From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Wild speculation on Perot. Watch the DEBATE tonight
Date: 17 Oct 92 00:12:02 GMT
Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA

In article <2802098014@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>, usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News) writes:
> Clinton has KGB ties because he visited Moscow strikes me as a little 
> paranoid. 

I did *not* say that Clinton has "KGB ties."

All I said is that Perot has the ability to investigate through the layers
of ex KGB people and find out what Clinton says he does not
remember, specifically, "what he did at who he saw in Moscow."
Obviously the CIA can also investigate this stuff, but there is
a greater chance of politically charged leaks when the CIA does it.

Look at it this way:

 - Clinton doesn't remember what he did or who he saw in Moscow.
 - The KGB certainly -does- know.

 => And what you don't know, can hurt you! 

It is well known that throughout the -history- of the KGB,
[through various name changes], they have sought to
develop contacts with Westerns and exploit those contacts
by setting up groups inside and outside the USSR that
-appear- to be something other than what they really are.

For example, ever hear of an organization called "The Trust" that was
set up Felix Dershinsky? Westerners thought that it was an undergroup
that was going to overthrow the Bolsheviks. So they put lots of money 
into it. Also, it helped convince opposition people outside of the
country to come back to the USSR and get shot, because it was really
started and staffed by the cheka (aka KGB). 

The ironic joke on the whole mess was that Stalin liquidated the
entire organization when he tired of it, even killing all the
KGB agents who had been assigned to it, because -well- they
were obviously members of an illegal organization!

> David Souter also visited Moscow (on a similar trip while *HE* 
> studied at Oxford), but no one assumes he's a KGB plant.

I'm certain that David Souter can remember what he did on his
trip. That makes it a bit safer. 

Now, I'm joking here. Do you think there could be a -chemical-
reason why Clinton cannot remember? Did he meet some good-looking
KGB agent that slipped him some drugs, and took him to be
brainwashed? You know, often drunks cannot remember what they
did the next day. Usually that is a dangerous sign, indeed.

Can you say "manchurian candidate?"

But seriously, could it be possible that what the KGB knows
and Clinton does not could be, shall we say, used in some way
if by some disaster he ever becomes president of the USA?


> To call it speculation implies that one has taken certain facts and after 
> concidering them has generated a rational idea. 

OK. You tell me.

Is it rational to assume that Clinton did not have -one- single
contact with anyone who was working for the KGB?

Is it rational to assume that the KGB did not keep -any- tabs
on the guy?

Is it rational to assume that -none- of the groups he met
in Moscow were of the "internation peace movement" variety?

> Anyway, if you want to drop it down to just "dilusional" that's okay by me.

The dilusional assumption is that it is even remotely possible
for a citizen of the USSR to make contact with an American
without the permission or observation of the KGB or its informants.

-gjc
Xref: sparky ne.politics:2428 ne.general:2811