From: dsonnier@afit.af.mil (David L Sonnier)
Subject: Re: Latin Americans for Clinton?
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:54:44 GMT

In article <16199@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez007856@hamlet.ucdavis.edu writes:
>
>>>1.-Continue with the embargo against the Cuban dictatorship and assure that
>>>communism really comes to an end in the world.
>
Stuff deleted
>
>Now, lets be reasonable. Not al Democrats are "liberals", take for instance 
>the current policy towards Cuba.  It was concieved and put in place by non 
>other than our good old President Kennedy after showing his ambivalence (really 
>not his fault but the CIA's) with the Bay of Pigs invasion.

President Kennedy was considered a liberal in his time.  The definition
of "liberal" is evolving.  Many liberals believed in taking a stand against
communist expansionism in his time.  They lost their tolerance for the 
struggle some time in the mid to late 60's.  So, my question is, why do
you think Clinton will "assure that communism really comes to an end in
the world?"

>>>2.-Grant hatians a right to assylum and restore democracy in Haiti with the
>>>help of the 7th fleet (to be used later in Cuba).
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>Just because Field Marshall Wilhelm von Clinton deployed the Arkansas
>>national guard doesn't mean he is in the least bit qualified to be the
Stuff deleted
>
>Again lets, be reasonable.  Mr. Quayle, another draft dodger is a step away 
>fromthe presidency and Mr. Bush feels perfectly happy with his choice.  

He served in a National Guard unit, much like the one that Slick Willie
boasts of having deployed.

>Furthermore Field Marshall Ronald Reagan had no military experience other than 
>leading the National Guard in sunny California.  Perhaps thats why he got us 
>into Lebanon.  In any event, no republican think Reagan did a bad job in 
>foreign policy.

Point well taken, but I'm not saying that military experience is a 
requirement for the commander in chief.  After all, President Carter
spent a considerable amount of time in the Navy after having graduated
from Annapolis...

>Furthermore, Mr. Bush seems to be weak in military matters.  

Give me a break, Edelmiro.  

>>You left one out.
>
>>5.  Increase government spending so that by 1996 the federal debt is
>>$25,000,000,000,000.00 instead of just $4,000,000,000,000.00.
>
>>Congress (Check bouncers, middle-of-the-night-pay-raises, etc.) spends
>>money, not the president.  Congress opposed President Bush's balanced
>>budget amendment, as well as every other attempt to reduce federal
>>spending.  And congress is controlled by Democrats.  They can't wait
>>to get their hands on a president who will go along with their tax-and-
>>spend philosophy of solving problems with "programs" instead of through
>>encouraging free enterprise.
>
>Your 100% right about the crooks (of both parties) in Congress, but Mr. Bushes 
>own budget proposals have never been balanced.  And his agencies are the #1 
>spenders in the nation.  And I wonder, which administrations are the ones who 
>got us into debt anyway: Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Roosevelt? 

It started to really get out of control when the President lost line
item veto power during the Carter Administration.


>So perhaps 
>instead of having a cold war military wich wants billions for building first 
>strike strategic bombers but can't fight anything on the ground (i.e., Bosnia) 
>we should streamline defense and put the money where its needed: deficit 
>reduction. 

Agreed.  Tell that to the Democrats whose district contain interests in
those particular weapons systems.  And tell that to your friend Slick
Willie who wants to drop bombs over (former) Yugoslavia.  But maybe this
is a better discussion for alt.politics.clinton.

>
>Edelmiro Salas


Dave