From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam
Summary:  Screw politics -- now it's personal.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:20:00 GMT

00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington) writes...
>

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

>> I really had no reason to be against Clinton before this.
>> I did have real concerns about anyone who's a war protester
>> being able to lead the country in the event of war, since 
>> you have to have people go and fight.
>> 
> 
>I'm sure this has been beat to death but even generals had said
>it makes no difference.  It wasn't a popular war.

On a radio interview in Dallas today, *General* Schwarzkopf said
just about what I wrote above. He was much more eloquent, and 
added that he wondered if Clinton still hated the military,
apparently in reference to something Clinton had written in one
of his protest letters from that time.

>> But to find out while Bill Clinton was at Oxford in '69 that 
>> he went to *Moscow* and eastern Europe in the dead of winter, 
>> alone, and made efforts to change his citizenship to British,
>> -- I'll be dead against him personally -- if all this is true.
>> 
> 
>Went to Moscow???? Oh my god he must be a communist... hey hasn't 
>Bush been to Moscow too?  yeah and to China... he must be a communist
>too... And Perot... he went to Vietnam...

I hope Brave-Bill really appreciates how many of his peers would have
loved to have been on vacation rather than in Viet Nam. Especially the
POWs.

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.

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. 
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.

So we have situations today a lot like Viet Nam on the personal level
-- I don't care about the geopolitical level in this regard. Should
we get involved, I don't believe we should, but I will *support* going 
if it's with the express intent of rescuing the children who are being
murdered and abused. On a personal level, this is the type of choices
also confronted in Viet Nam.  

Recall I said that young men often don't know what courage and cowardice
are. Consequently, they're little more than children, if that. Certainly
large numbers of the Iraquis which we slaughtered were children, (and I 
do mean =we= because we paid for it with our taxes). Some young people 
understand what courage is, and they become leaders, and they enable their
peers and comrades-in-arms to survive. They take care of the new-guys
and teach them how to survive physically, mentally, and emotionally.
They show them the ropes, teach them the tricks, and share how to take 
care of each other. 

On this personal level -- if you're someone who's a leader -- and you 
=fail= to go and serve with your peers, and since you know the 
difference -- that makes you a coward. Your neighbors, many of them
children, are going to be injured and some die -- because you weren't
there. A lot of them are going to bring back emotional disabilities 
they'll live with the rest of their lives because many of the leaders
weren't there to show them how to cope. 

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 his peers, many of them children, became crippled and
possibly died in Viet Nam because he wasn't there. 

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. 

Not only was he on vacation, he would have been just the type of 
individual that soviet intelligence would look for and cultivate.
And of course they knew he was coming -- you just didn't get in
and out that easy. Brave-Bill was =probably= treated to some very
special attention by the Soviets. And now he trying to be President.

Well, I wouldn't vote for him if he were the only choice, since 
I've had time to think about it all this new information:

	Strike 1:  He deserted his neighbors and peers,
		   by not going to Viet Nam and providing
		   the benefit of leadership which he had.

	Strike 2:  He protested, but not from the inside.

 	Strike 3:  He went on vacation... from duty, from
		   honor and from country.

	Strike 4:  He exposed himself to Soviet influence
		   =willingly=. So how can he be trusted?

On this last point, remember it's mostly where you grow up and
who your friends are that determine your loyalties. (We have exactly
that problem with incumbent representatives in several ways... but
I'll stick to my point). The Soviets were =very= good at taking
advantage of such "opportunities" to influence. Probably the best. 

(Kinda like they made up for not having supercomputers by having 
very good mathmeticians.) 

So bottomline -- I don't care about Clinton as a candidate any more.
It's become a personal matter between him and me. And as far as I'm 
concerned -- he'd be better off dead. If he has a heart or a conscience
left, I hope he thinks about being on vacation while others fought and
died. 

Most Sincerely,

--  Stephen Tice    Arlington Texas    10-07-92