Exclusive: Hillary Defends President Clinton’s Military Record Against Bush Attack

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/08/clinton-military-readiness/

Exclusive: Hillary Defends President Clinton’s Military Record Against Bush Attack

Today, ThinkProgress sat down for an interview with Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) after she delivered an address at the Center for American Progress Action Fund on the U.S. military’s readiness crisis. We’ll be featuring clips from the interview today and tomorrow.

We asked her to comment on this quote attacking President Clinton from then-candidate George W. Bush in 2000:

So let’s get something straight right now. To point out that our military has been overextended, taken for granted and neglected, that’s no criticism of the military. That is criticism of a president and vice president and their record of neglect.

“Bingo!” Clinton responded. “It wasn’t true when he said it, but it sure is true now. has in a very deliberative way created conditions that are straining our military, underfunding it with respect to what actually gets to troops on the ground and what they get when they get home.” Watch it at link:

In 2000, Bush claimed there were two Army divisions “not ready for combat.” The Cleveland Plain Dealer fact-checked Bush’s attacks on the Clinton administration. It reported:

Every unit in those two divisions, down to nine-man squads, was in fact ready for combat, division officers said. Had war broken out somewhere, they were ready to go. But Army regulations require any division with units deployed away from home be reported as not combat ready.

Maj. Thomas Collins, an Army spokesman, said at the time: “All 10 Army divisions are combat-ready, fully able to meet their war-fighting mission.”

In contrast, the U.S. Army’s preparedness for war today “has eroded to levels not witnessed by our country in decades.” Virtually all of the U.S.-based Army combat brigades are “rated as unready to deploy,” Army officials say, and a recent Pentagon survey found that troops in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from chronic shortages of armored vehicles, heavy weapons, and communications equipment.

Transcript:

THINKPROGRESS: Thank you for doing this.

The first question I have is related to the state of our military readiness, which is of course in a very terrible condition, as you talked about today. I wanted to read to you a quote from President Bush in 2000 — this was a quote when he was a candidate — candidate Bush. And I’ll get your reaction to it. Here’s the quote: “So let’s get something straight right now. To point out that our military has been overextended, taken for granted and neglected, that’s no criticism of the military. That is criticism of a president and vice president and their record of neglect.”

What’s your response to that as you hear that now?

CLINTON: Well, bingo! You know it wasn’t true when he said it, but it sure is true now. It has in a very deliberative way created conditions that are straining our military, underfunding it with respect to what actually gets to troops on the ground and what they get when they get home. Yet the Defense budget is half a trillion dollars. And there just is no excuse for the priorities of this administration.

[ScreamingMeemie]

1. And it begins...

She will have to run by defending Clinton at every turn.

[Lerkfish]

2. yup. but don't overlook that she is defending a BETTER funded and resourced military

her criticism is NOT that the Iraq war was wrong, but that it was run inefficiently.

Not sure I want a MORE efficient hegemonic program in place.

[blm]

3. If it was defended definitively back at the time, it wouldn't have been hung around Dem necks

in 2000, 2002, and 2004 election cycles.

What stopped TeamClinton from attacking back on many of these lies back then?

The trashing of the WH lie lasted for an entire YEAR with no response attack on BushInc. The Clinton was soft on terrorists lie generated at least 8 books with no response from TeamClinton until last September's 9-11 movie on ABC.

Why?

Because they held their fire for over 6 years and wouldn't help Democrats in their fight against BushInc throughout that time, the Clintons are now going to be forced to revisit so many of the stories they let BushInc get away with all these years.

[DaveinMD]

6. what stopped it

was the fact that Gore chose not to defend the clinton record, but to distance himself from it.

[blm]

7. Why would TeamClinton let that stop them from attacking Bush/Rove lies about

them trashing the White House and the 5 year long Rove-driven lie that Clinton was to blame for 9-11 because Democrats are soft on terrorism?

[DaveinMD]

8. The 2000 campaign

was driven by Gore, not the Clintons.

[karynnj]

9. It was after Gore lost , when Clinton left the WH in Jan 2001

Gore had already disappeared. She is not speaking of the 2000 campaign, but the various RW smears.

[blm]

12. Trashing of the WH story was a frontline battle from Jan through to 9-11-2001.

and there was no TeamClinton out there attacking TeamBush for driving that pile of shit story against them.

And the 8 books blaming Clinton for 9-11 were never countered in 2002, 2003 and 2004 by TeamClinton. Why? Because the meme that Democrats are soft on terror was useful to keep Bush around for another term so Hillary can run in 2008?

[Major Hogwash]

11. Hillary isn't running against Bush in 2008, she's running against urban legends.

Which she can't win.
The people who hate the Clintons don't give a damn about the facts.

So, trying to win those old arguments of 2000 now just makes her look silly.
If they wanted to argue about the validity of the statements made against Bill Clinton then, they should have argued against them when they first came out.

Hillary didn't argue strenuously while Kerry was being swiftboated in 2004 - and he served in the military, for crying out loud.
When the Republicans were running around in 2004 and wearing "purple heart bandaids" at their national convention, I don't remember any comments being made by either of the Clintons denouncing it.

Nor by the mainstream media.
And while Hillary has to fight an uphill battle, the media will not allow her to correct the record now.
Are you kidding? - they hate the Clintons as much as freepers do.
Tom Brokaw mentioned the Lewinsky scandal over 100 times after the impeachment trial was over on his nightly broadcast.

[MasonJar]

4. I think we should all keep in mind that the reason that Hill has to

defend Bill is because the right winger nutcases have been blaming everything on him since he became pres. It is not Bill's or Hill's fault that the mean machine never knows when to stop. Whether you are for a Hillary presidency or not, we all as dems need to stand shoulder to shoulder against the insidious Right, which has brought us war and poverty and bigoty and worse yet, W and Dick.

[CTyankee]

5. You are right! I've been defending Bill Clinton this year in my local paper

against those attacks where I find them. I once got hate mail (suggesting a fantasy sex act with me and Bill -- I wish!). But I can't stand to read their lies, and the more lies these wingers tell the more we have to stand up to them, even if we don't support Hillary for President. Because if we don't, any other candidate we do support will be tarred with the same damn brush. Believe it, it's true!

[karynnj]

10. Definately true - we should counter ANY lies whether

it's the Clintons, Al Gore, John Kerry, or any other Democrat.
We even have to continue when we have hit the same lie a million times and believe that every one with more brain cells than a turnip knows the truth. These lies take on a life of their own - with people mentally giving up and agreeing maybe there is some truth - even when there isn't.

There IS some Clinton baggage that is true and they will have to deal with that - but they and Obama and Edwards and the others - shouldn't have to fight lies alone.

[blm]

13. The way TeamClinton helped us counter TeamBush for the last 6 years?

Sure, I'll help them as much as they helped us to counterattack TeamBush the last 6 years.

[MasonJar]

14. Hillary has done an excellent job as the NY senator as far as I can tell.

She definitely exposed the lies about ground zero, as well as the insidious treatment of NYC by the Bushites. I do not know who will be our candidate for 08, but whoever it is must not be hampered by Right wing lies and trash talk. We have to combat it at every turn. Do you want 8 more years of Pug rule? I do not personally think that I could survive it.