From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam
Summary:  he made himself susceptible to blackmail
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:31:00 GMT

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes...
>

b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice):
>>

Ah yes David, I think we started this conversation back with Kerrey.
What 9 months ago, more I think. What a year it will have been.

>>Now let's examine cowardice. Take for instance -- Yugoslavia or Somalia.
> 
>>I am personally against going to war anywhere abroad in the world today,
>>but I compromise on one point: saving children. That means I'd support
>>action to that end in either place. So I am morally against war, and
>>moreover I am spiritually against war, as a matter of faith. Now you
>>have to understand that I'm also a veteran with 11 years service, and
>>I believe their is a time and place for war.
> 
>But you can ALWAYS justify going to war to save children.  What kind of
>war *doesn't* threaten children?

Yes. But if your primary goal is action to save children then it 
constrains a lot of other insanity.

>>That said, I think it's absolute cowardice to protest a war if you
>>would be required to serve, by running off to Canada or to college. 
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
{ Just a highlight for my "homeboy" in Midland. --Sdt }

>>I don't expect young men to have enough experience to figure that out
>>though. The reason it's cowardice is that if you truly believe war is
>>wrong you should stand up for your belief inside the military, to 
>>balance out the militaristic extreme. I think the Quakers have that 
>>figured out -- they serve, but in medical and other positions.
> 
>Why?  By serving in the medical parts of the military you free up others
>to serve in the military part, allowing the war to continue.

I find this particualr point fascinating. First to answer your 
question, I'm assuming that those against war would actively promote
their beliefs, and all the more powerfully because of their personal
commitment. I was such an idealist when I joined the military --
consciously a Pacifist -- but I knew that if it were *I* making the
decision on whether or not to pull the trigger or drop the bomb,
then I could have a direct and meaningful impact. Of course the
military changed me, and I found that there are things, ideas, and
people that I'm willing to live and die for -- likewise there are
those I will kill. And I'm completely at peace with that since
I know how so-very-short life is for any of us, and how brief our
collective history has been. (Only an option in extremis.)

It's been said before and remains true -- it does not matter whether
we live or die -- but it does matter *how we live* while here.

As to this question "of being on the inside of an organization you want 
to change"... as to why it fascinates me -- and why it also applies to
the issue of criticizing the country from abroad (such as Clinton did),
or protesting war here in our country when we go to war (which is also 
germane)... It fascinates me because it shows where your loyalties are. 

Those who are pro-life or pro-peace, place more value on their beliefs
than they do the nation. To me the abstracts are always secondary, and
the real concerns involve you and I -- who we are -- and our neighbors
and families, real living people, those we work with and those we grow 
older with, sharing a generation. So *I* feel slighted whenever another
objectifies some goings-on. And loyalty, and betrayal are deeply felt
when another acts in a way which is clearly outside of community. 

I act to show others my outlook, and would rather deal directly to 
convey my stance than stand outside and throw stones. It's easy to
throw stones, as I demonstrated in the "Brave Bill..." posting, (even 
though our hyperbole has escalated them to hand-grenades now). 

Don't get me wrong, I still reserve the right to lob whatever, when 
I'm actively excluded-from-participating -- or forced-to-act -- such
as in political representation and enforced taxation, (respectively.)

Now you and I can likely come to an agreement on the war issue in 
this regard -- the matter of being forced. You may or not have seen
one of the quotes I post from time to time: "No act is an act of freedom
which leads to slavery." If you're interested we can pursue war and
protest more.

>BTW, what if your principle is anti-slavery, rather than anti-war?

An excellent point. I don't believe in conscription. We seem to differ
on how best to change such matters.

>>You might begin to understand how contemptible I now think Bill Clinton
>>is. He's wanted to be a leader. He had the talent. He had the initiative
>>-- proven by his selection as a Rhodes Scholar. And his organizational
>>ability concerning the protests. And his initiative to tour Europe.
>>But... some [of] his peers, many of them children, became crippled and
>>possibly died in Viet Nam because he wasn't there. 
> 
>Now really.  This is pretty ridiculous.  Even for you, Steven.  

He could have provided moral leadership being involved. Many of the
"cripples" who came back home were emotional cripples -- a result of
not being taken care of -- either abandoned or attacked. Just children
though. If Bill Clinton's letter is indication, he was strong enough to
help others, to actually demostrate love of his countrymen, rather than
obsession with bloodless ideals. 

>How many people died because he wasn't there?  Maybe the person who went 
>in his place [as if such a person could be identified] was a *better* 
>leader and saved more people?

And more likely no one went. There was a void of leadership in Viet 
Nam -- even with all the heroic leaders that were there.

But he chose to stand outside and hurl stones. All the way outside
over in Britain. To me this says that Bill Clinton places ideology
over community, and would rather criticize than do something about 
it on an interpersonal level. 

>>Instead, he was off "broadening his horizons" and during that time 
>>chose to go to the Soviet Union. He took a vacation. Others became
>>maimed, or died, leaving families broken. And Brave-Bill was on vacation. 
> 
>He was at Oxford.  They have a month off in January.  Would it have made
>you happier if he had watched TV instead of touring Europe?

I think Bill Clinton puts ideology before community. If so, what might
he do *to* our community to further that ideology? I think he went
abroad to serve that ideology. I think he went to Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe to serve that ideology. I think he protested to serve
that ideology. 

The vacation Bill Clinton took was a vacation from being a citizen
inside our community. And I think it makes him a poor choice as a
presidential candidate. He's offering nothing that allows for a 
deeper insight into those events (...protesting abroad, going to
college -- instead of Viet Nam, or touring the Soviet Union). 

Is it because he was seriously examining his own beliefs about 
being an American? That's not wrong. But he hasn't been forward
on the issue. His actions then and now are suspicious. 

Before this I had him pegged as just another hollow figurehead
for the parties. HE himself did not stand out -- to me. Now he
does, and I mistrust him. And beside my own focus on "who-we-
are-and-what-we-do" -- his actions have set off all the alarms
I've been conditioned with over the years. Having worked in 
some rather exotic security areas -- I've been thoroughly 
sensitized, and yes over-sensitized, to enemy recruitment and
exploition methods. And if it set me off -- you can bet it 
set off the rest of our security establishment. 

The pattern of Bill Clinton's actions abroad are extremely suspect
for anyone who would be given high level security access. Yes, even
if they happened 20 or more years ago.

>Yeah -- I'll bet in the two or three days he was in the Soviet Union,
>they brainwashed him.  If they had only managed to last until 1992, they
>could have had the US on its knees after their servant got elected
>President.

The methods are many, longer term cultivation and influence to be sure 
-- but a favorite was simply personal blackmail -- contrived or not.
Very quick and effective too. And Bill Clinton had his political aspira-
tions to lose thus making him susceptible and controllable then and now. 

He literally would have to be willing to give up the presidential bid,
to show that he places the well-being of the nation above his own, and
to demonstrate that he was not compromised. I can't see that happening 
-- he want's it *too* much. 

>David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
>niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner

-- Stephen Tice    Arlington Texas    10-08-92
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51318 can.politics:8333