Subj : Re: Ethics test
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : Trouble
Date : Sun Sep 11 2005 12:07:31

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape

John Iwaniszek wrote:

> Jim Larson wrote:
>> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>>> Jim Larson wrote:
 
>>> Clinton had an academic deferrment.  He didn't dodge the draft any
>>> more that Cheney did with his family deferrment, he was never drafted
>>> to begin with.  He was studying abroad.   What's magic about using a 
>>> deferrment at a US school?
 
>> Yes, he did nothing illegal. However, it is hardly as cut and dried as
>> that: 
 
>> http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/politics/clintondraft.asp
 
>> (Pardon the source, but it's a decent summary.)
 
>> If you're going to apply a critial eye to Bush's ROTC service (or lack
>> thereof), it's only fair that the same level of scrutiny be applied to
>> Clinton. His behavior during the period was not entirely exemplary. 

> Teh Snopes article seems to be mixing fact with a lot of supposition. 

Most of the supposition is from Clinton Biographers, not Snopes, but its 
more fact that you'll find anywhere else. I intentionally used them over 
a handful of Clinton bashing sites with similar but less complete info.

Like the fact you keep skipping over it wasn't an educational deferrment 
that kept Clinton out of the service, his educational deferrment was over 
by the time his draft number came up in '69 with draft induction notice 
in hand, Clinton used political connections to get into a ROTC program 
which he wouldn't have to show up for until 1970 which gave him a 1-D 
reservist deferremtn to not go to his induction center.
 
> I'm way more inclined to give a poor, but hardworking and promising 
> student a pass in this on what is not clearly "Unethical or morally 
> reprhensible" (as Snopes seems to be inserting into the equation via 
> weasle words) than I am the C student son of a rich connected 
> politician.

Same or similar actions by both actors, John's opinion comes down to a 
value judgement. 

I find it HARD to equate someone who dodged the draft by signing a piece 
of paper committing them to service, and then getting out of said 
agreememnt without serving a single day to be of far less valuable 
service to his country than the guy who put in 5+ years of service and 
then left AFTER the US ceased combat operations in Vietnam.

http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx

Prediction: John will not see it this way dispute the source, blame Bush, 
and of course make excuses for Clinton.

-- 
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise.
Seek what they sought."
--Basho

.