HILLARY’S COLD SHOULDER
Dean Esmay links a report that the soldiers visited by Sen. Clinton in Afghanistan and Iraq were less than enthusiastic and gives some reasonable analysis as to why that may have been the case. The crux of his argument is that Clinton is something of a proxy for the Democratic party as a whole, and the party has been quite opposed to the war.
While this is certainly true, I’m pretty sure anti-Hillary feelings go beyond the general antipathy of the Democrats to the war. The Clintons are viewed by many as anti-military. Not only did Bill use questionable means to avoid the Vietnam draft, but there are numerous documented cases of where Clinton or his staff made insulting comments about the armed forces. This was enhanced by the poor way he handled the gays in the military issue and the fact that he sent the military off on countless escapades during his tenure. Hillary, perhaps unfairly, is seen as an extension of her husband in this. Further, while troops are always excited to see the Commander in Chief, a visiting Senator is almost always going to be viewed as grandstanding–especially when that Senator isn’t on the Armed Services Committee or otherwise associated with the military.
All that said, I’m sure most of the troops nonetheless appreciated her gesture. From what little I saw of her Thanksgiving visit to Afghanistan, many were quite excited that she was there.
For what it’s worth, she is a member of the Armed Services Committee.
It’s true that a visiting Senator will be seen as grandstanding, and that is exactly what Hillary did. But I have to take exception to a couple of other statements.
I think Bush, who went AWOL to avoid a drug test and did not fulfill his National Guard commitment, went to greater lengths than Clinton did to avoid Viet Nam. And it is significant that Clinton opposed the war while Bush supported it.
Secondly, I don’t think Clinton sent the military on “countless escapades”. I think the count is “two” and both were well planned and worth it (Bosnia and Somalia), as opposed to the current idiot who has screwed the pooch in Iraq.
Oops, I meant to say Haiti instead of Somalia. Clinton inherited Somalia from Bush the elder.
Maybe you can tell me Ed-
Are all you liberals lying on purpose or are you all delusional?
I know John C is quite proud of the fact he is a liar. Matthew Yglessias has said lying is an accepted tactic.
For a long time I thought you all were delusional but more and more I think you all know the truth are are lying.
There is not a shred of evidence Bush was ever AWOL. Part of his personnel file is incomplete (as are thousands of soldiers) and you whack jobs start screaming he was AWOL.
Further you ignore the fact that Clinton sent soldiers to Haiti to restore deposed President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and you forgot Clark’s claim to fame Kosovo.
(Those are just the ones I remember and I’m too lazy to google.) OH and Clinton sent 30,000 troops back to Kuwait for a while. So that’s at least 5.
So at some point I have to ask. Do you really believe the crap you type or are you a liar?
Since none of what you type is true, it has to be one or the other.
you came it while I typed– You get partial credit but my question is still valid.
I find it interesting that those who reject the volume of circumstantial evidence that Bush was AWOL or at the very least, strings were pulled to get him a cushy stateside appointment in the TANG, while at the same time take as an article of faith that Clinton avoided service by completely underhanded means. The fact is that if strings were pulled to insure Clinton did not have to serve, he could not be a draft dodger. A draft dodger is someone who was drafted and did not report. Bush could not be AWOL for the simple fact that he was never listed as such. Sons of powerful men get privileges all the time, so that is no real shocker, but it’s not AWOL.
Frankly the evidence for both men is circumstantial and not conclusive but what is odd is the way partisans will take one as an article of faith and turn a blind eye to the other. Nothing other then naked bias and partisanship can really explain it.
And please spare me the “Proof” from either side, iI have read it all and unless there is some very recent news I find the evidence for both men pretty weak and highly suspect. Frankly, I think believe that they both had strings pulled to get them out of service and are both impugnable on that score.
What is kind of amusing is when the GOP had a chance to nominate a real war hero in John McCain they instead chose a polarizing figure with relatively little political experience with a dubious military record, and to listen to some people talk you would think he is some kind of war hero.
Frankly the evidence for both men is circumstantial and not conclusive but what is odd is the way partisans will take one as an article of faith and turn a blind eye to the other. Nothing other then naked bias and partisanship can really explain it.
And please spare me the “Proof” from either side, iI have read it all and unless there is some very recent news I find the evidence for both men pretty weak and highly suspect. Frankly, I think believe that they both had strings pulled to get them out of service and are both impugnable on that score.
Hit it again, Rick! It twitched! I saw it!
heh- I never mentioned Clinton being a draft dodger… You did that.
funny funny funny
To Paul,
Sorry about the screw up typing Somalia instead of Haiti. From your follow up I think we are clear on that point.
I think the Boston Globe investigation of Bush’s performance in the National Guard that concludes he was AWOL well surpasses the “shred of evidence” standard you cite. Is it conclusive? I am convinced but I respect your right to draw a different conclusion.
To answer your question about whether I believe what I wrote or am lying: I write what I believe and post under my full name. How about you?
not to mention the fact that he lifted the informed consent rules and made american servicemen and women test subjects for the anthrax vaccine.
Funny about that whole “informed consent” thing that you allege about the anthrax vaccine…I got quite sick from the swine flu vaccine back in the 70s, not that I was given the opportunity to refuse it.