Elizabeth Edwards Addresses Rush Limbaugh's Draft Deferment

By Jeralyn, Section Military Draft
Posted on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 11:11:54 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Appearing on Air America Radio today, Elizabeth Edwards criticized Rush Limbaugh regarding his Vietnam draft deferment.

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 all right 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.

According to Snopes, Rush did ultimately receive a 4-F classification after submitting a letter from his personal doctor. There is no record of him being examined by military doctors. His medical condition: a pilonidal cyst.

More...

His biographer Paul D. Colford writes:

As for Limbaugh himself, the broadcaster stated that he was not drafted during the Vietnam War because he had been classified 4-F after a physical found that he had an "inoperable pilonidal cyst" and "a football knee from high school." He added: "I made no effort to evade it or avoid it."

What's a pilonidal cyst?

A Pilonidal (Abscess, Cyst, Sinus, Dimple) is an abscess in the natal cleft (more commonly referred to as your butt crack) that tends to become infected and cause intense pain and drainage. Sometimes a Pilonidal contains hair and sometimes they don't.

< More Details on the 2005 Torture Memos | Insider Trading Lawyer Couple Get Probation >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Elizabeth Edwards Addresses Rush Limbaugh's Draft Deferment | 79 comments (79 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

What's the big deal? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 09:30:30 AM EST

Limbaugh and most of right-wing commentators, and most current Republican politicians, dodged military service.

They didn't want to put their pylonidal cysts on the line, but preferred, and still prefer, to send the spawn of the less privileged to fight the so-called good fight.

I was against the Vietnam War but when I was being honorably discharged at Ft. Devens in 1973 after my two years of active duty George Bush was AWOL from his National Guard service, taking graduate courses in Harvard, forty miles east.

These people are hypocritical scum. There are plenty of people who are defending Limbaugh for his "phony soldier" ranting, and they are intellectually incapable of considering that Rush is a fraud. Too bad. I learned years ago at family gatherings that arguing politics with people whose knuckles get white at the mention of alternative beliefs or theories is mostly without benefit for anyone.

not so sure about this: (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by cpinva on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 08:16:46 PM EST

If there are any linguists out there, is this the origin of the phrase, "hair up his butt?"

however, it might the source for the term "pain in the ass".

jim, every time i think you couldn't possibly display a higher level of intellectual vacancy, you rise to the challenge and prove me wrong.

mr. limbaugh said "phony soldiers", not phony soldier. it's in his own words, both in the transcript, and the recording. "soldiers" is plural, meaning more than one, period.

exactly what is it you don't understand about that?

and everytime I think you can read something (1.00 / 0) (#60)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:32:26 PM EST

and remember it I am deeply disappointed in your demonstration of an early attack of senior moments.

I devoted a complete comment in another thread in which I defined what "phony soldiers" Limbaugh was speaking of.

I suggest you engage brain before touching key pad.

[ Parent ]

: A link for you. (1.00 / 0) (#64)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 11:08:17 PM EST

Here, enjoy yourself.

So. We have identified Limbaugh's phony soldier #1. We have identified Limbaugh's phony soldier # 2.... as in "phony soldiers."

[ Parent ]

so wrong (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by tnthorpe on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:07:03 PM EST

Bush neglected his duty because he had a rich powerful daddy.

Love how you apologize for him. Any proof of your rather sad argument in terms of actual documents from relevant authorities? (Besides the discharge papers, which I could post.)

link to comparison of Bush and Kerry's service record, side by side

May 26, 1972:
Bush transfers to Alabama Guard unit so he can work on Senator William Blount's reelection campaign. According to his commanding officer, Bush never shows up for duty while in Alabama.

August 1972:
Bush is grounded for missing a mandatory physical.

November 1972:
Bush returns to Houston, but never reports for Guard duty.

December 1972:
In D.C. for the holidays, Bush takes 16-year-old brother Marvin drinking and driving. Confronted by father, Bush suggests they settle it "mano a mano."

October 1, 1973:
The Air National Guard relieves Bush from commitment eight months early, allowing him to attend Harvard Business School.

Distinguished only by incompetence, but I know you're going to want to spin this sorry Bush behaviour somehow. It's the socially liberal thing to do.

Well, if Limbaugh (1.00 / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 09:21:37 AM EST

had gotten into the Army reserve, and then resigned almost immediately when he received a high draft number..

he would have been qualified to be President...

John Kerry would have told us that his lack of service wasn't an issue...

And if he had served, perhaps he would have ran for the senate on a phony war story...

etc, etc, etc.

What amazes me is that Mrs. Edwards has a husband who didn't serve in the military. I would guess the draft didn't exist when he came of age, but he could have volunteered... I mean if it is all that important..

My guess is she got tired of Limbaugh referring to her husband as "the Breck girl..." and is giving him some pay back... something that her husband should have done months ago...

So I really fail to understand her point, unless she wants to make lack of service an issue. Somehow I don't think she does.

But if she wants to say that Limbaugh is a phony and is attacking and not supporting the troops, then she is putting him into some very well known company.

Now, is a pilonidal cyst reason to keep someone from being drafted?? Well, first he was designated as 1Y, which says, basically, we'll take you, but only if things are really really bad, and then 4F.

Based on what I have read, the problem can and often does, reoccur. It is very painful and can lead to more serious problems. The treatment often requires surgery removing a large chunk of muscle, not just a simple lancing and draining. What this means is an extended and often difficult recovery time.

This puts the patient on either no duty, or light duty status.

The military doesn't want people who they think will be prone to such problems.

As for jrod's cousin and the Marines, I wonder if he volunteered, and if so, did he tell them?? (The Marines, if my memory is correct, drafted for only one year, which I believe was the only time in their storied history.)

In the meantime, those who haven't served can join Limbaugh on the sidelines. No commenting allowed...

That leaves Roger, Saul, me... and I am sure a few others... but good bye Edger!! Squeaky!!

Have a nice day. ;-)

This is painful (5.00 / 0) (#13)
by LarryE on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 09:52:30 AM EST

I mean really, really painful. But I have to agree with Jim on one point.

(Oh, the agony.)

That singular point is that I am extremely uncomfortable with the emerging meme that only those who have been in the military are allowed to comment on the military or military matters, much less to criticize.

I am not a military veteran. And I find being told, repeatedly by implication and occasionally directly, that my opinion is for that reason less worthy of consideration to be both insulting and, extended to its natural limit, dangerous.

I do think there is a distinction to be made in terms of Vietnam, but it is not a military v. non-military one. Rather, it is between those who evaded (or, in cases numbering into the tens of thousands, openly resisted) the draft because they opposed the war and those who evaded it in spite of supporting the war.

High-ranking members of that latter group are Dan Quayle, Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney, George "AWOL" Bush, and, if I understand his stand correctly, Rush Limbaugh.

[ Parent ]

LarryE (1.00 / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:57:53 PM EST

Bush did the TANG thing. No one has ever proven otherwise.

And while I have noted several times his service was not as dangerous as Kerry's, it was still dangerous. I also note that ANG squadrons of F102's were being deployed to Vietnam when Bush joined up, so he had no way of knowing if he would, or would not wind up there. Also, when he joined there were open slots in fighter pilot training, but not for ground support. And there us a difference.

What I find remarkable is the Demos wanting to bring the issue up when the husband of their front runner wangled himself a Army Reserve billet, and then resigned when he got a high draft number... That's evading at the best.

[ Parent ]

He also went with his conscience. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by jondee on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:23:15 PM EST

Or claims to have. Whereas you, Rush and Bush wanted other people to act on your conscience.

Other priorities and all that.

[ Parent ]

: A lot of people develop an (1.00 / 1) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:00:56 PM EST

anti-war conscience when they face being drafted...

