Colonel Richard Klass: Hillary's Experience - It's Not Secret

[Ashy Larry]

Senator Clinton has based her claim to be a stronger nominee than Senator Barack Obama on he "thirty-five years of experience" and blithely conflates that to her national security experience. The facts tell a different story. Before she was elected to the Senate, she had no direct experience dealing with any national security issues because she had no security clearances. She did not have a secret or top secret clearance. She certainly did not have access to higher compartmentalized programs. She could not read the president's Daily Brief or sit in on a meeting in the Cabinet or situation room where classified topics were discussed. In short, during her eight years as First Lady she had no serious national security role or exposure to critical national security issues beyond what she learned from the media. Perhaps one of the reasons that the Clintons have been reluctant to release the documents showing Mrs. Clinton's role in her husband's administrations is that they would show that she played no substantive national security role in those administrations.

Senator Clinton has recently touted her "lifetime of experience: rather than just thirty-five years as able to match the lifetime of experience of Sen. John McCain. (Doesn't everyone have a lifetime of experience?) If she gets the nomination and tries to run on her national security experience as compared to Senator McCain, her representations will be shown to be hollow and the person answering the phone in 2009 will be Senator McCain.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-klass/hillarys-experience-it_b_91171.html

Colonel Richard Klass. USAF (ret.) is a graduate of the US Air Force Academy, the National War College and Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar. He flew over 200 combat missions in Vietnam and served in the Executive Office of the President as a White House Fellow. His awards include the Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross and Purple Heart.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-klass

[Captain Hilts]

1. And what makes him an expert on her? nt

[Ashy Larry]

2. There is an easy way to rebut any of his assertions,

just release the records from her time as first lady.

[roguevalley]

3. service in the executive office of the president perhaps?

[1776Forever]

4. Wow - Col. Klass is President of VetPAC - Says it is in opposition to Iraq misadaventure......

http://www.vetpac.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=40

Exciting News for VetPAC and its Supporters!
Sunday, 24 February 2008

Dear VETPAC Supporters,

We have exciting news! We have concluded the process of affiliation with the Council for a Livable World (CLW). Our new name is Council for a Livable World - VETPAC.

CLW is a long established non-profit 501(C)(4) organization involved in national security issues such as arms control, non-proliferation and opposition to the Iraq misadventure. They have over 20,000 members and an administrative structure that will permit CLW-VETPAC to continue and grow. Our efforts are complimentary and we will continue to stress veterans issues and work to elect progressive veterans to Congress. Check out our endorsed candidates, your contributions to them are welcomed and encouraged. We will have a new contributions mechanism available from there soon.

We urge you to join the Council for a Livable World (www.clw.org) and contribute to our joint efforts. This is a critical election year and we must change the course of this country.

Sincerely,

Colonel Richard L. Klass, USAF (retired)

President, CLW-VETPAC

.....................

They do not show Obama as a candidate on their site as someone they are endorsing but with the Huffington Post article it looks like Col. Klass feels that he is the best choice! Thank you Col. Klass!

:patriot:

[Ashy Larry]

5. Col. Klass did endorse Obama

In this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-klass/who-is-the-real-agent-for_b_78185.html

So, with all I have invested in the first Clinton administration, why am I supporting Senator Obama? There are a number of reasons. Of secondary importance is my aversion to dynasties, Bush I was mediocre, Bush II is a disaster of cosmic proportions. Bill Clinton was a good president who, except for some personal flaws, could have been a great president. But Clinton II would be a roll of the dice, and probably a soap opera. And who would want to be vice president or secretary of state under that co-presidency?.

More important, as a retired military officer, I have to ask who would be the better Commander-in-Chief. The first quality I look for is the judgment of the candidate and his team. Senator Obama passed this test for Iraq as did his team. He also opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that could give Vice President Cheney the ammunition to convince President Bush to attack Iran. Senator Clinton failed both tests of judgment.

[1776Forever]

6. OK - Thanks!

:applause: