4um: Clinton vows 'massive' U.S. retaliation if Iran attacks Israel (OBAMA: "APPROPRIATE ACTION")

Title: Clinton vows 'massive' U.S. retaliation if Iran attacks Israel (OBAMA: "APPROPRIATE ACTION")
Source: Ha'aretz
URL Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/976033.html
Published: Apr 17, 2008
Author: Shmuel Rosner
Post Date: 2008-04-17 15:31:52 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 502
Comments: 29

Speaking at the Democratic Presidential debate Wednesday, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton threatened to launch a "massive retaliation" if Iran decided to attack Israel.

"I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel," she responded to a question on this matter. "Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States," the presidential hopeful added.

The Democratic debate was held five days before the crucial primary vote in Pennsylvania, and the two candidates were trying to make a last pitch to the voters. It was a contentious debate, and Clinton's rival, Senator Barak Obama, was getting most of the attention.

Obama fielded tough questions dealing with past controversies, including the one surrounding controversial remarks made by the pastor of the senator's church, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

On the question of Iran Obama took a softer stance than his rival, saying "I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region" and that "I would consider an attack unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action."

" "I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on the biggest parasite in the region" and that "I would consider an attack none of the business of the United States and we would take no action".

Any action would require congressional authorization, but it's nice to see both clods are eager to continue with the Imperial Presidencies of the past.

Is someone who ~~thinks~~ says the Weimar Republic was as bad as, or worse than, the Third Reich a good example of a non-American?

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

Obama says he would follow the Constitution. I suspect any such "appropriate action" would include consultation of Congress.

Two non_Americans willing to drag Americans into a blood bath of the Middle East.

They join the other non-american, McKooK at the wailing and whining wall to pledge their fidelity to that bastardized country.

Doesn't sound like Hillary would even bother waiting for Congressional approval.

'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz

Jerusalem -- "No one can hope to achieve true peace unless it is always coupled with true security," Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich said May 26 at the Knesset in Jerusalem.

"The [Middle East] peace process must ensure that Israel will retain the ability to protect its own citizens from terrorism. It must ensure that Israel maintains secure borders with its neighbors. Without establishing those realities, it cannot succeed," Gingrich said.

Gingrich is visiting Israel, along with "the largest bipartisan gathering of Congressmen and Senators ever to visit Jerusalem," to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Israel's rebirth as a modern state.

"In a sense, however, we are not only celebrating the last fifty years," he said. "The American and Israeli people are bound together by 3000 years of a shared and ancient tradition. We are bound together by a common spiritual experience. ... We are bound together morally. ... We are bound together by pure friendship."

Gingrich asserted that Israel alone must determine its security needs. "We cannot allow non-Israelis to substitute their judgment for the generals that Israel has trusted with its security. If Israel is to take risks for peace, as she has often done in the past, it must be risks she accepts, not risks that are imposed upon her," he said.

Perhaps the greatest threat to Israel, Gingrich said, is "beyond the peace process ... beyond the horizon -- weapons of mass destruction in the hands of outlaw dictatorships." In the hands of dictatorships like Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Libya, he said, "weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them have become a dangerous threat to Israel, to the United States, and to our allies."

Gingrich outlined three parallel strategies to establish a vision of a secure democracy: containment, defense and replacement.

-- First, we must put unrelenting pressure on anyone assisting these outlaw dictatorships with their weapons programs. We cannot have normal relations with governments either tolerating or encouraging assistance to these dictatorships, whether the governments are active participants or acquiescent partners.

-- Second, we cannot rely solely on containment to protect us from rogue dictatorships developing these capabilities. As these countries develop more and more accurate guidance systems for their missiles, with increasingly virulent biological and chemical warheads, it will become even more urgent to develop effective defenses against these systems.

-- Our third strategy must be to preempt catastrophe by insisting that dictatorships be replaced with democracies. Clearly, the free world has the capacity to liberate the people of Iraq. Clearly, the free world has the resources to encourage the people of Iran to complete the process of change which hopefully began with the election of President Khatami.

Noting the "strong personal bond that members of Congress feel toward Israel," Gingrich initiated a far more direct relationship between the Knesset and the Congress: "Today, Speaker Tichon and I are inaugurating a new U.S.-Israel inter parliamentary initiative on strategic cooperation to be pursued by members from the U.S. Congress and the Knesset. ... The initiative will focus on security issues, particularly the crucial question of missile defense. It offers an excellent starting point for broadening and deepening the interaction between the Congress and the Knesset," he said.

Following is the transcript of Gingrich's remarks, provided by USIS Tel Aviv:

(Begin transcript)

Remarks By
The Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich
The Knesset, Jerusalem
May 26, 1998

Speaker Dan Tichon and Mrs. Tichon, ministers and deputy ministers of the Government of Israel, members of the Knesset, former Knesset Speaker Shlomo Hillel, former members of the Knesset, my Congressional colleagues, distinguished guests and friends. As I look out I see friends, many of whom go back for many years.

It is a great honor to stand before you today in the Knesset, the one truly democratic parliament in the entire Middle East. For fifty years, the Knesset has led a nation that has gathered in people from over a hundred lands, survived the perils of many wars, and built a thriving nation out of the desert.

As we celebrate the remarkable achievements of the last fifty years, let me simply say: "Kol ha kavod. All honor to you."

Democratic leader Dick Gephardt and I have joined with the largest bipartisan gathering of Congressmen and Senators ever to visit Jerusalem. We are here to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Israel's rebirth as a modern state. We commemorate fifty years of a close and cooperative relationship between our two countries and our two peoples.

In a sense, however, we are not only celebrating the last fifty years. The American and Israeli people are bound together by 3000 years of a shared and ancient tradition. We are bound together by a common spiritual experience. It is a bond that is felt most powerfully here in this city. As we overlook Jerusalem, and look at the sites that touched the lives of Abraham, David and Christ, we understand the depth of a relationship that is far more than shared geopolitical interests.

We are bound together morally. Our two countries are committed to freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and individual rights.

We are bound together by pure friendship. It has been a privilege for me to return to Israel and spend time with your leaders, some of whom I have known for almost twenty years. For Marianne, it has been a chance to see friends she worked with on the Israeli free trade zone issue.

A member of our delegation, Congressman Tom Lantos, a survivor of the Holocaust, first visited Israel in 1956. This is his 57th trip to visit Israel. Two key chairmen in our delegation, Bob Livingston and Ben Gilman, have coupled their leadership in Congress with a deep understanding and love for the land and people of Israel. Another member, Congressman Henry Waxman, returns to Israel often to visit his daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren who live here.

The ties that bind America to Israel are greater than the economic and security interests that our nations share. We are two nations grown from a common source, both forged by the courage and imagination of pioneers, and both expressing in our founding documents our ultimate reliance on divine providence.

As we celebrate with you, we remember together the courage of David, who established Jerusalem 3000 years ago as the political and spiritual capital of the Jewish people. We commemorated that event the last time Marianne and I saw Prime Minister Rabin alive, at an event in our Capitol, in the Rotunda, to celebrate the 3000th anniversary of Jerusalem. Prime Minister Rabin spoke with deep emotion of his own ties to Jerusalem, the city where he was born and the city he fought to defend throughout his life. We in Congress stood with him then and stand with you today in recognizing Jerusalem as the united and eternal capital of Israel. (Applause)

We remember the commitment of the early Zionists, who convened the first Zionist Congress a century ago, lived through the horror of the Holocaust, and finally witnessed the birth of the Jewish homeland in Eretz Israel.

We remember the story of the last fifty years, of a state that has survived wars and countless acts of terrorism to maintain its place among the nations.

We remember with you because we believe that the anniversary of Israel's rebirth is not just a celebration for Israel alone. It is a celebration for all who are inspired by the faith that was born in this land. It is a celebration for all who see in Israel an outpost in the struggle for freedom across the globe. And it is a celebration for all who see in the fundamental relationship between our two countries a remarkable history and a great hope.

For we are here to celebrate more than the first fifty years. In a sense, we are here to celebrate the first three thousand years. And we are not just here to look ahead with you to the next fifty years. We dream of how we -- and our children -- can build a future that holds more than the hope for mere survival, a future that can lead to a lasting prosperity, and enduring peace, and a truly free land.

Such a future -- one marked by peace, prosperity and freedom -- must be built upon an unending commitment to security for those who seek peace.

One of our greatest presidents, Ronald Reagan, had a simple strategy to expand freedom across the globe. It came down to three words: peace through strength. He knew that strength was the key to security, and that security was essential to peace. He knew that a lasting peace required a durable security.

This truth was reinforced for me in a personal and powerful way during this trip to Israel. On Sunday, we visited the Weizmann Institute, where we met with some of your most talented scientists to learn about the technological breakthroughs that will shape our mutual future. As we were leaving, I spoke to Manuela Dviri, whose son Yoni was killed in Lebanon on February 26 of this year. A 20-year-old staff sergeant from Kfar Saba, he served in an intelligence unit and died when a mortar round struck his position. Manuela had, in Abraham Lincoln's words, "laid the most costly sacrifice on the altar of freedom." She had lost her son. She still has another son and a daughter, and a grand-daughter. Yet she said to me -- unequivocally -- that she did not believe peace could come without security, and this was her formula: "You should not need two words," she said. "Peace has within it the word security. When you say peace, it must include security, or it has no meaning." While this tragedy had deprived Manuela of Yoni, I know the deepest hope that she has for her grand-daughter Gali, is a future of peace, freedom, and security.

We join Manuela Dviri and the rest of the Israeli people in their aspirations for peace. No one can understand the depth of that aspiration, unless they have lived so long without peace. And no one can hope to achieve true peace unless it is always coupled with true security. The peace process must ensure that Israel will retain the ability to protect its own citizens from terrorism. It must ensure that Israel maintains secure borders with its neighbors. Without establishing those realities, it cannot succeed.

For this reason, we support the Clinton Administration when it says that Israel alone must determine its security needs. (Applause). We cannot allow non- Israelis to substitute their judgment for the generals that Israel has trusted with its security. If Israel is to take risks for peace, as she has often done in the past, it must be risks she accepts, not risks that are imposed upon her.

While the peace process is designed to provide security within Israel and on her borders, perhaps the greatest threat is beyond the peace process. Israel and the United States now face a growing threat beyond the horizon -- weapons of mass destruction in the hands of outlaw dictatorships.

Through our victory in the Cold War, the United States and its allies defeated Soviet communism. In the subsequent years, however, rogue regimes in countries like Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Libya emerged from the shadows of the vanishing Soviet empire. In the hands of these dictatorships, weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them have become a dangerous threat to Israel, to the United States, and to our allies.

Like few other on the planet, Israelis know the real, palpable threat from dictatorships that are methodically developing these weapons and delivery technologies. In 1991, 28 Iraqi Scud missiles rained down on Israel, inflicting casualties, and portending Israel's vulnerability. We, too, know the consequences of these weapons. Thirty-eight young Americans were killed when an Iraqi Scud struck their barracks in Dhahran.

Despite the partial effectiveness of Patriot missiles, at times our only defense was the inaccuracy of the Scuds themselves. In our review of the Gulf War, we discovered that not one Scud or Scud-launcher was confirmed as destroyed on the ground in Iraq, despite a great effort to do so.

Since 1991, rogue dictatorships have relentlessly worked to improve both their weapons of mass destruction, and their delivery systems. Nevertheless, in some quarters there is breathtaking avoidance of what these facts imply. If dictatorships work, while democracies talk, a catastrophe will become inevitable. For democracies to survive, and dictatorships to fail, we must establish a vision of a secure democracy, and we must implement three parallel strategies to achieve that vision. Our success must be built on the strategies of containment, defense and replacement.

First, we must put unrelenting pressure on anyone assisting these outlaw dictatorships with their weapons programs. We cannot have normal relations with governments either tolerating or encouraging assistance to these dictatorships, whether the governments are active participants or acquiescent partners. (Applause).

Due to Russian assistance, Iran will reportedly be able to manufacture its own medium-range ballistic missiles by the end of this year, capable of striking Israel and parts of Europe.

Russia has also assisted Iraq with its own weapons program. It is time for our patience with the Russian government to come to an end.

It should be clearly communicated that Russia's relationship with the United States and Israel -- and other nations of the West -- will suffer if its actions do not match its commitments. The same message should be expressed to others -- including China -- who assist these countries in their nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs. We have a range of policy instruments at our disposal -- including diplomatic and economic levers -- and we should be prepared to use them.

The United States must make clear that stopping Iraq and Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction is its most intense goal, and we should organize our allies to jointly prevent these dictatorships from acquiring weapons of terror. (Applause)

Second, we cannot rely solely on containment to protect us from rogue dictatorships developing these capabilities. As these countries develop more and more accurate guidance systems for their missiles, with increasingly virulent biological and chemical warheads, it will become even more urgent to develop effective defenses against these systems.

In the United States today, we do not have the military capability to stop even one theater or inter-continental ballistic missile from reaching its target. Our senior military officers would be reduced to scanning the horizon, like the rest of us, watching for the missile that could destroy our city, our family, our home. We are totally vulnerable, but we are told that a twenty-five-year- old treaty with a non-existent entity -- the Soviet Union -- prevents us from responding to this danger.

Israel, not bounded by an outmoded dogma, is taking steps to develop missile defense, and we are assisting in those efforts. We have joined the Israeli government in the Arrow ballistic missile defense initiative to protect your citizens from this very real threat. The Arrow program is a tribute to the ingenuity and determination of the people of Israel to forge an effective defense for your homeland. The United States must aggressively develop both theater and global missile defenses to complement and reinforce the protection Arrow will provide here in Israel.

Containment and defense provide interim security, but they cannot by themselves guarantee success. As long as individual dictators or regimes based on hatred work to develop terror weapons, all democratic societies will be threatened with catastrophe. A single nuclear, chemical or biological device in one of our great cities would create a tragedy of unthinkable proportions.

Our third strategy must be to preempt catastrophe by insisting that dictatorships be replaced with democracies. Clearly, the free world has the capacity to liberate the people of Iraq. Clearly, the free world has the resources to encourage the people of Iran to complete the process of change which hopefully began with the election of President Khatemi.

We need the will, the courage, and the determination to work together to replace dictatorships seeking weapons of terror with democracies seeking friendship and economic prosperity.

This vision of democratic success and the failure of dictatorships will require the same level of courage and commitment that in World War II defeated Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. It will require the unrelenting persistence that for forty-five years methodically contained, defended against, and in concert with the Russian and other captive peoples, ultimately replaced a communist dictatorship with fledgling democracies. Those democracies, while still struggling, have advanced freedom dramatically from the police state they replaced.

Free peoples who faced down and defeated these dangers should see today's dangerous but fragile dictatorships for what they are: our opportunities to expand freedom.

Sustaining security and establishing freedom will lead not only to peace but also to economic prosperity. If we achieve peace through security in this region, the economies will flourish. They will flourish first because open borders and free trade produce wealth. No one should know this better than the Palestinians. When acts of terror force Israel to seal its borders, it is the Palestinians who suffer most. They lose access to the strong Israeli economy, and a 100,000 Palestinians are cut off from their jobs. When regional tension chokes off commerce, it is Israel's neighbors who suffer most. Open borders and free trade allow others to share in Israel's economic growth.

In addition, the region's economies will flourish as broad cooperation solves the most pressing problems of the next fifty years. Nowhere is that cooperation more vital than in dealing with the shortage in the region's most precious resource: water. Water has always been a central security concern in this land. Hezekiah enhanced Jerusalem's security dramatically when he protected the Gihon spring, his water source, by extending the walls of the city. Today, water is an equally critical security concern, with the future of aquifers like the Yarkon as a principal issue in the peace process.

Right now, the United States gives incremental assistance to manage the problem. It has provided hundred of millions of dollars to the Palestinians, primarily to tap new sources of water and manage the existing ones. In addition, it has assisted other countries in the region, by providing them with Israeli expertise on things like drip irrigation and water recycling. Each of these efforts does assist countries that have a large and growing water deficit. They ultimately have a marginal impact, however. Our challenge for the next 50 years is to find the strategic solution to the shortage of water in the region. We must do more than manage an ever-scarcer resource; we must support the scientific and engineering advances that will erase the shortage of water forever.

Israel, the country that caused the desert to bloom, must lead this effort. From the cisterns of Massada to the drip irrigation of today, Israel has learned how to preserve a scarce resource. Today, it is the world's leader on those questions. In the future, Israel should become the world leader on expanding the supply of water. It has both the regional need and the human capital to lower the cost of desalinization and end the shortage of water for the region. The United States has already invested in sharing Israeli expertise with a region learning to manage a scarce resource. For the future, leadership demands that we do more than simply manage the current options. We, the United States, must invest with Israel to overwhelm the shortage of water with research that will provide fresh water from an abundant source, the oceans that cover most of our planet.

Our joint efforts for the future are built on the close relationship between our two countries. This relationship has been fostered in a sustained way by the United States Congress. The strong personal bond that members of Congress feel toward Israel has led to consistent support for the state, reaching back to Congressional resolutions as early as 1922 that supported a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Congress approved its first package of aid to Israel -- $65 million -- in 1951. Congress pressed to maintain Israel's qualitative military edge, it provided emergency military assistance during the Gulf War. Congress approved $10 billion in housing loan guarantees in order to absorb the flood of Jewish refugees from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia. It is Congress that enacted legislation in 1995 that requires our government to move its embassy to Jerusalem, finally recognizing the fact that Jerusalem has been Israel's capital for the last fifty years. (Applause).

As Speaker of the United States House, I want to initiate a far more direct relationship between the Knesset and the Congress. Today, Speaker Tichon and I are inaugurating a new U.S.-Israel interparliamentary initiative on strategic cooperation to be pursued by members from the U.S. Congress and the Knesset. This effort was conceived by Chairman Uzi Landau of the Knesset's Foreign and Defense Affairs Committee, and Senator John Kyl of the U.S. Congress. The initiative will focus on security issues, particularly the crucial question of missile defense. It offers an excellent starting point for broadening and deepening the interaction between the Congress and the Knesset.

The relationship we are establishing between Congress and the Knesset will not be unique. As democracy spreads across the region, as it inevitably will, we should work together to broaden the interaction with other democratic parliaments.

As we celebrate Israel's fiftieth anniversary, we honor those -- both American and Israeli -- whose commitment to security and freedom ensured Israel's survival. Today, we must draw inspiration from their example.

Let me just close by sharing with you -- we've had a wonderful several days, we just had a meeting with your Foreign and Defense Committee that was very direct, and very candid on both sides. Not quite up to the Knesset standard of bluntness, but we're trying to learn. I just want to share with you, for one brief moment, the magic that you represent. One hundred years ago, this was Ottoman-Turkish land. Russia was Tzarist. Germany was imperial. China had not yet had the Revolution that ended the Confusion domination, and the Manchu Dynasty was still there. Japan was imperial in every sense. And democracy was a strange idea, in only a few countries. On hundred years later, we are gaining. It's painful. It costs lives. We make big mistakes. If you go to Yad VaShem, you're reminded with heart-rending clarity of the cost of being wrong. And yet, in America, in Israel, in Europe and more and more of Asia, in Russia, day by day this "thing" that we jointly represent -- elect people to speak for you, put them in one room and make them fight if out -- this "thing" is slowly spreading across the planet. I am convinced from our trip here that Israeli democracy has never been more vibrant, it's never had a greater range of potential leaders pushing, shoving, arguing. It has never wrestled more passionately with the future of Israel, and its relation with its neighbors. And as in American, I can tell you how much we gained from these days. How stronger we will be going home. How much more grateful we are that you here, in the City of David, continue to stand for freedom, and how much we want to reach out to work with each and every one of you, to make sure that fifty years and three thousand years from now, freedom exists in this land. Thank you for allowing us to visit. (Applause).

(End transcript)

"Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." © IndieTx

Joined at the hip with Izzy. The parts are interchangeable, but the Agenda is chiseled in stone.

Bubba: I'd fight and die for Israel By Andy Geller and Richard Johnson The New York Post August 2, 2002

Bill Clinton – who avoided serving in Vietnam – says he would take up arms and "fight and die" for Israel if Iraq attacks the Jewish state.

"If Iraq came across the Jordan River, I would grab a rifle and get in the trench and fight and die," the ex-president said to wild applause at a Jewish fund-raiser in Toronto.

Clinton made his bombshell remarks to 350 people who paid $1,000 to break bread with him on Monday night at a dinner for the Toronto Hadassah-WIZO children's charity.

Clinton, who tried but failed to make peace in the Middle East the legacy of his presidency, decried the current cycle of violence in Israel.

"I don't think there is a military solution to this," he said. "But I know there's not a terrorist solution to it."

Clinton also said he disagreed with President Bush that peace can be achieved only when Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is gone from power.

Nevertheless, he said it is important for the United States to remain involved because "Israelis believe that America is the only big country that cares if they live or die."

The ex-president said the best solution to the Middle East conflict is an interim settlement that would "establish a Palestinian state now."

But he stressed that the creation of such a state must be preceded by security assurances for Israel and a timetable to resolve other issues.

Clinton said Arafat made a "disastrous mistake" by turning down past peace proposals that would have given the Palestinian leader control of 97 percent of the West Bank.

"I think this will be resolved on the terms the Palestinians walked away from."

Clinton couldn't be reached for comment yesterday because he was on a plane to Aspen, Colo., his spokeswoman said.

Clinton, who opposed the Vietnam War, signed up for the ROTC to avoid immediate induction when he received a draft call in 1969.

He later changed his mind about the ROTC and decided to take his chances with the new draft lottery.

Bill Re-Tells Hillary57;s 56;Marines Rejected Me57; Lie

From (the dogged) Jake Tapper at ABC News:

Bill Clinton Says Hillary Tried to Join the Army

April 02, 2008
70; Possibly to avoid being one-upped on Indiana national security politics, former President Bill Clinton told a crowd in Columbus, Indiana, today that his wife had tried to join the Army.
"I remember when we were young, right out of law school, she went down and tried to join the Army and they said 56;Your eyes are so bad, nobody will take you,57;" he said, after heralding her record on issues of concern to the military, such as body armor and access to health care.

You can hear an audio excerpt of Mr. Clinton once again regurgitating this preposterous claim at the link.

But as longtime Clinton watchers will remember, this is an old lie from Hillary. A claim that oddly enough never made it into her ghostwritten autobiography.

Indeed, the transcript of her remarks appears to have been scrubbed from Lexis-Nexus. Though Rush Limbaugh still has an audio recording of her remarks.

A near contemporary account from Maureen Dowd (of all people) at the New York Times captures ~~her blatant lie~~ the historic moment:

Hillary Clinton Says She Once Tried to Be Marine

June 15, 1994
By MAUREEN DOWD
The First Lady has offered a kaleidoscope of images to the public, but today she added the most curious one yet: Private Hillary.
Speaking at a lunch on Capitol Hill honoring military women, Hillary Rodham Clinton said that she once visited a recruiting office in Arkansas to inquire about joining the Marines.
She told the group gathered for lunch in the Dirksen Office Building, according to The Associated Press, that she became interested in the military in 1975, the year she married Bill Clinton and the year she was teaching at the University of Arkansas law school in Fayetteville.
She was 27 then, she said, and the Marine recruiter was about 21. She was interested in joining either the active forces or the reserves, she recalled, but was swiftly rebuffed by the recruiter, who took a dim view of her age and her thick glasses. 56;Not Very Encouraging57;
"You57;re too old, you can57;t see and you57;re a woman," Mrs. Clinton said she was told, adding that the recruiter dismissed her by suggesting she try the Army. "Maybe the dogs would take you," she recalled the recruiter saying.
"It was not a very encouraging conversation," she said. "I decided maybe I57;ll look for another way to serve my country."
Mrs. Clinton offered the story to illustrate how far women had come. She said that "it was not an isolated situation" for women to be turned away by military recruiters. And she lauded efforts to bring women into more aspects of military service70;.
Mrs. Clinton told friends that she had moved to Arkansas for only one reason: to be with Bill Clinton. Years later, she would tell Vanity Fair that she had stayed because "I didn57;t see anything out there that I thought was more exciting or challenging than what I had in front of me."
She and Mr. Clinton married on Oct. 11, 1975 in Fayetteville.
So, if she was talking to a Marine recruiter in 1975 before the marriage, was she briefly considering joining the few, the proud and the brave of the corps as an alternative to life with Mr. Clinton, who was already being widely touted as a sure thing for Arkansas Attorney General?
Neal Lattimore, Mrs. Clinton57;s spokesman, said her visit to the recruiter had to be seen in the context of her dedication to public service.
"I57;m never surprised when Mrs. Clinton is doing something service oriented," he said. "She was just taking in all her options, saying 56;This is where I am in my life, this is what fits into my life right now.57; "
But she had moved to Arkansas to be with Mr. Clinton, so why was she thinking about joining the Marines?
"Maybe she was thinking about the J.A.G. Corps," he said, referring to the legal branch of the service. "She was exploring all her options, the National Guard, everything."

In addition to the obvious inconsistencies that Ms. Dowd points out, it must be noted that the military had no proscription against taking anyone whose eyesight could be corrected with glasses 52; unless they sought to be pilots.

And certainly 27 was not too old to join up. Moreover, any service branch would have jumped at the chance to get a Yale law school graduate.

Heck, the Marines even took pregnant women.

But of course it was just a harmless lie told to women who really had served their country. A white lie that the then First Lady thought no one would notice.

Related Articles:

We all know that Yale law grads are made Generals at once in the Navy, in Clintons case she could have been a "Vice admiral in charge of, what else, vice?

When Obummer takes a swan dive, the O'philes will have to switch horses and vote for Clinton their first love, and Obummer their white guilt love.

What wonderful pairing. And their buddy McKooK will be there to kiss both of them.

When Obama gets the presidential nomination, will you admit that you were wrong?

There is a reason that they've been run from every country (except ours) that they've ever been in.

But I can't say I'm surprised to see you indicate that you won't admit you were wrong if it doesn't pan out.

I have no horse in this race. The three Israeli stooges are one and the same. Support for one is support for all. That seems to escape you for some reason.

It does NOT MATTER who wins Ari..You will love the winner. Americans will be unhappy, we lose.

You say it doesn't matter, but that doesn't stop you from repeatedly making that prediction.

It would only matter to someone that is partisan and supports this government, supporting any of the three is accepting more war, more debt.

Americans, the very tiny majority, do not support any of the people sponsored by the system. They are akin to tires on a car, totally interchangeable, left, right, front or back. Supporting any one of them is supporting the government, that is unacceptable to Americans.

At firtst I thought that was 'Aunt Bee' walking out. Loved the sponsors, 'Stopette' and 'Poof'. LOL!!!

As a country, the USA has deeply injured the world and it's a national obligation to right that wrong as much as possible. For us to try to safeguard our 2nd Amendment rights at the expense of lives of innocents worldwide doesn't fly in my book. -- Pinguinite http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=78060&Disp=44#C44