From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:00:29 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In articles <1992Oct9.233136.23011@anasazi.com>,
<1992Oct9.234004.23180@anasazi.com> and
<1992Oct9.234424.23312@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com said:

> It's red, but it ain't a herring. Do you really think that we should
> not care about how a prospective president behaved towards his
> country while his country was at war? Do you know anything about
> going to Moscow at that time? Did you know that the Soviets
> investigated you before giving you a Visa? Did you know that you
> were accompanied at all times by an Intourist "guide" who was a KGB
> informer? Did you know that if the Russians felt that you weren't
> favorable to their cause, they didn't let you in even as a tourist?
> In fact, do you know ANYTHING about what was going on at that time?

Yes, I suppose that we should care about how a prospective president
behaved towards his country while his country was at war (or at
"police action," or whatever the jackasses in the government called it
to avoid having to take an actual vote on a declaration of war).
However, I don't see anything wrong with what Bill Clinton did.  (More
on this point below.)

As for the rest, taking everything you say as true, so what?  The
Soviets investigated young Bill Clinton and thought that he was
favorable to their cause, and they assigned a KGB informer as his
guide.  This may say something about the 1969 Soviet government's
impression of 23-year-old Bill Clinton, but it says nothing about
23-year-old BIll Clinton himself.  And it certainly says nothing
about the Bill Clinton of today.

> > "Admitted"?!  It's an "admission" to say that you travelled during
> > your Christmas vacation?
>
> Yes, admitted. He never brought it up until he was asked as a result
> of Republican digging...  All sorts of stuff about his anti-war
> stuff is now coming out. I have no problems with him being against
> the war, but when he (a) demonstrates against the US in a FOREIGN
> country, and, the same year (b) travels to the capital of the main
> embassy while we are in a war, I have real problems with his
> judgement.

The idea that Clinton should have unilaterally brought this dark issue
up and come clean on it hinges on the allegation that it is, in fact,
a dark issue.  I don't see it as such.

(a) Several people have made a point of emphasizing that Clinton
demonstrated against the U.S. in a foreign country, namely Britain
(you, for example, use capital letters to highlight it).  I must
confess that I don't see why protesting against the U.S.  (or, more
accurately, protesting against the policies and actions of the U.S.
government) in a foreign land is any more heinous than doing so on
U.S. soil.

(b) [Note: I assume that you meant to say "travels to the capital of
the main _enemy_"... I make phonetically-based typing glitches like
that all the time myself.]  I can't see anything wrong with this
either.  Neither Communism nor fealty to the Soviet Union are, after
all, physically communicable diseases; you don't catch either one just
by breathing the Moscow air.

> > Do you think that anyone who was a tourist in Moscow in that
> > period is automatically ineligible to be president?  
>
> I think any anti-war protest organizer who went to Moscow during
> that period has the burden of proof on him to show that he did not
> cooperate with the Russians. If he is unwilling to try (and Clinton
> refuses to discuss the issue), then yes, he would be unfit to be
> president. For one thing, he could never get a high security
> clearance without explaining it adequately. Do we want someone as
> president who wouldn't even qualify for a secret or above security
> clearance? I know that I sure don't!

That a man cannot pass the rigorous (some might say paranoid) tests
required for a security clearance does not, in my mind, disqualify him
from public service, even public service which would expose him to
secure data.  I prefer to judge the man by the standards to which I
choose to hold him, not the standards to which a security-clearance
team might hold him.  In any event, I have not yet heard that any
branch of the U.S. government or military has said that they would
deny Clinton clearance if he became Presidident; surely the relevant
clearance-checking teams have already run at least a first-pass check
on all the major contenders for the office by now.

> > there's any evidence that he actually "conspired" with the enemy,
> > or that he protested the war while he was there.
>
> Agreed. There's no evidence that he didn't, also.

If you wish to require a man to prove a negative, you have every right
to do so.  I do not choose to do so.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou