From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 08:27:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.182659.1143@midway.uchicago.edu> shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>In <1992Oct14.082839.5150@Princeton.EDU> (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>In <1992Oct13.184649.21229@midway.uchicago.edu>  (Roger Shouse) writes:
>>>In <1992Oct10.200451.25877@samba.oit.unc.edu> Kelly.Burns@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Kelly Burns) writes:

>>>>I have an honest question for conservatives that plan to vote for George
>>>>Bush.  Do you believe that while in  Moscow during 1969 that Bill Clinton
>>>>met with and was influenced by the KGB or other anti-American forces?  Do
>>>>you believe that this trip casts any doubt on his ability to be a good
>>>>President?  If you say yes to either or both could you please explain
>>>>the bases for the belief.

>>>By itself, a trip to Moscow is no problem.  Set against the context of
>>>Clinton's various mis-statements and bouts of selective memory, I'd 
>>>say that his failure to "remember" what he did there is somewhat telling.

>>You know, this sounds good -- until you think about it.
>>Can *you* remember exactly what you saw and did on a vacation 23 years
>>ago?  I was looking at just *2* year-old photos from my trip to Europe,
>>and I can't identify half the things I did.

>Of course, he does seem to remember a lot about the rest of his trip,
>especially when it suits him.

Like what?  Is it *really* surprising he remembers some things about a
month-long trip and not others?
 
If anything, this whole thing is evidence that he's telling the truth.
If he were lying, he would have come up with some plausable sounding
story that was unprovable.  

>>>In general, I'd like to know what specific principles guided Clinton in
>>>his opposition to the Vietnam war during that period, and how he feels 
>>>about those principles today.  A lot of the anti-war movement centered
>>>on the idea that Communism was a legitimate expression of popular will
>>>among the people of southeast Asia.  Did Clinton believe this?  How does 
>>>he feel today?  I guess I'd say that the Moscow trip (and his failure
>>>to come clean about what he did there) symbolizes the doubts of many
>>>people about being able to trust Clinton, and about his capacity to act
>>>effectively as commander in chief.

>>He didn't fail to come clean about anything.

>>>Notice how he waffled on the Iraq war.  Does he have what it takes to stand
>>>up to world tyrants?  What would his reaction be to, say for example, Chinese
>>>military pressure against Taiwan?  

>>What would the Bush reaction be to, say for example, Chinese military
>>crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators?  Or Chinese military pressure
>>on Tibet?  Or a coup in Haiti?  Or a coup in Peru?  Or a Syrian takeover
>>of Lebanon?  Or the Soviet Union attacking Lithuania?  Or a Serbian
>>invasion of Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia?

>Let's take these one at a time, based on the assumption that effective
>action requires a strong philosophical and strategic basis.  In China,
>while there was a strong moral principle, there was very little that 
>the US could do given its goal of not isolating China.  Bush apparently
>felt that by imposing strong sanctions on China, he would be providing
>its reactionary rulers with more ammunition, and even more reason to
>crack down on its people.  I'm still not sure this was the way to go,
>but at least I can see the logic behind Bush's approach.   Keep 
>capitalism in full gear in China as a way of fostering greater demand
>for political freedom.

Yes, and we know that Republicans always believe this.  Isolating a
country is bad -- but tell that to Vietnam or Cuba.

Doesn't it seem the other way to you?  Isolating them, hurting their
economy, is much more damaging to them than us.  Damaging them as a
result of hard-line action would discredit the hard-liners, not the
moderates.

>I wonder what Clinton would have done?  It's easy to talk about supporting
>democracy.  But what if, for example, sanctions had been imposed, and as
>a response, China increased arms sales or other destablizing actions in
>world hot spots such as the Middle East?  

You mean like they're doing now?
After Bush threw this whole carefully planned strategy [sic] out the
window when he decided to violate 20 years of US policy and sell
fighters to Taiwan in order to prop up his failing reelection bid?

It's easy.  You don't cut MFN after-the-fact.  It won't do any good and
would isolate them.  You condition MFN on changes in the future.

>Regarding the coup in Haiti, I agree with you -- a tougher response was
>clearly in order.  What would Clinton have done?

I can't possibly tell you, since I'm not Clinton.  I would have liked to
see him impose strict sanctions on Haiti, work through the OAS to put
pressure on the govt, and keep it up.  PUBLICALLY.  I would *not* violate U.S. 
law to send refugees back to Haiti without a hearing.  

>On the coup in Peru, I take a different view.  The people of that nation
>were fed up with an ineffective and possibly corrupt legislature.  They
>were afraid of its inability to deal with internal terrorists.  They 
>overwhelmingly supported the coup.  Democracy should not be a death warrant--
>it should not lead to its own self destruction.  I actually thought that
>Bush came down too hard on Peru's president.

Doing nothing is not coming down too hard. 

Furthermore, *why* were they having problems?  Because we're subsidizing
terrorists in Peru with the WarOnCivilLiberties here at home.

And is Peru doing better now against the terrorists?  No, of course not.
It's always seductive to assume that eliminating rights, declaring a
dictatorship, will help restore law-and-order.  It never works, though.
You can't end rebellion through repression.  You have to eliminate the
*cause* of that crime/rebellion. 

>As for Syria, we've long been to easy on them, but again, we have
>been trying to get them to come to terms with Israel.  Can we do
>this by imposing stiff actions against them?  What sort of effective
>actions could we have taken against Syria?  Again, what would Clinton
>have done?

I don't see that Syria has any choice.  They've got no more superpower
patron.  They're in an inferior military position to Israel.  Giving them 
the Sudetenland^H^H^H^H^H^H^HLebanon isn't the way to get them to be nice.  
You'd think Bush would have learned this lesson about Mid-East dictators.

>USSR and Lithuania?  Start a war with the Soviets?  Send arms to
>Vilnius (sp)?

*Recognize* Lithuania?  Make a statement that keeping the USSR together
by force is intolerable?  Rather than the opposite policy of sending
Baker to the Ukraine to lecture them about not seceding?

>Yugoslavia?  I thought that one of so-called "lessons of Vietnam" was
>that we shouldn't get bogged down in foreign "civil wars?"  Bush's 
>idea on this is that we should think about American lives and have
>a reasonable plan before we jump in.

Yes, and if this were a civil war, it might make sense.  The lesson of
Vietnam was "don't hang around trying to prop up a government no one
likes at the expense of another government which has so much more
support than ours that we were afraid they'd win an election."

That isn't the case here.  But anyway, I'm not advocating ground forces:

We *should* be (1) not encouraging Serbia by waiting forever to
recognize Croatia and Slovenia in the first place, (2) providing leadership 
to the EC or the UN to do something, rather than hoping they can do it on 
their own, (3) be sending arms to Bosnia, (4) Enforcing the no-fly zone, 
and (5) be putting pressure on Serbia through bombing.

This is likely to escalate soon.  When Kosovo decides they've had enough
and want to secede, and Serbia tries to stop them, Albania is going to
get involved.  We really don't need a full-scale war in the Balkans, and
we're going to get it.

>So basically, in most of the cases described above, I understand
>Bush's philosophy and strategy.  Again, What would Clinton do?

Bush's philosophy is realpolitick.  He *claims* he cares about freedom
and democracy, but his public statements and actions say the exact
opposite.  He *never* stands up for these principles in public.  He
never provides *LEADERSHIP*.

Clinton's is democratic realism.  That is, stand up for democracy.  
Speak out about human rights.   Not naively -- you don't worry about the 
lack of democracy in Kuwait while Iraq is still there -- but you don't let 
it go by when you're done, either.

(Incidently, I find it hilarious, but sad, when Bush says "now Kuwait is 
free." About 75% of the population would disagree.)

>>>I guess in a nutshell, I don't think I know what principles guide this man
>>>when it comes to making tough foreign policy decisions.  He sometimes _talks_
>>>a good game, but many of his actions, statements, and mis-statements lead me
>>>to doubt the value of his word.

>>Good.  Now that just leaves one question.  What principles guide GHWB in
>>tough foreign policy decisions?  Or tough domestic policy decisions?  Or
>>*easy* decisions of either type?  
>>(Besides "doing-whatever-it-takes-to-get-reelected", I mean)

>Well, I mentioned foreign policy, domestic will have to wait for another post.

It's the exact same thing.  Even when he *does* do something, he doesn't
provide leadership on it.  AIDS?  He might sign bills increasing funding
for research, but do you ever see a speech by him about it?  Enterprise
zones?  Jack Kemp was *ignored* for 3.5 years, until the L.A. riots.
Anything else?  Abortion?  No, not that either.  (Not that I agree with
him, though.)

-- 
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: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex