Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, June 14, 1994 TAG: 9406270139
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
The facts are: Reagan enlisted as a reserve officer as early as 1935. In November 1941, he was called up for service, but he was found unfit for overseas duty due to a severe myopia. His eyes tested at 6/200. In April 1942, he was called up again for limited service. He served throughout the war as adjutant and personnel officer, making training films for the Army. Most people didn't know of his vision impairment because he wore contact lens in his later years.
As a World War II Navy veteran with two sons who are Vietnam War veterans, I am unable to respect those who evade their responsibility to serve their country in time of war and to obey their country's laws.
LYNN R. HAMMOND JR.
ROANOKE
Taking offense at the comparison
IN YOUR June 8 editorial (``Firing cheap shots at Clinton''), you made the assertion that Bill Clinton shouldn't have been criticized for speaking at D-Day ceremonies any more than Ronald Reagan should have been 10 years ago.
Reagan joined the Army Reserves in the '30s, was called to active duty in 1942, and served his country where it needed him. Bad vision prohibited him from going overseas, so he loaded ships for several months before he started making military training films.
How dare you compare someone who dodged the draft and went to another country to protest to someone who served his country willingly, no matter what his duties were. I've never been in the military, but I'm certain most veterans would feel that Reagan is much more qualified to speak for them than Clinton will ever be.
STEVE STEWART
PEARISBURG
Reagan did not attack the military
REGARDING your June 8 editorial, ``Firing cheap shots at Clinton'':
It's very simple: Reagan wasn't criticized for taking part in the 40th anniversary of D-Day because his record didn't warrant criticism. Reagan wasn't a draft dodger, and he never stated that he ``loathed'' the military. There's no double standard here.
While Clinton did a fine job of representing the United States at the D-Day commemorative ceremonies, I can certainly understand why it was difficult for some to stomach his presence there.
KENT M. FORD
ROANOKE
The record defies 'moral consistency'
REGARDING your June 8 editorial, ``Firing cheap shots at Clinton'':
I see that you tire of the never-ending Clinton Character Conflicts and resort to throwing diversionary smoke grenades at Ronald Reagan. Out of ammo and falling back in disarray, it's the liberals' last stand: Republicans are just as bad.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Reagan enlisted as a reserve officer as early as 1935. In November 1941 - before Pearl Harbor - he was called up for service but found ``unfit for overseas duty'' because of severe myopia.
As for President Clinton's ``moral consistency,'' refer back to the '92 campaign sagas: He first insisted he didn't receive his draft notice; subsequently, he joined ROTC. To paraphrase Clinton's letter to the ROTC colonel, he did it ``to keep his political ambitions alive.'' Then he reneged on ROTC after Nixon ended the draft.
As far as ``promise-keeping consistency,'' consider the flip-flops: middle-class tax cuts, Haitian refugees, China and most-favored-nation status, Somalian peacekeeping, ``rare'' abortions, Bosnia, North Korea, gays in the military ...
SALLY McCRORY
ROANOKE
The 'virtue' of North's nomination
THOUGH the guardians of moral rectitude in the Old Dominion (i.e., Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson) must be delighted at the outcome of the Republican nomination contest, they and followers have made it impossible for many Virginians to cast a GOP vote in November. What a quandary.
But Falwell can continue raking in money on his videos, and Robertson can continue presenting to the public Paula Jones and her ilk, while that monument to virtue, Oliver North, promises ``the begining of the end for the arrogant and self-serving brand of politics that has done nothing but sacrifice our children's futures on the altar of some politician's re-election.''
Of course, North never stood before any altar other than that of truth and light - it really wasn't his fault he lied, cheated, shredded and became a millionaire. He did it all in service to the country! None of his acts was self-serving, and there isn't an arrogant bone in his head!
Perhaps if enough Virginians speak out and go vote, North will be soundly defeated. Perhaps he'll then retire quietly to his little corner of the state, though, I somehow doubt the ``quiet'' bit.
PATRICIA SAUNDERS
ROANOKE
by CNB