Pentagon rebukes Sen. Clinton! Would making her Commander in Chief, harm moral in our military?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070720/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_iraq;_ylt=AsKmBafCj47YjvKOo684IjeyFz4D

Answer 1

Paul, there's not a snowballs chance in hell of that happening...she's got to get the nomination first and although the Democrats are notorious for shooting themselves in the political foot, I trust they realize that her nomination would equate to a round in the ear.

Answer 2

I think that the way the military has been used recently there would an increase in morale for many members under a new commander in chief.

Answer 3

No. Whenever a president takes office, he usually appoints a new Director for the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, etc. (someone who is agreeable to to the president's policies and principles). With the president selecting the right people for the job, the military wouldn't lose morale whatsoever.

In the current administration, one such bad choice was Donald Rumsfeld (who alienated and undermined a lot of the top Generals in the military). Another bad decision was letting go and breaking ranks with Collin Powell (a highly respected man within the military circles). These alone, raised a lot of questions and affected the military's morale.

The notion that having a woman as president will make the nation look weak is a bad misconception. For one thing, Margaret Thatcher as a leader, didn't make Britain appear weak, and so did Golda Meir of Israel, or Indira Gandhi of India whose nation's didn't appear weak at all during their leaderships.

Answer 4

The beauty of it all is she makes it look like she is a victim of political payback when she is the Queen of the payback. Posturing for votes from the far left.

I cant believe power means this much to people to take the chance of totally throwing the country under for their perceived power.

This woman has no conscience and apparently power is her God.It wont be just our military that is gone for if she wins. It will be the whole country withing a few years.

Answer 5

Well i have to say it would be great for a female in high power but not this generation, it's bad enough we worry about terrorism
but what would u think would happen if those nations who really hates us sees us with female power. Wow if that happens, us with a female president , don't be surprised to see a sh*t load of terrorism

Answer 6

It would be terrible for them as Lord only knows what lengths she would go to, to appease her liberal supporters. She is so political herself that I can't imagine her having the gall to use the term "political payback". Well, I take that back, since she had the gall to disregard the morale of the troops and scare the crud out of the Iraqis.

Answer 7

If you are talking about MORALE, I doubt having someone who actually plans for possible contingencies and wants to get our troops out of the middle of a civil war quagmire would be all that demoralizing to the troops.

What hurts morale is: dropping them in the middle of a sectarian conflict where at least three sides use them for target practice. Sending them out driving around on a daily basis to be shot at and blown up at random intervals. Not supplying the troops with vehicles that can protect them from the (overwhelmingly) most common form of attack. Dropping them back into the conflict for longer and longer repeat tours with less and less rest. Cutting veterans' benefits and medical care for them once they've been used up. Undermining their credibility by sending them under bogus pretenses with no mission. Paying mercenaries six figure salaries to do the same work they are doing.

Notice in the rebuke that the Pentagon PR flack didn't respond to legitimate questions raised by a US senator.

Answer 8

In my opinion, she would be a far greater military morale buster & demoralizer than her husband Bill ever was. She never has had any love for the military men and women and they all know it. The problem with liberals like Hillary is that they only promote the military as career opportunities aimed at minorities and women during peacetime, if at all....and not as service to country as it is. This makes the benefit soakers among them feel justified when they find a way to bail from their oath when a conflict breaks out because they "joined to learn how to.....(fill in the blank)....not kill people." True patriots who enlisted for God & country witness that phenomenon as I have and resent the politicians who promote and enable that to occur.

Hillary's demand for more sensitive military information only further demonstrated her lack of appreciation for protecting strategic interests of our own forces and that of our allies & reinforced her unseasoned and freshman status as a senator.

Interestingly, she aspires to be a President and foolishly many will vote for her not because she's appropriate for the job, but because she is a woman, she has name recognition, and that's what they want.

Answer 9

I don't see how it could after chickenhawk bush sent our troops to iraq undemanned, underequipped, and recently had tours of duty extended from 12 to 15 months.

Answer 10

Andrew nailed it. Anyway, Edelman is a political hack at the pentagon, it's not as if some pentagon policy paper was issued.

He should have his *** fired btw...