From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:56:10 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct10.083157.24428@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
]>I think any anti-war protest organizer who went to Moscow during that 
]>period has the burden of proof on him to show that he did not cooperate
]>with the Russians.
]
]Incorrect.  The Constitution (you DO recommend supporting ALL of the 
]constitution in your .sig, don't you?) clearly says "innocent until
]proven guilty", and that the burdon of proof is on the accuser.

This would be true if he were charged with a crime. However, we are
talking public debate over the qualifications of a potential president.
I don't know about you, but I hold potential presidents to a higher standard
than that they haven't been convicted of a crime.

In other words, if you invoke the constitution, understand it's correct
application. The constitution limits the powers of government, and
affirms the rights of individuals in conflict with their government. It
says nothing about the rules of political debate.
]
]> If he is unwilling to try (and Clinton refuses to
]>discuss the issue)
]
]Clinton HAS discussed the issue.  He said he took a vacation.  So what?

For quite a while he was unwilling to discuss it at all. Then he said it
was a vacation. Then he said he met with anti-Soviet students. If you
believe the latter, you DESERVE slick Willie as a president. I don't think
I deserve him however.

]>, then yes, he would be unfit to be president. For one
]>thing, he could never get a high security clearance without explaining
]>it adequately. Do we want someone as president who wouldn't even qualify
]>for a secret or above security clearance? I know that I sure don't!
]
]Oh, come, now.  The Constitution says the only qualifications to be the
]president is having achieved 35 years of age, and being a non-naturalized
]citizen.  I see nothing about the ability to attain a security clearence
]as applies to presidental fitness.

Once again you improperly invoke the Constitution. If we used your standards,
then we should just hold a lottery and let it pick anyone who meets the
constitutional standards. We are not talking about MINIMAL qualifications
(which Clinton clearly meets) - we are talking about character, which is
important but not a constitutional requirement.
]
]I see.  So, we should scrap the constitution and jail any suspect who
]has no evidence that he did no wrong.
]
]For someone who calls for support of the constitution, you have an 
]unerring ability to dismiss major parts of it...

You seem to have a remarkable inability to understand what the constitution
does and does not apply to. 

]>Well, I don't particularly like Dornan's style, but he did NOT say that
]>Clinton participated in treasonous activities, he said it was likely
]>that Clinton met the KGB there. Now, it was impossible to travel there
]>at that time without meeting the KGB, since all Intourist people reported
]>to the KGB, so he is technically correct. I doubt that Clinton conspired
]>with the KGB there.... as I said before, he was probably just one of the
]>thousands of americans unwittingly used by them. Their term was "useful
]>fool."
]
]Used HOW?
]
]gain, you're convicting strictly on the basis of "probably" or "possibly"
]or "maybe".

Used as an anti-war protestor. If you don't think anti-war protesters
furthered the soviet cause, you don't really understand the geopolitics
of the era. I don't think that Clinton conspired with the KGB. If I did,
I would be much more forceful on that issue.



-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
       - - Gun Control Means Hitting What You are Aiming At! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -