From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 06:08:39 GMT

In article <27510@life.ai.mit.edu> elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.222301.4269@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes:
>- ~
>- 
>- Remember how the media made a minor fuss about Reagan's mis-quote
>- of Lincoln.  Well, consider the following:
>- 
>- 
>- According to the USA Today (8-26-92)           
>-                                                                
>- "The American Legionnaires barely applauded as Clinton listed other
>- presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, who never served in the military
>- but still led the nation to war".                                 
>-                                     
>-                                            
>- It looks like Bill needs to go back to school.  Collier's Encyclopedia
>- reads:                                                                 
>-                                                   
>- "In 1832 the Indian chief Black Hawk brought his tribe from Iowa in an
>- effort to reclaim their Illinois lands.  The militia was called out,
>- Lincoln volunteered, and was immediately elected captain of a local
>- company."                                                          
>-   ~
>- 
>- 
>- Hmmm.  If Quayl had made such a mistake, don't you think the media
>- would have been parading it?  But since the media is at work trying
>- to get Clinton elected, they passed over this faux pas!  
>- 
>- Then again, given the typical liberal revisionism that predominates
>- today, why not rewrite the history of a great president to help
>- Clinton's personal political cause, right?  
>- 
>- Send Bill back to school!  
>-    
>- -- 
>- Michael        
>
>
>Actually, you were misled by USA Today on this point. Here is
>an excerpt from the transcript of Clinton's speech; you'll see
>Clinton got it right and USA Today summarized it away. Try The
>New York Times; that's a *real* newspaper.
>
>Here is the excerpt; the speech was posted to the net a few
>days ago.
>
> ...
>
>     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.
>			...

	That's funny.  My father was a Marine corporal who volunteered
to go to Vietnam.  He didn't get shot either.  But to say that he didn't
fight, or that he was unwilling to fight, is incorrect.  Lincoln
was willing to follow the instruction and direction of his government;
i.e., he respected the nature of the government.  Clinton did not respect
the nature of the government. But then, I guess a war started by JFK and
Johnson probably doesn't deserve respect any more than the government
practically created(In the sense that a butterfly is created) by
FDR, JFK and LBJ.  The fact is, government became an arbitrary tool
of politics which it is easy to loose faith in.  Now, Clinton would
extend the arbitrary functionality of the government and confirm his
own beliefs that government, as an untrustworthy body, should be milked
for all it can get, and that any true hope or respect in the government
is a sham given to people who wet their bed-sheets and volunteer for
political fads(suckers). 'Seek and ye shall find.'  So Clinton seeks
an untrustworthy tool in government, so shall he find it.

				J. Wagner

P.S. Please don't be under the impression that all of this is more than
a response; it is neither a guide nor an expression of my personal views.