He “inferred” he was drafted, meaning, he signed up for the draft and was drafted. He could not have been drafted (as I mentioned before) but went on to attack Newt because he wasn’t drafted. Paul was 27, married with one child. No way he would have been drafted. He could have easily said he “volunteered” to become a flight surgeon but instead said he was drafted meaning too that he went UN-volutarily but had to be brought in by the draft law. He’s a disingenuous liar. Period.
OK - well after a bit more research, you can listen to his position about this at the 3:25 mark of this video. He spells out exactly what he did and why. There is also a transcript of the video on the site.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-02-12/ron-paul-on-the-draft/
He received a draft notice (into the Army as a “Buck Private”) and chose to volunteer as a doctor in the air force. That’s how it works my friend.. I’d say that receiving a draft notice is a reasonable equivalent for “I was drafted; particularly 50 years later than the event. It also seems that Paul could have easily gained a deferment since he was married and at the older end of the age group - but he did not go that route.
You are trying to use what is best a semantic slip or abbreviation and turn it into “he is disingenuous liar”. That’s unfair, does not flow out of your argument and some people might believe your misleading statement without checking it out.
That’s precisely the problem I’m reacting too. Way too many people on this forum are hyping up irrelevant stuff like this and clouding the bigger issues.
Were you drafted? Did you volunteer? Did you serve?
Anyone who voluntarily and honorably served in the military after receiving a draft notice checks an important block for me regardless of what sequence of events provided a catalyst for the decision. I would consider that “being drafted”
Going back to the original debate point that this was about - Paul and Perry served, Gingrich and Romney did not.