Posted on 01/10/2006 8:52:48 PM PST by smoothsailing
Hillary Wraps Herself In Armor
By Michelle Malkin
January 11, 2006
Move over, Joan Rivers. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is vying for the title of undisputed queen of the cosmetic makeover. Having undergone a cultural warrior collagen injection with her recent crusades against violent video games and flag-burning, Hillary has traded in her ratty black pantsuit for a new politicized accessory to enhance her electoral figure:
Body armor.
Last week, a group called Soldiers for the Truth leaked results of an unpublished Pentagon study that reportedly found that as many as 80 percent of a random sample of Marines killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. On Friday, the New York Times seized on the study.
Faster than you can say "quagmire," Hillary landed on ABC's "Good Morning America" to lambaste the Bush administration as "incompetent" and its failure to provide more armor "unforgivable."
"We perhaps could have avoided so many of these fatalities with the right body armor," concluded Brig. Gen. Clinton, who immediately dashed off letters to Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee; Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee; and Francis J. Harvey, Secretary of the Army. Smarter-than-thou Clinton is, of course, demanding an investigation (highly recommended by image consultants to boost one's pro-military posturing).
Hillary bashed President Bush and Vice President Cheney for callously letting troops die and said she was "just bewildered as to how this president and this vice president continue to isolate themselves from different points of view."
Well, I am bewildered, too. Bewildered at how such a supposedly brilliant and savvy woman -- who is supposedly in tune with American troops -- can so blithely ignore the grave trade-offs involved in this matter.
You want different points of view? Listen to soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade, who must don some 40 pounds of protection and gear while fighting in the desert heat. Capt. Jamey Turner, 35, of Baton Rouge, La., a commander in the 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment bluntly reminded the Associated Press: "You've got to sacrifice some protection for mobility. If you cover your entire body in ceramic plates, you're just not going to be able to move."
Second Lt. Josh Suthoff, 23, of Jefferson City, Mo., said: "I'd go out with less body armor if I could."
There is a legitimate debate to be had about the Army's supply system, military procurement, and contracting squabbles over body armor. However, challenging the leaked study's premises, Spc. Robert Reid, 21, of Atlanta, commented: "It's the Army's responsibility to get soldiers the armor they need. But that doesn't mean those deaths could have been prevented."
A military blogger at Baghdad Guy (web site) who serves in the U.S. Army, 101st Airborne Division, 506th Infantry, sums it up:
"Body armor has saved numerous lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and it will continue to do so, especially as it is modified to better meet the threat we face.
However, there are limitations as to how much armor you can add onto an individual and maintain his effectiveness as a soldier: when I step out the gate I am wearing on my person body armor, a kevlar helmet, my M4 rifle with a few hundred rounds of ammunition, my M9 sidearm with another hundred rounds of ammunition, 2-3 quarts of water, a portable radio, night vision equipment, and numerous other odds and ends ...
" ... Too much weight means a soldier moves slower, tires more easily, [maneuvers] less stealthily and spends more time feeling sorry for himself instead of focusing on the mission. And then there's the bulkiness that becomes an issue as you move through tight space and wedge into the seats of military vehicles that were not designed with comfort and/or legroom in mind. All these tradeoffs must be addressed before you make the decision to add armor, it must be determined that the armor will be effective, and then it must be designed in a way that minimizes impact on our ability to do our job."
Alas, fund-raising, spotlight-grabbing, 2008-planning Hillary isn't interested in sober analysis of trade-offs on the battlefield.
She is too busy playing dress-up to listen to the troops she says she cares so much about now.
-----------
Michelle Malkin is author of the new book "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is malkin@comcast.net.
COPYRIGHT 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
This says it all!
Yes, Saint Hillary. Military Historian. Security Expert. Health Care Guru. Legal Savant. Soul-less shrew. (I couldn't decide if I needed the hypen or not, but I'm pretty sure she could use one...or forty).
At least President Bush is doing ALOT more for our troops than her and her slime-other half EVER did for the military when they were selling out the white house to perverts.....
I'd like to see her wear it around. This crap is so heavy it is rediculous. I am a big boy, I weigh 220. With my uniform, boots, weapon, flack, plates and helmet(not counting ammo) and a 10 lb carry on I was around 360 lbs. Yeh, my dogs are barking. Now you tote all that crap around when its over 125 degrees...
I am in Supply and I can tell you I have NEVER seen or heard of new things being fielded as quickly as what I have seen here. Its amazing how quickly the supply system is getting newer and better equipment out to us. Things that were not even thought of before the war. A lot of hard work is being done behind the scenes by both military and civilians and the goal is always to win and to protect as many people as possible.
Hillary is NOT wearing her same old black pantsuit anymore?
Any photo's lately to prove what Michelle Malkin implied?
Thanks for the update!
And for the service.
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily almost always reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA FReepers.
;-)
Smartest woman in America.
Snort.
Run, Hillie, run.
the other day, I was talking to the father of a Marine serving in Fallujah -- the Second Division, I think.
He'd just gotten a parcel from his son, Billy, and was hoping to get a phone call. Every three days or so, Billy calls and lets him know he's okay. Two of his buddies were killed last week by snipers, and he said the marines know the snipers are there...but don't (can't?) do anything until someone gets shot. (PC warfare?). He also said the body armor doesn't cover shoulders and sides, which is where snipers aim. Also said they're short of everything, socks, underwear, food, etc.. (Which we know from other FR posters.)They have only one GPS system for every seven marines. He thought this was crazy, bought one ($350), and sent it to his son. He wept and said he was proud Billy had become a Marine. He's due home in March.
Heartbreaking, when we could wipe out this rats' nest in a week if we had a mind to. PC warfare is just one more weapon in the enemy's arsenal.
Re #24: LOL! I've always loved that picture. That soldier went above and beyond. ;)
This is not a new revelation ...
105th Congress 2d Session
Report 105-532
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 12, 1998
Land warrior
The budget request contained $51.4 million for initial procurement of Land Warrior dismounted combat soldier weapon systems, but no funds were included for all-torso body armor.
In its report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132), the committee noted that the effectiveness of modern all-torso body armor was aptly demonstrated during Operation Provide Hope in Somalia and that subsequent Army studies and analyses indicated more than 50 percent of all life-threatening wounds received in combat could be prevented by using such body armor. The committee believes that the medical expenses and loss of human life that could be avoided by employing this type of armor far outweigh the costs of procuring and fielding it; therefore, the committee recommends $56.4 million, an increase of $5.0 million, for the procurement of all-torso body armor.
..if her impotent and cigar playing husband had a backbone and didn't use the FBI and CIA as pawns to protect his self indulging, obstinate life, our troops wouldn't be needing body armor. If he had follow his sworn duty to protect Americans home and abroad, instead of creating a Hollywood image,and raising cash from Chinese,Arabs,and anyone else who was anti-American, maybe just maybe, there would be 5,000 American lives around. This B*TCH makes my skin crawl
Doogle
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.