From: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:26:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.082839.5150@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.184649.21229@midway.uchicago.edu> shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct10.200451.25877@samba.oit.unc.edu> Kelly.Burns@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Kelly Burns) writes:
>
>>>I have an honest question for conservatives that plan to vote for George
>>>Bush.  Do you believe that while in  Moscow during 1969 that Bill Clinton
>>>met with and was influenced by the KGB or other anti-American forces?  Do
>>>you believe that this trip casts any doubt on his ability to be a good
>>>President?  If you say yes to either or both could you please explain
>>>the bases for the belief.
>
>>By itself, a trip to Moscow is no problem.  Set against the context of
>>Clinton's various mis-statements and bouts of selective memory, I'd 
>>say that his failure to "remember" what he did there is somewhat telling.
>
>You know, this sounds good -- until you think about it.
>Can *you* remember exactly what you saw and did on a vacation 23 years
>ago?  I was looking at just *2* year-old photos from my trip to Europe,
>and I can't identify half the things I did.
>

Of course, he does seem to remember a lot about the rest of his trip,
especially when it suits him.

>>In general, I'd like to know what specific principles guided Clinton in
>>his opposition to the Vietnam war during that period, and how he feels 
>>about those principles today.  A lot of the anti-war movement centered
>>on the idea that Communism was a legitimate expression of popular will
>>among the people of southeast Asia.  Did Clinton believe this?  How does 
>>he feel today?  I guess I'd say that the Moscow trip (and his failure
>>to come clean about what he did there) symbolizes the doubts of many
>>people about being able to trust Clinton, and about his capacity to act
>>effectively as commander in chief.
>
>He didn't fail to come clean about anything.
>
>>Notice how he waffled on the Iraq war.  Does he have what it takes to stand
>>up to world tyrants?  What would his reaction be to, say for example, Chinese
>>military pressure against Taiwan?  
>
>What would the Bush reaction be to, say for example, Chinese military
>crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators?  Or Chinese military pressure
>on Tibet?  Or a coup in Haiti?  Or a coup in Peru?  Or a Syrian takeover
>of Lebanon?  Or the Soviet Union attacking Lithuania?  Or a Serbian
>invasion of Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia?
>
Let's take these one at a time, based on the assumption that effective
action requires a strong philosophical and strategic basis.  In China,
while there was a strong moral principle, there was very little that 
the US could do given its goal of not isolating China.  Bush apparently
felt that by imposing strong sanctions on China, he would be providing
its reactionary rulers with more ammunition, and even more reason to
crack down on its people.  I'm still not sure this was the way to go,
but at least I can see the logic behind Bush's approach.   Keep 
capitalism in full gear in China as a way of fostering greater demand
for political freedom.

I wonder what Clinton would have done?  It's easy to talk about supporting
democracy.  But what if, for example, sanctions had been imposed, and as
a response, China increased arms sales or other destablizing actions in
world hot spots such as the Middle East?  

Regarding the coup in Haiti, I agree with you -- a tougher response was
clearly in order.  What would Clinton have done?

On the coup in Peru, I take a different view.  The people of that nation
were fed up with an ineffective and possibly corrupt legislature.  They
were afraid of its inability to deal with internal terrorists.  They 
overwhelmingly supported the coup.  Democracy should not be a death warrant--
it should not lead to its own self destruction.  I actually thought that
Bush came down too hard on Peru's president.

As for Syria, we've long been to easy on them, but again, we have
been trying to get them to come to terms with Israel.  Can we do
this by imposing stiff actions against them?  What sort of effective
actions could we have taken against Syria?  Again, what would Clinton
have done?

USSR and Lithuania?  Start a war with the Soviets?  Send arms to
Vilnius (sp)?

Yugoslavia?  I thought that one of so-called "lessons of Vietnam" was
that we shouldn't get bogged down in foreign "civil wars?"  Bush's 
idea on this is that we should think about American lives and have
a reasonable plan before we jump in.

So basically, in most of the cases described above, I understand
Bush's philosophy and strategy.  Again, What would Clinton do?


>>I guess in a nutshell, I don't think I know what principles guide this man
>>when it comes to making tough foreign policy decisions.  He sometimes _talks_
>>a good game, but many of his actions, statements, and mis-statements lead me
>>to doubt the value of his word.
>
>Good.  Now that just leaves one question.  What principles guide GHWB in
>tough foreign policy decisions?  Or tough domestic policy decisions?  Or
>*easy* decisions of either type?  
>(Besides "doing-whatever-it-takes-to-get-reelected", I mean)

Well, I mentioned foreign policy, domestic will have to wait for another
post.

Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton