This is such a great piece by Michelle Malkin. We’ll just let it speak for itself.
Hillary wrapped in armor
By Michelle Malkin
January 14, 2006
Move over, Joan Rivers. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is vying for title of undisputed queen of the cosmetic makeover. After a cultural warrior collagen injection with recent crusades against violent videogames and flag-burning, Hillary 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Last week, a group called Soldiers for the Truth leaked results of an unpublished Pentagon study that reportedly found that as many as 80 percent of a random sample of Marines killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived, given 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, Virginia Republican and chairman of the Armed Services Committee; Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee; and Francis J. Harvey, secretary of the Army. Smarter-than-thou Mrs. 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 Dick 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 — supposedly in tune with American troops — can so blithely ignore the grave tradeoffs involved in this matter.
Don’t be lazy, read the whole piece.