Sunday, December 04, 2005
What a load of crap... There is an article in NewsWeek that tries to make Hillary sound pro-military. Lets look at some of the things that are said in this article. By Susannah Meadows, With Howard Fineman and John Barry.
Dec. 12, 2005 issue - This summer, the reserve Officers Association presented Sen. Hillary Clinton with its President's Award for her work on behalf of soldiers. On the morning of the ceremony, the event's organizers were a little nervous. While they were in the White House, the Clintons were never regarded warmly within the ranks or among the brass, and the First Lady was seen as especially hostile to the military. (There are still soldiers who swear by the myth that she banned uniforms at the White House.)
This was not a myth it was a documented fact that much has been written about and witnesses have made statements on the record. Also it must be noted that the award that she was given was not voted on by the rank and file of the Military.
"It is no accident that hawks inside and outside the military are reconsidering Hillary Clinton."
What hawks would that be? I notice they mention NO names. I guess their talking about hawks like Congressman Murtha. I ask anyone to post a statement from any Hawk that says Hillary would be a good President for the military. They simply don't exist.
This line here made me laugh due to fact that it's pure bull and shows the fishbowl of narrowness that these three writers live in.
"She may have entered the Senate in 2001 with three strikes against her—she was a woman, a Democrat and a Clinton."
Those three Strikes are the only reason she DID get elected. She had no political record except her failure at trying to socialize a seventh of the economy with her health care scam that would have had beaurocrats deciding what medical treatment we get.
"But Senator Clinton immediately began a methodical campaign to undo her image as a dovish liberal with no interest in military affairs. Post 9/11, she was quick to recognize that Democrats—and especially one all but openly running for president—were vulnerable on defense issues."
In other words her and her husband sat down to figure out how to play both sides of an issue that she knew if she was publicly honest about she would have NO chance of ever getting elected as President. How do they do this? Its simple. Hillary never makes any antiwar statements in public, while at the same time her husband travels the world blasting the military and the war on terror. This coming from a man that had the chance to have Bin Laden handed to him and refused. Not to mention that the only action he ever took against terror was to fire some missle at an aspirin factory when it came out in the press that he left stains on a dress.
"Her Senate office has received so many e-mails from frustrated Democrats that she responded last week with a 1,600-word letter, in which she took responsibility for her 2002 vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq, but still blamed President George W. Bush for prewar intelligence failures and the current mess on the ground."
God would I love to read that letter. Why wasn't it put out as a Press Release?
Yes she blames GW for the entire worlds intelligence failure. The UN, The French, The Germans, The Italians, Great Britain and the Mossad - those just happen to be some of the intelligence agencies that had the same intelligence reports that we had. They were also the same reports that her husband used to cover up public embarassment about leaving DNA on a dress that didn't belong to his wife.
"Clinton has used her platform on Armed Services to educate herself on defense issues. She receives briefings from military officials and calls big thinkers from her husband's Rolodex, including Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke, for advice."
I love that "Big Thinkers". What did those big thinkers achieve when they were in office? Was there any progress between the Palestinians and the Jews? Was there any response to the numerouse terrorist attacks that our troops suffered during the Clinton years? The policies that these people put in place led to the mess that we are in now. I am surprised that they don't have her quoted as getting advice from Jamie Gorelick who created the wall during the Clinton years preventing law enforcement and our intelligence agencies from talking to each other. Which evidence has come to light that they could have arrested at least half of the 9/11 terrorists before 9/11 if this wall wasn't in place, through Able Danger.
"If she runs in '08, she'll have to use her military education to stake out clear positions not only on Iraq, but Syria, Iran, North Korea and beyond. So far, she's not getting out ahead. When asked about a strategy for leaving Iraq, she waved off the question. "Nobody has all the answers," she told NEWSWEEK."
"If she runs in 08" What a laugh as if she is not running. These reporters have to stop acting as press agents and start acting like reporters, but we all know they never have been reporters just a bunch of opinion journalists doing the art of spin. A perfect example is why mention Syria, Iran, and North Korea if they don't have the balls to ask her what her positions on these critical countries are. Let alone letting her pass on an honest stand on what she would do different in Iraq. Isn't it supposed to be a reporters job to get and report facts? I guess these three forgot that huh.
They actually let this statement go by "When asked about a strategy for leaving Iraq, she waved off the question. "Nobody has all the answers," she told NEWSWEEK." Well sweetheart your running for President if you don't have an answer why the hell should anyone vote for you.
All in all Newsweek prints anything except news and this Fluff story is proof.