From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 06:11:24 GMT

In <8OCT199200205591@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice):
>00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington) writes...
>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:

>>> I really had no reason to be against Clinton before this.
>>> I did have real concerns about anyone who's a war protester
>>> being able to lead the country in the event of war, since 
>>> you have to have people go and fight.
 
>>I'm sure this has been beat to death but even generals had said
>>it makes no difference.  It wasn't a popular war.

>On a radio interview in Dallas today, *General* Schwarzkopf said
>just about what I wrote above. He was much more eloquent, and 
>added that he wondered if Clinton still hated the military,
>apparently in reference to something Clinton had written in one
>of his protest letters from that time.

Yes, he wrote in the now-infamous ROTC letter that he "loathed" the
military.  But I think it's clear from context that he loathed the
leadership of the military that would get us involved in Vietnam and
mess up so badly while there.

I also don't understand what the problem with leading in the event of
war -- now, in case you hadn't noticed, we have a VOLUNTEER army.
That's very different than our slave-army (oh, I'm sorry.  This is the
government.  We'd better think up a euphemism.  How about 'drafted?')
during Vietnam.

Abraham Lincoln was a war protestor too.

>>> But to find out while Bill Clinton was at Oxford in '69 that 
>>> he went to *Moscow* and eastern Europe in the dead of winter, 
>>> alone, and made efforts to change his citizenship to British,
>>> -- I'll be dead against him personally -- if all this is true.
 
Alone?  Not really.  And changed his citizenship?  Not even a shred of
evidence.

>>Went to Moscow???? Oh my god he must be a communist... hey hasn't 
>>Bush been to Moscow too?  yeah and to China... he must be a communist
>>too... And Perot... he went to Vietnam...

>I hope Brave-Bill really appreciates how many of his peers would have
>loved to have been on vacation rather than in Viet Nam. Especially the POWs.

Just about everyone there, I suppose.  Maybe *they* should have tried
staying home.

>Now let's examine cowardice. Take for instance -- Yugoslavia or Somalia.

>I am personally against going to war anywhere abroad in the world today,
>but I compromise on one point: saving children. That means I'd support
>action to that end in either place. So I am morally against war, and
>moreover I am spiritually against war, as a matter of faith. Now you
>have to understand that I'm also a veteran with 11 years service, and
>I believe their is a time and place for war.

But you can ALWAYS justify going to war to save children.  What kind of
war *doesn't* threaten children?

>That said, I think it's absolute cowardice to protest a war if you
>would be required to serve, by running off to Canada or to college. 
>I don't expect young men to have enough experience to figure that out
>though. The reason it's cowardice is that if you truly believe war is
>wrong you should stand up for your belief inside the military, to 
>balance out the militaristic extreme. I think the Quakers have that 
>figured out -- they serve, but in medical and other positions.

Why?  By serving in the medical parts of the military you free up others
to serve in the military part, allowing the war to continue.

BTW, what if your principle is anti-slavery, rather than anti-war?

>So we have situations today a lot like Viet Nam on the personal level
>-- I don't care about the geopolitical level in this regard. Should
>we get involved, I don't believe we should, but I will *support* going 
>if it's with the express intent of rescuing the children who are being
>murdered and abused. On a personal level, this is the type of choices
>also confronted in Viet Nam.  

>Recall I said that young men often don't know what courage and cowardice
>are. Consequently, they're little more than children, if that. Certainly
>large numbers of the Iraquis which we slaughtered were children, (and I 
>do mean =we= because we paid for it with our taxes). Some young people 
>understand what courage is, and they become leaders, and they enable their
>peers and comrades-in-arms to survive. They take care of the new-guys
>and teach them how to survive physically, mentally, and emotionally.
>They show them the ropes, teach them the tricks, and share how to take 
>care of each other. 

>On this personal level -- if you're someone who's a leader -- and you 
>=fail= to go and serve with your peers, and since you know the 
>difference -- that makes you a coward. Your neighbors, many of them
>children, are going to be injured and some die -- because you weren't
>there. A lot of them are going to bring back emotional disabilities 
>they'll live with the rest of their lives because many of the leaders
>weren't there to show them how to cope. 

>You might begin to understand how contemptible I now think Bill Clinton
>is. He's wanted to be a leader. He had the talent. He had the initiative
>-- proven by his selection as a Rhodes Scholar. And his organizational
>ability concerning the protests. And his initiative to tour Europe.
>But... some his peers, many of them children, became crippled and
>possibly died in Viet Nam because he wasn't there. 

Now really.  This is pretty ridiculous.  Even for you, Steven.  How many
people died because he wasn't there?  Maybe the person who went in his
place [as if such a person could be identified] was a *better* leader
and saved more people?

>Instead, he was off "broadening his horizons" and during that time 
>chose to go to the Soviet Union. He took a vacation. Others became
>maimed, or died, leaving families broken. And Brave-Bill was on vacation. 

He was at Oxford.  They have a month off in January.  Would it have made
you happier if he had watched TV instead of touring Europe?

>Not only was he on vacation, he would have been just the type of 
>individual that soviet intelligence would look for and cultivate.
>And of course they knew he was coming -- you just didn't get in
>and out that easy. Brave-Bill was =probably= treated to some very
>special attention by the Soviets. And now he trying to be President.

He was in the Soviet Union for a couple of days.

>Well, I wouldn't vote for him if he were the only choice, since 
>I've had time to think about it all this new information:

>	Strike 1:  He deserted his neighbors and peers,
>		   by not going to Viet Nam and providing
>		   the benefit of leadership which he had.

Only a few million people (total) ever went to Vietnam.  Are you
condemning all 200+ million other Americans?

>	Strike 2:  He protested, but not from the inside.

Good.  If more people had done this, and less had gone on the inside, we
wouldn't have had to end up there.  It was the people who decided to go
along with the illegitimate policy that caused the problem... not the
ones who protested it.

> 	Strike 3:  He went on vacation... from duty, from
>		   honor and from country.

He was in Europe on a Rhodes scholarship.  They have time off between
semesters.  He toured Europe.  I'm missing the big deal.

>	Strike 4:  He exposed himself to Soviet influence
>		   =willingly=. So how can he be trusted?

Thousands of people went to the Soviet Union.  Among other things,
how else would they know what the Soviet Union was like without visiting
it and seeing it for themselves?

>On this last point, remember it's mostly where you grow up and
>who your friends are that determine your loyalties. (We have exactly
>that problem with incumbent representatives in several ways... but
>I'll stick to my point). The Soviets were =very= good at taking
>advantage of such "opportunities" to influence. Probably the best. 

Yeah -- I'll bet in the two or three days he was in the Soviet Union,
they brainwashed him.  If they had only managed to last until 1992, they
could have had the US on its knees after their servant got elected
President.

>(Kinda like they made up for not having supercomputers by having 
>very good mathmeticians.) 

Huh?  This one went right over my head.  I don't understand the analogy
at all.

>So bottomline -- I don't care about Clinton as a candidate any more.
>It's become a personal matter between him and me. And as far as I'm 
>concerned -- he'd be better off dead. If he has a heart or a conscience
>left, I hope he thinks about being on vacation while others fought and
>died. 

Steven says, thereby condemning about 200 million Americans who ALSO
weren't in Vietnam and took vacations sometime during the 1960s.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,rec.humor