Wednesday, January 11, 2006
A Letter to Senator Clinton
Reading Senator Hillary Clinton’s recent remarks on body armor on ABC’s Good Morning America got me all fired up. Following the suggestion of Michelle Malkin, I wrote a letter to the Senator, text as follows.
NOTE: Now before any of my erstwhile MILBLOGGER friends recoil in horror or pummel me senseless for my admission that I voted for Hillary, let me say in my defense that I thought her Republican opponent was inept and incapable, and for a unrepentant Blue State electorate, a politically ambitious Hillary would 1) move rightward, 2) support the military, and 3) have greater influence than the average junior Senator. (If that’s not enough of a defense for you, color me full of remorse, and swearing it all off on a moment of non-partisan weakness. If my friend Norm can forgive me, perhaps you can too.)
----
Senator Clinton,
As one of your constituents, a veteran of OIF III, and someone who actually voted for you, I must strenuously object to your recent public statements on body armor for the U.S. Military, and the grossly offensive conclusions you have publicly drawn of competence of the Commander in Chief, the Vice President, and what you describe as their isolation "from different points of view."
You remain isolated from different points of view, yourself, Senator. Despite your many transparent efforts to portray yourself as a supporter of our military, on this issue in particular you reveal yourself as out of step with the majority of soldiers.
Body armor, as armor generally for military equipment as well as personnel, involves tradeoffs. The heavier the armor, the more energy and slower speed of movement. Increasing difficulty moving, and slowing soldiers down, gets them killed as well.
The study you site cannot yield any information about how many lives existing body armor saved. Nor, can one rightly conclude that more body armor would have resulted in fewer deaths. (Because, of course, there is a potential cost in lives to HAVING more and heavier body armor. For every lived safed with more armor, two more might have been lost.)
That you use the findings of the study to which you refer, to bludgeon your political opponents for political gain, makes your behavior all the more reprehensible.
If you want to support the military -- and I grow increasingly dubious of your motivations -- drop the partisan posturing and learn something about the military, our way of life, what we care about, and our values.
We don't demand that you share ours, but you need to show more respect for them. First and foremost of those values, is partisanship goes by the wayside when we're at war.
You'd have to clean up your act a darnsight to gain my vote in future.
NOTE: Now before any of my erstwhile MILBLOGGER friends recoil in horror or pummel me senseless for my admission that I voted for Hillary, let me say in my defense that I thought her Republican opponent was inept and incapable, and for a unrepentant Blue State electorate, a politically ambitious Hillary would 1) move rightward, 2) support the military, and 3) have greater influence than the average junior Senator. (If that’s not enough of a defense for you, color me full of remorse, and swearing it all off on a moment of non-partisan weakness. If my friend Norm can forgive me, perhaps you can too.)
----
Senator Clinton,
As one of your constituents, a veteran of OIF III, and someone who actually voted for you, I must strenuously object to your recent public statements on body armor for the U.S. Military, and the grossly offensive conclusions you have publicly drawn of competence of the Commander in Chief, the Vice President, and what you describe as their isolation "from different points of view."
You remain isolated from different points of view, yourself, Senator. Despite your many transparent efforts to portray yourself as a supporter of our military, on this issue in particular you reveal yourself as out of step with the majority of soldiers.
Body armor, as armor generally for military equipment as well as personnel, involves tradeoffs. The heavier the armor, the more energy and slower speed of movement. Increasing difficulty moving, and slowing soldiers down, gets them killed as well.
The study you site cannot yield any information about how many lives existing body armor saved. Nor, can one rightly conclude that more body armor would have resulted in fewer deaths. (Because, of course, there is a potential cost in lives to HAVING more and heavier body armor. For every lived safed with more armor, two more might have been lost.)
That you use the findings of the study to which you refer, to bludgeon your political opponents for political gain, makes your behavior all the more reprehensible.
If you want to support the military -- and I grow increasingly dubious of your motivations -- drop the partisan posturing and learn something about the military, our way of life, what we care about, and our values.
We don't demand that you share ours, but you need to show more respect for them. First and foremost of those values, is partisanship goes by the wayside when we're at war.
You'd have to clean up your act a darnsight to gain my vote in future.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
why not push for more protection of troops when the armor they have is found, in studies, to be ineffective? what is wrong with advocating for the safety of our troops who have so bravely put themselves in harms way?
sorry, forgot, a democrat can't do that.
sorry, forgot, a democrat can't do that.
# posted by 
: 4:36 PM
: 4:36 PM
Please post your reply from the Senator, if she responds. She seems to take a few steps towards gaining the good graces of the troops, then she speaks without her trainers. She will always be anti-military, anti-administration unless she is the CAC.
Steve.
Please attempt to carry your office desk to work, every day. Should be easy for you to do some work on the way. I'll support your efforts as long as you do the same amount of work. We can then ask the manufacturers to produce a better desk. The point of all Sen. Clinton's rant is not to get the troops more or better protection, she could care less. It is to knock the current administration and their efforts in the war. It is some more face time in the MSM.
Steve.
Please attempt to carry your office desk to work, every day. Should be easy for you to do some work on the way. I'll support your efforts as long as you do the same amount of work. We can then ask the manufacturers to produce a better desk. The point of all Sen. Clinton's rant is not to get the troops more or better protection, she could care less. It is to knock the current administration and their efforts in the war. It is some more face time in the MSM.
# posted by : 9:22 AM
: 9:22 AM
if the current administration has been found to have done a poor job in one area then they deserve their knocks. notice though, that clinton points out that so many deaths could have been easily prevented with better armor.
why do you immediately point out that she says bush has done a bad job rather than noticing that she has a point? protecting our troops is protecting our troops, no one should let partisanship get in the way of that, and i'm sorry that you do.
why do you immediately point out that she says bush has done a bad job rather than noticing that she has a point? protecting our troops is protecting our troops, no one should let partisanship get in the way of that, and i'm sorry that you do.
# posted by : 1:40 PM
: 1:40 PM
I didn't point out anything about President Bush, the administration is something different, larger. The point on the body armour is that the soldiers can't carry more and extra weight and run, shoot, and fight. Other soldiers from the front point this out. (1LT Micah J. Garrison, Bear Creek Ledger 01/11/2006). I'll ask these ???s. Has she listened to the soldiers in the front? Has she formed any work group to design a better body armour? Has she contacted the appropriate government agencies to get the ball rolling on such an item? Or worked to allocate the funds? It's partisanship to stand in front of a national camera and point the finger. I am saddened you are sorry, but I agree with your self analysis;-)
# posted by : 3:41 PM
: 3:41 PM
Steve,
The study that Clinton cites did not find the "armor...to be ineffective." You and Senator Clinton both distort what this study says, and the study itself is almost laughably meaningless.
Here's why. The study is designed in a way that generates an obvious conclusion based on the sample selected.
I know this is very difficult for partisans to do, but try to look at it logically.
No matter whether the "body armor" you want to use as an example is the white paint of the "ghost warriors," leather, iron, kevlar, mithrel mail, or 6 feet of concrete, the result from the method of selection will be the same.
Pick an armor. Select a set of incidents. Some are killed, some survive. (In the case of our modern IBA in use in Iraq, many many survive.)
Cull from your data any of the survivors, look at only those killed. Guess what. They died despite having body armor.
Conclusion? When the body armor doesn't keep a person from getting killed, the person gets killed.
No bearing whatsoever on how good or bad the body armor is.
The other deceit in this kind of line of thinking, is that neither you nor Senator Clinton consider of any consequence what tradeoffs might attend to a different (more robust) body armor.
Okay, so some of those killed might be saved, but how many more would die with the increased loss of mobility? From heart attack or stroke or heat casualty? From being slower to react or their movement restricted?
Sadly, the thing that way too many Democrats can't do is think about an issue logically, instead of through the everpresent filter of, "can this make W look incompetent, or evil?"
The study that Clinton cites did not find the "armor...to be ineffective." You and Senator Clinton both distort what this study says, and the study itself is almost laughably meaningless.
Here's why. The study is designed in a way that generates an obvious conclusion based on the sample selected.
I know this is very difficult for partisans to do, but try to look at it logically.
No matter whether the "body armor" you want to use as an example is the white paint of the "ghost warriors," leather, iron, kevlar, mithrel mail, or 6 feet of concrete, the result from the method of selection will be the same.
Pick an armor. Select a set of incidents. Some are killed, some survive. (In the case of our modern IBA in use in Iraq, many many survive.)
Cull from your data any of the survivors, look at only those killed. Guess what. They died despite having body armor.
Conclusion? When the body armor doesn't keep a person from getting killed, the person gets killed.
No bearing whatsoever on how good or bad the body armor is.
The other deceit in this kind of line of thinking, is that neither you nor Senator Clinton consider of any consequence what tradeoffs might attend to a different (more robust) body armor.
Okay, so some of those killed might be saved, but how many more would die with the increased loss of mobility? From heart attack or stroke or heat casualty? From being slower to react or their movement restricted?
Sadly, the thing that way too many Democrats can't do is think about an issue logically, instead of through the everpresent filter of, "can this make W look incompetent, or evil?"
you act as though the soldiers are perfectly protected now but if most of these deaths could have been prevented with better (not more or heavier) armor on the torso and shoulders why shouldn't senator clinton draw attention to the issue?
senator clinton has made numerous trips to iraq to listen to what troops have to say and she pays close attention to her constituents, many of whom are active duty troops. obviously, she does not have the training to design new armor so it's laughable for you to say that is a shortcoming.
as a senator, she can draw a response to an issue and help to form a solution to a problem by calling public attention to the problem and also focusing light on the research which has shown current bodyarmor to be inadequate.
this is called "using your bullypulpit," not being partisan, so i'll chaulk your mistake and comments to stupidity and not partisanship.
as for daddy's comments; no studies are perfect or error-free but to dismiss it as laughable simply because you don't agree with the results is inaccurate and (you guessed it) stupid.
you choose to look at the data in a black and white (this explains your idiotic support for republicans) rather than examining the deeper information it provides. if we know a vast majority of the injuries occur to the torso and shoulders, two areas which are easy enough to safely protect, we know that something isn't working properly, or that something is defeating the armor. if we know the injuries could possibly be prevented from being life threatening or ending then obviously there is a problem with the armor.
unfortunately, president bush is too incompetent, and not only on this issue. but i won't open that issue, bush's incompetence could fill volumes.
senator clinton has made numerous trips to iraq to listen to what troops have to say and she pays close attention to her constituents, many of whom are active duty troops. obviously, she does not have the training to design new armor so it's laughable for you to say that is a shortcoming.
as a senator, she can draw a response to an issue and help to form a solution to a problem by calling public attention to the problem and also focusing light on the research which has shown current bodyarmor to be inadequate.
this is called "using your bullypulpit," not being partisan, so i'll chaulk your mistake and comments to stupidity and not partisanship.
as for daddy's comments; no studies are perfect or error-free but to dismiss it as laughable simply because you don't agree with the results is inaccurate and (you guessed it) stupid.
you choose to look at the data in a black and white (this explains your idiotic support for republicans) rather than examining the deeper information it provides. if we know a vast majority of the injuries occur to the torso and shoulders, two areas which are easy enough to safely protect, we know that something isn't working properly, or that something is defeating the armor. if we know the injuries could possibly be prevented from being life threatening or ending then obviously there is a problem with the armor.
unfortunately, president bush is too incompetent, and not only on this issue. but i won't open that issue, bush's incompetence could fill volumes.
# posted by : 4:25 PM
: 4:25 PM
Very well said Dad, kudos for your intelligent analysis of the skewed reporting. What most folks fail to realize, is that there is no such thing as a “perfectly protected” soldier. Armor has limitations and has since the beginning of time. Even the knights of old, encased from head to foot in metal, were killed. Every piece of armor has limits of protection, yet the bottom line is that the armor in use today has saved THOUSANDS more lives than it has not. That. Is. A. Fact.
