Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Elizabeth [Edwards] questions Limbaugh's draft deferment
Politico ^ | 10/4/07 | Ben Smith

Posted on 10/04/2007 1:26:54 PM PDT by Roberts

An Air America producer just sent over some transcript from an interview their Richard Greene (not our Richard Greene) conducted with Elizabeth Edwards, in which she questioned Rush Limbaugh's Vietnam exemption:

My classmates went to Vietnam, he did not. He was 4F. He had a medical disability, the same medical disability that probably should have stopped him from spending a lifetime in a radio announcer’s chair; but it is true, isn’t it? If he has an inoperable position that allows him not to serve, presumably it should not allow him to sit for long periods of time the way he does. I think this is a serious enough offense for the people who fund him, who buy ads and allow him to be on the air, need to be asked if this is what they really stand for, do they think it is alright for someone who has never served to denigrate the men and women who have simply because they are expressing an opinion. Frankly, I thought that is what we are fighting for.

In the interview, Edwards also suggested that John Kerry shouldn't have conceded when he did in 2004.

RG: Were you disappointed that Senator Kerry conceded as quickly as he did?

EE: I was very disappointed, not just because we did not count the votes, but because we promised people that if they stood in line and fought for the right to vote, that we would fight with them. And I was very disappointed that the decision was made by the campaign, over John’s objection, not to fight.


TOPICS: Extended News; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: breckgirl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 281-292 next last
To: dighton

S-he’s with G.I.Joe I believe. They went to Barbie’s party!


201 posted on 10/04/2007 5:28:51 PM PDT by potlatch (MIZARU_ooo_‹(•¿•)›_ooo_MIKAZARU_ooo_‹(•¿•)›_ooo_MAZARU_ooo_‹(•¿•)›_ooo_))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Sig Sauer P220

Sure has a lot of energy for someone who is “dying”.

She has cancer of the patriotism....so She is completely unnaffected.


202 posted on 10/04/2007 5:31:24 PM PDT by LtKerst (Lt Kerst)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Raider
Back in 72, they did not have the “Don't ask don't tell” policy.

Maybe Johnny did some talking?

203 posted on 10/04/2007 5:31:36 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers

Is Limbaugh...Running For President? He should, oh that would be a hoot.


204 posted on 10/04/2007 5:32:58 PM PDT by gathersnomoss (General George Patton had it right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LtKerst

I have to wonder if her terminal illness isn’t all made up. If it is not. I apologize. But this woman does not appear to be dying.

Liberals, socialists, leftists, communists , have no problem lying, kind of like Muslims, if it is, as they believe it to be, for the common cause they espouse.

Just saying...


205 posted on 10/04/2007 5:36:42 PM PDT by dforest (Duncan Hunter is the best hope we have on both fronts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Roberts
This is the first I’ve heard about Limbaugh’s medical deferment. I know they used to be pretty picky about physical abilities back then. Flat feet used to keep you out of the army. That seems pretty silly by today’s standards. After all, how much marching does a modern soldier do anyway?

Does anyone know what his condition was?

206 posted on 10/04/2007 5:40:07 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sig Sauer P220
I was thinking the same thing. I would not be surprised if that was all made up.
207 posted on 10/04/2007 5:40:39 PM PDT by angcat ("IF YOU DON'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRepublicOfWA

Very well stated and exactly what I was thinking.


208 posted on 10/04/2007 5:48:54 PM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: gathersnomoss

Can you imagine the amount of money Rush could raise in just one week? What a hoot that would be to watch the MSM in a massive hysteria.


209 posted on 10/04/2007 5:50:56 PM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Roberts
I know I'm in the minority here, but I think this is a GOOD thing.

If the American people see that the ONLY things the democrats can get worked up about aren't terrorists, aren't illegals, aren't balanced budgets, aren't taxes, but TALK SHOW HOSTS they're going to be seen as the loons they are.

I'm being 100% serious. I hope this garbage keeps up. Look at how INTO IT the dems are. Have you ever seen a liberal this worked up about terrorists, about UBL or Saddam?

They are the party of aging children who don't want to grow up, who only get worked up about their silly insult-filled catfights, and who are not capable of functioning as adults. I hope they keep showing it.

210 posted on 10/04/2007 5:51:14 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Pro-Life atheist living in Boston)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: peggybac
Drinking Coffee  You're being a bit dishonest here.  http://www.sss.gov/lotter4.htm   I'm certainly not a John Edwards fan by any stretch, but I am a proponent of honesty.  Now as far as what his wife said; I think it makes her look like a moron.

The highest lottery number called was 95; from the lottery drawing held August 5, 1971 that determined the order in which men born in 1952 were called to report for induction into the military.  Edwards was born June 10th 1953. All men assigned lottery number 95 or any lower number, and who were classified 1-A or 1-A-O (available for military service), were called to report for possible induction.

RESULTS FROM LOTTERY FOR MEN FACING THE DRAFT IN 1973

The lottery drawing held February 2, 1972, determined the order in which men born in 1953 were called to report for induction into the military.

How to read this chart: This chart shows all the birth dates in a given year and the lottery numbers assigned to those dates. Read this chart like a multiplication table. At the top of the chart are the months of the year. On the far left are the dates of the month. The numbers in the center represent lottery numbers. For example: To find the lottery number assigned to July 15, look down from "July" till it matches up with the number "15" on the left side of the table. The corresponding number in the middle is "359." This means that all men born on July 15, 1953, were assigned the lottery number 359.

This lottery was conducted for men who would have been called in 1973; however, no new draft orders were issued after 1972.

Results from Lottery for Men Facing the Draft in 1973
  Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 150 112 203 012 058 015 039 323 219 215 107 170
2 328 278 322 108 275 360 297 027 017 128 214 090
3 042 054 220 104 166 245 109 003 226 103 232 056
4 028 068 047 280 172 207 092 313 356 079 339 250
5 338 096 266 254 292 230 139 063 354 086 223 031
6 036 271 001 088 337 087 132 208 173 041 211 336
7 111 154 002 163 145 251 285 057 144 129 299 267
8 206 347 153 050 201 282 355 131 097 157 312 210
9 197 136 321 234 276 083 179 007 364 116 151 120
10 037 361 331 272 100 178 089 249 217 342 257 073
11 174 026 239 350 307 064 202 125 334 319 159 082
12 126 195 044 023 115 190 340 198 043 171 066 085
13 298 263 244 169 049 318 306 329 229 269 124 335
14 341 348 117 081 224 095 305 205 353 014 237 038
15 221 308 152 343 165 016 359 241 235 277 176 137
16 309 227 094 119 101 032 074 019 225 059 209 187
17 231 046 363 183 273 091 199 008 189 177 284 294
18 072 011 357 242 098 238 121 113 289 192 160 013
19 303 127 358 158 148 052 332 105 228 167 270 168
20 161 106 262 314 274 077 033 162 141 352 301 149
21 099 316 300 004 310 315 005 030 123 288 287 080
22 259 020 317 264 333 146 286 140 268 191 102 188
23 258 247 022 279 216 212 365 302 296 193 320 252
24 062 261 071 362 246 061 324 138 236 256 180 155
25 243 260 065 255 122 143 035 290 291 009 025 006
26 311 051 024 233 118 345 204 076 029 078 344 351
27 110 186 181 265 293 330 060 034 248 325 135 194
28 304 295 045 055 018 053 185 040 070 327 130 156
29 283 --- 021 093 133 075 222 084 196 349 147 175
30 114 --- 213 069 048 142 200 182 184 346 134 281
31 240 --- 326 --- 067 --- 253 218 --- 010 --- 164

 

211 posted on 10/04/2007 5:52:28 PM PDT by HawaiianGecko (There are scandals that need to be addressed. Republicans address them, Democrats re-elect them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers

Too funny.


212 posted on 10/04/2007 5:53:17 PM PDT by DanielLongo (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Slapshot68
Has Mr. Edwards served? If not, STFU Elizabeth.

It doesn't even matter!

I'm sick of people acting as if serving in the military is necessary to be Commander-in-Chief because it's NOT.

From the Constitution, Article II, Section I:


No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States...

...The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.


That's IT. Nothing about surviving boot camp being a prerequisite.

The same people who in 2000 and 2004 unfavorably compared W. Bush's National Guard service with that of Vietnam vets Gore and Kerry didn't care a whit in 1992 that H.W. Bush was a decorated WW II pilot and that Bill Clinton lied to an University of Arkansas ROTC instructor to avoid being drafted. And don't forget how H.W., when he first ran and won, had to overcome the media-driven so-called "Wimp Factor" even though he was running against Michael Dukakis! W. Bush is supposedly a "chickenhawk" for starting a war after flying fighter jets stateside, but Clinton, an anti-Vietnam war demonstrator who ordered bombing of Iraq's no-fly zone and invaded Haiti and Serbia, isn't?

It's silly to get into this Que es mas macho? game because each party whips out veteran status only when it's convenient to their favorite candidate. Remember how Jim Webb's campaign issued a press release saying that "While Jim Webb was...fighting for our freedoms ...in Vietnam," George Allen "cut and run" and "was playing cowboy at a dude ranch in Nevada"? And that was only a Senatorial race!

If you're going to infer that nobody who never put on fatigues should lead this country, you should, as soon as possible, propose that a Constitutional amendment make it a requirement. Oh, but nobody wants to do that, because it will eliminate viable candidates from both parties, and even cause intraparty strife. Among the Democrats, Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, and Kucinich all have a zippo military record. Who has experience? Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel, who was, believe it or not, an intelligence officer!

But wait; neither Rudy nor Fred nor Mitt nor Sam nor Tom have served -- sorry, thanks for playing. That leaves who? John McCain, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul. Yeah, that's a winner of a ticket among those three.

Military background does not necessarily have any bearing on a candidate's policies, intelligence, or character. Think of where this country might be now if John Kerry blinded enough Americans with the reflection of his awards, earned legitimately or not. And since Eisenhower, the most militarily experienced men elected President were Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, neither of whom are spoken among the all-time greats.

Get a grip, people.

213 posted on 10/04/2007 5:56:51 PM PDT by L.N. Smithee (Hillary for President? In the words of Bell Biv DeVoe: "Never trust a big butt and a smile!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Roberts

Weekend At Elizabeth’s II (Dead @ The Whitehouse)


214 posted on 10/04/2007 6:00:24 PM PDT by an amused spectator (AGW: If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a research lab, you never know what you'll find)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
Drinking Coffee  "I know I'm in the minority here, but I think this is a GOOD thing. "
You might be in the minority, but you're not alone in your thinking.


215 posted on 10/04/2007 6:01:36 PM PDT by HawaiianGecko (There are scandals that need to be addressed. Republicans address them, Democrats re-elect them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Sig Sauer P220

Edwards was born on June 10, 1953, so he was 18 in 1971.

Nixon ended the draft in June, 1973.

What did John Edwards do about the draft from 1971 to 1973?


216 posted on 10/04/2007 6:02:25 PM PDT by donna (Typhoid Mary Matalin, the Republican Administration Destroyer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Slapshot68
And since Eisenhower, the most militarily experienced men elected President were Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, neither of whom are spoken among the all-time greats.

Arrrrgh! Since KENNEDY! Mea culpa.

217 posted on 10/04/2007 6:04:20 PM PDT by L.N. Smithee (Hillary for President? In the words of Bell Biv DeVoe: "Never trust a big butt and a smile!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

Holy smoke!

I’m no fan of the power-mad Edweirds, either, but after reading your post, I shudder to think what all those “Comment removed by Admin Moderator” posts must have looked liked.

Edward’s wife is as much a political player as he is, and she made herself that way and is therefore fair game. I don’t believe her medical condition renders her public statements as immune to either criticism or debate.

But let’s stick to critiqueing what she actually says.


218 posted on 10/04/2007 6:12:14 PM PDT by elcid1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

At this point wondering about that is certainly not unreasonable. We’ve all seen enough to know.

Something about this stinks.


219 posted on 10/04/2007 6:16:07 PM PDT by Sue Perkick (And I hope that what I’ve done here today doesn’t force you to have a negative opinion of me….)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Roberts

I truly wish Rush would take the gloves off and lambast the masculine side of the Ewards family, Elizabeth. But, I think he is too much of a gentleman to do it. On the other hand, if she is going to put herself in the fray, then she is fair game.


220 posted on 10/04/2007 6:17:12 PM PDT by Road Warrior ‘04 (Officially Fredbacker1 but don't know how to change my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 281-292 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson