Subj : Re: Ethics test
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : John Iwaniszek
Date : Sun Sep 11 2005 17:36:33

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape

Trouble <troubleNOSPAM@tekfactory.com> wrote in
news:Fvudnb7BRcMty7nenZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com: 

> John Iwaniszek wrote:
> 
>> Speaking strictly from a utilitarian point of view:  There seemed at
>> the time more value in saving Clinton than there did in saving Bush. 
>> History has since borne out the validity of that judgement.
> 
> Why? In another post you just said good on anybody for getting out of 
> Vietnam, why bring in your specific Bush=Bad, Clinton=Good value
> judgements now.
> 

I think the comparison is obvious.  It's like any hiring decision or 
decision to allocate scarce resources. It's done on the basis of merit.  
Clinton was the superior candidate.  Nothing about Bush at the time 
recommended him for any postion of responsibility or trust.  Clinton earned 
the respect of his peers, elders and the Rhodes Scholoarship committee.  He 
was clearly the better man and should nothave been wasted in a futile war 
against a chimerical enemy.

.