Prev | List | Random | Next
Michelle Malkin last week:
On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton appeared on Good Morning America to lambaste the Bush admininstration for not caring about troops who need more body armor. She demanded an investigation.
On Wednesday, Senate Armed Service Committee chairman John Warner did exactly that.
But Hillary didn't bother to show up.
Mr Exum and I exchanged a couple emails on that topic before he published that piece. I think he hit the nail on the head - many times. Read it all.
More on all that later.
(Original post 2006-01-14 17:17:29)
...and your point? Oh, you must be talking to the people who do NOT know she is lying scallywag! lolPosted by Rosemary at January 14, 2006 08:43 PM
TO DATE 2,459 U.S. SOLDIERS HAVE BEEN KILLED
AND 16,000 PLUS U.S. SOLDIERS HAVE BEEN WOUNDED MAINLY FROM ILL-ARMORED VESTS AND UNARMORED HUMVEES.
MICHELLE MALKIN IT HAPPEN ON BUSH AND CHENNYS WATCH, WHY DIDN'T YOU WRITE ABOUT IT THEN AND NOW, OR ARE YOU AS OTHERS PASSING THE BUCK AS ALWAYS. WHY DIDN'T YOU ENLIST WHEN THE NUMBERS WERE DOWN, ALWAYS READY TO LET THE OTHER PERSON DIE FOR YOUR FREEDOM. O YES IT IS VOLUNTEER ITS YOUR CHOICE.
AT LEAST HILLARY HAD A CHOICE "SHE DEMANDED AND ASKED WHY".
First, push the "caps lock" button. If you're new to the internet, you should know that using ALL CAPS is akin to shouting.
Second, accusing people on "Mudville Gazette" of" LET[ing] THE OTHER PERSON DIE FOR YOUR FREEDOM" is just asinine. Have you even bothered to look at what this site is all about? Did you manage to take a look at who runs it? I am guessing that the answer to both questions is "no".
And last - rather than just parrot what the NYT has to say about the armor issue, check out some Iraq vets' opinions. Here's your first one: I liked that we had armor, but too much of it would have made it harder to do my job.
Got anything else to say?Posted by File Closer at January 15, 2006 10:37 PM
Grandpapete, take your asinine chickenhawk argument and shove it.Posted by Steve Skubinna at January 16, 2006 01:07 AM
Of the three possible stories , I would have preferred number three:
1. Military does not have enough body armour for the past three years
2. Military has enough body armour and is forced to wear it even when it it hampers movement.
3. Some military choose not to wear body armour.
Unfortunately, the news story is about number 1 and it is not relevant whether it is a problem to wear it or not.
Can we please get the armour to those who want to wear it?Posted by Dale at January 16, 2006 12:15 PM
It is intellectually dishonest to belive that all those wounded or KIA would have been saved by body armor. I won't even go into the helicopter crashes, or destroyed armored vehicles... There's no magic bullet, and theres no magic shield either. Civilians need to stop second-guessing military equipment and operations.
This is nothing more than pre-election grenade tossing by Clinton. Nice of her to exploit those who made the ultimate sacrifice for her political gain.Posted by LJD at January 16, 2006 01:58 PM
Do you know why we suddenly have such a huge number of vets with permanently disfiguring injuries like limb amputations running around compared to recent conflicts (Vietnam included)? Because those soldiers would have DIED in previous wars. Had it not been for the body armor they were wearing, they'd most likely be died in this one too. And yes, some of those folks may have been saved by body armor, but armor does not 'proof' against getting killed on the battlefield. It only improves your chances. That is ALL it does.Posted by armynurseboy at January 19, 2006 12:45 AM Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(7) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)