By Jim Kouri
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
On New Year's Day, Newsweek columnist and Democrat Party water-carrier (am I beingredundent?) Eleanor Clift appearing on the Fox News Channel gave her opinion ofwhom was better equipped to run as a Democrat for President in 2008.
Ms. Clift, who looked as if she was decomposing as she spoke, said that SenatorHillary Clinton would be a more viable candidate than Senator Barack Obamabecause of her "military experience" which she gained while servingon the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Hillary shoots her mouth off in front of TV cameras and that's consideredmilitary experience? Perhaps it is when compared with her husband's militaryrecord -- a Draft Dodger, who protested the war under a Viet Cong flag.In the wacky world of the mainstream news media, if you're a Republican andserved in the National Guard during a war, you're a shirker or worse; if you'rea Democrat and attend a Memorial Day parade, you have military experience. Orif you served four months in Vietnam and get shot in the butt with a handful ofuncooked rice, you're a war hero.
As 2008 draws closer, Clinton is attempting to distance herself from her voteto send American troops to invade Iraq. Whether one is for or against the Iraqinvasion, one must be aware that New York's junior senator voted for the war inorder to position herself for a presidential run. The real Hillary -- themilitary-hating, Black Panther lawyer -- doesn't stand a chance in 2008. MostDemocrats spend most of their time trying to convince Americans that they'renot left-wing, anti-military socialists and Senator Clinton is no different.
In other words, she had no problem sending our soldiers and Marines to theirdeaths -- in a war she really didn't believe in -- just to garner future votesin a presidential election since she despises soldiers to begin with. Ofcourse, the radical left created the illusion that they are displeased withSenator Clinton's "support" for the war, but behind the scenesshe's meeting with these very same people in order to plan her campaignstrategy. The supposed left-wingers' dissatisfaction with Hillary Clinton is afarce that's perpetuated by the elite media, who lapdance for her and her hubbyat every opportunity.
Ever notice that left-wingers such as Ellen Ratner, Eleanor Clift, SusanEstrogen... I mean Estrich and others simultaneously echo the canard thatHillary is a moderate? Well, if she is a moderate, what the hell are they doingsupporting her?
An example of this news media complicity in creating a Clinton myth is CNN'sstory regarding Senator Clinton calling for a larger military. What the folksat CNN failed to report is the fact that it was her husband who drastically cutthe military budget while he sat in the Oval Office. At first, it was calledthe "peace dividend". Then it was hailed as "the end of biggovernment." But actually, it was a cunning way of cutting the deficit andcreating a surplus at the expense of our fighting forces.
But Hillary knows that calling for 100,000 more soldiers is a winningproposition, the same way her husband's invisible 100,000 more cops on thestreets played well for his reelection.
In fact, the only reason the left supports military spending these days isbecause Democrats and liberal Republicans use the Defense Department to hidetheir pork and earmarks such as Senator Tom Harkin's concealing $15 billion forbreast cancer in the defense budget. Fighting breast cancer is indeed a nobleendeavor, but the US Army is more adept at fighting terrorists than combatingcancer.
Last year, Senator Clinton voted for a Defense Appropriations bill thatearmarked $4.4 million for a technology center in Missouri, $2 million for apublic park in San Francisco, $1 million for a Civil War center in Richmond,VA, and $850,000 for an education center and public park in Des Moines, Iowa.
It also earmarked money for several museums, including a $1.35 millionallocation for an aviation museum in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and $3 million for amuseum at Fort Belvoir, Va. A $500,000 line item was added in the conferencereport for the Arctic Winter Games in Alaska. To be fair, Hillary was joined byseveral liberal (moderate?) Republicans in this disgraceful use of militaryresources, but conservative senators balked at these flagrant earmarks.
In 2006, the New York Sun exposed Hillary's plan to reward her campaigncontributers. New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer asked thePentagon to spend $123 million for New York projects that the Department ofDefense didn't ask for -- many of them benefiting the lawmakers campaigncontributors. Among the two Democratic senators projects cited by the New YorkSun and NewsMax were:
$5 million to STIDD Systems of Greenport, NY, whose president gave $2,500 tothe Friends of Hillary political action committee in May, 2006.
$8 million to the defense contracting firm DRS Technologies and its electronicwarfare and network systems program in western New York. The firm's politicalaction committee gave $8,000 to Friends of Schumer and $30,000 to theDemocratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which Schumer chaired. The companyalso 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 firms 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 ofHillary committee over the past two years, and $3,000 to the Friends of Schumercommittee over the past four years.
Yes, Hillary Rodham Clinton certainly does have military experience, but it'sthe kind the country can do without.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2018 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2018 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement