From: elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:06:37 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

In article <1992Sep4.184224.18782@cognet.ucla.edu>, tmark@cognet.ucla.edu (Terence Mark) writes:
> In article <1992Sep4.101956.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> >
> >   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
> >      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> [stuff deleted] > 
> > 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.
> [stuff delted]
> 
> >      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
> 
> Yes, and Democrats who would now argue that this point is irrelevant (along
> with the draft thing, the pot thing, and the (admittedly alleged) infidelity
> thing) would descend upon it like a swarm of hungry flies to a pile of
> steaming elephant dung. Of course this group would include the media.


Here is an excerpt from the speech in question; it was posted
to the net a few days ago. It sounds to me like Clinton's
summary about Lincoln is accurate. Decide for yourselves:

 ...

     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?

     Lincoln might have thought the question odd.
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.

     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.

     In 1980, still another Governor, Ronald
Reagan, was derided for having spent more time
filming "Hellcats of the Navy" than actually
serving in the armed forces during Word War II.
And yet he never wavered from the use of American
might when he felt it was right.

     In President Bush's administration, Secretary
of Defense Dick Cheney, who had deferments during
the Vietnam era, has served with genuine
distinction, especially during the Gulf War.

     Our history -- and common sense -- tell us
that competent commanders draw their wisdom from
the strength of our country -- and our countrymen
and countrywomen.
			...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4802 alt.politics.democrats.d:58 alt.politics.bush:4647 talk.politics.misc:44642