From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:19:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Louisville


   I watched Clinton's speech to the American Legion live on C-SPAN,
 and was outraged at the time at what I perceived he was saying (regarding
 Lincoln having no military experience).  But, after looking at the 
 text of his speech, I can see that he never claimed Lincoln had 
 no military experience.  However, this is just another example of
 his unprecedented political acumen (i.e. his slickness).  Let me show
 where the confusion began. Clinton said:
  
           "The other question that arises, of course, is
      perhaps inevitable, not just in this election, but
      in other elections to come, as the post-World War
      II generation comes to leadership. And it is:  Can
                                                     ^^^
      someone who has never served in the military serve
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      as Commander in Chief?"
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 At this point, I figured he was going to "prove" his point that
 one does not have to serve in the military to be Commander-in-Chief.
 Clinton continues:
 
           "Lincoln might have thought the question odd."
            ^^^^^^^
 
 Stop the tape!  At the time, I thought
 he was citing Lincoln as an example of a Commander-in-Chief without
 military experience.  But, after seeing the text, Clinton was actually
 presenting Lincoln's supposed reaction to such a question.  If one
 reads this sentence carefully, one can see how weak this sentence is.
 Clinton only claims that Lincoln "might have thought" this, not that
 Lincoln "did think this way."  Who cares what Lincoln's reaction to
 the question would be, I want to know Clinton's response to 
 his own question.  Clinton's paragraph continues: 
 
      "He used to joke about his lack of military
      experience, saying the only blood he lost in
      defense of his country was to mosquitoes.  As a
      Congressman, he had been a passionate critic of the
      Mexican War, and the sum total of his military
      experience consisted of a few weeks as a militiaman
      called to service during the Black Hawk War, in
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      which he saw no action.  And yet he had the
      judgment and the wisdom and the strength of
      conviction to lead America through its bloodiest
      and most painful conflict."
 
 Lincoln was not called to service, but rather he ENLISTED...TWICE!!
 I would say that Bush looks more like Lincoln than does Clinton
 in this light.
      Now, Clinton finally begins to answer the question:
 
           "In our own century, the professorial Woodrow
      Wilson -- a Governor who was never in the service -
      - led America and its allies to "make the world
      safe for democracy" in the First World War, and
      another Governor Franklin Roosevelt proved himself
      one of history's greatest wartime commanders,
      though he had never served in the military."
 
 Let's examine this a bit.  Woodrow Wilson, a governor who was never 
 in the service, "led" America into the First World War.  Franklin 
 Roosevelt, a governor who was never in the service, "led" America 
 into the Second World War.  Am I now supposed to infer that Bill Clinton, 
 a governor who was never in the service, will "lead" America into 
 World War III?  Clinton should be a little more careful... 
      The main points I wanted to get across here are that:  (1) No,
 Clinton did not claim Lincoln had no military experience, but (2) Yes,
 the presentation was meant to lead people to believe Lincoln had no
 experience.
      It is interesting to see how this event was reported by the NY Times
 (Clinton's press secretary?) on August 26.  They made no mention of 
 the references to Lincoln, but wrote:
 
      "...he asserted that he could be an effective military Commander
      in Chief, much as two other non-veterans, Woodrow Wilson and 
      Franklin D. Roosevelt, had been."
 
 I suppose if Quayle made this same speech, the headline on the NY Times
 would read "QUAYLE MISREPRESENTS LINCOLN'S MILITARY RECORD TO GET
 AMERICAN LEGION VOTE."
 
     C. Perttunen