Dear Senator Clinton:
Your assertions regarding your superior credentials to serve as Commander in Chief puzzle me. I thought that we were electing a president rather than a military leader. That aside, there is no experience you have which I see as making you extraordinarily qualified to serve as Commander in Chief.
You have never been wounded in combat as you have never served your country in combat. You have never been in a military leadership position as you never graduated from any of our nation's military colleges. You have never had the responsibility for military planning. In fact, you have never worn the uniform nor has your husband.
You did the wrong thing when you voted for the war. It was a vote for war. The title of the legislation was "Authorization for Use of Military Force". Using force of a military nature is war. That can hardly be debated. One hundred and forty-four of your congressional colleagues did not vote to authorize the use of military force. Those individuals did the right thing and would obviously be more qualified than you to make sound decisions regarding the status and disposition of our military forces.
Donald Rumsfeld and General Shinsecki testified before Congress regarding both the advisability and requirements for going to war with Iraq. Their testimonies were at odds with each other. You chose to allow our troops to go to war under Rumsfeld's plan even though Rumsfeld's qualifications were vastly inferior to those of General Shisecki. Rumsfeld, although he served in the U. S. Navy, has never been in combat or led troops in combat. General Shinsecki led troops in combat in Vietnam and lost part of a foot to a land mine there. He also served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. What led you to support Rumsfeld's position over that of General Shinsecki? What was your decision making process regarding this most consequential issue?
At the time that the vote for the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force" took place, Donald Rumsfeld had already tested his radical ideas of "transition" in the war games of "Millenium 2000". Rumsfeld lost. Marine General Van Riper commanded the enemy forces and, among other things, sank sixteen virtual U. S. warships. Instead of learning from this, Rumsfeld stopped the war games, brought destroyed American forces "back to life" and removed General Van Riper as the commander of enemy forces. The games were then declared a "victory" for Rumsfeld and his unsound theory of "transition". This was public knowledge. If I knew it you could have and should have known it as well. How did these facts enter into your decision to vote for the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force" on terms set forth by Donald Rumsfeld?
Perhaps, Senator Clinton, you can enlighten me as to precisely what you believe makes you exceptionally qualified to serve as Commander in Chief as I can't seem to come up with anything on my own.
Sincerely,
A Registered Democrat