From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:05:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <CB.92Oct8145053@tamarack13.timbuk>, cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes...
>Stephen Tice writes:
> 
>   So we have situations today a lot like Viet Nam on the personal level
>   -- I don't care about the geopolitical level in this regard. Should
>   we get involved, I don't believe we should, but I will *support* going 
>   if it's with the express intent of rescuing the children who are being
>   murdered and abused. On a personal level, this is the type of choices
>   also confronted in Viet Nam.  
> 
>US participation killed far more children than it saved.

Then you understand the degree of the restriction I place against war now.

>   So bottomline -- I don't care about Clinton as a candidate any more.
>   It's become a personal matter between him and me. And as far as I'm 
>   concerned -- he'd be better off dead. If he has a heart or a conscience
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   left, I hope he thinks about being on vacation while others fought and
>   died. 
> 
>Watch yourself, Stephen--there are laws concerning statements like
>these.  

No, not true. Speculation about another person's internal conflicts 
are obviously not a pressing concern anywhere outside this group.

If Clinton has a conscience -- which if the "loathe" letter posted
is actually his -- then there is some indication he once did feel
torn by going to serve or not. Either he has become completely 
hard-hearted in the meantime, or he is truly a tortured soul by now. 
In either case he might well be better off dead.

Perhaps the reason he doesn't come forward with a complete account
of the matter is that he still does feel guilt. Which goes to the 
the very core of my criticism -- a person who chooses to lead and
who has the talents -- yet turns from them to pursue lesser concerns,
is inviting their own internal judgment.

From other commentary, some suggest that he played only a small role
in the Viet Nam protest. Others suggest his Soviet Vacation was just
a student holiday. If the letter posted is factual, then Bill Clinton
knew exactly what leadership demands. In protest or in war.

If I assume he just took a holiday, then I wonder if that reflects his
main intents in being in Britain. You've seen what I think of that. If 
I assume that he was in Britain on a political agenda (which that letter
suggest considering the enclave of other like minded associates there)
-- then I suspect he had political intents in making a Soviet trip, as
well. I think it's safe to conclude that he did indeed have political
intents in going on a Soviet Union tour, since politics is one of his
life motives. But I'd like more commentary from him on the matter.

So was it a simple vacation? Or was he operating on deeper motives?
Or both?

I'd like to know. The motives of a presidential pretender are as much
a real concern as are their actions. 

So why doesn't Brave-Bill Clinton share the matter with us? Can it be
he's still torn? Or does he have something to hide?

>Chris Brewster
>cb@cray.com

-- Stephen Tice     Arlington Texas     10-08-92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.clinton