From: kuch@reed.edu (Jerry Kuch)
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Organization: Vilgamoth's Den of Inadequacy
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:42:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.021140.17611@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes:
>
>In a previous article, kuch@reed.edu (Jerry Kuch) says:
>
>>In article <1992Aug26.222532.4591@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes:
>>>
>>>Remember how the media made a minor fuss about Reagan's mis-quote
>>>of Lincoln.  Well, consider the following:
>>>
>>>
>>>According to the USA Today (8-26-92)           
>>>                                                               
>>>"The American Legionnaires barely applauded as Clinton listed other
>>>presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, who never served in the military
>>>but still led the nation to war".                                 
>>
>>They fucked up... Lincoln did serve briefly as a militia captain.  The point
>>remains that he was far from being a career military officer, though.
>
>No, the point remains that Lincoln volunteered for service while Clinton
>dodged the draft (all the time worrying about his "political viability).

Although Lincoln did completely avoid actual combat duty in this adventure...
The point is almost moot, though, since Clinton's lottery number prevented
him from being called to serve anyway.  His claims that he would have gone,
once called are, your point stands, essentially unverifiable.

The fact that Clinton had the courage (and maybe this is just an artifact
of good polls hubris) to confess that he disagreed with American policy on
the conflicts in Southeast Asia, and was, as such, relieved not to have had
to go reflects somewhat favorably on him.  It will be interesting to see if
the mainstream U.S. view of history comes to view the Southeast Asian 
conflicts as having been misguided and ineffective.

I do fear that instead of a rational rethinking of the policies and tragedies
of that era we will be subjected to more empty Bush-style rhetoric about
shaking "the Vietnam Syndrome," where "Americans were forced to fight with
one hand tied behind their backs."  A presentation that seems to say nothing
other than:  "we should have destroyed and killed more, and maybe we should
have picked an enemy that we could have defeated."

>>>It looks like Bill needs to go back to school.  Collier's Encyclopedia
>>>reads:                                                                 
>>>                                                  
>>>"In 1832 the Indian chief Black Hawk brought his tribe from Iowa in an
>>>effort to reclaim their Illinois lands.  The militia was called out,
>>>Lincoln volunteered, and was immediately elected captain of a local
>>>company."                                                          
>>
>>As I said, this is comparatively minor.  Entering the militia in a limited
>>role is not enormously different from joining the National Guard today,
>>particularly in light of the fact that his entrance was in a crisis situation.
>
>Whatever.  The fact remains that Clinton spread misinformation to
>make his draft-dodging more palatable.  Perhaps Clinton was ignorant of
>this piece of history (which is in any Encyclopedia).  If so, then
>the fact remains that he brought up Lincoln.  He should be informed about
>what he is talking about, especially if what he is talking about is
>serving a political purpose.

Point taken, although I still think that there's some latitude for considering
his ignorance to interpretation instead.

>
>>>Hmmm.  If Quayl had made such a mistake, don't you think the media
>>>would have been parading it?  But since the media is at work trying
>>>to get Clinton elected, they passed over this faux pas!  
>>
>>This is as much interpretation as a "faux pas."  By your grounds, Quayle 
>>himself would have a military background.  Your comment on the media's
>>efforts to get Clinton elected make me think that you're about to 
>>start ranting about the "Liberal revisionist media" or something.
>
>Actually, I think it's pretty obvious that the media, through it's
>liberal bias, is trying to help Clinton.  There are many examples, and
>even data from the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which support
>this.  But let's not forget that the media made a fuss out of
>Quayle's mis-spelling (now that was important) and Reagan's misquoting.
>It remains silent about Clinton mistake which served to make his
>draft-dodging more palatable.  I

How would you explain the media's recent flip-flop on the Clinton campaign?
Just a few months ago they were printing photographic negatives of him on 
the cover of Time, which intentional or not, did give him a rather sinister
appearance.  At the same time, they were jumping on the Gennifer Flowers
bandwagon and mauling his candidacy for the Democratic nomination nearly to
the point of complete political death.  What damage has Bush done to the
news establishment which coddled him so lovingly a year ago, that has 
warranted these vehement attacks, and the Liberal Revisionist (TM) lauding
of Clinton?

>  American
>>history is a banquet of revisionism... as much, if not more by the right 
>>than by the left.
>
>Sorry, but I think the majority stems from the left.  After all, most
>teachers and professors of history align themselves with the left.

Including those in the public schools that are all the formal education
that many Americans get?  What fraction of textbooks even used in American
middle school classes mentioned the Vietnam War in the mid 1980s?  From the
samples I've seen (admittedly not an enormous number), I was reminded of
nothing more than an East German high school history text I once saw that
completely avoided any mention of the Stalin-Hitler non-agression pacts...

>>>Then again, given the typical liberal revisionism that predominates
>>>today, why not rewrite the history of a great president to help
>>>Clinton's personal political cause, right?  
>>
>>Oh, Christ on a Crutch... I should have know you were going to froth on
>>about Liberal Revisionism. 
>
>Oh, Goddess on the pill....I should have known you were going to froth
>on about me "frothing".  

Elijah on a Popsicle Stick... now we're getting into Meta-Frothing... :-)

> It's hardly that uniform:  witness the media
>>that clicked its heels and goose-stepped along during the Gulf War,
>
>Yeah, given that Saddam's main source of info was the media it was
>a good idea that the greedy louts were fooled.  Now, the media is
>telling the story as if the purpose of the war was to get Saddam
>out of power.  

Why was Saddam not removed from power?  Not because it would have been the
U.S.'s overt removal of the head of a sovereign nation (dirtbag though he
may be) for the second time in Bush's Presidency but because it would have
been too politically costly for Bush.  How divergent are the publicly stated
goals of the Gulf War from the real political agenda behind what at one point
looked like it would have been "The Mother of All Re-Election Campaigns?"

> and
>>the media that destroyed Gary Hart's Presidential aspirations.
>
>Sex sells.  And the liberal media which rants about the evils of
>Big Business and capitalism makes a lot of money from such ranting.  

Time-Life being a notriously liberal enterprise from the ownership on down,
I suppose...

>>>Send Bill back to school!  
>>
>>And you should attend a Paranoid's Anonymous meeting.  :-)
>>
>
>Oh, I'm not paranoid.  I'm just havin' fun.  

Ok... not paranoid... would you go for stark raving mad?  :-)  (Attach 
liberal smileys... total jest intended in this line...)

>-- 
>Michael        
> 


-- 
Jerry Kuch (t-gerldk@microsoft.com) | "Sic Gorgianus Allos Subjectatus Nunc."
  "I was wrong to play God.  Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
   Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet." - Montgomery Burns

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.election