From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Principles, principles, principles
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:29:08 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <5642@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>It is now 2:33 AM. My mind has decided to go to sleep.
>
>I don't believe the lines that some of the pro-Clinton people are taking
>regarding Clinton's stance for peace during the Vietnam War. Many in
>comparing Bill Clinton's dodging with Dan Quayle's dodging say that Bill
>Clinton deserves more respect because he was standing up for his
>principles and could have been arrested for what he was doing while
>Quayle was just taking advantage of his connections with his family and
>being a coward by going into the Indiana National Guard.

Not only that, but for a while BC was liable to be drafted;
luckily for him, he got a high draft lottery number.

>We fail to remember that if Bill Clinton stood up for his principles as
>adamantly as the proponents of Gov. Clinton claim he does, then why did
>he say that he would vote in favor of military conflict in the Persian
>Gulf but that he agreed in principle with the minority (Democrats).
>Do you remember "I guess I would have voted with the majority if
>it was a close vote.  But I agree with the arguments the minority
>made." He later changed "agree" to "understood" when asked about this
>again.

This shows that BC is a normal politician.  There was a lot of
posturing by all sides before the Persian Gulf war, and a lot
of closing-of-ranks after the vote.  This does not bother me,
because this is how modern industrial democracies work; the
Pat-Robertson-"my prinicples right or wrong" approach frightens
me a lot more than normal compromise politics.

>Sorry, although everyone of the Clinton advocates agree that Clinton
>would be less prone to pulling the trigger, I think that is what will
>weaken this country when it comes to any future military confrontation.
>You don't need a leader who will waffle if you want to put pressure on
>an adversary. Agreed, you have to be sensible, but you also have to make
>the opponent stand down and take your threats to resist the aggressor's
>plans completely seriously.

Actually, I think that a leader who "waffles" before embarking
on a military adventure is exactly what the country needs.
Bush/Quayl have shown a sad tendency to be trigger-happy, much
more than Ronnie Reagan and Cap "give me troops but don't make
me use them in combat" Weinberger.  If Clinton can avoid even
one disaster like the Panama invasion because of "waffle"-ness,
the US will be in his debt forever.

>Clinton could have been arrested for what he was doing. But George Bush
>could have been killed for what he did. The question is do you think
>that freedom and peace are worth dying for? Bill Clinton's answer
>doesn't come as clearly for me as does George Bush's.

GHWB's question is really "do you think that the economic
and political prosperity of me and my buddies is worth
dying for?"

And, if military service is such an important criteria for
national leadership, where does that place Our Boy?

>-- 
>Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!

But, thanks for posting the FIRST reasonable commentary
on BC's draft issue.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle