From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:34:00 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Sep14.112414.5994@eskimo.celestial.com> mann@eskimo.celestial.com (Tom Mann) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.153330.12362@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>> But most of the draft dodger issue IS about the present (ie, how Clinton
>> is now dealing with the issue). I personally am interested in how any
>> future leader deals with controversy and personal attacks, and I am
>> greatly disimpressed with Clinton's response to this issue.
>
>Hmmm. Are you impressed with the way Bush has responded to questions
>about Jennifer Fitzgerald (I think that's her name)? Seems like he
>got pretty testy when Mary Tillotson asked the question as tactfully
>as she could - now I hear that Fitzwater has made the statement that
>she's more or less personna-non-grata around the White house. In an
>interview, his response was something like "HOW DARE you ask that
>question of me in the Oval office?". Pretty impressive!

Please.  If you can't see the difference...sheesh.  Bush was holding a 
joint press conference with another head of state (the Prime Minister
of Israel) on a significant foreign policy matter at the time
Tillotson asked the question.  For all the civilized world to see.

Furthermore, calling the evidence in the Fitzgerald case "flimsy" is 
way too kind.

With Clinton, on the other hand, we have taped recordings of the governor
urging Gennifer Flowers to deny any relationship with him and agreeing that
a potential choice of his to the Supreme Court is a "mafioso".  Furthermore,
he has lied about his draft status on several occasions (not receiving 
an induction notice, not getting any special treatment).  And we know
from a letter that it wasn't principle that led him to resubmit himself
to the draft, but protecting his "political viability".  Indeed, given his
"loathing of the military", he seems to have violated his principles by 
entering the draft...just to maintain his "political viability". 

The issue isn't who he is fucking or what war he didn't want to fight
in.  I, personally, could care less. The issue in both these matters
is his honesty.  I mean, Bush is a pol too, but Clinton just doesn't
stop.  He is always "on".  He has not met a constituency who's collective
ass he hasn't kissed or an issue he hasn't taken both sides on.  It's 
truly sickening.  I can no longer stand the guy.  Give me goofy Tsongas, 
give me Bush with his mangled grammer, give me that paranoiac Perot (who 
lies better than Clinton)...Christ, give me boring Dukakis; anyone but 
slimy Clinton. 

I know it's been beaten to death, but this really goes to the
heart of Clinton's problem:
If he smoked some pot, why couldn't he just say he smoked some
pot and leave it at that.  Other politicians have done it and it
hasn't hurt them a bit.  We get: "I didn't inhale."  "I didn't break
the laws of this land."  Clinton's got such a hard-on for this
idealistic-unspoilt-young-jfk-reborn-with-a-southern-accent
image he wants everyone to swallow, its clouded his judgement.


>
>It seems to me that we can't have it both ways.... If Clinton has
>to address a non-issue like the draft, Bush should address a non-issue
>such as a little playing around. 
>
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tom "Old" Mann KD9NL/7 Kirkland, Wash.     
>
>I don't do drugs, don't do DOS and definitely do not do Windows.

Hasta,
anwar


-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc