Compromise the Safety of the Troops? Sure!

If it lets me bash Hillary Clinton in the process, why not?

So says Michelle Malkin. (WARNING: Link will take you to You'll find most of the text here; click over if you must.)

You know, Coulter had better watch her back. Malkin is definitely nipping at her heels for the title of "Completely Batshit Crazy Loathsome Conservative Female Columnist that will Say Anything to Get Attention."

It's a long title, but very coveted.

Move over, Joan Rivers. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is vying for the title of undisputed queen of the cosmetic makeover. Having undergone a cultural warrior collagen injection with her recent crusades against violent video games and flag-burning, Hillary has traded in her ratty black pantsuit for a new politicized accessory to enhance her electoral figure:

Body armor.

Last week, a group called Soldiers for the Truth leaked results of an unpublished Pentagon study that reportedly found that as many as 80 percent of a random sample of Marines killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. On Friday, the New York Times seized on the study. Faster than you can say "quagmire," Hillary landed on ABC's "Good Morning America" to lambaste the Bush administration as "incompetent" and its failure to provide more armor "unforgivable."

Now, I'm not one to back up Hillary's ridiculous video game/flag burning fights, but what exactly is this shit? 80% of this sample of Marines could have survived if they had more body armor. Eighty percent. Is this important? Is this unforgivable? You bet your sweet bippy it is. Oh, and that Joan Rivers crack... superb. And not dated or tortured at all. Top notch. As Stewie would say: "Have any Titanic jokes for us? As long as we're hitting these things at the height of their popularity?" Egads.

So what, pray tell, is Malkin's problem with all of this?

Hillary bashed President Bush and Vice President Cheney for callously letting troops die and said she was "just bewildered as to how this president and this vice president continue to isolate themselves from different points of view."

Well, I am bewildered, too. Bewildered at how such a supposedly brilliant and savvy woman -- who is supposedly in tune with American troops -- can so blithely ignore the grave trade-offs involved in this matter.

You want different points of view? Listen to soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade, who must don some 40 pounds of protection and gear while fighting in the desert heat. Capt. Jamey Turner, 35, of Baton Rouge, La., a commander in the 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment bluntly reminded the Associated Press: "You've got to sacrifice some protection for mobility. If you cover your entire body in ceramic plates, you're just not going to be able to move."

Second Lt. Josh Suthoff, 23, of Jefferson City, Mo., said: "I'd go out with less body armor if I could."

So, these guys don't want it, so let's not give it to them. Nice. (Bolds mine)

There is a legitimate debate to be had about the Army's supply system, military procurement, and contracting squabbles over body armor. However, challenging the leaked study's premises, Spc. Robert Reid, 21, of Atlanta, commented: "It's the Army's responsibility to get soldiers the armor they need. But that doesn't mean those deaths could have been prevented."

Well, of course the armor isn't a guarantee that solders will not be killed. But that doesn't change the fact that it is the Army's responsibility to get soldiers the armor they need. A fact that you state yourself, Michelle, and a responsibility that has been shirked. But should we let that bother us? Hell no, not when there's a Clinton to bash!

A military blogger at Baghdad Guy who serves in the U.S. Army, 101st Airborne Division, 506th Infantry, sums it up:

"Body armor has saved numerous lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and it will continue to do so, especially as it is modified to better meet the threat we face. However, there are limitations as to how much armor you can add onto an individual and maintain his effectiveness as a soldier: when I step out the gate I am wearing on my person body armor, a kevlar helmet, my M4 rifle with a few hundred rounds of ammunition, my M9 sidearm with another hundred rounds of ammunition, 2-3 quarts of water, a portable radio, night vision equipment, and numerous other odds and ends ...

" ... Too much weight means a soldier moves slower, tires more easily, [maneuvers] less stealthily and spends more time feeling sorry for himself instead of focusing on the mission. And then there's the bulkiness that becomes an issue as you move through tight space and wedge into the seats of military vehicles that were not designed with comfort and/or legroom in mind. All these tradeoffs must be addressed before you make the decision to add armor, it must be determined that the armor will be effective, and then it must be designed in a way that minimizes impact on our ability to do our job."

Alas, fund-raising, spotlight-grabbing, 2008-planning Hillary isn't interested in sober analysis of trade-offs on the battlefield.

Sober analysis?? How about checking with soldiers that would gladly wear a little extra weight if it meant keeping their intestines from being blown out through their spinal column? How about analyzing exactly why and how extra body armor has been kept from soldiers in the first place? How about analyzing why soldiers that may not want to be wearing extra body armor are driving unarmored vehicles? How about calling for analysis and development of lighter, cooler body armor?

How about just giving them the fucking body armor that could save their lives, and let the soldiers decide what to do with it?

But no, Malkin would rather just not give it to them in the first place. And she'd rather ridicule Clinton for suggesting that, you know, maybe that eighty percent of soldiers didn't have to fucking die.

She is too busy playing dress-up to listen to the troops she says she cares so much about now.

Don't you even fucking think about going there, Malkin.

Update: As commenter Alex said over at Tbogg (where someone had the same Bush dressup thought that I did.. damn! and I thought I was so clever!):
The report cites Marine deaths. Michelle quotes 101st Airborne, Army. Why does the U.S. Army hate the Marine Corps?

Well, she is absolutely accurate when she says the study of Marine fatalities doesn't prove that any Army personnel were killed because they lacked the vests.

To coin a phrase, Heh, indeed.

More Update: Malkin is still a hypocrite, and still hasn't responded to David's six part criticism of her latest "book." Coward.

(Energy Dome tip to Tbogg, who has quite a way with words.)

(Sugar...honey, honey... you are my cross-post girl... and you got me wanting you)

Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.

blog comments powered by Disqus