Actually, that title is a bit misleading. In the aggregate it is hard to argue with Michele Malkin's reporting in today's posting on her blog, Michelemalkin.com/.
The whole idea of supporting the troops by making sure they have the proper equipment and training does sound like a political ploy coming from Hillary Clinton (but what doesn't). And Michele's numbers on actual up-armored vehicles and body armor in the field are probably accurate. The US Army provided the statistics.
So, what I'm wondering is whether Michele supports congressionally mandated standards of readiness such as those proposed by John Murtha. Murtha is one of the strongest supporters of the military in congress and no left-wing, liberal dove. If military readiness is as high as Malkin portrays it, why wouldn't you want increased congressional support for it. Supporting readiness is, by definition, supporting the troops regardless of a particular motive for it.
The only position in this debate which does not support the troops is the one which opposes a resolution supporting the troops and opposes mandating standards of readiness. Really, Michele, logic 101?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Murtha, by his own admission, is proposing these standards in order to make it nearly impossible to deploy Soldiers into theater; these proposals have more to do with ending the war on a technicality than with military readiness, per se.
You can check out the movecongress.org site and see for yourself.
Cheers.
Post a Comment