I don't recall right now - somewhere that Google had lead me on that day probably. However, I looked again and found this:
http://www.historynet.com/vietnam-wa...ion-policy.htm

That article discusses Johnsons ongoing policy of wanting to keep the Reserves and National Guard at home due to the Cold War, and puts the number called up for active service at "... 13,633 Guardsmen, only 2,729 of whom ever served in Vietnam". Perhaps there were a few more later on during Nixon's term. But the point remains - this is a tiny number compared to the hundreds of thousands of regular servicepeople sent.

Johnson's last year in office was 1968, the Vietnam war continued until 1973 or so. I got my figures directly from the National Guard.

You're really grasping and straws here, and not pulling many back at that. So, is your point, that during a war, no one should volunteer for the Guard, they should just sit on their hands and wait to get drafted?

Like you said, and I pointed out earlier, there was a Cold War going on too, and people were needed to serve in that capacity as well.

I'm guessing you'll respond that there is nothing wrong with joining the Guard, but you don't like that he supposedly got bumped to the head of some line to get in. The problem is, you probably got that "information" from the same place you learned that "the Guardsmen never went to Vietnam."

How many times to I have to spell out that my point was never that one should not join the National Guard? My point was something struck me as dishonest about the way it happened - you are the first I have heard actually deny the fact that he was bumped up the queue. Do you also dispute that he was conveniently assigned to a "champagne unit" (or that such as thing even exists, maybe)? I think you must have the blinkers on. Perhaps you also don't believe that celebrities and the hyper-rich get special treatment in court? Or am I just touching on a super-sensitive area here because not only does it say something negative about you precious President, but even more disturbing to you, it says something negative about your precious military?

You also seem to want to ignore the fact that even though some National Guard apparently did go to Vietnam - something I already agreed I was apparently in error about - the numbers were miniscule compared to the numbers of regular army etc (which seems to me the real point there, rather than bitching about whether it was 0, 2000, or 6000). I already stated that the number I mentioned was referring to Johnsons term and "Perhaps there were a few more later on during Nixon's term".

Sherri, you might find this story about Obama's schooling in Indonesia interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/

The numbers of Guard were less because there are less people in the Guard to begin with, and deploying overseas is not their primary job. That's the reserves. There was also a draft going, and people don't get drafted into the reserves or guard.

All I asked you to do is show me where you learned that he was bumped up in line or whatever. What's the big deal about that?

I have no idea where it first came to my attention - that would be years ago. I now consider it to be common knowledge - as I said , I wasn't aware anybody disputed it.

It took me 5 seconds to find a source you might be satisfied with (Washington Post):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...bush072899.htm

Interestingly, the date on the article is 1999 - long before it was a major media story I think (which possibly was when it was raised in Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 911 - that's just a guess mind you.)

Did you read the whole thing?

One thing I keep noticing as I read material on this, is that most of the allusions are "some people say." One exception is that Barnes guy who was a political enemy of Bush, a lobbyist and worked on the John Kerry campaign during his attempt at the presidency while he was "revealing" these little alegations.

There probably was a little inside politics, but I'm guessing it was more along the lines of "this is what you need to do to get in."

I think it seems quite expected that in a situation where special consideration was given, some of the people involved, particularly those who did the 'special considering' are going to deny it, since no doubt it is against regulations.

back to the actual topic of the thread ... just a few more days and we should have an answer to the Democratic nomination question.

And thank goodness for that. It's been downright boring since March.

Or the ones saying something nefarious happened are liberally biased and against Bush. Barnes.

Have you looked into Rathergate yet?

A Anti-McCain vid posted on digg.com.

Made by an Ron Paul supporter obviously:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlX9l1g1ZE0

It looks like there was a Clinton supporter here. What do they think of Clinton's endorsement of Obama?

I am not a Clinton supporter, but I'll pitch in my two coppers while you're waiting.

I saw some women interviewed last night who are angry and plan to either write in Hilary's name, vote for McCain, or stay home. The interviewer asked the same question you did, but I didn't hear their answer.

I was with one of the Hawaii delegates from the Democratic Party the other night and she expressed a lot of concern over the prospect of losing Democrat votes in November to McCain. This was while there was still hope she'd be on the ticket as VP.

Without boring you with my own opinion on it, I'll just say a lot of women out there - liberal women, believe Hilary Clinton is the victim of sexism, and they have a variety of reasons for believing it.

Don't anyone ask me to defend that position, its not mine. I will point out, for starters, you have a woman who has spent a LOT more time in politics, a LOT more time in the White House, more time on Capital Hill, etc. While Barack Obama was in high school, Clinton was involved in presidential politics, working for the Jimmy Carter campaign, being co-governor of Arkansas, etc. Obama was enjoying puberty while Clinton was advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during Watergate.

Now, the Democrat Party has thrown her under the bus, saying "support the man or else." Its not surprising this has some feminists unhappy.

I've been out of the loop for the last few days and all I've heard about it thus far is that she conceded, presumably because it was becoming clear she wouldn't be able to grab the nomination and it's better to concede than to lose outright. Did the party put pressure on her to quit?

I was the person who voted for Clinton in this thread's poll. You ask what I think about her endorsement of Obama - well plainly it's the obvious and sensible thing to do in the situation. What other option does she have? Tell people voting for McCain is a better choice? She is saying "Vote Democrat - and Obama has achieved the party candidacy, so show some solidarity behind him. As for me personally, I was always ambivalent about which of the 2 I preferred and always thought a combined ticket would be ideal. I preferred Clinton narrowly because something about Obama I couldn't quite isolate had me feeling he lacks 'what it takes' to handle the responsibility. I think he'll screw something up somehow (not that others won't, or haven't mind you - they pretty much all screw something up during their term in office). If Obama doesn't choose Clinton as his running mate I think it will be his first major screwup - and rumour (only rumour mind you) has it that he won't because his wife doesn't like her. His wife's liking or not of someone should not have any impact whatsoever if he has what it takes to do the job.

Is the term you're searching for experience? Judgement?

No I meant it as a more collective term, combining perhaps those things, as well as aptitude, strength. I don't think it can easily be reduced to a single word, hence the colloquialism.