[ Parent ]

Except (5.00 / 1) (#81)
by LarryE on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:56:53 AM EST

This is minor league stuff, so this will be my last on this, but still....

Certainly not to you and those of your ilk, who would probably still claim Bush fulfilled his obligation even if he publicly confessed otherwise. The facts that there are clear gaps in his "service" record and that he failed to appear for a required physical are undeniable.

And while it was not impossible for Bush's unit to have been sent to Vietnam, the probability was extremely small and he knew it. He could not possibly have not known it.

Demos wanting to bring the issue up when the husband of their front runner

Since reserve units could be (and some were) sent to Vietnam, your attack on Clinton and your defense of Bush are mutually exclusive. But did Clinton evade the draft? Yup. But precisely as I said before, there is a very real difference: Clinton did so because was against the war. Bush dodged even though he was for it.

Any by the way, your storyline is screwed up. First, it was the Navy reserve, not the Army. Second, he did not "resign" from the Reserves, he never entered. That was the summer of 1968.

He wrangled some favors to put off his chances of being drafted in order to continue at Oxford. He then agreed to join ROTC at the University of Arkansas but instead, in October 1969, he dropped his deferment resulting in his being classified 1-A. The draft lottery was held two months later, at which time Clinton drew a high number.

[ Parent ]

: Nope (1.00 / 1) (#85)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:24:30 PM EST

It was first a naval reserve enlisted slot, and then an Army ROTC slot.
So Clinton is excused because he was against war?
Funny, he sent missiles to blow up the Chinese embassy...
Look. You can kid your friends and I will kid my mine... But let's understand that Clinton became anti-war when it looked like he had escaped the draft... Prior to that he was playing both sides against the middle..

[ Parent ]

Really?? (1.00 / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:10:51 PM EST

I would call it down right considerate myself....opening up that slot for someone else.....probably saved a life

Uh, after you graduate comes something called "service."

Uh, someone got a low draft number and got drafted.

The former is evasion because the bad luck of the latter.

Some details.

[ Parent ]

Come on, Larry (none / 0) (#17)
by Dadler on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 11:39:28 AM EST

Please. The notion is not that people who haven't served cannot comment, it's that if your lack of service seems to have renedered you incapable of understanding the difference, then your comments, usually moronic and hypocritical, will be called out as such.

I don't care if anyone has or hasn't served, it has no bearing on their right to have an opinion. It does have a bearing on the reaction to their comments. And when someone who hasn't served, yet shills for this war like a maniac, attacks soldiers engaged in the ONLY thing freedom means -- dissent -- then Limbaugh's lack of service is a huge and legitimate target. He is using these soldiers' service against them. His lack of service can, therefore, and quite logically, be used against him.

In other words, when you pretend your sh*t doesn't smell, others have the right to shove the turd right under your nose.

[ Parent ]

Not convinced (5.00 / 0) (#80)
by LarryE on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:27:10 AM EST

The notion is not that people who haven't served cannot comment

I'm sorry, but when I repeatedly hear/read people saying "well, he never wore the uniform" and others introducing their own comments by citing their own military experience, I say that notion is exactly what's being argued.

[ Parent ]

: The issue mosyly comes up here (1.00 / 1) (#86)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:26:35 PM EST

when someone decides to start calling pro war people "chickenhawks.
I am always happy to use actual service as a qualifier...

[ Parent ]

Dadler (1.00 / 1) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:47:05 PM EST

He is using these soldiers' service against them.

No. Jason Macbeth did not serve... He never made it out of boot camp.

The TNR's prize author served about two years, but he made up a name and made up some tales.

Kerry served honorably, but then destroyed his reputation as a soldier by his phony comments.

Murtha served honorably, but has also destroyed his reputation by his comments.

Some soldiers served honorably in Vietnam but then raped and killed civilians.

Some soldiers served honorably in Iraq but then raped and killed civilians.

Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comments was obviously about Macbeth, and the ones who have come back from serving, but who now attack the war/military.

Given that only John Edwards can channel, it is impossible for us to know who he had in mind.

If you didn't serve and attack the war, then you are advancing a political position.

If you did serve and support the war, you are advancing a political position.

You can reverse the "didn't" and "did" and reach the same conclusion.

The problem starts when a supporter points out the real world results of the non-supporter's political position.

The non-server doesn't like to face the results.

[ Parent ]

Kerry and Murtha destroyed their reputations (5.00 / 0) (#32)
by jondee on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:24:20 PM EST

According to you and a dozen other talk radio educated loons.

And nobody gives a sh*t.

[ Parent ]

Kerry (1.00 / 0) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:59:26 PM EST

lost the election...

Murtha was denied a plum committee chairmanship.....

See my point??

[ Parent ]

You call that (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by aj12754 on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 08:38:56 PM EST

a point? Only in Loonytown.

[ Parent ]

Well I am sure (1.00 / 1) (#54)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:19:38 PM EST

that it was meaningful to Kerry and Murtha..

[ Parent ]

maybe ... (5.00 / 0) (#66)
by aj12754 on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 02:47:58 AM EST

if they lived on Planet Wingnut.

But they don't.

[ Parent ]

You think Kerry enjoyed loosing the election?? (1.00 / 1) (#72)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:05:08 AM EST

hehe

[ Parent ]

Time for your medication Jimbo (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by aj12754 on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 02:10:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: Tell me agaiin how Kerry enjoyed (1.00 / 1) (#87)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:27:58 PM EST

losing the election....
You can't.
tehe

[ Parent ]

Elected to the U.S Senate (5.00 / 2) (#84)
by jondee on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 03:14:30 PM EST

and 50 mil votes for President YEARS AFTER making "statements that ruined his reputation."

Also Jim, dont you think it's just a tad dishonest, (not that integrity is a priority for you), not to mention that Kerry's "ruination" was in large part due to a heavily-funded, orchestrated smear campaign that would've "ruined" the reputation of St. Francis of Assisi?

I noticed you've started the "HeHe" again: please check your blood sugar.

[ Parent ]

: Sometimes the truth (1.00 / 1) (#88)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:30:11 PM EST

has a way of following people around.... MA has a history of electing Leftists.. but when the country was involved, he got his as* deservedly kicked.
Tehehe

[ Parent ]

Yes Nothing New (5.00 / 0) (#41)
by squeaky on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:32:20 PM EST

He is a specialist at shifting goalposts. That is his first defense. When he is really nailed he attacks or shuts up.

[ Parent ]

Squeaky smears again... (1.00 / 0) (#57)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:23:34 PM EST

Let's see what his written, published standard method of operation is:

Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I

And don't forget, squeaky. If you cry it is out of context, I have your follow comments ready to go out..

[ Parent ]

Liar and Troll (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by squeaky on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:38:38 PM EST

You are transparent to all. I would love for you to expose yourself as the fool you are and show the entire context of your favorite quote that you love to post when you are shown to be lying, or shilling.

In fact you are the biggest fan of Rove and his dirty tricks of all the commenters on this site.

You are thoroughly dishonest and it is clear that your lies are not just born out of what appears to be an abundance of stupidity, eventhough you are a moron.

[ Parent ]

You asked, and here it is!! (1.00 / 0) (#62)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:59:04 PM EST

ppj does as ppj does (none / 0) (#30)
by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 09:58:35 PM EST
(I had written)So because Rove is doing wrong, it is okay for you to do wrong?
(squeaky replied.)I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not, he uses Goebbels' propaganda techniques as a bible and may as well be a born and bred Nazi.

Notice that the first declaration was on 9/19 in 2005. This one is right at 17 months later. Nothing has changed.

And they both say the same thing...

9/19 2005 - Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.
3/3 2007 - I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not,

Enjoy

[ Parent ]

hahhahaha (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by squeaky on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 11:23:10 PM EST

You again prove yourself a troll and a liar. THat is hardly the context of your beloved quote. But why stop lying when that is all you are good for, right?

You are the emulator of Rove, but way too thick to have been a contender.

[ Parent ]

No. I quote you. (1.00 / 0) (#73)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:09:13 AM EST

Tehehe

I have provided both quotes. They say the same thing, 17 months apart. That shows a steadfast commitment.

You can complain. You can run.

But you wrote what you wrote.

Enjoy.

[ Parent ]

This applies to you, PPJ (none / 0) (#75)
by Dark Avenger on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:38:09 AM EST

Having nothing significant to say other than snark and lies, you play the ankle biter and lie in the weeds, waiting until the very end to attack, hopeful that the person attacked will not return to a rapidly dying post...

That was constructive criticism, BTW.

TTFN

[ Parent ]

So? (none / 0) (#89)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:31:26 PM EST

If you don't consider that constructive that is your problem, not mine.

[ Parent ]

: Directed towards you (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by Dark Avenger on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 07:11:41 PM EST

yes.

[ Parent ]

Non sequiturs Too (5.00 / 0) (#58)
by squeaky on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:25:32 PM EST

You must be a new boy (1.00 / 0) (#55)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:20:35 PM EST

I have been on Kerry's case since 2003...

[ Parent ]

YYYYAAAAAWWWWWWNNNNNN (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by aj12754 on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:47:43 AM EST

Yeah, facts are soooo boring. (1.00 / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:59:15 PM EST

Chickenhawks who want to (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by jondee on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:05:50 PM EST

push others into the line of fire are soooo beneath contempt.

[ Parent ]

How would you know?? (1.00 / 1) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:19:56 PM EST

A chickenhawk has to get close enough to the action to push...... ;-)

Somehow I don't think you got that close...

We'll just leave off the hawk.

[ Parent ]

You're more hock (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by jondee on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 02:32:08 PM EST

than hawk.

[ Parent ]

: One more time (none / 0) (#90)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:33:21 PM EST

I served. You didn't.
Now. Who was chicken??

[ Parent ]

Nope (5.00 / 0) (#50)
by aj12754 on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 08:37:34 PM EST

just you. Yawn.

[ Parent ]

The empathy he (5.00 / 0) (#26)
by jondee on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:13:23 PM EST

claims to feel for users NOW (after years of encouraging their persecution) would probobly be reflected in a similar experience toward the young men and women he urges into combat if he were ever anything more tham a corn fed cheerleader. But, who knows?

[ Parent ]

Why wouldn't you?? (1.00 / 0) (#39)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:20:51 PM EST

Do you think a Rhoads Scholar is better (1.00 / 0) (#45)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:36:17 PM EST

than a black kid from South Central LA or a white hillbilly from Alabama when it comes to drafting people for combat??

[ Parent ]

Assuming you are not playing (1.00 / 0) (#53)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:18:26 PM EST

a sarcasm card, then you are saying that Clinton received favorable treatment and that's okay with you..

Elitism thy name is Walter...

[ Parent ]

: You know so little to claim so much. (1.00 / 0) (#74)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:34:29 AM EST

I am a social liberal who has commented time and again my support for gays and womens rights.
The comments are right here in the archives.
So take you snarky wrong attack someplace else.
They don't work here.
I have also commented time again that I believe in Universal Military Service. That's like:
"Everybody" serves.
I am sure you do not.

[ Parent ]

Huh??? (1.00 / 0) (#46)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:39:07 PM EST

If you can't keep up, at least stay out of the way..

I provided a lengthy comment detailing that he was:

Talking about the previous caller who he thought was phony..
Macbeth....

Was I right?? Only Limbaugh knows.

[ Parent ]

And your point is?? (1.00 / 0) (#52)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:16:40 PM EST

I have repeatedly noted that I am not fond of people in the military, or out of it, making false charges and generating MSM coverage.

As in this.

[ Parent ]

: I would say that if you make the charges, (1.00 / 0) (#76)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:46:55 AM EST

it is up to you to provide some proof.
That goes all the way back to "innocent until proven guilty," which is a rather basic part of our system of law and culture.

[ Parent ]

hehe (1.00 / 1) (#77)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:54:58 AM EST

Actually he wasn't drafted because he had been selected as a deep agent to protect the killers of Pat Tillman by turning the country into right wingers....

;-)

paranoia:

baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.

Paranoids believe in conspiracies (5.00 / 2) (#78)
by Dark Avenger on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:10:27 AM EST

and events that only exist in their minds:

by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 12:07:07 PM EST
Shari law has arrived dear people.

LOL!

[ Parent ]

: And This (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by squeaky on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:41:17 PM EST

The west is being out bred and is importing Moslems at a rate that insures the end of western culture.

[ Parent ]

rush (none / 0) (#1)
by bronco214 on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 11:27:20 PM EST

Had a friend who had the same problem. In his early 30's he got tired of the periodic inflammations so he had surgery. His wife told me that it looked like the doctor took an ice cream scoop to him. After 5 weeks he was better than ever. I'm sure pills limpdick has had the surgery and could have had it done if he really wanted to serve.

I'm no doctor, but ever since I heard of this (none / 0) (#2)
by jerry on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 11:40:40 PM EST

I have always wondered why it was 4F worthy. I hope some doctors chime in.

: Read the whole Snopes article (none / 0) (#5)
by aj12754 on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:29:29 AM EST

it tells you why the Army considers it worthy of keeping you aout.

[ Parent ]

"Football Knee"? (none / 0) (#3)
by ceabaird on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 12:17:23 AM EST

Let's look at the record here:

...He played one year of varsity football in high school, and his coach, Ryland Meyr, said later he remembered no injuries to Limbaugh...pilonidal cysts have long been (and still are) legitimate grounds for exemption from military service. The peculiar thing is that Limbaugh denies he ever had a pilonidal cyst, dismissing it as "internet bull", though the record is plain.

The threads on these guys just start to unravel as soon as you pull on them. Yep, I'd like having an overweight, pill-popping wanna-be MY news source of choice...

My cousin had a pilonidal cyst (none / 0) (#4)
by jrod on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:29:13 AM EST

and the Marines didn't have a problem accepting him back in the Vietnam era. I don't recall whether they had different standards for recruits and draftees back then.

Mrs Edwards blew it... (none / 0) (#6)
by Richard in Jax on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:54:12 AM EST

How surprising..a Democrat get s a forum and a shot at Limbaugh and completely misses the mark!
The angle on Limbaugh might better have been that he DID NOT have a medical condition that entitled a 4f status. He had a pilonidal cyst, a minor annoyance that he father also possessed...but his father served.
For those not familiar with the Draft process: you were required to register at age 18 and that was EVERY male..no matter what shape you were in. The determination of status, 4f, 1a or whatever was made by a physician working for the Selective Service Administration after his evaluation of you. You were ordered to report to a Military Induction physical (get a copy of Alice's Restaurant..its all there) and some lout of a Doc, usually smoking a cigarette while he evaluated you, made the determination of status. 4f: you are medically unfit to serve.
Limbaugh did not take an entrance physical. Fearing a rejection of his minor condition he had his family physician hype it to the draft board and garner him his coveted 4f, without an appearance. This was virtually unheard of at the time but ole' Rushbo was a kid of privilege..I think I have heard this song before.
Edwards should have emphasized the point that Rush sought a 4f status, put energy into getting it, was on the record as saying he "did not want go there (Vietnam) and could have served
if he chose.
Jeesh!

"Democrats completely miss the mark" (none / 0) (#7)
by Dulcinea on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 08:22:37 AM EST

to be continued. Amazing how this happens repeatedly as our democracy shrinks into oblivion. I give Mrs. Edwards credit for trying which is much more than our elected officials seem capable of doing or willing to do.

[ Parent ]

Some corrections (none / 0) (#12)
by LarryE on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 09:36:37 AM EST

you were required to register at age 18 and that was EVERY male

Correct.

The determination of status, 4f, 1a or whatever was made by a physician working for the Selective Service Administration after his evaluation of you

Incorrect. You were 1-A - available to be drafted - unless there was some reason to classify you otherwise. Unless you were 1-A already, you were not available to be drafted and you would not get called for a pre-induction physical. The idea was, you're available to be drafted, let's see if you're physically fit to be drafted. (This is different from an induction physical, a quick once-over you'd get on the day of induction.)

If you passed that physical, you remained 1-A and lived expecting an induction order. If you failed, you would get reclassified 4-F or, later, perhaps 1-Y. In either event, the actual classification was assigned by your local draft board, not an Army doctor.

garner him his coveted 4f, without an appearance. This was virtually unheard of at the time

Incorrect. It happened many times. Although failing a pre-induction physical was the most common way to be reclassified 4-F or 1-Y, upon being presented with medical evidence of a disqualifying condition (i.e., one listed in Army regs as such) any local board could reclassify you and doing so was hardly "virtually unheard of."

Admittedly, such evidence was more commonly submitted for inclusion in one's draft file to be used as evidence for an appeal in the wake of passing a pre-induction physical, but "more commonly" was not the assertion being made.

[ Parent ]

: One other correction (none / 0) (#14)
by LarryE on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 09:54:57 AM EST

A minor one, but still:
Pre-induction physicals were not carried out by physicians employed by the Selective Service System. Physicals were conducted by the Army.

[ Parent ]

ad hominem (none / 0) (#8)
by diogenes on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 08:27:48 AM EST

I guess this site has completely agreed that Rush is right on the facts, since every mention of him is an ad hominem attack.

: Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by aj12754 on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:46:58 AM EST

you can't read. Or maybe it's just that you can't read anything that doesn't filter through the wing-nut ideological spectacles you wear. And before you call this an ad hominem attack -- youur own words have indicted you. I'm just declaring you guilty.

[ Parent ]
: Always entertaining (none / 0) (#56)
by glanton on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:23:24 PM EST

to see you speaking of "facts," diogenes.
Keep it up, stay alert, and stay with Fox.

[ Parent ]

Question: (none / 0) (#10)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 09:26:30 AM EST

Why should we give a rats rear end about what Mrs. Edwards thinks about anything? Want to know what my wife thinks about Rush's draft deferment? I really want to know what Mrs. Bruce Springsteen thinks about this subject.

I'd rather know... (5.00 / 0) (#18)
by Dadler on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 11:41:01 AM EST

...what your wife thinks of having to be married to you.

wink wink.

[ Parent ]

: Probably that he wasn't home enough (1.00 / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:11:00 PM EST

when he was still on active duty...
That's one of the big problems no one talks about.

[ Parent ]

Or what YOU "think" (5.00 / 0) (#27)
by jondee on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:14:30 PM EST

about anything, for that matter.

[ Parent ]

Being female they're (5.00 / 0) (#29)
by jondee on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:50:53 PM EST

already at a mental disadvantage, everybody knows that (sic).

[ Parent ]

Reawakening Draft Dodging (none / 0) (#19)
by diogenes on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 12:51:28 PM EST

Do you think that this is really a deep attack on Hillary and Bill by reintroducing the whole issue of draft evasion by trickery during the Vietnam era?

OWith this, I developed a grudging respect for (none / 0) (#94)
by qittieqat on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:20:45 AM EST

Liddy Dole. To bad this might be her only attack on those who continue to degrade the US reputation.