On Hardball, Patterson repeated dubious smear of Clinton, despite his changing story
SUMMARY: Retired Air
Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson
repeated the claim that when he worked in the White House in 1996, then-first
lady Hillary Rodham Clinton "wanted to outlaw uniforms, military uniforms in the
White House," saying it was a "perfect example" of how Clinton "does not
understand the military." Patterson's story of Clinton's purported "edict" -- which he says occurred in 1996
"when he first arrived" at the White House -- echoes a debunked claim about
Clinton dating back to 1993. And his
version of how he learned of Clinton's purported plan to ban
military uniforms in the White House varies with each
telling.
On the August 8 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson, author of Dereliction of Duty (Regnery, March 2003), repeated the claim that when he worked in the White House in 1996, then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton "wanted to outlaw uniforms, military uniforms in the White House," saying it was a "perfect example" of how Clinton "does not understand the military." He also called her a "socialist, anti-military, [and] anti-American." Patterson's story of Clinton's purported "edict" -- which he says occurred in 1996 "when he first arrived" at the White House -- echoes a debunked claim about Clinton dating back to 1993. And his version of how he learned of Clinton's purported plan to ban military uniforms in the White House varies with each telling. In Dereliction of Duty, Patterson claimed that he had learned of Clinton's purported desire to ban military uniforms from his predecessor. When Slate.com's Timothy Noah wrote about stories surrounding Clinton's purported aversion to military uniforms in the White House, Patterson responded by asserting that he "had firsthand knowledge of the First Lady's edict." In yet another retelling, Patterson told author Edward Klein, "The directive came down from Hillary through the President's chief of staff, Leon Panetta."
Host Chris Matthews introduced Patterson as the author of the new book War Crimes: The Left's Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror (Crown Forum, June 2007).
In Dereliction of Duty, Patterson wrote that "my predecessor briefed me that Mrs. Clinton didn't want the military aides in uniform." From the book:
Early in the administration the "buzz" was that Chelsea had refused to ride to school with her military driver and that Hillary had banned military uniforms in the White House. The president eventually called the uniform ban "an abject lie," once it became apparent that this story didn't play well politically.7 I can't speak on whether Chelsea refused military drivers, but I do know the uniform issue with Mrs. Clinton was real. Soon after I arrived at the White House, my predecessor briefed me that Mrs. Clinton didn't want the military aides in uniform. The White House Military Office argued that, for the safety of the president, it was critical that the Secret Service and staff be able immediately to identify the military aide. Common sense and security finally prevailed -- at least at official functions with the president. At all other times, however, we were expected to be in business suits or civilian clothes in order to downplay the military presence at the White House. (Page 93)
But in response to Noah's March 26 article, in which the Slate senior writer wrote of the "rumor" that Clinton wanted to ban military uniforms at the White House, Patterson claimed: "It happened in the spring of 1996. I was the Air Force Aide to the President so I had firsthand knowledge of the First Lady's edict." From Noah's update:
[Update, March 27: Buzz Patterson has replied to this column in the Fray here, here, here, and here. He states that: 1.) I got the publication date of his book wrong (thanks, it's now corrected); 2.) "I stand by the assertions contained in my book 100%. I was there, you weren't."; 3.) He is currently the chief operating officer for the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a right-wing agitprop mill in Los Angeles (my description, not Patterson's, but not all that different from the Center's self-description in its year-end report; it calls itself "a battle-tank, not just a think-tank," and boasts that it has, among other things, persuaded [former House Majority Leader Tom] DeLay [R-TX], Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity to make frequent use of the terms "fifth column" and "hate-America left"); and 4.) The column you have on your screen is "rife with lies." On this last point, Patterson elaborates:
It happened in the spring of 1996. I was the Air Force Aide to the President so I had firsthand knowledge of the First Lady's edict. Others who served in the White House Military Unit at the time can corroborate. In the grand scheme of things, it was a drop in the bucket in the Clinton's overall disdain for the military. In and of itself, I wasn't too alarmed. I was, by the way, at the time a registered Democrat. I rectified that upon my retirement from the USAF in 2001.
I've e-mailed Patterson, asking him to clarify from whom he acquired "firsthand knowledge of the First Lady's edict," and to put me in touch with the others who "can corroborate." I've also solicited his thoughts about the U.S. News and Washington Post stories describing and knocking down his story three years before he says it unfolded. When and if he replies, I'll write a followup column.]
Patterson was quoted telling a similar story to Klein for his book, The Truth About Hillary (Sentinel, June 2005). But in the version Patterson told Klein, he said, "The directive came down from Hillary through the President's chief of staff, Leon Panetta." From the book:
Despite Hillary's reputation for shading the truth, Brian Lehrer believed her explanation. And no wonder. After all, it seemed incredible that a First Lady would attempt to ban the wearing of military uniforms in the White House.
And yet, that is exactly what Hillary had tried to do in the spring of 1996. At that time, all military personnel serving in the White House wore business suits, except for the one day a week on which they were required to don their uniforms. There were only two exceptions to this rule: junior officers who served at White House social events wore dress uniforms; and military aides who carried the nuclear "football" containing the top-secret codes the President needed in case of nuclear war wore their service uniforms.
"Hillary tried to change the tradition where military aides wore their uniforms when accompanying the President with the nuclear football," said air force lieutenant colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson, who served as President Clinton's senior military aide. "There were five military aides -- from the air force, army, navy, marines, and coast guard -- and she wanted us to wear business suits when we were carrying the football.
"The directive came down from Hillary through the President's chief of staff, Leon Panetta," Patterson continued. "Secret Service agents opposed her plan, because they wanted us to be easily identifiable by our uniforms in the event that something critical went down. We military aides were not just responsible for the nuclear codes, but also for evacuating the President and accompanying him to safe houses.
"Eventually, Hillary relented. My opinion is she was trying to downplay the military in and around her husband. It's ridiculous for her to claim that the story was the result of some young staffer who, in a lapse of judgment, said something critical to someone in uniform. It was all Hillary's doing from beginning to end." (Pages 230-231)
Earlier in the book, Klein wrote about a call-in Clinton made during the December 8, 2003, broadcast of WNYC's The Brian Lehrer Show. During the call, Lehrer asked: "Did you ban uniforms on people from the military in the White House?" Clinton said, "Of course not" and later added: "I can't speak for the hundreds and hundreds of people who worked in the White House, and perhaps someone, in a moment of what I consider a terrible lapse of judgment, said something or did something that then became a wild fire of rumor and innuendo ... but I certainly had nothing to do with it, and I know my husband didn't." From pages 228-229 of The Truth About Hillary:
"All right now," Lehrer said, "we're coming to a break. We have to take sixty seconds. But why don't you go ahead and start, and then we'll finish after the break? Did you ban uniforms on people from the military in the White House?"
"Of course not," Hillary said. "Now I know that there were some stories that circulated early in the administration that some young staffer had said something critical to someone in uniform. We tried to chase that down. I never could, to my satisfaction, determine who had done it, if it had indeed been done. And I also think part of it was, as you recall, my husband's efforts, very early on in the administration, to lift the ban on gay military service people. ..."
"Senator," Lehrer interrupted, "hold it right there. We have to take that break. And we'll finish up with you after that."
[...]
"Well, Brian," Hillary said after the show returned to the air, "I have been always trying to figure out where that [story about banning military uniforms in the White House] got started. And, again, I can't speak for the hundreds and hundreds of people who worked in the White House, and perhaps someone, in a moment of what I consider a terrible lapse of judgment, said something or did something that then became a wild fire of rumor and innuendo ... but I certainly had nothing to do with it, and I know my husband didn't."
In his Slate article, Noah wrote: "To believe Klein and Patterson, then, we must believe that Hillary consciously made happen something that, three years earlier, had been identified by at least two prominent news sources as something that hadn't happened but, if it had, would have been a political disaster. That just isn't possible" (emphasis in original).
As Media Matters for America has noted, the allegation that Clinton wanted to ban military uniforms in the White House was reported as early as April 1, 1993, in a Washington Post article that referred to "[a] whole series of apocryphal anecdotes [that] have made the rounds and fed military disaffection." With regard to "the one about Hillary Rodham Clinton's ban on uniforms in the White House," the Post reported that it "[a]lso didn't happen." In a March 15, 1993, article, U.S. News & World Report noted," Among other poisonous rumors is the tale that the Clintonites are preparing to order military personnel to wear civilian clothes, not their uniforms, whenever they enter the White House." U.S. News added that the White House denied the story.
From the article:
Poisoned rumors. At the Pentagon, the stories about White House insensitivity are numerous, and, some Clinton defenders say, approach paranoia. Perhaps the most virulent is the story that Chelsea Clinton refused to enter a government car destined to drive her to school because she didn't want to ride with a uniformed officer. Knowledgeable sources say Chelsea has always ridden with Secret Service agents and the occasion has never arisen where a military escort was asked to fill in for her regular agents. Among other poisonous rumors is the tale that the Clintonites are preparing to order military personnel to wear civilian clothes, not their uniforms, whenever they enter the White House. Another rumor is that Clinton advisers have forbidden the military aide who carries "the football" -- a suitcase containing nuclear launch codes -- to dress in uniform. The White House denies both allegations.
Similarly, Newsweek reported in December 2005 that "[t]here are still soldiers who swear by the myth that she banned uniforms at the White House."
As Colorado Media Matters noted, Patterson's book contains other unsubstantiated allegations. The book purports to draw upon Patterson's experience as a military aide charged with accompanying the president at all times from May 1996 to May 1998 bearing the so-called "nuclear football" containing the launch codes for the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
From the August 8 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
PATTERSON: Hey, Chris. She's a dove in hawk's clothing. I mean, I know her personally, worked for her for two years, with her husband from 1996 to 1998, and she is anything but a hawk. I mean, she wants to pull us out of Iraq. She voted for the war before she voted against the war, to coin a phrase from a previous candidate.
She will say anything she has to say, Chris, to get elected to the presidency. She's a pathological liar. She does not understand the military. I can speak, first and foremost, personally, knowing her intimately. She is not a hawk. She is everything but. She's a Wellesley College, socialist, anti-military, anti-American.
JON SOLTZ (Vote Vets): That's absolutely ridiculous. That is so ridiculous.
MATTHEWS: How did you get that insight on her working -- were you her military attaché or her husband's military attaché?
PATTERSON: Yes, I was President Bill Clinton's Air Force aide from 1996 to 1998.
MATTHEWS: What did you hear, sotto voce, that we haven't heard from her? What insight did you get from working at close quarters?
PATTERSON: Well, the fact that she wanted to outlaw uniforms, military uniforms in the White House when I first arrived in 1996, I think, is a perfect example. And she talks about President Bush now, Chris, not having the gumption to support our troops. Look at Bill Clinton's record in the 1990s. Drawing the Army divisions from 18 down to 10, drawing Air Force fighter squadrons -- fighter wings from 24 to 12, reducing Navy ships from 586 to 324, cutting the military troop strength -- and John should know this better than anybody -- military troop strength to 43 percent.
SOLTZ: Yeah, I want to talk about this, Chris, because he's exactly wrong.















Now, was this before or after she put condoms and syringes on the White House Christmas tree?
Gotta love the title of this moron's book. If he honestly thinks the Left wants to "destroy" the military, his intelligence and ability to write a cohesive book is highly in doubt.
Mr Patterson is full of sit. Just one more example of moronic thinking in the incessant parade of robots.
patterson was one of the main sources for the fake abc docudrama "path to 9-11". the head writer, cyrus nowrasteh, claimed to fronpagemag.com that he had to do his own research because the 9-11 report "only goes back to 1998", which is completely false. but patterson has an inability to tell the truth, as shown by this colorado mediamatters link where patterson contradicted something in one of his own books.
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200609270002
this is a link about nowrasteh and patterson from worldnetdaily, and a smiling buzz boy wearing a uniform and talking to bill clinton in what appears to be the white house.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51898
as the colorado media matters link shows, patterson claims that clinton refused to approve a strike against bin laden "in july of 1996". the facts are that there were no u.s. military strikes against bin laden until the african embassy bombings in august 1998. bin laden's subsequent indictment was in november of 1998.
Most compulsive liars lie on the moment, and there is no time to see if their story is easily disproved. They just throw stuff out, and spin the story when needed.
I had a product that never arrived. The dealer swore that it had been mailed 2 weeks prior.
He replied a few days later that luckily his father had worked for the post office so he had "postal contacts". He claimed they scoured the various "postal hubs" of the area and found my package.
Upon arrival, the post mark date showed it was mailed after I contacted him. His reply was that the box is was damaged and the post office was nice enough to repackage it.
Oops, I guess he forgot that not only did the handwriting on the package match his signature on the invoice, but the computer dated invoice was also matched the post mark. No response.
It's always fun to watch lies like this unravel. In real life, liars finaly get caught, and people no longer trust them.
However; when someone tells lies via the main stream media, and the media lets them spin away without pointing out to the public that the lie has been unraveled, they become a vehicle for the lies, and that's a trip down a dangerous road......as MMFA continues to point out.
Any rabid Clinton hater that spouts that Hillary is anti-American does so at his or her own credibility risk. They ooze partisan hatred and look foolish. These types don't hurt Hillary at all, in my opinion....for she rises above it, does not dignify it, and looks moderate and reasonable - where they come off the exact opposite. The ones that hate her, will hate her. Reasonable people know the difference in policy disagreement, and sniping.
Why Matthews dignifies this in any way by having a guest like this on is a head scratcher.
I think Matthews is dignifying this because he has deep rooted hatred of Hillary Clinton. From his words and actions.
Then his credibility takes a hit too.
MSNBCs credibility and Matthews credibility have taken a hit allready. That network lost credibility years ago.
ANY news source that's driven by profit has a credibility problem, but that's just my own personal standard.
Matthews must think its still the 90s, when cable outlets could double ratings by broadcasting endless lies about the Clintons. The net is here now, and Matthews and the rest of them on cable aren't going to get away with it unchallenged.
Except for Keith Olbermann, of course.
It is obvious that his assertions and opinions come with some credibility. He worked with the woman for 2 years, and if that is his impression of who she is, who are we to tell him he's wrong. Different people have different opinions of her, and an opinion coming from someone who actually worked closely with her for 2 years goes a lot further in my book than someone who makes judgements simply from propaganda.
Seems that this goes beyond "opinion". Either she tried to ban uniforms or she didn't. Since lying about the Clinton's became a self-sustaining cottage industry, I see no reason why this guy's "remembrances" should be accepted at face value without scrutiny.
He is more than free to have his opinions and voice them whenever and whereever he gets the airtime to do so.
But if he thinks that trashing her as he does makes him look credible, he is mistaken, in my opinion.
No, actually, he "didn't work with the woman" for any time.
He worked with Bill Clinton in the same way that a driver works for a bigwig.
This guy never worked for Hillary, and as such, his opinions on her are nothing more than gossip.
SMIITY,
Patterson has no credibility. This is what he said in July 2005:
"The war is being won, if not already won, I think," Patterson, who is retired from the U.S. Air Force, said. "[Iraq] is stabilized and we want the soldiers themselves to tell the story." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161463,00.htmlAnd you are posting absolute TRUTH!!
In fact, I'll go a step further. I'm no big Hillary fan right now. I think she's an intelligent and capable woman, but I'm still trying to figure some things out about her and the issues before I consider myself a supporter or detractor.
However, I'm more compelled to vote for her simply for the fact I have never seen an individual more maligned by the kooky-cons. I want this crap that people like Peterson, Horowitz, Rush, Klein, etc. spew to be spiked at every opportunity. And it would be wonderful to see Hillary cruise into office despite the volumnous venom emmitted by these hacks.
I would encourage all Conservatives to actually read the Constitution. It clearly states that it is the duty of Congress to raise and fund the Army. If the Military was, indeed, "decimated" during the 90s, I suggest they look to those who controlled Congress during that time...
The Military was not decimated in the 90s, that is a smear. These people will say and do anything to smear the Clintons.
Of course they will. The sad thing is that a certain knuckledragging segment of the population believes all this nonsense. Therefore, the prolific liars like this guy from the 90s will come out of the walls like hungry cockroaches if Hillary becomes the nominee. The subsequent sh*tstorm will engulf us all.
Speaking of which. I was listening to Boortz this afternoon, and he has Dick Morris on this week (what a joke all and of itself that is), and of course they were talking about Congress, and it wasn't 2 minutes before he had to bring up Senator Clinton, and how bad she is going to be as President, and how anti this, and anti that she is. He claims that she will get elected, and then go down in flames as President. He claims that this is because she's no Bill Clinton. While this is true, she will have Bill on her side and his advice and opinions on things, and let's face facts, he was a pretty decent President. I know, there are certain hard core republicans who still believe Bush will be judged by history as being the best all time (of course, only if they re-write history like they've done for Reagan and all), but Bill did a pretty good job.
Anyway, the question someone should ask this Patterson guy is this; did anyone ever tell you to NOT wear your uniform? If so; who was it?
I'm betting nobody ever asked him to not wear his uni, and that he wore it proudly every day he worked in the White House (as he should), and now he's just making himself look stupid.
Believe me, if the United States can survive 8 years of Puddinhead George, I think we can survive Hillary Clinton.
In fact, the only thing that scares me about a Hillary Clinton presidency is that the Troglodytes will use her as a boogeyman to energize their base again, like they did in the early 90s, resulting in another Republican coup. That scares the crap out of me.
"... and it wasn't 2 minutes before [Dick Morris] had to bring up Senator Clinton."
Mag, I think 2 seconds is his record, so I don't doubt that it wasn't 2 minutes.I'm guessing when a waiter asks Morris what salad dressing he wants, he works Bill or Hillary in there before he gets around to ordering.
After he asks for a show of toes, of course
That would cost extra.
Not to worry, the knuckledragging rightwing cancels out the knuckledragging leftwing......so it's usually a wash.
I beg to differ...we on the Left are primarily tree dwellers.
Ok, that would explain why you spend to much time gathering nuts. ;)
Tommy, we don't have to gather them - the nuts just sort of congregate around us. If we banned them from our presence, where would you and AA and Wesley and Leatherhelmet hang out?
Oooops - I forgot the winky!
;)
You mean if the nuts were banned, what would us righteous conservatives do here by ourselves? Good point. Stick around.
;)
Acorny line if ever I heard one.
I hear ya, but it's really slim pecans around here.
Ouch!
;^}
Cashew just have a normal Friday, without the puns? I took a pecan some other message boards, and they don't do that stuff...
Oh sure, you just want to filbert uster here so the rest of us can't get a word in. Well I am calling almonds and all women to stop you.
You crack me up!
I hope that's the end of this thread, which has quickly turned into a pointless pistachio of puns walnut being worthy of being within a brazillian miles of any discipline of macadamia.
Hey, sometimes, life can be a Beech.
Yer all chestnuts. I feel right at home.
You've driven me back into my shell
Looks like Nerzog opunned the door so that Tommy could get us all in a jovial mood earlier than ususal this week. ;-)
You should read my books. Its a proven fact that the military was decimated during the Clinton administration. 43% across the board cuts. You don't have to trust me, do your own research.
Its a proven fact that the military was decimated during the Clinton administration.- BuzzPatterson
Any proof to go with that proven fact? I realize you recommended, along with buying your book, doing our own research, but I thought since you have this proof, that would be faster than anybody else proving the negative that the opposite is true.
Thanks in advance.
Actually, the "cuts" to the military were the result of the directives of G.H.W. Bush and his Sec. of Defense, Dick Cheney, back in the '80s:
[link to graphics.boston.com]
The bigger issue is that this guy has an audience among those on the right, including publishers that will publish his crap.
Since when does a guy who is not part of any policy discussions, but is simply there to hold a briefcase 40 hours a week, get to lecture us and educated us about the wife of the person he's working for?
How does he have any credibility to do that?
I especially liked his "I was a registered Democrat" bullcrap, trying to assert that he has some amount of credibility because of that previous status, status that someone who was a registered Republican wouldn't deserve. When someone has to pull out that "I am LIKE YOU, except I disagree with everything you stand for" nonsense, you know that 99 times out of 100, they're not being sincere.
There's no doubt about it, how malicious this kind of slander and insult and gossip and rumor-mongering is; and of how it's purely for political reasons.
But without dismissing in any way the malice and its power, I'd note what almost seems amusing: This guy's nick-name, "buzz".
In the above item, is an excerpt from buzz's book; and in that excerpt is the word "buzz", in quotation marks just like that...
"Early in the administration the "buzz" was..."
...and so we have this guy "buzz" using that word, his nick-name, in the sense of (as Merriam-Webster's defines the word "buzz") an intransitive verb:
buzz: 1. to make a low continuous humming sound like that of a bee. 2a. murmer, whisper. 2b. to be filled with a confused murmur <the room buzzed with excitement>
And then "buzz" as a transitive verb:
buzz: 1. to utter covertly by or as if by whispering.
Consider that... consider how appropriate the guy's nick-name is to him, in the context of the slander and insult and gossip and rumor he works in, for political reasons... and he himself, as excerpted from his book, uses that word (in quotation marks) in that sense:
buzz: 1. to utter covertly by or as if by whispering.
It's almost as though that's why "buzz" is his nick-name: He specializes in "murmering and whispering", and "to utter covertly by or as if by whispering".
Of course, it's not the malice that's amusing, just the guy's nick-name.
And didn't chris matthews play his part well; isn't he ready able and willing in this kind of stuff, where he says to "buzz":
matthews: "What did you hear, sotto voce..."
Which for those who might not know (I feel like a dictionary here) "sotto voce" is Italian, meaning:
sotto voce: "under the breath", or "under the voice"; "in an undertone"; hence, privately; as an objection uttered sotto voce
...privately, sure. Privately, broadcast on MS-NBC.
As if we don't already have enough gossip and rumor and malice and slander and insult... chris needs to feed into it, and invite it and make more of it:
matthews: What did you hear, sotto voce..."
And he's asking that of a guy nick-named "buzz"... and then "buzz" launches into slander and insult and gossip and rumor, all malicious and all for political purposes...
It's almost amusing, in a black humor kind of way.
" [link to www.randomhouse.com] title="http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/crownforum/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780307338266">War Crimes: The Left's Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror"
Doesn't the title of this book tell you volumes about how much Patterson really supports the troops?
Granted, I don't follow this guy, I don't listen to him on the radio, I don't read his books. But where the hell is he on every issue facing our troops in Iraq?
Where is he on body armor? Where is he on vehicle armor? Where is he on the treatment of injured vets? Where is he on multiple tours of duty? Where is he on backdoor drafting? Where is he on contractors doing military jobs for bigger pay? Where is he on the failed military strategy that allowed Iraq to spiral out of control?
Doesn't the sum of these issues justify a freakin' book?
Patterson, a military veteran, has the audacity to go after the LEFT when it comes to the state of our military????
Where is he on body armor? Where is he on vehicle armor? Where is he on the treatment of injured vets? Where is he on multiple tours of duty? Where is he on backdoor drafting? Where is he on contractors doing military jobs for bigger pay? Where is he on the failed military strategy that allowed Iraq to spiral out of control?
Ah, but all that stuff was Clinton's fault.
I guess this is what passes for a balanced debate today.
Right wing nut jobs repeating lies that have been debunked years ago.
There's nothing on the left that's comparable to this.
I may be wrong, but the debunking you mentioned looked to me as only Clinton denying it. Even then it takes on Bill's penchant for equivocation.
Hillary said:
"I can't speak for the hundreds and hundreds of people who worked in the White House, and perhaps someone, in a moment of what I consider a terrible lapse of judgment, said something or did something that then became a wild fire of rumor and innuendo ... but I certainly had nothing to do with it, and I know my husband didn't." From pages 228-229 of The Truth About Hillary:
The quote in Newsweek provided by MMFA goes on to say that : Similarly, Newsweek [link to colorado.mediamatters.org] title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?[link to colorado.mediamatters.org] [link to mediamatters.org] reported">[link to www.msnbc.msn.com] in December 2005 that "[t]here are still soldiers who swear by the myth that she banned uniforms at the White House."
That doesn't sound like a very strong denial to me.
AA,
I think the truthfulness or not of what this guy is saying is basically irrelevant. When he cloaks his "first hand knowledge" in such inflammatory rhetoric, all points he wants to make get lost for me.
Why can't he just state his opinions without sounding like some bitter ex-employee?
Tommy,
No doubt he's trying to sell his book. However his firsthand knowledge could very well be the truth as he said his predecessor told him of the no uniform policy.
Whether that predecessor had accurate information is something that should be investigated.
As an aside, I seem to remember Carter having a similar directive. Anybody else remember something like that? Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Carter would make even less sense, since he went to the Naval Academy and was a commissioned officer in the USN and all. More right wing nonsense, just like this one.
Sorry to rain on your right wing conspiracy parade but rather than characterize my memory as right wing my post had nothing to do with right or left wing, but historical perspective and my rather faulty memory, I may be linking back to the Nixon having dressed up his White House guards or doormen in rather elaborate uniforms and Carter putting an end to it. I did a search but could not find much. Not to say my searches are all on target, but it probably was that Carter just had the particular staff stop wearing those uniforms.
Sorry, but it did sounds like some right wing nut job stuff, as they like to bring up Carter all the time when guys like myself talk about how bad Bush is and all.
This is what I found:
"Under President Nixon there was a resurrection of an ostentatious style of addressing the arrival of the president ? frequent playing of "Hail to the Chief;" courtiers of the White House dressed up in fancy uniforms and played long trumpets similar to what they did in Europe in ancient times. I was ridiculed to some degree because I carried my own bag, always, even when I was president. And at one time I prohibited the use of "Hail to the Chief" to be played when I walked into a room. I could relate to Jefferson for trying to be a president with a small p."
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040705/tjcarter.html
Looks like maybe Nixon had a little ego issue going on.
How about some research - who was his predecessor? Media Matters calls the person up and ask directly whether or not he has first hand knowledge of that policy being directed by the first lady?
My thought exactly. Can't be all that hard to find out how his predecessor was and ask him directly.
It's of course much easier to find Leon Panetta (per Patterson by way of Klein) and ask him whether he ever relayed any such order.
Uh, who his predecessor was. I guess they ask him how he was too.
Ask yourself this question:
Was he asked or ordered to not wear his uniform while serving as the USAF aide to President Clinton? The answer is no.
Story over.
Patterson—"The directive came down from Hillary through the President's chief of staff, Leon Panetta,"
Hillary—"...but I certainly had nothing to do with it, and I know my husband didn't."
How strong a denial do you need?
Not to mention it was denied THREE YEARS before Buzzie even got there.
The debunking part is that the man's story changes with the times. First, he says it's his predecessor who told him, then he said he knows it first-hand, then he says he was told be Leon Panetta.
There's also the matter that he says he has people who corroborate the story, then we hear the sounds of crickets chirping when he's asked to provide those corroborating sources to a journalist for further review. All the jounalist gets is an "I was there, you weren't!"
What's so difficult for the wing-nuts to understand is that when they make an allegation, they actually need facts and sources to back them up. Through 7 years of trying to associate the Clinton's with Whitewater, they get a blowjob deposition. Through the Scaiffe-financed "Clinton Chronicles", they get nothing that associates the Clinton's in murder or financial wrongdoing. And although many of these same wing-nuts want to call the Clinton's murderers in the Vince Foster case, there's not a shred of evidence through repeated independent investigation it was anything other than suicide. Swift Boat liars tried to label Kerry as a liar about his military service... without a shred of evidence, as well. And many of those who claimed they were with John Kerry in Vietnam were no closer to what he did than you and I were.
However, the strategies have been effective. They get great PR firms to teach them how to spin things into soundbites. When they're asked to provide actual evidence, they just re-arrange talking points and soundbites. They're able to get across a memorable, albeit false, premise in 2- to 20-minutes that takes hours of sifting through documents and sources to debunk.
And that's exactly what Patterson is doing... continually publishing and broadcasting the same accusations in different words, but without producing evidence accept "because I said so".
Resultantly, he doesn't need to prove what he says is true. He merely tries to shift the burden to the Clinton's proving it's not true... then shift the story when an element is proven phony.
Yeah,
Matthews just sat there and let General Moon-Bat spread the filth.
It's sad to see a military man disgrace himself like this.
