So there was this brouhaha yesterday afternoon over the fact that Geoffrey Gray of New York Magazine called VoteVets.org
a left-leaning version of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
While the manner in which New York Magazine peddled the article to other media outlets (like Daily Kos) can be legitimately questioned, the whole uproar over the wording takes away from the larger issue. That issue being this: Many prominent Republican leaders like to talk a lot about "service," "support the troops," "pro-military," "The War on This," and "The War on That," but when it comes right down to it, they’re really a bunch of draft-dodging chickenhawks. And despite his debatable choice of wording, that’s what Gray’s article was really about.
Unlike the lies perpetuated by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, what VoteVets and Wes Clark said about Rudy Giuliani in New York Magazine was no half-truth. It was no twisting of the truth. It was right on the mark. Jon Soltz, Chairman of VoteVets, said this of Giuliani:
If Giuliani is the nominee, we’re going to hammer him with ads, and it’s going to be easy because the issue is simple: He’s a draft dodger.
General Clark went further, saying:
He wasn’t willing to risk his life for his country, and he has no relevant experience that’s in any way useful to be commander-in-chief. He hosted the U.N. and had a large police force.
What they’re saying, and what Gray is acknowledging, is that Giuliani talks tough about terrorism and winning wars, but when it was his turn to go, he declined—sending someone else in his place. Gray put it this way:
After receiving several deferments as a student, Giuliani applied for an occupational deferment as a law clerk, but his application was rejected. Giuliani appealed their decision, and asked the federal judge he was clerking for to petition the draft board for him. Which the judge did. When his deferment expired in 1970, Giuliani became susceptible to the draft. He received a high number and was never called.
Now, should everyone have to serve in a war they find unjust? Of course not. But despite what many right-wingers say, if you avoid serving in a war because you’re afraid of getting killed (or of killing) for no good reason, then you have an obligation not send others into any similar unjust wars. And if you’re running for national office, it’s fair game.
First of all, draft dodging became fair game back in 1992, when the issue dogged Bill Clinton to the delight of many of the same chicken-hawks who are now pushing "stay the course" in Iraq. Second, Rudy Giuliani is unapologetic about his desire, as President, to keep our troops in Iraq with no clear end, as the current President has. As a soldier who’s served on the ground in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I’d much prefer that such a brazen Commander-in-Chief actually have some experience in war, and know just what exactly it entails. I don’t think that’s asking too much of a warmonger.
I’ve seen up close what handing the military to tough talking draft dodgers leads to. To me, it’s not a game or a bunch of icons on a big screen in the "ops center." And soldiers aren’t little plastic people, either. This is some serious shit we’re talking about here. And that’s why VoteVets continues to speak out and enable those who understand this—like Patrick Murphy, Joe Sestak, and Tim Walz.
The piece by Gray is a good article. It exposes Giuliani for being the chickenhawk that he is. So in the midst of the debate here on how VoteVets is described, we shouldn’t lose sight of what Gray is ultimately saying: Rudy Giuliani is a hypocrite because he proposes to send people to kill and die even when he didn’t have the courage to do so himself.