Not one of them served their country.

[slater71]

All were of age when their country needed them but not one of them stepped forward. Limbaugh and Boortz(Viet Nam), Hannity and Beck(Gulf 1). Not one day in the service of their country. I am not saying that they have to serve to talk. Myself and every other one in this country who has worn the uniform have given each one of these assholes the right to speak their minds. I would love to know their reasons as to why they did not serve the country that they say they love. At least old dick head Cheney said he had better things to do. Has anyone ever heard that question asked of any of these fools? Please post it if you have.

[yellerpup]

1. I don't know the answer to the question,

but I am very glad you are asking it. :kick:

[Island Blue]

2. Limbaugh had an anal cyst.

http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.asp

I'm not sure about the others.

[madokie]

13. limbaugh is an anal cyst

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

3. I have a problem with this whole "serving your country" = "being in the military" thing.

Look at the millions of honest, hard working citizens who happened to chose a line of work other than the military. Don't they "serve their country" too?

On the other, hawkish RWers can be called out on their hypocrisy, yes.

[Brickbat]

4. Agreed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. While you got a point

you'd get why these guys get under vet's skin if you had. These loud mouths mean that, serving in uniform.

Me... I'd love a mandatory service, but I am happy if this service was in the military, or the CCC...

But that's just me.

[maxsolomon]

5. how did your service give them, or any of us, freedom of speech?

the US military did not write the constitution. the US military has not defended us from a direct threat to our freedom of speech since 1812. the country has not "needed" draftees or volunteers since WW2 - all our wars since then have been of choice. certainly not the war crime that was Vietnam.

i know your point is that these assholes are utter hypocrites, but after 2003, i've had enough of our uncritical acceptance of US Militarism and the assumption that it 'protects our freedom'. if anything, it threatens our freedom.

[Obamanaut]

6. I agree with this response. nt

[jemelanson]

7. There were draftees in Vietnam.

Draftees vs. volunteers: 25% (648,500) of total forces in country were draftees. (66% of U.S. armed forces members were drafted during WWII)
Draftees accounted for 30.4% (17,725) of combat deaths in Vietnam.

Reservists KIA: 5,977

National Guard: 6,140 served; 101 died.


http://www.mrfa.org/vnstats.htm

[obxhead]

8. Yes, but we didn't need a draft for Vietnam.

We needed to end that war, or better yet never have gotten involved at all.

[Fire1]

10. +1000

[maxsolomon]

16. i don't know what you're responding to

my assertion was not that there WERE NOT draftees in vietnam, it's that they weren't needed to protect our freedom of speech. draftees were USED by the military to project american policy and fears onto a agrarian populace at the cost of a million plus lives.

[EFerrari]

9. Amen.

[oneshooter]

14. Lets bring our military back to 1941 levels

When Poland had a larger Army.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. I know what you mean, and I got your back

[msongs]

15. there's lots of ways to "serve" your country that have nothing to do with illegal wars nt

[Old Troop]

17. I couldn't agee more. I understand that Limbaugh actually refered to

himself as "General Limbaugh" several times when critiquing Clinton's military actions. They make me sick. When they disparage casualty counts because "one day on Okinawa resulted in as many casualties as we've had in the entire war", I know that they have no inkling of what infantry combat or any other warfare is like. I can respect Bob Dole and even Bush 1 -- they at least placed their mortality on the line even if they are wrong now.