From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:21:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.150446.14325@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.202316.4532@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>]What really saddened me about GHWB's performance last night
>]was the implications of his remarks.  He criticized Clinton
>]for organizing anit-war rallies overseas, and attacking and
>]protesting against his country while living in Europe.

>]Most of us who participated in anti-war protests were
>]not attacking America, nor were we in any way traitorous.

>Nor were you in a foreign country. THAT is the issue (as Bush has clearly
>stated). 

Bush hasn't clearly stated anything in his life, much less about this issue. 
At various times he criticized Clinton for "protesting against the US," as if 
such a thing were possible.  He deliberately tried to confuse the
situation by bringing up Moscow and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, as
if this had any bearing on the topic at all.

WHY is the location the the issue.

>          If you want to protest US policy in the US, fine, go to it and
>there's nothing wrong with it. When you take it overseas, during the middle
>of a war, it is wrong and goes against 200 years of American tradition.

Really?  What tradition is that?  I don't remember the "don't protest
against U.S. 'wars' overseas" tradition at all.  Must have been the
liberal media forgetting to tell me about it.

This begs the question: WHY is it wrong to protest US policy in England?

>It's the same principle as a family dispute... you don't do it in the
>shopping mall.

That's (1) because it's private, as the Vietnam "War" was not, and (2) 
so it doesn't annoy other people.

>]Apparently, the role of dissent in a democracy totally escapes GHWB.

>Apparently the distinction about where you protest completely
>slipped by you.

WHY is there a distinction?

>]Maybe I should take some small satisfaction in the fact
>]that my (and many others') prediction that the Republican
>]Sleaze-o-Matic (tm) would be working overtime in October.
>]But the sight of the President of the United States
>]sinking to the level of Robert Dornan is just too sad.

>Well, Bill Clinton has been slinging all sorts of personal attacks
>at Bush since he has been in the race. Fair is fair, and character
>is a legitimate issue, in spite of the fact that the democrats are
>trying to remove it as an issue because their candidate doesn't have any.

This would be laughable if it wasn't pathetic.

*Bush* has character?  Yeah, and Dan Quayle "is a world champion speller."

Clinton doesn't attack Bush personally.  He attacks everything Bush has
done wrong while in office.  Which doesn't leave any time to attack Bush
personally.

> - - Saddam Hussein... he just keeps going... and going... and going - -

Of course, who gave him money when it was known that he was buying
weapons with it?  Who *vetoed* sanctions on Iraq?  Who told Saddam
Hussein (sym)pathetically that they wished they could muzzle the press,
which was being unfair in calling Hussein a murderous dictator? 

-- 
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"