Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
They Didn’t Have Bone Spurs – Or Fallopian Tubes
Whoopi Goldberg, famous for playing herself in a nun’s habit, dreadlocks, and her unwavering support for the Vietnam War (you didn’t know that?) has used her platform on The Stew to attack our President for avoiding the draft due to “bone spurs”. There are several things wrong with this approach which I doubt The Stew audience will grasp, but let’s get the easy ones out of the way first.
The Vietnam War was different than WWII in nature. (I hope our Democrat friends can accept that statement without my having to elaborate)
It was a different era, a different zeitgeist, and we will never know if Donald Trump would have tried to avoid that war (although I suspect he wouldn’t have, since at minimum being labeled 4-F was for ‘losers’, as Trump haters might imagine him saying, and a cynic would imagine him vying for an officers job away from combat due to his military school background, but couldn’t do such a thing without impugning almost every other military officer). In those days, men really didn’t have a choice but to join the service without social repercussions.
Trump was asked about this the other day by Piers Morgan, and I thought he gave a remarkably candid answer. He said it was a different war and he did not agree with it. He did not claim any real handicap from bone spurs.
Anyone living during that era knew hundreds of young men who were finding some loophole to avoid being sent to a jungle ambush in Southeast Asia. You could even get a ‘student deferment’ which worked for the better-heeled.
While I won’t assign heroism to this diverse group that ranges from exiles to Canada to simple college students and people pretending to be gay or crazy, I’m neither going to condemn them after learning the background and nature of that war. Neither will I claim this lack of enthusiasm to serve in that era disqualifies a man from being President ( including Bill Clinton) or for giving speeches lauding the heroism of Americans. At least as long as he doesn’t claim hero-status for himself.
So now to my main point:
I’ve gotten so used to hearing the phrase “the men and women who fought and died…” that I was a bit shocked at hearing the references to the “men who fought and died” on the beaches of Normandy, absent the inclusion of “women”. Quickly I realized it was accurate. No women were there to die, or even fight. Not one. Note, this is not a slight on females or their overall contribution ( including being the mothers of these young men) to the war effort.
For about as long as this phrase has been in common use, I’ve been somewhat annoyed, since, even today, the number of men who die in battle and in our modern ‘wars’ amount to about 99% of all casualties, yet women as a gender class get 50% of the credit (albeit men still get top billing at least). Even today it is only men who must register for the draft, and it looks like that ‘right’ remains uncontested by our feminist sisters and brothers. I’m unaware of Whoopi’s position on making her sisters required to register for Selective Service, or in a retrospective hypothetical, whether Whoopi would have refused any loopholes herself so as to be drafted to heroically serve her country in Vietnam.
Our new logical standards, promoted mostly but not exclusively by women, dictate that if only one woman out of a hundred is a casualty of war, or invented some part of a telescope, then she stands as a representative of her gender and shouldn’t be overlooked. This is fair enough. She should not be overlooked, but does her entire gender get rhetorical credit by mere proxy? Somehow the obvious must remain unacknowledged.
Nevertheless, when women are disproportionately affected by something, whether it’s jobs in science and maths, or pregnancy (100%, but lessening due to modern advances in ‘medicine’) it’s either a societal problem that must be addressed and/or some political right that females have special privileges to control, even to the exclusion of male input or sensibilities.
In this spirit, I contend that Whoopi, or any female not having served in the US military in a combat division in the Vietnam era (which is every female in existence), has no right to criticize Trump’s draft status or even question the validity of his medical claim of bone spurs.
Published in General
My draft status was irrelevant in response so I apologize for the confusion.
The point was I had no obligation, but neither did Trump, assuming the heel spurs weren’t fraudulent.
Assuming he faked his deformity, I still reject your stark characterization of “thinking it’s okay for others to die while he chased skirts”. The world is not such a zero-sum place, and it’s beyond judgmental, it’s delusional.
Some poor Vietnamese refugee who grabbed the last place on the rooftop helicopter didn’t kill the chap he outraced. And he certainly didn’t feel good about it.
Continued-
The main point of this post admittedly somewhat fuzzy, was that Whoopi has no standing to criticize any young man’s draft avoidance strategy since she was never in such a position.
Not to mention the obvious hypocrisy of Whoopi’s position regarding that war. She’s conflating a just war of survival with an unjust gratuitous war where our nation was not at risk. Additionally, the politicians and generals were lying to the American people.
As to our duties and place to make our stand at the ballot box, I’ve changed my mind. I no longer think our government as it operates is in any way fair enough, wise enough, honest enough or benevolent enough to send men off into foreign adventures with blind agreement on the part of the selected subset of men of a certain age with a myriad of loopholes.
So while I honor those who fought and died In Vietnam, I am profoundly sad they died for naught. That they were used and the country was duped. Those who avoided going are not heroes, but they are neither deplorables. The deplorable ones were the lying politicians and generals. It’s not even entirely their fault either. I have a difficult time assigning blame to individuals since this is basically a systemic problem.
My guess the reason is Trump is results oriented. If you don’t get the job done, “You’re fired.”
I am pretty sure he didn’t think its ok for the others to die either.
I think I heard somewhere that we were in Vietnam to make NATO credible. In the terms of grand strategy and politics its probably good. The problem is this kind of esoteric reasoning has awfully thin thread to connect to the mortal destiny of the people you are cramming into a meat grinder.
It may have been correct, but it did permanent damage to the republic.
I haven’t read through all the comments yet, but this is an exact quote from an interview where Trump compared his skirt chasing with serving in Vietnam:
Source.
We can argue that Trump’s indiscretions are forgivable or just ignorable because of his accomplishments, but let’s not kid ourselves about what kind of man he has been.
That was on Howard Stern.
Howard Stern would get a *nun* talking dirty about sex.
Well, going on Howard Stern is not something any politician should do, but he wasn’t a politician then. The quote only sounds despicable in retrospect. Obviously he wasn’t being serious, and the reference to the Vietnam War was in no way disparaging soldiers fighting there, since the war was long over at the time of this quote.
The context of the conversation was disease, and our soldiers got diseases in Vietnam, jungle diseases, but more to the point, STD’s.
In case you didn’t know, one of the side-effects of that glorious war was how tens of thousands of young girls ( and I mean young) became prostitutes servicing GI’s . I know, I was there. Pretty young girls came out from the bars trying to physically drag me into their brothel. I was 17 and these girls were about 14-23.
Vietnam was debauched. Five year-old kids changing dollars on the black market. Drugs cheap and plentiful. And open, rampant prostitution.
The conversation wasn’t pretty, I will gladly admit. But the world isn’t pretty either.
But it’s a giant stretch to believe he was referencing his escapades akin to bravely and gallantly fighting the Viet Cong.
Excellent post Franco. Somehow I feel as though I just received absolution. Some of what you described was me 50 years ago. I have nothing but praise for those that did their duty and served. At 20 years of age, the outrage I felt of being required, by some fat old men in Washington, D.C., to go to a country that was no threat to my country, my family, or my religion, and kill total strangers in their own land far, far away…well, it was my first decision of real manhood. I made it and many more since, but that was very difficult.
One more thing dear Amy,
The link you provided from then Nevertrump Red State also had a story about how Trump wanted Veterans food trucks removed from the front of his buildings as though he had some unfair personal vendetta. This is so typical of desperate and hostile interpretations that convince only those already primed for another reason to hate.
If anyone thinks objectively for a moment about this, it becomes obvious that no building owner wants food trucks parked outside of his building, number one. Number two, were they all veterans? I sincerely doubt that. Were they doing business under a banner that said “Veteran Food Trucks, all proceeds go to families of brave combat veterans who could find no other employment”? Food trucks don’t pay taxes, block entrances, create trash and funny smells ( and they make a fortune due to low overhead undercutting businesses who have to pay rent and other fees)
I suppose Trump wouldn’t allow deaf people to solicit funds in his restaurants either. What a lout!
I know the world isn’t pretty. That’s why I completely understand when people weigh positives and negatives and come out with different conclusions.
But let’s look at the conversation again:
My point is that Donald Trump has in fact joked about how trying to find an STD-free woman in his skirt-chasing days was comparable to serving in Vietnam. He was, in fact, that despicable a person, at least in 1997. Now, it sounds like he’s learned something in the last 22 years. Sounds like he’s not quite the frat boy with diarrhea of the mouth he was. I’m glad of it. That doesn’t unring the bell though, and makes commenting that his deferments let him stay home and chase skirts while other people actually served the country with their lives harsh but not inaccurate.
Okay. My interpretation of a transcript of a conversation is lacking because I used a source for that transcript that has also was hostile to Trump on an unrelated matter.
Here’s the actual video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deA6MMXSjCg
Where did he say he was staying home chasing skirts?
My interpretation of that transcript is he was talking about after he got rich and famous, which was well after the war.
Sorry, those are your words and your misinterpretations. He didn’t say it was comparable to serving in Vietnam. He was making a reference to avoiding disease which was also what they had to do in Vietnam.
To make your interpretation, and Skyler’s, one must believe that he was saying his life was comparable in difficulty as serving in a war zone as a soldier and he was somehow heroically navigating through his hard life and deserved special credit for doing so, and that he had no regard for the sad sacks who were fighting for his liberty ( as though they even were or could).
Do you understand the concept of a joke? Doesn’t seem like it.
You don’t have to laugh at a joke or even think it’s funny. I’m talking about the basic concept of “joke”.
That’s not what I’m saying. But you’re good at that! Try addressing the actual words in the transcript instead of inserting your own words, which were “serving” “comparable” and claiming he said (“say”) something he didn’t. No need to watch a video.
Side note: That was very nicely played. A link to a post more than three years old (a time period during which that site was very much trending “Never” in extremely embarrassing fashion…a bad habit long since repudiated back to normalcy) from an unrecognizable member name. While brief and somewhat subtle, the proper contextualization is appreciated.
Is this the same rationale that men have no right to criticize abortion because they never chose to have one?
@Amyschley, I doubt there is anyone who ever did an interview with Howard Stern, that doesn’t regret it. I can see how you would find it offensive, along with the NBC/Billy Bush tape…not sterling moments in our President’s life. I personally find Trump’s current efforts and energy output on behalf of our country to far outpace and, frankly, make meaningless, those past indiscretions.
A lot of people seem to be hung up on my comment about “chasing skirts.” Let me clarify what I meant.
I meant that some people were drafted and were sent to a combat zone where they lived in mud and carried rifles and got shot at. Trump stayed out and lived in comfort where he was free to do as he wished. Most young men chase women when they are free to do as they wish, and every single one of the men in Vietnam wished they were back home so they could chase girls. That’s all I meant. There was no specific quote or act I was referring to.
That’s actually how I feel. He’s been a terrible human being most of his life, but he’s been a pretty good president. I don’t have a problem with people balancing his credits and debits and deciding the balance is positive. I just get annoyed when folks try to pretend there are no entries, or at least no significant entries, on the debit side of the ledger.
I’ve been around for over seven years.
“his deferments let him stay home and chase skirts while other people actually served the country with their lives”
I believe the reference was to “Anteater.”
Correct. (Sorry, I thought that was clear within the context of my comment but I now see that maybe it wasn’t.)
I’ve been a consumer of RedState…sometimes happy and sometimes very frustrated…since 2006 and “Anteater” is not a name I remember. It appears that was the only post that person ever submitted there.
I’m not following your point in requoting what I just clarified.
Because my comment was that it was *not* “while”. So you were saying the exact opposite of what I said.
I don’t mean to be such a stickler, but this is interesting. All the guys who were drafted didn’t go to Vietnam. There were many who never left the USA, or went somewhere else in the world. All the guys who did go to Vietnam did not see combat. There were cooks, supply guys, officers in safe places, etc. If you read my comment about my experience in Cam Rhan Bay, soldiers had pretty girls chasing them.
Likewise, those not drafted didn’t all have great cushy lives either. Fate is a weird thing. You can win the lottery and be dead the next year crashing your new private plane. Had you not won, could have lived a long happy life with wonderful children. How many soldiers made it back from Iraq in one piece only to be murdered in a bar fight back home?
The hypothetical world is as murky as the real world. We can’t pretend things are all so easy and absolute in our imaginings.
But one thing remains: Those who avoided the draft have a sense of shame, or should. That’s human nature. There may have been very well thought out reasons, perhaps they might even be justified (I don’t think so), but human nature is what it is, and as the Bard wrote, such men should “hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us . . . “
I didn’t need to avoid the draft. Mine was the second year of the lottery, and I was in the shadowy area between 150 and 250. We figured anyone less than 150 was doomed, anyone over 250 was safe, and between 150 and 250 was iffy. As it turned out, the highest number called was 125. As best I can recall, they ended student deferments when they instituted the lottery; if your number came up, you were gone.
As I recall, the surest way of beating the draft back then was to identify as a homosexual. And yet people fled to Canada rather than do that. To Canada!
Extraordinarily judgemental comment. Heavy duty TDS suggested. I see you did not serve and think you know why someone else didn’t.
He was too young for Vietnam. That doesn’t mean he didn’t serve.
See his profile for more.