Subj : Re: Ethics test
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : John Iwaniszek
Date : Sun Sep 11 2005 17:32:37

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape

Trouble <troubleNOSPAM@tekfactory.com> wrote in
news:Fvudnb_BRcPey7nenZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com: 

> 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. 
>  

Good for him.  I don't ignore that fact.  I ust didn't know it.


>> 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. 


Yes it does.  Rich Frat-boy versus poor Rhodes scholar.  I will pick the 
poor Rhodes scholar every day.  Others would prefer that the rich frat-
boy continue to enjoy thier privileges of birth.  Not me.


> 
> 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.
> 


Nothing about Bush's "service" was hard.  He flew for approximately two 
years, skipped aprox. five months, lost his flight status, then quit 
before his original commitment was up.  He supported the war, but 
explicitly refused to seve in Vietnam.


Clinton did not suport the war and did everything in his power to 
legally avoid being drafted.

.