getting in, Bush the lesser served honorably in the Guard.
Posted by: hedberg | November 10, 2009 3:05 PM
Methinks you don't understand the term for chicken hawk.
No, I understand it perfectly.
Dick Cheney avoided the draft during Vietnam and is a chicken hawk for advocating the Iraq war. Bill Clinton avoided the draft during Vietnam but is not a chicken hawk even though he also advocated for the Iraq war.
Posted by: hedberg | November 10, 2009 3:13 PM
Posted by: Taz | November 10, 2009 3:22 PM
"Bush the lesser served honorably in the Guard."
That, sir, is a fucking lie.
Posted by: democommie | November 10, 2009 3:25 PM
You're either telling a lie or you're very ignorant on this. you don't know of cheney's maninipulations to avoid the draft? you haven't read of Ted Nugent's escapades to avoid being drafted? take off your partisan blinders and do a little work.
Posted by: dean | November 10, 2009 3:32 PM
Whatever some like to pretend, Bush did in fact serve in the Guard and he did serve honorably. That is not a lie, "fucking" or otherwise, it's a simple statement of fact. It's also not high praise. All that serving honorably entails is doing your time and managing to avoid serious discipline.
Posted by: hedberg | November 10, 2009 3:34 PM
@hedberg:
I guess that depends on your definition of honor.
Posted by: JThompson | November 10, 2009 3:55 PM
You're either telling a lie or you're very ignorant on this. you don't know of cheney's maninipulations to avoid the draft? you haven't read of Ted Nugent's escapades to avoid being drafted? take off your partisan blinders and do a little work.
Clinton avoided military service by fraudulently promising to enroll in ROTC at Arkansas. To the best of my knowledge, Cheney had a series of deferments based on status -- all acquired legally. Is there any allegation that Cheney behaved illegally?
Ted Nugent -- well I guess that he's in "public life," but he's really not the sort of person I was referring to. Ted Nugent's importance to any debate, as far as I am concerned, is about on a par with that of Elmer Fudd. Just as I don't care how Elmer avoided the war, I don't care how Nugent avoided it. If you contend that Nugent avoided the war through illegal means, well, that's fine with me.
Limbaugh, Quayle, Bush, and many others avoided the war in various ways. I'm aware of none of them whose avoidance, in my opinion, was as ignominious, to use that word again, as was Clinton's.
Note that I'm not challenging Clinton's motivation for avoiding the Vietnam war. I'm sure that he was a strong opponent of the war in addition to having, like Cheney, other priorities at the time -- such as getting a law degree from somewhere other than Arkansas.
Posted by: hedberg | November 10, 2009 4:00 PM
Tancredo got out with a "good letter", one of the standard outs for those with connections. There were books that detailed exactly what was needed for a 1-Y (2nd choice) physical deferment. Get a letter signed by a doctor that you had one of those that were undetectable on a physical - depression and asthma over age 12 were classics - and you were good.
National Guard slots were precious. Bush got his because his father had so much clout that strings were pulled for him.
Chickenhawks were for the war they didn't go to. There's nothing inconsistent in supporting one war and opposing another.
I'm not taking the high ground here - I was offered an asthma letter but didn't need it. I got out they same way Rove did, still regret not throwing more sand in the works on the way out.
Posted by: snoey | November 10, 2009 4:04 PM
And for what it's worth, Nugent avoided the draft as a result of a student deferment. You can look it up.
Posted by: hedberg | November 10, 2009 4:14 PM
hedberg-The issue of whether you opposed or supported the war is absolutely cardinal here. If you believed the war was just and necessary and you were of fighting age, then you should have been doing everything possible, pulling every string at your disposal to join the fight. In World War II, many Americans went to Canada in 1940-41 so they could join the fight before the US entered.
On the other hand if you believed the war was unjust and immoral, then the proper thing to do was to pull strings not to go. Bill Clinton acted in accord with how he saw the war. Cheney did not. Bush was somehwat of a borderline call, since the National Guard is legit and he could have theoretically been mobilized to Vietnam (though in reality the Guard never was).
Posted by: JusticeLeague | November 10, 2009 4:17 PM
Actually a ton of Guard personnel (almost 9,000) saw duty in Vietnam (i.e., were deployed).
Posted by: Josh | November 10, 2009 4:28 PM
Actually a ton of Guard personnel (almost 9,000) saw duty in Vietnam (i.e., were deployed).
And many of us who enlisted back then did not see duty in Vietnam.
Posted by: hedberg | November 10, 2009 4:32 PM
Yep.
I was responding to this:
The statement implied that no Guard personnel were deployed to Vietnam, which isn't accurate.
Posted by: Josh | November 10, 2009 4:35 PM
Nugent won a student deferrment? The claims about that are around, but amazingly they coincide with the years when he was touring with his band, averaging up to 300 shows per year.
On the other hand, in a 1990 interview he provided to the Detroit Free Press, he made the following admission:
It's been apparent from many posts of yours, but it bears repeating, hedberg: you are wearing some massive blinders.
Posted by: dean | November 10, 2009 4:45 PM
The Guard unit Mr. Bush was a part of did not have to worry about getting sent to Viet Nam, that was the was the entire point of using your connections to get into that particular unit.
hedberg not only misdefines what defines a chicken hawk; he also grossly misrepresents Mr. Bush's actual service during his Guard tenure. Mr. Bush was far less qualified to get such an assignment (one of the worst applicants to win an assignment - due to daddy's connections), he transferred to a unit in a different state that wasted the taxpayer's money on his initial flight training (where he did well), his not reporting for duty for months on-end, and his leaving prior to fulfilling the time he committed to serving. There is no honor in getting officers to provide you with a pass while simultaneously skating through while others bled for their country.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 10, 2009 5:07 PM
hedberg-You ducked my main point. Those who supported the war should have volunteered or at least subnitted themselves to the lottery and taken their chances. Cheney took deferments. Those who opposed the war were quite justified to get deferments, go to Canada or take other action to avoid going.
Posted by: JusriceLeague | November 10, 2009 5:07 PM
I can scarcely imagine how "depression" without a doctor's letter would have cut any ice at all at the draft board in 1969. My bad eyes kept me out that year, but they were (and are) bad enough that I'd have been a casualty as soon as I lost my glasses. The mental test that I took that year was 100 multiple-choice questions, five possible answers each. Passing score was 16. Illiterate howler monkeys that answered all the questions averaged a score of 20. And, if they failed, they repeated the test.
Posted by: Coragyps | November 10, 2009 5:10 PM
According to Nugent, the interview was given to High Times, not the Free Press. He has claimed that the interview was a lie and that he avoided the draft based on a student deferment. Considering that the behavior described in either the Free Press interview or High Times interview (you choose) would not earn someone a deferment but student status would, I have no problem believing that he had a student deferment. How Nugent avoided the draft, though, is without any importance. It's not even as important as is the question of Barney the purple dinosaur's sexual preference.
As for "blinders," I don't think so. If we're going to call people cowards for avoiding military service and subsequently advocating a hawkish foreign policy, we should be consistent. If Cheney et al are chicken hawks, then so is Bill Clinton. But the truth is, that the people who throw around the chicken hawk label, in my perception, aren't really interested in fairness or consistency. It's just like some among the right wingers who throw around the label "socialist".
Irony lives all over the political spectrum.
Posted by: hedberg | November 10, 2009 5:12 PM
HEDBERG YOU MORON!!!!
The difference is that Cheney supported the war and Clinton opposed it. Are you as dumb as you pretend?
Posted by: JusticeLeague | November 10, 2009 5:19 PM
hedberg-You ducked my main point. Those who supported the war should have volunteered or at least subnitted themselves to the lottery and taken their chances. Cheney took deferments. Those who opposed the war were quite justified to get deferments, go to Canada or take other action to avoid going.
I disagree with that.
I admit to a prejudice in favor of those who did serve and I admit to prejudice against those who, when called upon to serve, refused to serve and yet subsequently called on others to serve and sacrifice. So, on this score I have more respect for someone like John Kerry as opposed to someone like Bill Clinton. On this score, more respect for someone like John Kerry rather than someone like Dick Cheney. That doesn't mean that I agree with what appears to me to be an underlying premise of your statement copied above: that civic duty depends on political beliefs.
Posted by: hedberg | November 10, 2009 5:27 PM
The difference is that Cheney supported the war and Clinton opposed it. Are you as dumb as you pretend?
I don't know how to answer your question. It seems like a silly one.
hedberg not only misdefines what defines a chicken hawk; he also grossly misrepresents Mr. Bush's actual service during his Guard tenure.
I recognize that that wiki thing is not the authoritative source for all things chickenhawk related, but surely the definition of chickenhawk given there must be within the range of acceptable definitions.
About Bush and the National Guard, all I said was that he served and that his service was honorable. Those are simple facts which are not in dispute. That's not saying that he served with distinction or that his service was commendable or anything else complimentary about Bush and his time in the Guard. All that's necessary for his service to have been honorable is that he did his time, avoided any serious disciplinary action, and received an honorable discharge. It's a pretty low standard.
Posted by: hedberg | November 10, 2009 5:40 PM
You can fail to believe the story about nugent - I'm sure you will - but it has been reported sufficiently to pass muster many places. His student deferment story doesn't do that - the school times conflict too greatly with his touring.
I would point out that you haven't seen me defending bill clinton either - don't try to place words into my mouth.
off hand, the one "public person" you could call "guilty" of avoiding a draft i would defend is M. Ali - he gave up the best years of his fighting career (1967 - late 70/early 71) in prison for refusing to go.
Posted by: dean | November 10, 2009 6:20 PM
Dan Lungren is a local congressman here in northern California. He avoided the draft with a medical deferment based on information provided to Lungren's draft board by a physician who was a friend of the Lungren family. When asked about the nature of his medical disqualification, Lungren claimed not to remember. If that's true, then it must have been a pretty trivial medical problem. I think it's more likely that Lungren is lying to avoid revealing how easily he worked the system.
It's amazing how many right-wing politicians ducked the draft during the Vietnam era but grew up to become gung-ho super-patriots. Most of them are simply liars and hypocrites.
It is my opinion that Tancredo is among the scummiest of them. Good for Markos for kicking him in the nuts.
Posted by: Zeno | November 10, 2009 6:26 PM
"I admit to a prejudice in favor of those who did serve and I admit to prejudice against those who, when called upon to serve, refused to serve and yet subsequently called on others to serve and sacrifice."
Each war is unique. Would you criticize a German who refused to fight for Hitler, but might have been willing to support the use of force to prevent the Soviets from blockading Berlin? I certainly wouldn't, because the moral basis of the 2 wars is 180 degrees different.
If I take him at his word, Bill Clinton saw Vietnam as immoral, so he tried to get out of it. He saw Kosovo as moral and was willing to order US troops there. He is not a chickenhawk.
Cheney saw Vietnam as righteous. Nevertheless he weasled out. He saw Iraq as correct and sent others. He is a chickenhawk.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | November 10, 2009 6:27 PM
As I've said, I don't care about Nugent. But, the main reason I doubt the story about him avoiding the draft by crapping in his pants is because crapping in your pants would not have gotten him out of the draft. I'll take your word for what he was doing during the time that he supposedly had a student deferment. But, it's not unheard of for someone to get a deferment for doing something while actually doing something else. Bill Clinton, for example, got a deferment for participating in ROTC while attending law school at the University of Arkansas when he was in fact going to school in England.
You made your "blinders" comment in a series of posts which had something to do with Clinton. I inferred that you were suggesting that I was prejudiced against Clinton and in favor of the right wingers. My response was not intended to accuse you of being a Clinton defender but to explain why I feel the "blinders" comment was not deserved.
Posted by: hedberg | November 10, 2009 6:43 PM
Re Hedberg
Mr. Hedberg is a fucking liar.
1. Dubya vaulted over 130 other people who were ahead of him on the waiting list to be inducted into the National Guard. This was entirely due to the influence of his father who was personally acquainted with the commanding officer of the unit which Dubya joined.
2. Dubya was not present for duty for much of the time of his enlistment in the Guard. These absences were ignored by the commanding officer of the Air National Guard unit he had joined, again because of the influence of his father.
3. At the time of Dubya being subject to the draft, the only way anybody got into a guard unit was by influence. I happen to know this for a fact because my former brother in law got into the Army National Guard through the influence of his uncle who was the commanding officer of the unit he joined.
4. Cheney dodged the draft through student deferments even though he was an enthusiastic supporter of the Vietnam War. He is termed a chickenhawk for supporting the Vietnam War while avoiding subjected his fucking lily white ass to any possible danger. Clinton, on the other hand opposed the war from the get go. No comparison.
Re Josh
1. What was the source of the information about 9000 National Guardsmen being deployed to Vietnam. I was under the impression that not a single National Guard unit was sent there (of course, individual soldiers/sailors/pilots may have been sent). If entire units were deployed, would Mr. Josh care to inform the readership of their identification.
Posted by: SLC | November 10, 2009 8:12 PM
I too had heard some NG units had been sent to Vietnam, but never seen any numbers.
However,
Source: http://www.ng.mil/About/default.aspx
Also:
From another portion of the same site.
Posted by: dean | November 10, 2009 8:17 PM
Mr. Hedberg is a fucking liar.
Can't argue with logic like that.
Posted by: hedberg | November 10, 2009 8:21 PM
SLC, the only specific Guard unit I know about off the top of my head is the 151st Infantry Detachment (LRS) of the Indiana Guard (well, besides a couple of USASOC elements...), but the intel on particular units is fairly easy to come by.
For example:
http://www.il.ngb.army.mil/Museum/HistoricalEvents/Vietnam.htm
I don't know about the accuracy of this one, but:
http://www.ngef.org/index.asp?bid=48
I had thought I recalled a figure somewhere in my brain of something like 5000 Guard troops getting deployed and did a quick Google search, which provided the same NG website that dean cited. That's where I got the "almost 9000" number.
Posted by: Josh | November 10, 2009 8:33 PM
Some additional:
http://delawarenationalguard.com/aboutus/history/vietnam/
(at the bottom of the page)
http://www.mnroa.org/0703/Research/vnseaunits/vietnam_research_1.htm
http://www.ong.ohio.gov/ong_history.html
Posted by: Josh | November 10, 2009 8:44 PM
The fact that some guard units were deployed to Viet Nam entirely misses the point regarding Mr. Bush. Bush purposefully had Daddy pull strings to get into the Texas National guard unit where there was confidence they would not be deployed to Viet Nam, which they weren't (this was the natural choice for Bush to join given it was his home state, a fortunate coincidence for him given his Daddy's ties there). In addition, he transferred to another state guard (Alabama IIRC) where they didn't even have the type of jets he was trained to fly, guaranteeing he would not deploy.
Also, if IIRC, Bush did not get merely get moved ahead on a very long waiting list to get into the Texas guard, he also scored third from last of the applicants looking to get flight training but was picked ahead of all those applicants to go in with a handful of the top scorers. I'm working from 9 year-old memories here, but I believe he finished around 30th of 33 applicants.
I also disagree that Misters Bush and Cheney are chicken hawks merely because they dodged service/war during Viet Nam and supported the war in Iraq. People grow up and often redeem themselves from their youthful indiscretions. In addition, a well-considered decision steeped in principal should be considered a reasonable exception. I would instead make my original argument that the term applies to those that both avoided service for whatever reason and then when in power, consistently advocate for military action, even prior to other options being considered or attempted and where other options are arguably a wiser course of action.
