Posted on 11/29/2003 7:37:52 AM PST by thesummerwind
Edited on 11/29/2003 9:29:46 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Moderator note: I know it's going to be tough, but, please watch the calls for violence against this creature.
In a demoralizing message to U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq, visiting New York Sen. Hillary Clinton told them that Americans back home are growing increasingly skeptical of President Bush's decision to send them into battle.
Describing two meetings with G.I.s over turkey dinners in Baghdad, Sen. Clinton told reporters later that soldiers wanted to know "how the people at home feel about what we are doing."
Clinton said she told the troops, "Americans are wholeheartedly proud of what you are doing but there are many questions at home about the (Bush) administration's policies."
She also suggested that the U.S. could eventually loose the war in Iraq, contending, "We have to exert all of our efforts militarily, but the outcome is not assured."
Despite her sour pronouncements, the former first lady insisted that the soldiers were just as glad to see her as they were President Bush, whose surprise visit less than 24-hours earlier was greeted with standing ovations.
"It's a positive for the commander-in-chief to visit troops in the field," Clinton told reporters, adding, "the troops [also] seemed to appreciate seeing myself."
Speaking from a secure location just over the Kuwaiti border, Mrs. Clinton launched one verbal salvo after another at the White House, arguing that Bush officials had been "obsessed" with getting Saddam Hussein and saying the perception blinded them to the difficulties of deposing his regime.
"The Pentagon tried to make do with as few troops as possible, as light a footprint as they could get away with," Clinton said. "Now, we're playing catchup . . . Unfortunately, I don't think they fully appreciated the conditions we would encounter."
The top Democrat also reprised her charge that the White House is being less than candid when it comes to apprising the American people of the costs of the war.
"The obstacles and problems here are much greater than the administration usually admits to," she said, adding, "Everybody has to be honest."
US Senate Select Committee on Ethics
http://ethics.senate.gov/
http://voinovich.senate.gov/
http://roberts.senate.gov/e-mail_pat.html
http://thomas.senate.gov/html/email.html
Chairman – Direct Contact
Phone: 202-224-4774
Fax: 202-224-3514
Committee – Direct Phone Number
(202) 224 - 2981
They stopped listening to anything Clinton a long time ago. Word got around early on during his first run what the Clintons thought of the military.
I was in Saudi Arabia twice, in '96 and '97. We got two VIP visits, one from Gen Shelton, one from SECAF Sheila Widnall. They were nothing but unwanted interruptions in my workday, I had better things to do. I think most everyone felt the same way, because I didn't see any smiles in the crowd.
After Widnall gave her speech, she got two questions from a crowd of several thousand. For Shelton, they actually planted three questions in the crowd on 3x5 cards, I kid you not. The fourth and last question he got was the only real one: "How come we can't have beer?" He gave some waffle answer like, "We're working on that." Basically, people wanted to be left alone, just do their jobs. Shelton may be a good guy, but was seen as just another Clinton appointee at the time. We knew the Clintons had no respect for us, and the feeling was mutual.
theres a meesage at the front desk....
"The Pentagon tried to make do with as few troops as possible, as light a footprint as they could get away with," Clinton said. "Now, we're playing catchup . . . Unfortunately, I don't think they fully appreciated the conditions we would encounter."
"The obstacles and problems here are much greater than the administration usually admits to," she said, adding, "Everybody has to be honest."
(a)
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so -
Appears to be pretty damning to me.
Yes, thanks very much for those. And the following deserves a repost. Because if this woman throws herself into the race next year, the following paragraphs may go a long way to explain to your neighbors and friends who she really is and keep her out of office. Make some copies of it please, or bookmark it for the future, because it goes right to her very inapropriate, controlling, socialist personality and plans. If she ever dives in, the lamestream media will go along and paint a very positive picture of the "woman". Look for instance how Viacom removed the thunderous boos of the police and the fireman and their families at the 9/11 Concert in New York. This type of thing goes on every day to her benefit and at the same time to the injury to the country.
In the event she gets in, you and I owe it to the country to hand this out to our friends and neighbors who are on the election fence in 2004, and help explain to them who Hillary Clinton really is.
She will continue to be a real threat as long as a substantial proportion of the media is quite willing to protect her and promote her as in the past.
Educating your friends and neighbors is ultimately important, and it will work.
****** In the early 70’s Hillary, through Marian Edelman was hired as a research assistant by the Carnegie Council on Children, a blue ribbon panel of eleven ‘experts’ assembled by the Carnegie Corporation. It’s mandate, in part, was to respond to the concerns of sociologist Uri Bronfenbrenner, who had compared child rearing in the Soviet Union and the United States, and found the United States wanting. The Council’s book-length report, 'All Our Children', is MUST reading for anyone who seeks to understand Hillary Rodham’s vision of the future of American families.
The Carnegie panelists started with the assumption that the triumph of the “universal entitlement state” was inevitable, and the best thing Americans could do for their children was to hasten its arrival. Just as families in an earlier era turned their children’s education over to the public schools, the report argued, so in the future would government assume responsibilities for many other areas of children’s lives. This being so there was no reason to feel guilty about the rising rate of divorce. The decline of the nuclear family need not be worrisome, because “schools, doctors, and counselors and social workers provide their support whether the family is intact or not. One loses less by divorce today because marriage provides fewer kinds of sustenance and satisfaction.”
More significantly, 'All Our Children' offers a blueprint for undermining the authority of parents whose values the authors consider outmoded. The chapter entitled, “Protection of Children Rights,” the section on which Hillary worked, observes that “it has become necessary for society to make some piecemeal accomodations to prevent parents from denying children certain privileges that society wants them to have.” The report goes on to advocate laws allowing children to consult doctors on matters involving drug use and pregnancy without parental notification, and preventing schools from “unilaterally” suspending or expelling disruptive students.
But this is just the beginning. The Carnegie panel further calls for developing a new class of “public advocates” who will speak for children’s interests on a whole range of issues, from the environment to race relations: “In a simpler world, parents were the only advocates for children. This is no longer true. In a complex society both children and parents need canny advocates."
The report goes on to suggest that “child ombudsmen” be placed in public institutions and some sort of insurance be introduced to enable individual children to hire “decently paid” private attorneys to represent their interests. The possibilities for child advocacy would seem to be endless. For example the report suggests, attorneys could bring class-action lawsuits to hold corporations liable for FUTURE damages their businesses might cause to TODAY’S children.
This is the voice of people who think they know all the answers and want to use children as a tool to impose their will on others. Is it really time for the government to take even more control and responsibility for your children? I don't think so, and I don't think the majority of you, your friends, and your neighbors feel that way either. That is why it might be good to make this available to them if Hillary jumps in.
In 1972 Hillary spoke at a Democrat platform meeting in Boston. Hillary Rodham testified in favor of a platform that would extend civil and political rights to children. Her position went even beyond that of the Children’s Defense Fund or the Carnegie Council. In an article published in November 1973 in the Harvard Educational Review, she advocated liberating our “child citizens” from the “empire of the father.” This was good feminist reasoning for which the rationale can be found in the writings of Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre. (“There is no good father, that’s the rule,’ Sartre said. “Don’t lay the blame on men but on the bond of paternity, which is rotten.”)
In Hillary’s own words, “The basic rationale for depriving people of their rights in a dependency relationship is that certain individuals are incapable or undeserving of the right to take care of themselves and consequently need social institutions to safeguard their position…….. Along with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include marriage, slavery, and the Indian reservation system.”******
WOW.
This ‘It Takes a Village Idiot’, Hillary Rodham Clinton, belongs nowhere remotely near the Presidency!
When I shared this with people in 96 they thought I was nuts; then more people got on board and started to agree with me in prayer.....(Gore has yet to be impeached, but heck, there's still a chance). I invite everyone to pray with me on a daily basis so that we can see this woman removed from our government forever.
I will do my best to restrain myself, and apologies to all for not having read the entire thread...I just clicked on, with limited time!!!
I definitely loathe Senator Clinton, and for that reason I would just request a "second source" (preferrably AP or some liberal newswire) to confirm these remarks she made according to NewsMax (who I generally trust, but they loathe her as much as I do!)...this is likely already posted somewhere on this thread, so do me a favor and direct me there, since a "mainstream media" account or transcript would be worth screaming over, and I'm sure she actually said those things!!!
Then...I can "/ rant" and just have a word with the appropriate "elected officials"...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.