From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Date: 30 Dec 92 03:43:32 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <ARCHER.559.725670135@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.143607.122216@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> gaf5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Gail A. Fullman) writes:
>>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!hela.iti.org!cs.widener.edu!netnews.upenn.edu!netnews.cc.lehigh.edu!ns1.cc.lehigh.edu!gaf5
>>From: gaf5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Gail A. Fullman)
>>Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
>>Subject: Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
>>Message-ID: <1992Nov18.143607.122216@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>
>>Date: 18 Nov 92 14:36:07 GMT
>>Organization: Lehigh University
>>Lines: 26
>>In article <92322.1411262893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, 2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (and
>>y) writes:
>>>
>>>   There has been talk of whether Clinton is compotent to lead the Armed Forces
>>> as he is a "draft dodger". Clinton used legal loopholes to avoid fighting in
>>>a war he opposed. Dan Quayle used legal loopholes to avoid fighting in a war
>>>he supported. Ronald Reagan used a legal loophole (acting in war movies, an
>>>"essential service") to avoid the draft in World War II yet the people
>>> complaining about Clinton had no objection to Reagan's fitness to lead the
>>>military or send people into battle. How odd.
>>>
>>Things that make you go Hmmmmmm!
>>
>>Seriously, my opinion of Clinton is that he won't be so trigger happy to get
>>into a war:  Ronnie swaggered around like he had a six-shooter on his hip (but
>>can you imagine where Saddam would be today if Ronnie had been president?).
>>
>Are you kidding?  Slick Willie is champing at the bit to throw troops into 
>that meat grinder they're running over in Bosnia.

The significant thing about Clinton's draft dodging is that it appears to have
been ideologically motivated.  Let us assume that the element of not wanting
to serve out of fear for ones personal safety was the same with all those who
avoided service.  The idea that Clinton would oppose the war by supporting
peace organizations that were actively anti-U.S. is a more serious charge.

Be that as it may, it is interesting that most of the major wars in this
century were started and pursued by Democrat presidents.  Wilson in World
War I.  Roosevelt in World War II. Truman in Korea. Johnson in Viet Nam.
The few minor actions of the Bush-Reagan years add up to a couple of weeks
of combat or so.

On the other hand, except for the Carter stagflation, recessions and
depressions seem to start in Republican administrations.  Hoover, Eisen-
hower, Bush.  The latter, by the way, were good Establishment, paternalistic
big government type Republicans, of the kind that Reagan Republicans 
claim have sold out the party and the country better than the Democrats
themselves would do it.

>And do you think our people would be getting shot at in Somolia without 
>Slick Willie's stamp of approval?
>
>Get real. With his record of draft-dodging, he's got as much to prove in the 
>macho department as George "Wimp" Bush did.
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Hear! hear!

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.indian