About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Citing none, NY Times' Healy claimed "[s]ome uniformed officers" said Clintons are "more associated with a '60s culture than the military"

March 27, 2007 5:27 pm ET
image

31 Comments

In a March 27 New York Times article on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) relationship with the military, reporter Patrick Healy wrote: "Some uniformed officers, too, said that the Clintons were more associated with a '60s culture than a military one, and that only time would tell if Mrs. Clinton's appreciation of the military would go beyond niceties and expressions of concern." However, Healy did not cite any "uniformed officers" who expressed this view -- either by name or anonymously -- and, in fact, every military figure quoted or paraphrased in the article made positive comments about Sen. Clinton. These include retired Gen. John Batiste, a self-described "lifelong Republican," and retired Gen. Jack Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff who, as the article noted, said he respects and admires Sen. Clinton despite policy differences.

The only people Healy quoted or paraphrased as criticizing Sen. Clinton were Ted Galen Carpenter, a vice president at the Cato Institute who questioned whether Clinton's image on the military was "authentic," and Jonathan Tasini, "who ran against Mrs. Clinton for the Senate Democratic nomination last year on an antiwar platform" and questioned her consistency on the Iraq war.

The story was leaked to the Drudge Report on March 26 and teased, "NYT: HILLARY MASTERS MILITARY ... DEVELOPING ..."

Healy did note that retired Gen. Donald L. Kerrick, a former deputy national security adviser to former President Bill Clinton who is "close" to Sen. Clinton, "acknowledged that some people inside and outside the military were skeptical of Mrs. Clinton's intentions and wary that she would shift federal dollars to domestic programs like health care." Kerrick also "said he believed that her appreciation of the military was genuine, but that it would take time and effort for that to come across."

Moreover, Healy noted that of the "main Democratic presidential candidates, only Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut has served in the military, as an Army reservist," but left out comparable information about Republican candidates or potential candidates. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has military experience, but none of the following leading Republican candidates or potential candidates do: Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and Newt Gingrich. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), who has not ruled out a presidential run, did serve in the military.

From Healy's March 27 New York Times article:

Of all the early problems Bill Clinton faced as president, few stand out to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as more frustrating and avoidable than his rocky relationship with the military, her advisers say.

During his 1992 campaign, Mr. Clinton was attacked for avoiding the Vietnam draft and organizing antiwar marches in the 1960s. After taking office, his early focus on gay men and lesbians in the military drew sharp criticism from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin L. Powell, and other officers. Even his ability to salute properly was called into question.

Mrs. Clinton, to use a phrase, has been practicing her salute. As a senator and now as a presidential candidate, she has cultivated relationships with generals and admirals, prepped herself on wartime needs and strategy, and traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I think eight years in the White House, traveling the world and seeing the United States military doing the nation's business, and now her time in the Senate, has given her a significant appreciation of the military that maybe her husband didn't have before the White House," said Jack Keane, the retired general and former Army vice chief of staff who has become close to the senator.

For Mrs. Clinton, exhibiting a command of military matters is not just about learning from her husband's experience. It could be vital to her, as a woman seeking to become a wartime commander in chief, to show the public that she is comfortable with military policy and culture -- and with the weight of responsibility that accompanies life-and-death decisions.

It is also part of an effort to shed the image some voters hold of her as an antimilitary liberal, defined by her opposition to the Vietnam War and, now, by her criticism of the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq.

A Time magazine poll in July asked adults to assess whether Mrs. Clinton would keep the military strong. Asked how much that description fit Mrs. Clinton, 33 percent said a lot, 25 percent said a little, 15 percent said not much, 18 percent said not at all and 10 percent had no answer.

Some uniformed officers, too, said that the Clintons were more associated with a '60s culture than a military one, and that only time would tell if Mrs. Clinton's appreciation of the military would go beyond niceties and expressions of concern.

Donald L. Kerrick, a retired general and former deputy national security adviser to President Clinton, acknowledged that some people inside and outside the military were skeptical of Mrs. Clinton's intentions and wary that she would shift federal dollars to domestic programs like health care.

General Kerrick, who is close to Mrs. Clinton, said he believed that her appreciation of the military was genuine, but that it would take time and effort for that to come across.

"If, as president, she treats commanders and troops the same way she does now, she will quickly gain their support and respect," General Kerrick said. "Military people are very loyal to the chain of command, and to people who understand them."

In the Senate, Mrs. Clinton has supported expanding medical benefits for National Guard members and reservists and providing aid to those with traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. She has also defied liberals in her own party at times, endorsing the expansion of the Army, supporting financing for missile defense, and refusing to support a total ban on land mines.

But just as she has encountered some hostility from the left for not being a critic of the Iraq war earlier and for not renouncing her vote in 2002 to authorize it, Mrs. Clinton could also risk coming off as too hawkish to some Democratic voters for her vociferous support of military initiatives.

Some on the left ask if she is engaging again in the Clinton strategy of political triangulation: reaching out to military leaders while also trying to appease the left with her criticism of the war in Iraq. During her Senate re-election race last year, some liberals criticized her as currying favor with pro-military conservatives and independents by fiercely supporting Israel and taking a tough line against Al Qaeda and Iranian operatives in Iraq, similar to what her husband did during his presidency on social issues like welfare.

"Some days she sounds like a total hawk, and other days she's saying, 'I'm against the war and it's been mismanaged,' " said Jonathan Tasini, who ran against Mrs. Clinton for the Senate Democratic nomination last year on an antiwar platform.

"But I don't see how this helps her in the primaries," Mr. Tasini continued. "So many people have turned against the war."

Of the other main Democratic presidential candidates, only Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut has served in the military, as an Army reservist. Like Mrs. Clinton, most of the candidates rely on their service on Senate committees for their foreign policy credentials. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois serves on the Foreign Relations and Veterans Affairs Committees; former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina served on the intelligence committee; Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; Mr. Dodd is a member of that committee.

Essential to Mrs. Clinton's courtship of the military was winning a seat in 2002 on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which she had vigorously sought. In that role, she regularly meets with military officers, has traveled three times to Iraq and has attended hearings on global conflicts and the needs of the armed services.

Privately, two current military leaders who have testified before the Armed Services committee, and who by custom do not comment publicly on political figures, said they both found Mrs. Clinton conversant about the military and thoughtful in her questions.

Active-duty generals have sought her out, and she has reached out to them. Among those with whom she has built relationships are Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, and Adm. William J. Fallon, the new head of Central Command. Recently, too, James T. Conway, the commandant of the Marines, invited her to be his guest of honor at the "Sunset Parade" at the Marine Corps War Memorial in Washington, a high-profile tradition. (She has accepted.)

Some military analysts said that building ties with generals was only part of building a leadership image on military issues. Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, the libertarian research group, said Mrs. Clinton's political shift to opposing the war in Iraq -- combined with some voters' skepticism about the Clintons and the military -- posed a challenge for her, especially when she needs to prove that a woman is tough enough to be commander in chief.

"By surrounding herself with military brass, it reinforces an image of her as strong and hawkish," Mr. Carpenter said. "But is that an authentic image? Would she really give dollars to the Pentagon instead of to cherished domestic programs?"

The Republican National Committee's research staff members have already compiled a series of examples that they say show Mrs. Clinton at odds with military interests, including her Iraq war positioning and her opposition to sending additional troops there.

General Keane -- whose support for sending more troops to Iraq is at odds with Mrs. Clinton's view -- and other admirers of hers see these skeptical or critical portrayals of her as playing into false stereotypes. He recalled how his own initial impression of her changed after their first meeting: It was supposed to last 15 minutes, but continued for a half hour longer as they talked about West Point and moved onto global hot spots.

John Batiste, a retired major general and former commander of the First Infantry Division, who also consults with Mrs. Clinton, said, "Very, very few politicians have any military experience, and they're naïve -- they don't understand what it takes to develop a big picture, unified strategy to take a country to war.

"She's the kind of person who would listen to sound military advice," General Batiste said, "and not dismiss it or discard it. And I'm a lifelong Republican."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mefirst (March 27, 2007 5:42 pm ET)
         

      on the other hand, hillary did not force soldiers in iraq to armor their vehicles with scrap from the local dump. but halliburton did have to get 30 dollars for a case of soda.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by valentinian (March 27, 2007 7:26 pm ET)
           

        And Hillary didn't fire the chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs for trying to spend more money taking care of vets.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by redking75687 (March 27, 2007 10:34 pm ET)
             

          But she did vote to keep shoveling cash at the war contractors and funding the war crime.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by mr. l (March 27, 2007 5:55 pm ET)
         

      Two comments.... 1) What is with the sexist wordage- 'as a woman it is vital to show she can handle military responsibilty'- paraphrased... and 2) to say that the RNC says she is at odds with miltary INTERESTS says a lot... how about AMERICAN interests?! Besides that, this article was not well written and didn't seem to have a point, and, seriously- 'uniformed officers say...' Come on, that is a page from Fake News' 'some are saying...'

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (March 28, 2007 6:30 pm ET)
           

        I think Healy read his notes wrong. They actually said, "Uninformed officers say..."

        Report Abuse
    • Author by YellowDogDemocrat (March 27, 2007 6:12 pm ET)
         

      I've said this before on this site, and I will say it again.  My husband is a regular Army LTC serving his second tour of duty in Iraq.  His experience, during both tours of duty, has been that no senior NCO or field grade officer is in sync with Bush's "vision" (or lack thereof) in Iraq.  It's hard to say it out in the open when the commander-in-chief is, in effect, your boss, but believe me that sentiment is out there.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by valentinian (March 27, 2007 7:23 pm ET)
           

        YDD, I hope your husband comes back OK in body and soul. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (March 27, 2007 7:41 pm ET)
             

          "...comes back OK in body and soul." 

          I'll second that...

          Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (March 27, 2007 7:53 pm ET)
           

        Thank you and your husband, YDD.

        Anyone who has ever served in the military through tough times knows what you're saying. A soldier being interviewed by the press is required to support the mission or keep quiet.

        Although those in the rear call all of the shots, no one knows the reality of war more than those in the field.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by NGOfficer (March 28, 2007 12:21 pm ET)
             

          Officers in particular must to stay "on message". That's why I have always avoided being interviewed. I just might slip, then there goes my career.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (March 27, 2007 8:08 pm ET)
         

      Third it. A phrase running arround with some merit recently was "Save Our Troops". There was a recent bruhaha or two over the use of the word wasted when used in relation to our troops. I think its an accurate use of the word. we need some intelligent political leadership here. We get posturing. I don't think we would be at any disadvantage with Hillary as CinC.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by ftdbgnfdfvv (March 27, 2007 8:41 pm ET)
           

        Whoever's the next Pres will seem like a George Washington because of 8 years of Bush.  Any derelict would be an improvement. 

        Report Abuse
      • Author by redking75687 (March 27, 2007 10:37 pm ET)
           

        Even though she has said she will keep troops in Iraq? Even though she supports funding the Israeli occupation of Palestine? Even though she will not end the American Empire and all the attendant evils that it brings?

        How will that make her a good Commander-in-Chief? I don't see your logic.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (March 28, 2007 6:31 pm ET)
             

          I don't see your crystal ball in good working order.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by tabkhan (March 27, 2007 8:24 pm ET)
         

      Patrick Healy is the "new" Kit Seeyle of the NYT. He's a vicious, spiteful little political trollop.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by cpinva (March 27, 2007 8:40 pm ET)
         

      ydd, my best to your husband. see, this is the thing guys, when it comes to democrats, the media isn't required to support any claims, it can just make up anything it wants, and print it or put it on tv as "news".

       that's the way the system's worked since at least 1999, when they started in on al gore. actually, even before that, when they just printed anything about the clintons as "fact", even though there weren't any to support their stories.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by fiver (March 27, 2007 8:56 pm ET)
         

      This "false" claim is so trivial it hardly merits attention in the MMFA daily notes of media inaccuracies - let alone top billing in the spot first on the left. Except that it is about Hillary... Anything said that is not supportive of the establishment's favorite Democrat will receive an immediate response from the Clinton "war room." Fair enough. But shouldn't MMFA disclose that it has become part and parcel of the HRC campaign. Methinks Media Matters doth protest too much.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (March 27, 2007 10:12 pm ET)
           

        As is noted anytime someone makes this charge, if MMfA is beholden to Clinton's campaign, why so many items about Obama and Edwards?  Wouldn't they just ignore any misinformation regarding them?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by redking75687 (March 27, 2007 10:40 pm ET)
             

          They certainly ignore their right-wing voting records. But issues don't matter, ya know.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (March 27, 2007 11:33 pm ET)
               

            You only support my point.  It's about conservative misinformation.  It's not about pointing out that someone isn't liberal enough, any more than it's about rooting for Hillary.  It's not a general issues/news blog.  Surely there are enough of those out there so that MMfA's adherence to its purpose isn't a major issue for you.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by redking75687 (March 28, 2007 9:07 pm ET)
                 

              I know this site is so blatantly pro-Democrat that Hillary or Obama could shoot the webmaster's dog and they'd still run attack peices on anyone who dared to insult her or him. The thing is that this site itself is conservative misinformation because the people it defends are conservatives as well. I just come here to be the gadfly who keeps pointing that out.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (March 27, 2007 9:01 pm ET)
         

      I found the NY Times article, cited in this item, to contain (on balance) a fair amount (of what seemed to me to be) praise of Mrs. Clinton... not simply for her efforts to work with the uniformed Command of the U.S. Armed Forces, but for her successes in doing so.

      And nevertheless I'm glad to see the article cited here, and for the vague and unattributed observation of healy's to be highlighted... but I'd hope all who are interested will give the article a slow and thoughtful reading, for it's impressive and qualified quotations of those same uniformed Commanders (who have names far more specific than 'some uniformed officers')...

      ...who have not the slightest hesitation it seems, to note what they obviously consider to be a praiseworthy, if not supremely virtuous, quality in a civilian Commander-in-Chief; namely...

      The ability to seek, listen to, and comprehend, the advice of career Military Officers, who bear the Command (and therefore hold the lives in their hands) of our Sons and Daughters in the U.S. Armed Forces...

      ...and by direct consequence, hold also our own lives, the lives of the American People, as our National Defense.

      It is a burden few civilians can come close to even imagining I'm sure, but that every president must appreciate... and it is a responsibility that those Commanders hold so closely to their own gut, as to fairly say, it is their blood-type... as in blood-type USN, or USMC, or USAF, or blood-type U.S. Army.

      There was praise indeed for the Senator from NY in the Times article, and even a little bit of insight for us all, where Gen. Jack Keane was noted as observing that, concerning the Senator, we "see these skeptical or critical portrayals of her, as playing into false stereotypes" 

      False stereotypes: Is there a better way than that, to characterize the substance of any and all attacks on Mrs. Clinton?

      I say nope.

      Lastly, I liked the way the above item, as part of what amounts overall to a brief sketch of the Senator's successes in forming a working relationship, as a U.S. Senator, with the uniformed Command of the U.S. Armed Forces (a sketch made by the Times article cited and excerpted, not by MMFA)...

      I like that it was noted, that while the Senator from NY has no active duty military service, neither does the bulk of the field of proclaimed presidential candidates.

      To which I'd note: That there is no prior service that I can imagine, that a president could possibly have, as valuable as the qualities I did name, as being necessary to the role of civilian Commander-in-Chief, in council with the Joint Chiefs... namely, to seek, listen to, and comprehend, the advice of career Military Officers.

      For to do so, is to do nothing more, than what Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt did...

      ...and the Nation truly stands today, on their successes as Commanders-in-Chief, their lack of prior service notwithstanding...

      ...but their possession of the above-described qualities, being a matter of an undisputed historical record.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by redking75687 (March 27, 2007 10:43 pm ET)
           

        Yet she voted to send our sons into an illegal war and has voted to keep them there for the last 4 years....

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (March 28, 2007 6:33 pm ET)
             

          You don't have another arrow in your quiver, do you?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by lemoc (March 28, 2007 6:36 pm ET)
               

            Is the Pope Catholic?

             

            Just kiddin' ya, Redking.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by redking75687 (March 28, 2007 9:11 pm ET)
               

            It only takes one sure shot to deflate a balloon. I could point out she voted to approve of that liar Rice and that war criminal Negroponte to higher positions. I could point out that she's not done anything to help the American citizen. But the fact she's assisted in the death of over 3000 American troops and the mass murder of 650,000 Iraqis seems the best stone to throw.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by kelletim6638 (March 29, 2007 2:15 pm ET)
                 

              It's high time progressives stopped backing Clinton. She is a conservative in almost every matter, and her arrogant authoritarian sensibilities make her as bad as any right winger. I can't stand her.

               We really, really need an executive that has the guts to shrink the military to about 10% of its current size which is one of the most critical issues we deal with.  As long as the Fed bleeds money into the defense industry we will continue in this downward spiral into a completely militarized society. Mostly we're already there.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (March 27, 2007 9:12 pm ET)
         

      it was interesting to see donald kerrick's name here.  he was interviewed by sidney blumenthal for his book "the clinton wars".  kerrick, as noted, was a deputy national security adviser to bill clinton, and spent four months working in the bush administration.  he told blumenthal that the bushies were uninterested in terrorism and that he sent a memo to his replacement, steven hadley: "it was classified. i said they needed to pay attention to al qaeda and counterterrorism....they never once asked me a question nor did i hear them having a serious discussion about it. they didn't feel it was an imminent threat the way the clinton administration did. hadley did not respond to my memo. i knew he had it".  and every shred of evidence supports his contention.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by drsfinance20034900 (March 27, 2007 9:53 pm ET)
         

      these people are never asked to name names and they are discredited whether dem or repub.

       

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by laplacian (March 28, 2007 11:45 am ET)
         

      Once again MMFA has shown their kneejerk reaction to criticisms of Sen. Clinton (it is true that the right-wing vendetta against the Clintons has a lot to do with the birth of MMFA).  It seems they will rush to her aid whether the criticisms are blatantly false, true but nasty or irrelevant (like the voice thing), or justified.  I think this item falls into the third category.  Her courting of the military, even if it is somewhat genuine, has the potential to come off like the famous picture of Dukakas posing in a tank.  The article seems mostly factual and balanced, and it does point out that the decision is purely political, something her advisers are telling her.Limbaugh used to claim that under Clinton many service people despised their commander-in-chief.  Of course we all know what a beacon of truth he is.  However, I don't think the omission of an attribution for the statement that "some uniformed officers" questioned her authenticity is such a big deal.  It just doesn't rise to the level of something that requires a high degree of journalistic rigor.  (If it were some scandal like Whitewater or Vince Foster then, yes, three independent attributed sources, please).  For a variety of reasons, Lt. John Doe is probably not that interested in going on record with a statement like that.  Also, the attribution would consume column inches that are fairly valuable for a piece like this one.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by fantagor (March 28, 2007 3:04 pm ET)
           

        So, according to you, the degree of misinformation isn't severe enough to warrant scrutiny because the "some officers" claim is more or less inconsequential.

        That is one person's opinion, yours, which I respect.

        What I don't respect is journalists who use "some people/officers" as a means of infusing an article with THEIR PERSONAL OPINIONS. Instead say, I, as in I think or I believe. Citing "some people" is not just bottom feeder journalism, it's a disingenuous and deceptive way to opine through a cultivated false consensus that originates from ubiquitous unspecified sources in order to inevitably dupe unsophisticated readers into thinking there are actually "some officers" asserting this tripe as opposed to the hack behind the byline.

        And that's one man's opinion, too.

        Randy

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace