Wednesday, January 11, 2006

INVESTIGATE WHO, MADAME SENATOR?

ABC News carries remarks by Senator Clinton on the subject of troop armor:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=1489733

Calling the Bush administration “incompetent,” she remarked the failure to provide better armor was “unforgivable” and called for an investigation.

I must ask, who do we investigate, Madam Senator?

GWB was elected President… Not King… He’s a part of the government, not its embodiment, and just one part of the process, even if he’s the most visible.

The House of Representatives originates appropriations. During the decade preceding 9-11, defense spending measured in most real terms declined. Did this affect necessary procurements, even this one? For example, was research into better armor slighted?

Should this be investigated, Madam Senator?

The House of Representatives originates appropriations. ABC notes Congress has only recently passed a law to reimburse troops who bought their own armor even though many bought their armor long since.

Should this be investigated, Madam Senator?

Congress has an oversight function with respect to military contracts. SNAFU’S in those contracts have slowed production.

Should this be investigated, Madam Senator?

The actual procurement process is administered by a military bureaucracy that answers to the Pentagon and ultimately to the Administration. But a new administration doesn’t bring with it a new bureaucracy. While the particular issue of body armor is recent as it relates to the Iraqi war, the larger issue of procurement can only be studied as a process that often takes years to complete.

This President inherited a bureaucracy and a process from his predecessors. If we are to investigate this President’s handling of the issue, should we also investigate what he inherited?

So should the investigations start with President Clinton, Senator Clinton?

Somehow, I don’t think that’s what the junior Senator from New York has in mind…

Comments:
Great post. I was thinking about this today as I heard on the radio about Hill's focus on the issue. Brought one thing to mind: She is trying so hard to be the perfect politician. I'm not sure she actually has any hard positions - she's just trying to find some kind of niche to complain about. Something everyone will support.

She supports the war because she knows anti-war types rarely get elected. But knowing that the lib media reports of daily deaths due to bombs/etc and lack of body armor will play well. So she locks in on it.

I understand the reasoning that predicts her nomination as the dem pres candidate. She has NY and CA. That pretty much wraps it up. But she is going to have to come up with an issue to be effective as a dem on election day. So much of her party has lurched so far left that her centrist strategy (at least on foreign policy) will only work if every single woman in America votes twice on election day.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?