From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Connections
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:50:47 GMT

yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount) writes:

>>Bwaahahahahahahaha!  Boy this is true justice!  I always thought that this
>>endless badgering of Quayle might come back to haunt the Demogogues.
>>Now as it just so happens, as reported in the LA Times today, what
>>Slick Willie did was have his uncle pull some strings to save his
>>quaking, quivering, wet pants from going to Viet Nam.

>>Now, the honorable Demogogues will be sure to stick to their moral
>>posturing on Quayle and throw Clinton off the ticket, won't they? Uh-huh.
>>After all, what has been said of Quayle and used as evidence that
>>Quayle shouldn't be on the ticket (pulling strings) is even truer of
>>Corporal Clinton.  I think consistency and fairness here demands
>>that Clinton be publically ridculed as Quayle has been for 4 years on
>>this issue.  Right!  It will be cute to see the Demogogues slip and
>>slide their way out of this one.

>Why are you guys leaving out the fact that Bill Clinton turned down the
>arrangement that someone claims his dead uncle set up for him? 

Nobody left out anything.  Nothing was really said about the facts.  I
assume you read it yourself, so you know that while Clinton turned down
the cushy Naval Reserve position "created especially for the young Clinton", 
his uncle went on to pressure the draft board into letting him go to
England.  They successfully delayed his physical for 10.5 months--enough
to get him through a year at Oxford.  

>You don't
>seem to care what the facts are as long as you can try to blame Clinton
>for some wrong doing. Typical Republican strategy. If you hadn't had the 
>Long-term-memory-removal operation that seems to be required of all good
>republicans, you might remember that when we were approaching draft age we
>were almost expected to find a way to avoid the draft. Now people try to 
>turn it into a character flaw. The reason it is held against Little Danny,
>is that he seems to have loved the Vietnam war and any other war for that
>matter. 

Goodness!  Getting a little defensive are we?  Speaking of (exremely)
short memories...  you may recall that it was the Quayle bashers who
were criticizing him for not doing anything illegal, BUT, he had to have
help to get out of the draft.  Just yesterday I asked, not whether
either of them were wrong to do what they did, but whether it was fair
to critcize one and not the other when they did essentially the same
thing.  The response was, "well, at least Clinton didn't have to get
help."  

You see, logic doesn't appear to mean much to some people (on both sides
unfortunately).  You shout about a pretty stupid thing like Quayle
doing whatever it took to not go to Vietnam, but when Clinton comes 
around with, arguably, a worse record on the issue, you stick your heads
in the sand and try to rationalize it.  Face it, it was wrong to 
lambast Quayle for something *everybody* was doing (amazingly this 
argument now holds water only when applied to Clinton).  

And now you're trying to blast us for attacking Clinton?  Get a life.

>Face it. Bush sucks! We're in serious trouble. Clinton has many very
>good ideas. People that stick to the issues instead of going off on crap
>that happened 20 years ago will agree that we have to give Bill Clinton's
>plan a chance. Bush obviously has nothing to offer.

Yes, let's stick to the issues now that one of the Democrat's favorite
ones has gone a little sour.  
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire