in his own words.
more analysis…

Rumsfeld at this point was sidestepping a bitter truth. There has been for some time now a word floating around the political lexicon: “Chickenhawk.” The accepted definition of the word is, “One who tends to advocate, or are fervent supporters of those who advocate, military solutions to political problems, and who have personally declined to take advantage of a significant opportunity to serve in uniform during wartime.” Notable administration officials Dick Cheney, Andrew Card, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, and Karl Rove all came of age during the Vietnam war. Each and every single one of them found a way to avoid service. Each of these man has, in the last several months, gone out of their way to push hard for military solutions to political problems.

Here’s the full text of both links in case they go bad:
First the DOD:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2003/b01212003_bt029-03.html
Home Page – U.S. Department of Defense
Updated: 21 Jan 2003
Image of Pentagon oval, linked to DoD News page United States Department of Defense
News Release
On the web: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2003/b01212003_bt029-03.html
Media contact: media@defenselink.mil or +1 (703) 697-5131
Public contact: public@defenselink.mil or +1 (703) 428-0711
No. 029-03
IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 21, 2003
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE STATEMENT ON THE DRAFT
During a recent press briefing at the Pentagon, a reporter asked my views on the old military draft system. Although not eloquently stated, I responded to the question in part as follows:
“If you think back to when we had the draft, people were brought in, they were paid some fraction of what they could make in the civilian manpower market, because they were without choices. Big categories [of people] were exempted-people that were in college, people that were teaching, people that were married . . . And what was left [those who were not exempted] were sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months and then went out, adding no value, no advantage really, to the United States Armed Services over any sustained period of time, because (of) the churning that took place – it took an enormous amount of effort in terms of training and then they were gone.”
Again, my statement was not eloquent. A few columnists and others, though, have suggested that those words were intended to mean that draftees added no value to the military. That is not true. I did not say they added no value while they were serving. They added great value. I was commenting on the loss of that value when they left the service. I certainly had no intention of saying what has been reported, or of leaving that impression. Hundreds of thousands of military draftees served over years with great distinction and valor – many being wounded and still others killed.
The last thing I would want to do would be to disparage the service of those draftees. I always have had the highest respect for their service, and I offer my full apology to any veteran who misinterpreted my remarks when I said them, or who may have read any of the articles or columns that have attempted to take my words and suggest they were disparaging.
The intent of my comments was to reflect a view I have held for some time: that we should lengthen tours of duty and careers for our all-volunteer forces, so that these highly trained men and women in uniform can serve in specific assignments longer, and also not be forced to leave the service when they are at the peak of their skills and knowledge.
It is painful for anyone, and certainly a public servant whose words are carried far and wide, to have a comment so unfortunately misinterpreted.
It is particularly troubling for me that there are truly outstanding men and women in uniform or their families — past and present — who may believe that the Secretary of Defense would say or mean what some have written. I did not. I would not.
I hope this deeply felt statement reaches those who have served those who are serving, and their families.
next truthout:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012403E.rumsf.vets.htm
Print This Story E-mail This Story
(*Editors Note | On January 9, 2003 I published an article here entitled ‘The Stand.’ It dealt, in part, with the remarks Rumsfeld had made about the worthiness of drafted soldiers in the U.S. military. The relevant portion of that essay is below. Beneath it is a newly-released apology from Rumsfeld in this matter. This apology came after a large number of veterans groups, especially Vietnam veterans groups, read of Rumsfeld’s comments and took after him with a vengeance. Read his apology for yourself and decide if the matter is properly settled. – wrp)
Excerpted from ‘The Stand,’ by William Rivers Pitt:
Consider the words of Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, when asked on January 7th about the possibility of required conscription being reinstated as we march to war against much of the world:
“If you think back to when we had the draft, people were brought in; they were paid some fraction of what they could make in the civilian manpower market because they were without choices. Big categories were exempted – people that were in college, people that were teaching, people that were married. It varied from time to time, but there were all kinds of exemptions. And what was left was sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months, and then went out, adding no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone.”
This is the man not only responsible for the care and well-being of our soldiers today, but of the reputation and honor of the soldiers who have come and gone. His was the generation that faced the challenge of Vietnam, a truth which applies to a great many within the administration that claims him. Analyze the words:
“If you think back to when we had the draft, people were brought in; they were paid some fraction of what they could make in the civilian manpower market because they were without choices.”
People were brought in to the armed services during the Vietnam era because they were drafted, under penalty of prison or estrangement from their country, and were paid a fraction of the going rate in the civilian marketplace because of the basic nature of that forced conscription. As for being without choice, this is correct. If a 19 year-old in that time in American did not want to go to jail, or to Canada, or to Mexico, or if he did not have powerful family connections that guaranteed a safe posting somewhere away from the combat zone, then indeed they were without choices.
“Big categories were exempted – people that were in college, people that were teaching, people that were married. It varied from time to time, but there were all kinds of exemptions.”
This is code. Rumsfeld at this point was sidestepping a bitter truth. There has been for some time now a word floating around the political lexicon: “Chickenhawk.” The accepted definition of the word is, “One who tends to advocate, or are fervent supporters of those who advocate, military solutions to political problems, and who have personally declined to take advantage of a significant opportunity to serve in uniform during wartime.” Notable administration officials Dick Cheney, Andrew Card, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, and Karl Rove all came of age during the Vietnam war. Each and every single one of them found a way to avoid service. Each of these man has, in the last several months, gone out of their way to push hard for military solutions to political problems.
Foremost on this list is George W. Bush, leader of the free world, who was eased into a National Guard posting in Texas in 1972, and who by all accounts failed to show up for this duty for some 17 months. When Mr. Rumsfeld referred to “all kinds of exemptions,” be safe in the knowledge that his understanding of that phrase is as broad as it is shallow.
“And what was left was sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months, and then went out, adding no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone.”
There are 58,229 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C. Many of those names belong to men who were without the choices afforded to Bush, Cheney, Perle, Card, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Ashcroft and Rove. In all likelihood, there are names on that wall representing men who went, served and died in Vietnam in place of these administration officials. That the man immediately in charge of our armed services stated that these lost soldiers added “no value, no advantage” to the country they served is a profound insult not only to the honored dead, but to those who died so Bush and the members of his administration could hide from duty when it came calling. Indeed, Mr. Rumsfeld, these men are gone, and never to return.
Go To Original
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld Statement on the Draft
Department of Defense
Tuesday 21 January 2003
During a recent press briefing at the Pentagon, a reporter asked my views on the old military draft system. Although not eloquently stated, I responded to the question in part as follows:
“If you think back to when we had the draft, people were brought in, they were paid some fraction of what they could make in the civilian manpower market, because they were without choices. Big categories [of people] were exempted-people that were in college, people that were teaching, people that were married . . . And what was left [those who were not exempted] were sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months and then went out, adding no value, no advantage really, to the United States Armed Services over any sustained period of time, because (of) the churning that took place – it took an enormous amount of effort in terms of training and then they were gone.”
Again, my statement was not eloquent. A few columnists and others, though, have suggested that those words were intended to mean that draftees added no value to the military. That is not true. I did not say they added no value while they were serving. They added great value. I was commenting on the loss of that value when they left the service.
I certainly had no intention of saying what has been reported, or of leaving that impression. Hundreds of thousands of military draftees served over years with great distinction and valor – many being wounded and still others killed.
The last thing I would want to do would be to disparage the service of those draftees. I always have had the highest respect for their service, and I offer my full apology to any veteran who misinterpreted my remarks when I said them, or who may have read any of the articles or columns that have attempted to take my words and suggest they were disparaging.
The intent of my comments was to reflect a view I have held for some time: that we should lengthen tours of duty and careers for our all-volunteer forces, so that these highly trained men and women in uniform can serve in specific assignments longer, and also not be forced to leave the service when they are at the peak of their skills and knowledge.
It is painful for anyone, and certainly a public servant whose words are carried far and wide, to have a comment so unfortunately misinterpreted.
It is particularly troubling for me that there are truly outstanding men and women in uniform or their families — past and present — who may believe that the Secretary of Defense would say or mean what some have written. I did not. I would not.
I hope this deeply felt statement reaches those who have served those who are serving, and their families.