From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 06:34:31 GMT


In a previous article, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) says:

>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Oct10.083157.24428@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>]>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.
>]
>]Incorrect.  The Constitution (you DO recommend supporting ALL of the 
>]constitution in your .sig, don't you?) clearly says "innocent until
>]proven guilty", and that the burdon of proof is on the accuser.
>
>This would be true if he were charged with a crime. However, we are
>talking public debate over the qualifications of a potential president.
>I don't know about you, but I hold potential presidents to a higher standard
>than that they haven't been convicted of a crime.
>

You may personally hold the president to a higher standard, but fortunatly,
the constitution and the american electorate are not overly concerned with the
vacation activities of a man 23 years ago, especially since he broke no laws
in doing so.


>In other words, if you invoke the constitution, understand it's correct
>application. The constitution limits the powers of government, and
>affirms the rights of individuals in conflict with their government. It
>says nothing about the rules of political debate.

Incorrect.  You are maintaining that Gov. Clinton's anti war activities and
his vacation to europe and Russia somehow disqualify him from the presidency.
That is not political debate.  That is an issue of constitutional law.


>]
>]> If he is unwilling to try (and Clinton refuses to
>]>discuss the issue)
>]
>]Clinton HAS discussed the issue.  He said he took a vacation.  So what?
>
>For quite a while he was unwilling to discuss it at all. Then he said it
>was a vacation. Then he said he met with anti-Soviet students. If you
>believe the latter, you DESERVE slick Willie as a president. I don't think
>I deserve him however.

I agree with you on this point.  You do not deserve a president like Clinton.
You deserve one like Joseph McCarthy...

>
>]>, 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!
>]
>]Oh, come, now.  The Constitution says the only qualifications to be the
>]president is having achieved 35 years of age, and being a non-naturalized
>]citizen.  I see nothing about the ability to attain a security clearence
>]as applies to presidental fitness.
>
>Once again you improperly invoke the Constitution. If we used your standards,
>then we should just hold a lottery and let it pick anyone who meets the
>constitutional standards. We are not talking about MINIMAL qualifications
>(which Clinton clearly meets) - we are talking about character, which is
>important but not a constitutional requirement.

I agree, characture is an issue.  But Clinton has cleared that issue 
effectively.  I sincerely doubt that several major military leaders, including
one former commander of the joint chiefs of staff, and several members of the
joint chiefs have endorced him.  Do you honestly believe they would grant 
such an endorsement if they had ANY reservations about Clinton and his supposed
un-american activities?  

And speaking of character, again, Mr. Bush today admitted he's beem lying 
about Iran/contra.  He sold the country out, rather then just protesting,
as Clinton did.


>]I see.  So, we should scrap the constitution and jail any suspect who
>]has no evidence that he did no wrong.
>]
>]For someone who calls for support of the constitution, you have an 
>]unerring ability to dismiss major parts of it...
>
>You seem to have a remarkable inability to understand what the constitution
>does and does not apply to. 
>

Sorry.  The accusation of treason is a constitutional concern, as is
presidential fitness.

>]>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."
>]
>]Used HOW?
>]
>]gain, you're convicting strictly on the basis of "probably" or "possibly"
>]or "maybe".
>
>Used as an anti-war protestor. If you don't think anti-war protesters
>furthered the soviet cause, you don't really understand the geopolitics
>of the era. I don't think that Clinton conspired with the KGB. If I did,
>I would be much more forceful on that issue.

The cold war is over.  How many times do you have to hear it?


>
>
>
>-- 
>John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
>john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
>       - - Gun Control Means Hitting What You are Aiming At! - -
> - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //  Newsflash from the Vatican: *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller  //  "Easter has been cancelled...*    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //  Someone found the body...."   *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.***************
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52292 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5497