Sunday, October 07, 2007

This photo is priceless, and authentic. This is Hillary Clinton posing with a US soldier in Iraq. Look closely at his left hand. Yes, he is actually crossing his fingers. This is what soldiers are taught to do if they are coerced to give a statement or appear before cameras while captive. The humor is obvious, but I think this gentleman's sentiment about Clinton is shared by many who wear the uniform.

Hillary is seeking to become Commander in Chief, and in the process she is going to have to overcome an anti-military image that may or may not be fair, depending on your point of view. Her husband's administration did little for the military, unless you count the to-the-bone budget cuts that reduced our fighting force to a skeleton crew and in many ways continue to be a hindrance in our war efforts. And who can forget Bill's letter to an ROTC Colonel who was trying to recruit young Billy..."I loathe the military". One wonders if Hillary shares her husband's sentiment.

And then there are first hand accounts of Hillary and the military. Take, for instance, the book "Dereliction of Duty: The eyewitness account of how Bill Clinton compromised America's national security" by Lt Col Robert Patterson. Colonel Patterson was the Air Force lliason to Bill Clinton, and for a time was in charge of carrying the nuclear football, which means that he spent some time very close to Bill and Hillary. Here is an example of what he witnessed:

"On a similar trip, as we lifted off a helicopter pad in Marine One en route to Air Force One for the journey home, Hillary suddenly shouted, 'Put this back on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo.' By this time, however, Marine One was safely scooting to an awaiting 747. The required support for even a helicopter flight was involved and extensive. The Secret Service, White House Communications Agency, and administration staff were pulling down communications lines, lifting barricades, and driving off in vehicles.

'Ma'am,' my fellow military aide responded, 'we can't safely do that.'
'I need my sunglasses, we need to go back!'
The onboard Secret Service agent chimed in, 'Yes, ma'am, the mil-aide is correct. That wouldn't be wise.'

She acquiesced, but not without obvious disdain in her eyes. Security be damned, those were her sunglasses!"

Hillary seems to think that Marine One is more a limo and chauffeur service than a military transport vehicle. I wonder how that attitude will play as Commander in Chief. Patterson gave other examples of Hillary's disdain for the military, including her attempt to forbid members of the military to appear at the White House in uniform. She wanted them to wear civillian attire for any official or unofficial visits. Whether or not anyone complied with this is another issue. After all, the first lady is nowhere in the chain of command for anyone in uniform, even though I'm sure she would have disagreed.

And what about her military budget? Well, she apparently plans to spend a lot on the Pentagon. New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer asked the Pentagon to spend $123 million for New York projects that the Department of Defense didn't ask for -- many of them benefiting the lawmakers’ campaign contributors. Among the two Democratic senators’ projects cited by the New York Sun and NewsMax were:

--$5 million to STIDD Systems of Greenport, NY, whose president gave $2,500 to the Friends of Hillary political action committee in May, 2006.

--$8 million to the defense contracting firm DRS Technologies and its electronic warfare and network systems program in western New York. The firm's political action committee gave $8,000 to Friends of Schumer and $30,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which Schumer chaired. The company also gave Clinton's political action committee $2,000.

--$2 million to the Buffalo firm Nano-Dynamics, Incorporated, whose chairman gave $4,400 to the Friends of Hillary political action committee over the past year. Three of the firm’s officers gave $2,000 each to Schumer's campaign.

--$2 million to Plug Power, Incorporated, a developer of fuel cell technology. The company's president Roger Saillant has given $2,000 to the Friends of Hillary committee over the past two years, and $3,000 to the Friends of Schumer committee over the past four years.

So this is Hillary's military record. Is this someone who deserves to be Commander in Chief?

9 comments:

Allisoni Balloni said...

What is the source of the picture?

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Allisoni,

I'll hazard a guess. He's a Staff Photographer with that well-known...

'Vast-Right-Wing Conspiracy' reb

Robert M. said...

As usual, I fall in the middle. I too, would want to know the source of the picture, but let's face it, I'm sure the troops hate Hillary. However, I'm not sure it's her anti-war stance. Ron Paul, an anti-war candidate, has the most troop contributions of any candidate.

Allisoni Balloni said...

I wasn't trying to make a jab at the conent of the post, I really just want to know where the photo is from. Seems like something that would be pretty big news, yet I haven't seen it anywhere else and would like to know the source.

BB-Idaho said...

A.B., that particular photo showed up on the internet in early 2004.
It has floated around since. See
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/crossed.asp for the details.

John Washburn said...

BB, thanks for the assist, you beat me to it. I actually stumbled across the photo while trying to verify another Hillary-hates-the-military story that turned out false.

Allison, I agree that it seems like this would have shown up more in the news, and I have two theories why it didn't. 1) The mainstream media is very pro-Hillary and will not report a minor story that portrays her negatively. 2) The Clinton influence is powerful. They have ways of burying things and keeping the negative connotations to a minimum. Whatever happened to the Rose Law Firm records? And why won't the MSM hammer Hillary for not releasing her White House records?

John Washburn said...

Robert, you've brought up an interesting point and here is my opinion: The military loathes Hillary. They really do. Why? A lot of it is her past, and even more is her husband's administration. Bill cut the military budget to the bone, while also deploying troops all over the world as "peacekeepers". The purpose of the US military is to serve two functions: Kill and Destroy. That's it. They are not police officers or ambassadors or baby sitters. If you, as President, send them into combat, then you should expect a lot of destruction and a body count, not the delivery of oatmeal to hungry people. Also, deploying troops under UN authority (Bosnia) left a bad taste in the mouth of the military. No one in the military swore an oath to the UN, and none of them want to die for the UN flag. They swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the UNITED STATES against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Many of them see the Clintons as domestic enemies. No matter how hard she may try, Hillary will never shake her husband's legacy with the troops. The troops don't mind fighting, as long as they fight for America and as long as they're not asked to behave like police officers. Ron Paul understands that, and the military knows that Paul would not deploy them under the UN flag or for the purpose of peacekeeping. Under Hillary, many of the troops think they would be sent across the globe to babysit a village or purify their water.

Again, I'm not speaking for the military, I'm just voicing my opinion of why Hillary is so disliked among the troops. It's not a matter of anti-war as much as it is the proper utilization of a force as powerful as the US military.

BB-Idaho said...

I agree the military, in general, dislikes Bill Clinton, partly for
your reasons (although when Cheney
was Sec Defense under Bush I, he riled 'em up too). I think the gays in the military bruhaha, as well as Colin Powell battling for his brigades (successfully) were additional factors. I suppose that
dislike carries over to Hillary.
While our troops are 'defending the constitution' in Iraq, they are in point of fact "police officers, ambassadors and babysitters': please read General Petraeus's new US Army Field Manual
3-24 Counterinsurgency. Population stabilization is as important as killing insurgents and those in the field are aware how easy it is to create more enemies by the wrong
move. While I cannot compare action in Bosnia vs Iraq and it's effect on current military thought, I will say that when I
wore olive drab 1964-66, I DID have a strong dislike for LBJ!!
It is the nature of our system that the military is subordinate to the civilian, and regardless of
opinion, the professional soldier
carries out his duties and mission to the best of his ability..so be
it Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mitt
Romney or Hillary (there is only one vet running BTW) the military
will continue it's proud tradition..with maybe some crossed fingers.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Hillary Is a polarizing figure. Some Love Her, others dispise her.

Among All The Democratic Nominees,
She's the Only One that knows what she's talking about, and has the guts to confront Jihad when the Nuclear Chips Are Down. Wes Clark will be her pick for V.P. Anyone doubt it? reb
>>
I have an interesting Q & A going
with Mohamed Fadly on our July 4th, 2006 History Post, John.

If you'd like to Post A Comment,
find us there. It's a scorcher! reb

www.lazyonbenn.blogspot.com