Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:45:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!

Since I have no intention of putting *anything* in Julie's mouth, I will
respond to her printed post to avoid getting scolded (although since we
disagree I can feel it coming anyway)

Julie writes:

>Okay... this is an example of what I was talking about, T.
>
>I do not think that the method Clinton used to avoid the draft was
>noble while a lot of people instead used more direct methods such
>as burning their draft cards or leaving the country.

So now Julie is equating "noble" with "direct methods".  Apparently,
public opposition to the war and avoidance of the draft just doesn't cut
Julie's mustard - you need to actively break the law and/or leave its
jurisdiction to earn Julie's subjective nobility.  It probably doesn't matter
to Julie that all the major coordinating forces for opposition - Thomas
Merton, the Berrigan brothers et al - urged kids to avoid service *by any
means possible*.  Their goal was to stop the flow of fresh bodies into boot
camp - whatever it took.

>
>I think that opposing the war was a very noble thing for all sorts
>of people to do and I am glad we have a President who did oppose
>it.
>
>Now you are trying to push me into a dichotomy-- either I admire
>Clinton for having opposed the war and avoided serving or I don't.

Actually, I never pushed you anywhere - I said: either you like, hate it -
or don't care.  And if it's the third choice, then why keep this up?

>
>Well I admire him for having opposed the war.  As someone who has
>been threatened and, in fact, physically attacked for engaging in
>nonviolent protest I definitely know the value of such protest and
>encourage it highly.

How very PC of you.  With a wet finger into the air, Julie decides that
it's OK for Clinton to have opposed the Vietnam War.  Yeahs all around.
The consensus welcomes another timid member.


What you fail to realize is that the act of avoidance was more than mere
protest, more than a badge you wear to gain admittance to the right victims'
clubs - when you dodge - by whatever means - you're stopping them from
having another body to throw into the grinder!  You're making sure that Wall
has *one less* name on its granite face!  You are doing something *concrete*
to stop the killing!
>
>However, I do not admire him for avoiding the draft through traditional
>channels.

What exactly would be the PC thing to have done?  Taken Napalm in hand and
made it the Catonsville *10*?  Nothing short of self-immolation on the
Ellipse?

>               He said himself he would have fought if called.  I think
>that would have been wrong.  I think he was just playing the odds and
>hoping, not because he hated the war but because he didn't want to go.

What?  If he "didn't want to go", why not shut up and dodge like Quayle?
The facts clearly show that Clinton was *deeply* in opposition to the war
in Vietnam.  Even so, why must everyone be as pure-hearted as you think?
Why couldn't Clinton have simply not wanted to die?
Still, you can't deny that the facts show that he *did* hate the war -
regardless of whether or not he was scared.

>And I don't admire him for it.  I think he was probably smart to do
>this but I don't think it makes him a hero of the peace movement when
>there were people taking more active stances against the draft which
>really put themselves in serious risk.

What kind of "serious risk" are you talking about?  And as I wrote before,
ANYONE who avoided service in that war *IS* a hero to the peace movement.
So are the ones who didn't want to go but had no way out and served honorably.
So were the ones who felt that it was the right thing to do and answered the
call.  There are only two types of individuals of draft age at the time the
peace movement would *not* classify as heros: those who agreed with the war but
got out of it anyway; and those who disgraced humanity with their savagery
and lawlessness in that horrible place.

>
>Okay.  Your turn to put more words in my mouth.
>
>:-)
>
>--Julie

All I can say is: since I didn't put words in your mouth (and frankly
never have), the only words in your mouth are yours -you know, the ones
you're eating.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU