Poor Hillary can't catch a break.
After Obama dominated last week's news, Clinton may have thought the country was ready to hear from her again. Hillary's major policy speech on the economy should have been refreshing, uplifting, and well covered, right? After all, the topic was focused on the economy, stupid.
But timing is everything. While she didn't do herself any favors by scheduling a speech at Montco Community College later in the day, to talk about "women's issues", double dipping on policy wasn't her biggest problem.
The 4,000th soldier deaths in Iraq, a story the MSM just couldn't wait to pounce on, overshadowed the major policy speech on the economy. Then Detroit's Mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, completed the Democratic hat trick for sex scandals this month, later in the day.
Perhaps it's best for Clinton Inc. her message(s) came and went without much fanfare. The more the American people hear, the less impressed they'd become.
By the way, 4,000 in Iraq (plus 498 in Afghanistan and the Philippines) in 5 years verses...
(All theater and non-theater deaths - source)
116,000 in WWI
405,000 in WWII
29,000 D-Day Invasion alone
54,000 in Korea
90,000 in Vietnam
1,900 in 1st Gulf War
Post page13news to Facebook
3 comments:
You said:
By the way, 4,000 in Iraq (plus 498 in Afghanistan and the Philippines) in 5 years verses...
(All theater and non-theater deaths - source)
116,000 in WWI
405,000 in WWII
29,000 D-Day Invasion alone
54,000 in Korea
90,000 in Vietnam
1,900 in 1st Gulf War
What are you saying here? That 4,000 deaths are acceptable?
Are you taking into account that the death totals are decreasing because the wounded have a higher survival rate? In other words, what would the prior death totals have been if modern battlefield medicine was available during those wars? Or to put it another way, what would the current death toll have been if battlefield medicine had not advanced past the Vietnam years? The WW II years? The WW I years?
But most importantly do you not think purpose matters?
We are pretty clear about the purposes of WW I and WW II, less so about the others, but what... what pray tell ... was the purpose of these lost lives and maimed bodies in the current folly?
Have you served in combat? Have you lost a family member? Close friend? I suspect that, if you had, you would not so easily trivialize these deaths.
No, I'm not saying the deaths are acceptable.
But this is war, and the ultimate sacrifice will be paid by some of our bravest. You can't possibly expect a casualty-free war.
If someone had said in 2003 there would be 4,000 lives lost in a 5 year struggle, I think most reasonable Americans would have been supportive. Remember, a vast majority approved of the war when we thought hundreds of thousands might be lost.
I'm am simply pointing out the countdown-like coverage of the MSM, which interupted a major policy address by Presidential candidate. If the war is such folly, as you wish to call it, shouldn't you be upset?
If you didn't like the concept of our taking on the challenge, we have a major difference of opinion. If you can't get over the decision to go, it's yours to resolve. I can't help you.
Only 4,000 lost, a relatively stable Iraq, and a slowly maturing democracy. A testimony to the ability of our military.
My cousin is currently helping to keep Iraq going in a positive direction, my father was a reservist in the early sixties, and my grandfather served in WWII. I didn't get the honor to serve, a car accident when I was 3 took that away.
Thanks for asking.
Post a Comment