Given these terms, I can't think of two bigger chicken hawks than Bush and Cheney. They neither redeemed themselves, used prudence, or considered the ramifications of their decision prior to and during their advocacy for the invasion of Iraq. They actually decided soon after 9/11 when they coupled Iraq to al Qaeda to make Bush's legacy one of a war time presidency. They manufactured intelligence out of outlier data, and they betrayed America's honor by torturing and shitting all over our Constitution in how they conducted themselves militarily. To put Mr. Clinton in that same category defies nearly all logic, I don't see it as even arguable. Clinton was judicious, arguably overly judicious in signing off on a military actions.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 10, 2009 9:45 PM
@Michael Heath:
Well put. Thanks for that.
@hedberg
Apparently you can't. This is particularly evident from the fact that you didn't feel like making any kind of rebuttal to the rather substantive argument presented with the conclusory statement which you quoted.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | November 10, 2009 10:00 PM
hedberg:
What you said about Bush serving "honorably" is a fucking lie. He was treated as if he had, big difference. He's a lying fuck and a chickenhawk, and you're an idiot.
Posted by: democommie | November 10, 2009 10:17 PM
Tancredo's defenders are, IMHO, wrong in this instance. The point that Marcos was making was that Tancredo really has no first-hand knowledge of how the VA medical services work because he's not qualified to use them due to his not being a veteran. Markos was trying to make the point that he, Markos, did serve, is qualified to and does use the VA's medical services, and, therefore, is more qualified to speak on the subject than Tancredo who can only get his information at second hand.
Posted by: TomTallis | November 11, 2009 4:13 AM
For the record, I at least, am arguing no such thing. I agree with your analysis of Mr. Bush's service record.
I offered a simple correction. It's tangential at best to the overall discussion.
Posted by: Josh | November 11, 2009 6:18 AM
"The fact that some guard units were deployed ... regarding Mr. Bush."
I agree as well. I had been under the impression that no NG units had served in Viet Nam - I was surprised to find otherwise. I probably should not have been, but I was.
Posted by: dean | November 11, 2009 9:22 AM
Quite apart from the morality of any particular war, the entire concept of a draft is morally offensive, and an indefensible constraint on civil liberties.
Don't get me wrong. I am strongly pro-military, I support the troops, and I think it is sometimes necessary to use military force in foreign policy. But no one should ever be conscripted into the armed forces (or into any other occupation) against his or her will, simply by virtue of his or her nationality of birth. We do not choose our nationalities, and nation-states have no moral right to compel their subjects into their service. Accordingly, I do not condemn anyone for avoiding the draft, regardless of his or her views about war in general. Draft avoidance is a legitimate exercise of individual liberty against a morally illegitimate arrogation of state power.
Furthermore, if we are discussing whether a particular war is justified, it is irrelevant whether any given supporter of that war did or did not serve in the military. All that should matter is the strength of the arguments for and against the war. In my personal view, Clinton was right to send troops to Yugoslavia, and should have done the same in Rwanda; and Bush/Cheney were right to send troops to Afghanistan, but wrong to send them to Iraq. But the respective personal histories of Bush, Cheney and Clinton are completely immaterial to my opinion on this. In a liberal democracy, everyone has a right to express an opinion on war, including those who have never served in combat; and everyone's opinion should be judged on the strength of his or her case, not on irrelevant personal characteristics.
Posted by: Walton | November 11, 2009 9:37 AM
"Quite apart from the morality of any particular war, the entire concept of a draft is morally offensive, and an indefensible constraint on civil liberties."
Really. Well, I consider taxes and most other subjects that require that I actually, y'know, do something for my country, to be an indefensible constraint on my civil liberties. I want to spend my limited money on booze and hookers. Now what?
Bush, Cheney and Clinton are all lying, opportunistic fucks. Clinton's lying did not extend to sending several thousand young americans off to die in an invasion/occupation of a country that posed no threat to our national interest (at the time we invaded it). I think I'll have to view Slick Willie as a bit less reprehensible than Bush and his Dick.
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2009 9:52 AM
Politics is a dirty business. Kos may have been playing dirty with Tancredo's reasons for deferment, but so what? He was playing by the GOP's rules, and Tancredo cried uncle. I wonder if anyone else had ever challenged Tancredo on that matter before? If they did, did Tancredo turn tail and run then, too?
Posted by: wheatdogg | November 11, 2009 10:08 AM
Posted by: TS | November 11, 2009 12:18 PM
TS:
Let me know how you feel about walking to work when you stop using the public byways. Let me know how you feel about dying from some nasty foodborne disease because the USDA stops inspecting food companies.
There's a whole laundry list of shit that you don't get if you don't pay taxes. The beauty of a democracy is that it wobbles and teeters and lurches and, somehow, keeps moving ahead.
Conscription, with no deferments, save for genuine concerns about mental or physical health, is a great leveler. Of course the devil is in the details.
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2009 1:23 PM
Hedberg,
The problem with your argument is that Tancredo didn't "show up for his physical, provide his medical information, and military doctors declared him ineligible." Instead he used his college deferment, when that ran out he was classified 1-A, he appealed, that classification. He claims that he went for his physical, etc., but the news reports show that the records don't support his "memory." of the incident. Also, FYI, 1-Y classified personnel could (and did) volunteer to serve, it was a draft classification, not a prohibition against voluntary service. From everything I've read, Tancredo shouted about supporting the war, but when push came to shove, he got a note from his doctor to give him an excuse not to have to serve.
Tancredo made a bullshit argument based on his claimed patriotism and contact with veterans. Moulitsas called him out on it because it was phony patriotism and his claim was false. I personally don't know any veterans eligible for VA care who would "prefer vouchers." Every one I know, and I have some friends and family who needed serious VA care, preferred that the system worked better, IE was better funded, not that they could go somewhere else with a voucher, etc. Tancredo made a bullshit, unsupported argument, tried to support it with an equal part bullshit phony chickenhawk patriotism, and got called out on it.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 11, 2009 6:37 PM
Tancredo is being a bit of an ass for walking out but I can't really blame him. If he had a legitimate medical problem (and I've never seen any real evidence suggesting that his depression wasn't genuine) then his medical deferral makes complete sense. Moreover, whether or not an individual served is in no way relevant to the question at hand.
This is also disturbing because there is a common tendency to see mental illnesses as less real than illnesses with a more obvious physical component. This is an attitude that is profoundly unhelpful, discriminatory, and can make things much worse for people actually suffering from these illnesses. Markos's behavior is disgusting.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | November 11, 2009 9:06 PM
Joshua Zelinsky:
Sorry, did you miss my earlier memo? Tom Tancredo = lying zenophobic fuckbag--that is all.
He's a piece of shit who's abused the truth so much that when it finally got the chance it kicked his sorry ass.
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2009 10:57 PM
@Joshua Zelinsky #77:
He took college deferments, and then appealed his 1-A classification, getting a 1-Y classification instead on the ground of historic depression. As I understand the position, that medical condition did not disable him from fighting - he still had the option of serving, and had he volunteered, the military would have accepted him.
While in college he actively advocated a war in which many Americans were dying, a war in which, when it came to it, he chose not to participate. That is a paradigmatic example of "chickenhawk".
On the TV programme, he chose to claim to speak for veterans in support of his argument. Markos was well within his rights to point out that he actually was a veteran, and that Tancredo not only wasn't, but chose not to be one despite advocating for the war in which he had the option of fighting; that he (Tancredo) not only didn't speak for him, but was someone whom any self-respecting veteran wouldn't want to speak for him.
Posted by: Robin Levett | November 12, 2009 8:11 AM