On another note, my first response when reading the good senators comments, was how DARE she make these accusations. This administration was thrust into a war-time stance within the opening months of its tenure. It inherited a force roughly ½ the size the prior administration inherited. Yes, under her husbands watch the US military was rapidly and (IMHO) haphazardly reduced to the point where it had to demand so much more from its military members, and take on a much tougher role. The pride, skill and tenacity of the American serviceman (both male and female) produced the highest trained and deadliest force on the planet. It has taken a long time to overcome the end-force strength decimation that occurred in the 90s. I’m appalled that she of all people can stand there with a straight face and put the blame solely on the shoulders of the Bush administration.
I support this administration, but not blindly. I disagree with most of the things I hear from the likes of Senator Clinton, but I listen. I use my head for more than (formerly) holding up my Kevlar. The good people of this country need to do a bit of critical thinking. Anyone who blindly accuses the Bush administration of causing everything from natural disasters to the personal deaths of fallen heroes cannot be using their powers of common sense and critical thinking. The same goes for those on the right who blindly follow the notion that the left is solely trying to discredit the President at the cost of American lives and/or security.
BTW, I have no problem with your vote for Senator Clinton because you used your head and voted in a thoughtful manner. THAT is how it’s supposed to work. At least you didn’t blindly vote for her because she’s a woman, or she’s a Democrat, or she’s whatever.
Rude1
USAF (Ret)
On another note, my first response when reading the good senators comments, was how DARE she make these accusations. This administration was thrust into a war-time stance within the opening months of its tenure. It inherited a force roughly ½ the size the prior administration inherited. Yes, under her husbands watch the US military was rapidly and (IMHO) haphazardly reduced to the point where it had to demand so much more from its military members, and take on a much tougher role. The pride, skill and tenacity of the American serviceman (both male and female) produced the highest trained and deadliest force on the planet. It has taken a long time to overcome the end-force strength decimation that occurred in the 90s. I’m appalled that she of all people can stand there with a straight face and put the blame solely on the shoulders of the Bush administration.
I support this administration, but not blindly. I disagree with most of the things I hear from the likes of Senator Clinton, but I listen. I use my head for more than (formerly) holding up my Kevlar. The good people of this country need to do a bit of critical thinking. Anyone who blindly accuses the Bush administration of causing everything from natural disasters to the personal deaths of fallen heroes cannot be using their powers of common sense and critical thinking. The same goes for those on the right who blindly follow the notion that the left is solely trying to discredit the President at the cost of American lives and/or security.
BTW, I have no problem with your vote for Senator Clinton because you used your head and voted in a thoughtful manner. THAT is how it’s supposed to work. At least you didn’t blindly vote for her because she’s a woman, or she’s a Democrat, or she’s whatever.
Rude1
USAF (Ret)
# posted by : 5:10 PM
: 5:10 PM
My last comment on this issue: Both sides of this particular argument are running on emotion not common sense. Sen. Clinton uses the public emotional senses when she brings up legitimate issues as well as when she points the finger of blame. The soldiers in the field bring up emotional senses of those they address because the addressees are more than likely to be former soldiers. This issue won't be resolved until everyone can clear the emotions (the "ever-present filters") from the work to be done. I leave you with this blog address, with Dadmanly's permission, bearcreekledger dot com. Scroll down to 11 Jan 06 entry, to the bottom of the first entry of that day. You'll see the picture of Sen. Clinton in Iraq. As you can see she is there with numerous soldiers squeezing in on her sides. The soldier who's hand is circled in red. That is a signal he is sending. When you know what he is signaling, you will know how much support she received while visiting the troops, which hasn't been more than twice, but one for sure.
# posted by : 5:48 PM
: 5:48 PM
What we really need is less armor and more use of long-range arms to eliminate the bad guys at a distance. We can do that, and we owe our troops every possible chance to live. They can't do that if they are required to enter places that could be eliminated from a safe distance.
# posted by : 9:51 PM
: 9:51 PM
there's no evidence that the newer armor is heavier which is the crux of your claim.
even the army said it was an issue of length of time to procure the armor - not one of cost or weight.
if you want to skewer hillary, skewer her on the point the army makes. they were after the armor, but it takes time to purchase and incorporate into the field. baseless claims about new body armor being heavier than currently used armor just shreds your personal credibility.
even the army said it was an issue of length of time to procure the armor - not one of cost or weight.
if you want to skewer hillary, skewer her on the point the army makes. they were after the armor, but it takes time to purchase and incorporate into the field. baseless claims about new body armor being heavier than currently used armor just shreds your personal credibility.
Lets review the history of body armor being used in today.
At the start of the wars most front line combat troops had the body armor with the then fairly new interceptor ceramic plates. Once the reality of the situation revealed itself that both frontline and rear personel needed better protection it was produced (some will claim too slowly, but it is now in place). Additional protection with shoulder plates and other protective measures have been added where research (similiar to the study being discussed) pointed to a need.
Last year the plates where replaced with a better design that gave additional protection. These new plates while adding additional protection also added more weight. There has been many cases where the individual soldier have chosen not to implement the better protection provided.
Also new helmets have been produce and distributed to the troops that give better protection from the threats being faced.
While the point that no armor is perfect has been made and confirmed by research. This does logically lead to the conclusion that the protection is inadequate. It does however help point those who are looking to improve the armor towards the most efective improvements. Given the history of individual body armor during these conflicts for a politician (especially for those who control the money) to claim that some are derelict in protecting the soldiers at best politcal grandstanding.
Dave
At the start of the wars most front line combat troops had the body armor with the then fairly new interceptor ceramic plates. Once the reality of the situation revealed itself that both frontline and rear personel needed better protection it was produced (some will claim too slowly, but it is now in place). Additional protection with shoulder plates and other protective measures have been added where research (similiar to the study being discussed) pointed to a need.
Last year the plates where replaced with a better design that gave additional protection. These new plates while adding additional protection also added more weight. There has been many cases where the individual soldier have chosen not to implement the better protection provided.
Also new helmets have been produce and distributed to the troops that give better protection from the threats being faced.
While the point that no armor is perfect has been made and confirmed by research. This does logically lead to the conclusion that the protection is inadequate. It does however help point those who are looking to improve the armor towards the most efective improvements. Given the history of individual body armor during these conflicts for a politician (especially for those who control the money) to claim that some are derelict in protecting the soldiers at best politcal grandstanding.
Dave
# posted by : 1:33 PM
: 1:33 PM
All you god damn fucking Nazi pieces of shit Americunt troops in Iraq who follow a fucking MORON asshole,deserve exactly what you get. You are nothing more than a bunch of fucking coward bullies who invaded a country that already was on its knees. USING WMD no less.
Listen, you god damn cocksuckers ALL need to come home in boxes.
Listen, you god damn cocksuckers ALL need to come home in boxes.
# posted by : 2:04 PM
: 2:04 PM
Great post - I've linked to it at my website. I think that the biggest issue here is that the log chain is working in reverse. Instead of going to the troops and finding out what the needs are on the ground and developing from the bottom up, you have people pushing on the research and procurement process from the top down, leaving the troops to have to adapt or ignore the new gear that comes down.
As for the Anonymous poster above with the DTG of 2:04 pm, everybody has their opinion. You can spooge yours all over without fear of being hustled out of your house in the dead of night to be imprisoned or killed only because of sacrifices made on your behalf, whether you asked for them or not.
You are the beneficiary of the actions of untold numbers of Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airman and you receive their blessings by accident of birth, not because you deserve them or even understand them. Had you been born in Nazi Germany or Iraq under Saddam, your childish outburst could have been your death warrant.
Also, any creep or half-wit coward can post anonymously. Own your words - post in the open, b*tch.
Post a Comment
As for the Anonymous poster above with the DTG of 2:04 pm, everybody has their opinion. You can spooge yours all over without fear of being hustled out of your house in the dead of night to be imprisoned or killed only because of sacrifices made on your behalf, whether you asked for them or not.
You are the beneficiary of the actions of untold numbers of Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airman and you receive their blessings by accident of birth, not because you deserve them or even understand them. Had you been born in Nazi Germany or Iraq under Saddam, your childish outburst could have been your death warrant.
Also, any creep or half-wit coward can post anonymously. Own your words - post in the open, b*tch.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