Yeah, that's the problem. These moderators feel that it's fair to let these right wing nut jobs spout any nonsense without challenging them.
This is similar to Melanie Morgan stating last week "Clinton is still dating."
Pure trash for the dittoheads to root around in.
This is similar to Melanie Morgan stating last week "Clinton is still dating."
Morgan and Patterson are on the board of Move America Forward, an agit-prop group
Hey Folks
I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
Buzz
Yeah, I have two question, Buzz.
1. What is the name of your predecessor?
2. Do you receive retirement pay?
How is someone who carried a briefcase and didn't participate in any policy discussions with the President an expert on the President's wife?
Why should your opinions on Hillary Clinton be any more credible than someone else? How can you possibly claim that you have some special insight into Hillary when you never worked for her? You claim that "I can speak, first and foremost, personally, knowing her intimately." How exactly does someone who carries the 'nuclear football' for the President get to know his wife intimately?
Who in the hell would call themselves "Buzz". That is a name for a kid from the fifties. And that is exactly where this guy's mindset is.
Shows how much you know about our military. I was an Air Force pilot. "Buzz" means to fly low and fast. Not a throwback to the 1950s but a "call sign." Sheesh.
Well, yes, that kind of a nickname actually IS a throwback.
But you're right, it's so much more macho than Hot Dog.
Tree dwellers....classic...you have been watching "Scrubs"...but as much as I hate what this adminstration is doing I don't think Bush is anti-American. For Buzz to call her anti-military and anti-american is the most vile of words. How can anyone who has served their country react this way? He claims he is still in the reserves and if she becomes president then she will be his commander-in-chief.
"She's a pathological liar. She does not understand the military. I can speak, first and foremost, personally, knowing her intimately. She is not a hawk. She is everything but. She's a Wellesley College, socialist, anti-military, anti-American."
OK Buzz you lost me at the "knowing her intimately."
Now I know for sure you're full of BS.
Hi All
I'm trying to post here but not having any success. I'd love to chat here but the system is not letting me. Must be Soros.
Buzz
The thing I have to laugh at, the most telling example of this guys complete stupidity, appears toward the end of the segment, not viewable here (but probably on YouTube etc.).
He accuses Soltz of being in violation of the UCMJ because he is participating in "political activities" while a reservist. Yes, Buzz the military expert, has absolutely no idea about one of the most basic rules applicable to military personnel.
The UCMJ and DoD regulations prohibit participation in partisan political activities by active duty personnel only. The prohibition could only apply to a reservist while he or she is on active duty.
[link to www.dod.mil] mean really, Buzzie, consider how many reservists are actually serving in elected office. Doi.
I sort of love that he makes such a blatant fool of himself. If only the lazy media followed up and exposed it.
It's funny how those prohibitions don't get in the way of bush (lowercase intentional) using uniformed troops as stage props every chance he gets.
Interesting that Buzz doesn't realize that the UCMJ actually DOES apply to him, as a military retiree - unless of course he magnanamously turned down his pension.
See Art. 2, UCMJ.
The moment someone refers to a US Politician as a "Socialist" in listing their many "sins," I tend to tune out, because it gives me a pretty solid insight into the person's thought process. I know that the person talking is an ignorant, talking-points bleating moron who hasn't spent five minutes of his life actually doing any kind of research on world economic systems. Unless the person is referring to Hugo Chavez or Bernie Sanders or some European Politician, I know he is just engaging in hyperbole- the idea that a centrist like Hillary Clinton is a "Socialist" is just laughable.
As for "Anti-Military," there isn't a shred of evidence to that effect. Wesley College? Point Please? Anti-American? I think you mean "Anti-YOUR IDEA OF AMERICA," which I imagine most reasonable people are or ought to be. What a gasbag. No surprise Matthews had him on though- Chris is so consumed with jealousy of the Clintons he can't see or think straight.
Let's add Fox in the mix and also Mr. Rogers..his neighborhood was a lie.
This guy is as crazy as Melanie Morgan.
In July 2005, he said this:
"The war is being won, if not already won, I think," Patterson, who is retired from the U.S. Air Force, said. "[Iraq] is stabilized and we want the soldiers themselves to tell the story." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161463,00.html