COMMENTARY: Hillary the Warrior
By Jim KouriSpecial to Huntington News Network
On New Year's Day, Newsweek columnist and Democrat Party water-carrier (am I being redundant?) Eleanor Clift appearing on the Fox News Channel gave her opinion of who 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 Senator Hillary Clinton would be a more viable candidate than Senator Barack Obama because of her "military experience" which she gained while serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Hillary shoots her mouth off in front of TV cameras and that's considered military experience? Perhaps it is when compared with her husband's military record -- 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 and served in the National Guard during a war, you're a shirker or worse; if you're a Democrat and attend a Memorial Day parade, you have military experience. Or if you served four months in Vietnam and get shot in the butt with a handful of uncooked rice, you're a war hero.
As 2008 draws closer, Clinton is attempting to distance herself from her vote to send American troops to invade Iraq. Whether one is for or against the Iraq invasion, one must be aware that New York's junior senator voted for the war in order to position herself for a presidential run. The real Hillary -- the military-hating, Black Panther lawyer -- doesn't stand a chance in 2008. Most Democrats spend most of their time trying to convince Americans that they're not left-wing, anti-military socialists and Senator Clinton is no different.
In other words, she had no problem sending our soldiers and Marines to their deaths -- in a war she really didn't believe in -- just to garner future votes in a presidential election since she despises soldiers to begin with. Of course, the radical left created the illusion that they are displeased with Senator Clinton's "support" for the war, but behind the scenes she's meeting with these very same people in order to plan her campaign strategy. The supposed left-wingers' dissatisfaction with Hillary Clinton is a farce that's perpetuated by the elite media, who lapdance for her and her hubby at every opportunity.
Ever notice that left-wingers such as Ellen Ratner, Eleanor Clift, Susan Estrogen... I mean Estrich and others simultaneously echo the canard that Hillary is a moderate? Well, if she is a moderate, what the hell are they doing supporting her?
An example of this news media complicity in creating a Clinton myth is CNN's story regarding Senator Clinton calling for a larger military. What the folks at CNN failed to report is the fact that it was her husband who drastically cut the military budget while he sat in the Oval Office. At first, it was called the "peace dividend". Then it was hailed as "the end of big government." But actually, it was a cunning way of cutting the deficit and creating a surplus at the expense of our fighting forces.
But Hillary knows that calling for 100,000 more soldiers is a winning proposition, the same way her husband's invisible 100,000 more cops on the streets played well for his reelection.
In fact, the only reason the left supports military spending these days is because Democrats and liberal Republicans use the Defense Department to hide their pork and earmarks such as Senator Tom Harkin's concealing $15 billion for breast cancer in the defense budget. Fighting breast cancer is indeed a noble endeavor, but the US Army is more adept at fighting terrorists than combating cancer.
Last year, Senator Clinton voted for a Defense Appropriations bill that earmarked $4.4 million for a technology center in Missouri, $2 million for a public 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 million allocation for an aviation museum in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and $3 million for a museum at Fort Belvoir, Va. A $500,000 line item was added in the conference report for the Arctic Winter Games in Alaska. To be fair, Hillary was joined by several liberal (moderate?) Republicans in this disgraceful use of military resources, but conservative senators balked at these flagrant earmarks.
In 2006, the New York Sun exposed Hillary's plan to reward her campaign contributors. 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.
Yes, Hillary Rodham Clinton certainly does have military experience, but it's the kind the country can do without.