Subj : Re: Ethics test
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : Trouble
Date : Sun Sep 11 2005 13:03:51

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape

John Iwaniszek wrote:

> Trouble wrote:
>> 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.

But you said do whatever you can to get out of the war, not poor white 
Rhode scholars do whatever you can to get out of the war.
 
> 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.

If Clinton were the better man you say he is, he'd have been just as good 
after the war if he kept his ROTC or Navy reserve committment. There is 
zero chance Bill Clinton would have gone to Vietnam, if you read the 
'conclusions' in the snopes article you would know that. Because he 
wouldn't volunteer for Vietnam, and would have served the US somewhere 
else in the world.

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

.