From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:51:39 GMT

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
It's always frightening to me to realize that guys like John Moore --
who are so hot on "un-American activities", haven't the faintest notion
of what the Constitution guarantees us that makes it worth protecting.


>Keywords: 

>In article <138338@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes:
>]In article <1992Oct7.022045.19106@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>]>To conspire with an enemy country during war is an act of a traitor.
>]>Bill Clinton may or may not have done this - he was more likely a
>]>"willing dupe" - but for him to protest the war IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY,
>]>and to travel to the capital of the main enemy, is, to say the
>]>least, very suspect. As a veteran of that period, I find it
>]>reprehensible and offensive.
>]
>]Do you think that anyone who was a tourist in Moscow in that period
>]is automatically ineligible to be president?  Because I don't believe

>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!

If you would read the Constitution you might understand that one of the
principal protections offered our citizens is that the *burden of proof*
is on the accuser -- Bush or you.  Clinton refuses to discuss it because
to do so would be to dignify it as a reasonable charge.  As others have
pointed out, tens of thousands of tourists visited Eastern Europe and
the Soviet Union during this period.  You might find it hard to believe,
but there are other things to do in places like Moscow besides act like
a comic book spy.

You might also take into consideration that we, as Americans, are given
the right to protest the behavior of the government, and that we don't
lose that right simply because we have left American soil --
particularly when we travel to the soil of a loyal ally.  I mean,
really, protests in England!  We also don't lose that right simply
because our government has chosen to fight a war (and undeclared war,
besides) -- in fact our *need* to make our disagreement heard is even
greater during time of war.

You might be one of those who is willing to let his brain shut down and
become an automaton at the behest of Richard Nixon, LBJ or George Bush.
Many of us are not.


>]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.
>]

There's also no evidence that he didn't poop on your lawn last night.
Maybe you could accuse him of that too!

>]We all know about Dornan's long tirade on this subject.  What did he say?
>]He went through a long chain of evidence to show that Clinton was in
>]Moscow in the period in question.  Nobody disputes that!  Then he went
>]on to say that Clinton participated in treasonous activites while there.
>]When a reporter asked him what evidence he had for that, he said,
>]essentially, that it was entirely speculation.
>]
>Well, I don't particularly like Dornan's style, but he did NOT say that
>Clinton participated in treasonous activities, he said it was likely
>that Clinton met the KGB there. Now, it was impossible to travel there
>at that time without meeting the KGB, since all Intourist people reported
>to the KGB, so he is technically correct. I doubt that Clinton conspired
>with the KGB there.... as I said before, he was probably just one of the
>thousands of americans unwittingly used by them. Their term was "useful
>fool."


You ought to look for a time machine.  I'm sure Roy Cohn would have
loved you.  Heh.

Jeff Frane
-- 
gummitch@techbook.COM  Public Access UNIX at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400) 


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51206 alt.politics.elections:16315