Hillary Sprinting Away From Hatred of Military

The epitome of fluff piece. Is this stuff even serious?

Of all the early problems Bill Clinton faced as president, few stand out to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as more frustrating and avoidable than his rocky relationship with the military, her advisers say.

During his 1992 campaign, Mr. Clinton was attacked for avoiding the Vietnam draft and organizing antiwar marches in the 1960s. After taking office, his early focus on gay men and lesbians in the military drew sharp criticism from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin L. Powell, and other officers. Even his ability to salute properly was called into question.

Mrs. Clinton, to use a phrase, has been practicing her salute. As a senator and now as a presidential candidate, she has cultivated relationships with generals and admirals, prepped herself on wartime needs and strategy, and traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I think eight years in the White House, traveling the world and seeing the United States military doing the nation’s business, and now her time in the Senate, has given her a significant appreciation of the military that maybe her husband didn’t have before the White House,” said Jack Keane, the retired general and former Army vice chief of staff who has become close to the senator.

For Mrs. Clinton, exhibiting a command of military matters is not just about learning from her husband’s experience. It could be vital to her, as a woman seeking to become a wartime commander in chief, to show the public that she is comfortable with military policy and culture — and with the weight of responsibility that accompanies life-and-death decisions.

It is also part of an effort to shed the image some voters hold of her as an antimilitary liberal, defined by her opposition to the Vietnam War and, now, by her criticism of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq.

Clinton must think the men and women in our military are as dumb as Rep. Charlie Rangel routinely makes them out to be if she honestly thinks she’ll ever win over a significant amount of military support. The military hasn’t forgotten the disdain for the armed services Bill and Hillary displayed while Bubba was Commander in Chief, nor will they forget that her husband dodged the draft during Vietnam. They also won’t forget her carefully crafted “If I knew then what I know now” position on Iraq, a position she’s taken solely for political purposes aimed at catering to the nutroots left, in spite of her trying to soften her ton on the Iraq war a few months later.

Regardless, this picture tells it all:

US men and women serving might feel compelled by their superiors or bound by a sense of duty to take a picture with an opportunistic politician, but thankfully there is no coercion involved in going to the ballot box, where the military consistently votes around 65% Republican (something Democrats know to the point of trying to suppress their votes in 2000).

So, Senator Clinton, you might think building relationships with the military is something you can do for purposes of political expediency, but - as they say - you can run from your rocky relationship with the military but you cannot hide.

More Legislative Double Standards

They win an election, promising to bring honor back to Washington. Now, they break a promise not to hold votes "open" past the alloted time. Some background:

On their first day in the majority in January, Democrats amended the House rules to mandate that a vote "shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote."

Under earlier GOP rule, Democrats routinely attacked Republicans for extending the voting time, often citing the 2003 vote on the Medicare prescription drug bill that was famously held open three hours. And Hoyer himself was one of their foremost critics.

A quote from Hoyer:

"House Republican leaders proved once again today that they will stop at virtually nothing to win a vote, even if that means running roughshod over the most basic principles of democracy such as letting members vote their conscience and calling the vote after the allotted time has elapsed," Hoyer said.

"They ought to be ashamed of themselves, but when it comes to holding votes open and twisting the arms of their own members they clearly have no shame,’’ he went on. “These back-alley tactics have no place in the greatest deliberative body in the world. They might be the lifeblood of the tin-horn dictator, but not a world leader. It's an embarrassment.”

So what does Hoyer say today?

Asked Wednesday night whether Democrats would keep to the time limit, Hoyer paused, then pointed out that many votes can run a few minutes longer for various reasons. Pressed further by a reporter who pointed out that Democrats themselves had often criticized Republicans on this very point, Hoyer said, "It won't be open three hours. How about that?"

"How about 30 minutes?" the reporter asked.

"I won't guarantee it," Hoyer replied.

Also missing from the Democrats campaign promises-results. Prior to the election, Ms. Pelosi offered 6 things that would be changed by Democrats in the first 100 hours of the new session. To date, the Democrats are 0-6. I recall what a big deal was made about the Democrats getting things thru the House in 50 or 60 hours-but where are they now?

Perhaps we should hold some Senate hearings to see if the Democrats lied to the American people..

Shocked, Almost Awed

Take a look at this piece from the Lowell Sun.

Treasonous!?!? What has the editorial board been smoking at the Lowell Sun lately? And I mean that in the nicest way possible. The same Editorial board that staunchly defended outgoing congressman Marty Meehan (D-Massachusetts) unloaded on the Democrats' War appropriations bill, which by the way, is stuffed with pork.

Take a read, you may not believe it.

I'm sure that hundred million or so for Spinach will be of great aid to the troops in Iraq:

Wars and Choice

Pundits like to tell us that the defining issue of the 2008 Presidential Election is going to be Iraq. Americans are going to have to make a choice between one party which wants to stop the war and the other that wants to win it.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, who originally voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq, now says she didn't really mean it and promises to put a half to the proceedings in Iraq if she becomes our President. Sen. Barack Obama's only real claim thus far in the race has been that he'll end the war as soon as he's President. Congressman John Murtha has been blunt about the fact that he's putting legislation out there that's going to limit reinforcements, replacements, funding and support in general. Sen. Carl Levin says he wants to re-do the authorization and limit the President's ability to prosecute the war. Every Democrat has a plan, sponsors legislation, or promises their constituents that they're going to find a way to stop the war. Notice they said nothing about winning it.

On the GOP side of the aisle, President Bush resists time tables for withdrawal, because, he says, the troops will be brought home when Iraq can 'defend itself, sustain itself and support itself.'. None of the leading Republican Presidential contenders, not Rudy Giuliani, John McCain or Mitt Romney, advocate for pulling out of Iraq until we've won the day.

Vote Democrat, and the war's going to end, regardless of what those consequences might be. Vote Republican, and we're going to win the war, but it's going to cost a lot.

To many, stopping the war seems pretty humane. After all, who likes war anyways? However, it's important to apply these divergent political philosophies to other fields of endeavor.

In 1958, the worst team in the NFL won one game. The next year, the Green Bay Packers hired a guy named Vince Lombardi. He wasn't ever a head coach. The team was a loser every year and no one thought they had a chance. Lombardi was a leader though. Famous for his single-minded focus and dedication from the players he coached, leaving us with such memorable quotes as "Winning isn't everything-it's the only ting." Lombardi said that if his players followed his direction, played by his rules, he'd turn them into the stuff champions were made of. That December, the Packers hammered the New York Giants 37-0 to become NFL Champions. The Packers would win five championships in seven years, including the first two Super Bowl Championships.

For whatever reason, I can't imagine Lombardi sitting around with his team and going "Guys, I know we're a touchdown behind. We've got a lot of injuries and the fans aren't too confident in us. I think it's time to pack it in and head home".

In 1960, President Kennedy said "I believe this nation should dedicate itself, before the decade is out, to landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth." Thus, the space race was born. The Russians shot a satellite into orbit and also put the first man into space. They had better rockets, a program bolstered by slave labor and captured German scientists compelled to work on Soviet space craft. Our rockets more or less sucked and the Apollo program began with three astronauts dying thanks to a fire on the launch pad. On July 20, 1969, we landed on the moon.

I don't recall President Kennedy ever saying; "We’re never going to beat the Russians to the moon. It’s costing too much money, too many lives. Let’s stop all this nonsense."

In 1901, Teddy Roosevelt though a canal across the Isthmus of Panama would be a great idea. So he just sort of did it. "No Single material work which remains to be undertaken on this continent is of such consequence to the American people." The French worked on the thing for over a decade and managed to haul a supposed 76 million cubic yards of dirt and spent a billion and a half francs and lost 20,000 cheese-eating surrender monkeys to boot, and failed. The American effort dwarfed the French attempt. Railroads, towns and dams were constructed. Rivers and Mountains were literally moved. Diseases like malaria and yellow fever were overcome and $400 million (imagine that in today's money) was spent and plenty of lives were lost.

Despite all that, I have a hard time thinking that a challenger to Roosevelt could have come out and said at the height of this whole project that "You know what? This is too Hard. The mountains are way too big and the diseases are nasty. This isn't worth it. I promise you we'll abandon the Panama Canal before it goes any further!". Not exactly a battle cry for a nation is it?

The Moral of the story? Any effort that we take to overcome adversity is difficult. The harder it gets, the easier it is to give up.

Right now, we're trying to bring freedom to Iraq. We're trying to help install a form of government to a people who risk their lives to vote in a free election. We fight to turn a nation that once marched at the orders of a brutal dictator into a beacon of hope in an area where there isn't much. We got rid of him and his own people tried and sentenced him. We're opposed by factions inside the country and enemies that are leaking into it's boarders.

In all reality, there's no guarantee that we're going to succeed in Iraq. There's no real clear path to victory and the obstacles we face are gigantic. We're going to lose a lot of blood and a lot of money doing it. And like many other times in our history, we've got two choices.

We can persevere and prove naysayers wrong. We can do this all in spite of polls that are showing increasing numbers of Americans losing faith in the war, setbacks, defeats and tragedies. We can refocus ourselves to a commendable goal and that's to use the defeats to inspire us to defeat the enemy and insure that freedom is upheld and justice is affirmed.

Or, We can quit. We can take counsel of our fears and rationalize our capitulation. there are thousands of excuses available to abandon our efforts. We just need to pick one. Those that believe that peace is achieved by acquiescing to dictators and appeasing tyrants would celebrate our forsaking of this cause.

Whether we like it or not, Iraq is the central battlefield in the War Against Terrorism. There's no other way to put it. We're going to fight this war, whether we want to or not, whether it takes place there or here. The only choice we can make is between the leaders we're going to follow. There are those who want to give up and those who want to strive for victory.

Lombardi hated quitters. He said one time, "I firmly believe that any man's finest hour, his greatest fulfillment of all he holds dear, is the moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - Victorious."

As candidates and voters alike approach the Presidential circus, we should all take heed and consider that. : The path of least resistance always beckons, but it is never the course a leader takes.

New Poll Says Iraqis Feel Things Are Getting Better

A new poll in the UK's Sunday Times is saying that Iraqis feel life has improved for their since Saddam Hussein left. You won't ever see this talked about in the US media. God forbid they jeopardize their agenda.

The "Let's Lose Now Caucus"

I love the National Review. A great read from them on House Democrats.

Only in Northampton....

Would an event like this draw 300 people. For those of you who are curious, yes, this is front page news on masslive.com.

Deval tell Vets to Stick a Grenade Up Their......

Yes, Deval Patrick has made it known that race-baiting, paying his wife, curtains, Cadillacs, phone calls on behalf of companies, and helicopters should all be a part of his administration. The well being of Military Veterans... not so much.

Patrick apparently doesn't think that taking care of military veterans in a time of war is well, as important as say, taking care of unions. Like the ones that lined the pockets of his campaign.

Let me guess, this is Deval keeping his promise of 'fiscal restraint'. One would even have to question the timing of announcing this decision at the same time that we have military veterans testifying in front of congress about Walter Reed Medical Hospital.

This is right up there with that time the legislature 'forgot' to fund those much needed college tuition breaks for Military Veterans.

"Imposing Freedom" and Oxymoron

So it seems everywhere I go these days, I see little spots of anti-war protesters here and there. I'll be honest, I greatly admire the persistence and commitment of these folks while I completely disagree with their cause entirely. Frankly, if our right wingers had a tenth of the passion and commitment that these folks have, we wouldn't be on the verge of extinction in Massachusetts.

All that aside, I mentioned that I disagree with their cause. I very much disapprove of their playing on the emotions of others in hopes of convincing people that somehow war is never justified, which is really is complete and total buffoonery. These must be the same folks, who if someone put their family in danger, would likely ask the attacker if he would like to talk? Nothing encourages violence more than people who lack the spine to stop it or prevent it from happening before it begins.

Many of the peace-nicks seem to insist that war has never solved anything. Is that really any kind of rational statement to make? War has, in fact solved many of mankind's greatest problems and issues. Did War not solve the issue of slavery? Did War not cast Hitler from this earth? What if we confronted Soviet Communism not with Nuclear escalation, but by laying down naked in Australia, allowing our nude bodies to form the word "Peace"?

Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it, or so I've been told. With Islamic fascism becoming the new Nazism, what will it take for these folks to take it seriously? What is most unsettling to me is that even the audacity of the 9-11 attacks wasn't enough to make people take this new struggle seriously. 2,000+ people died in the middle of our largest city in broad day light. If that wasn't enough, what will be?

More importantly, what will it take to stop Osama Bin Laden and co.? A relentless succession of sit-ins, die ins, and crap ins? Maybe dressing up in garbage bags and laying in the street will do it? Are these people to be taken seriously at all?

We have many, many issues facing us in this country today, but none greater than fighting the war on terror. Democrats have conveniently flip flopped on their position of 'more troops to win the war' and are now in full blown 'get them out, we've lost' mode. I can't think of a more disastrous foreign policy blunder than to yank our troops out of Iraq at the most critical point in the war.

However, beyond the tactical and political implications lies the truly disturbing piece of all of this, which is how much traction self-defeatism has gained. There has been a relentless effort on the part of Democrats and those generally opposed to the conflict to point out every conceivable flaw this war has had. If it's a success , it should have been a success months ago, not now. Nothing is ever good enough. One must question any idealogical sect that makes the argument that we somehow are "Imposing Freedom on others". Isn't that, in and of itself, oxymoronic?

When you strip it all away, it's all about power. Of course the Democrats want to remove the troops from Iraq. When it goes to hell in a hand basket, they'll ask Americans in 2008 a simple question: "After the foreign policy disaster that was the Bush Administration, how can you possibly elect another Republican President?" It all boils down to power and a party that never viewed our current President as legitimate. Because they never saw him as legitimate, not one single policy he's ever brought up has been seen as remotely legitimate. Nothings up for negotiation when you feel the person sitting in office is not legitimate. It's created a fanaticism and bitterness towards a sitting President never before equaled and quite possibly, never will be ever again. Democrats hate George Bush. Burying him and his Presidency, his party and even perhaps his people, is what drives them every day and will continue to do so until they regain the power they feel is rightfully theirs. If national security of the American people is compromised, then so be it.

Which brings me to the part of all this where I pull things together. Those driven to stop this war are motivated by power, not principle. For the very reasons they supposedly 'threw the bums out' in November, they're opposing this war. It's about being 'right', not DOING what's right. I give full credit to peace-nicks and liberals for wanting to live in a better world. However, their recklessness and thirst for power make me question their motives. You can't be serious about ending a war unless you are serious about ridding the world of the causes of war, which include socialist dictatorships, like the one that we had in Iraq and spreading freedom and democracy and values which we believe to be god-given. Once they start to do that, then I'll take their gatherings on the town green and on the on ramp to I-91 seriously.