Velma Berger – 3/14/08

This page was last updated on March 15, 2008.

Give Hillary a chance; Velma Berger; Beaver County Times; March 14, 2008.

Ms. Berger is taking a break from her normal topic. You’ll recall Ms. Berger has a series of at least 23 Bush and Iraqi-bashing letters dating back to February 2005. In one letter, Ms. Berger told us she was proud of John Murtha. In another letter, Ms. Berger actually claimed she has “a clock ticking down to Bush’s last day in office” and that she “carr[ies] it on [her] purse everywhere [she] go[es].”

Below is a detailed critique of the letter.

“During the Clinton years in the White House, we enjoyed peace and prosperity.”

[RWC] Along with other partisans, Ms. Berger has either a short memory or a different definition peace than I.

Let’s look at “the Clinton years in the White House.” 1993: foiled assassination attempt of former President George H.W. Bush; 1993: World Trade Center bombing - six dead civilians; 1993: U.S. peacekeepers in Somalia - 18 dead soldiers; 1996: bombing of Khobar Towers military barracks in Saudi Arabia - 19 dead servicemen; 1998: On February 23rd, Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States; 1998: U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed - 224 dead African civilians; 2000: USS Cole bombed - 17 dead sailors.

“It was easy to answer the question, ‘Are you better off than you were four (or eight) years ago?’ The answer was ‘yes’ because there were plenty of jobs and the economy was good.”

[RWC] Ms. Berger failed to note the recession at the end of Clinton administration. I don’t blame Mr. Clinton for the recession; I’m just pointing out the situation. Ms. Berger also failed to note there are over 6 million more jobs now than at the end of the Clinton administration.

In any case, what did Mrs. Clinton have to do with any of this? Bill Clinton was the President, not Hillary. If you’ve been paying attention, just about all of Mrs. Clinton’s claims of key involvement during the Clinton administration are being refuted by the people who were actually involved. These include claims of key involvement in SCHIP, the Northern Ireland peace process, and Bosnia. For most of her foreign policy claims to even be credible, Mrs. Clinton would have needed the appropriate security clearance. According to The New York Times, “But during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda. And during one of President Bill Clinton’s major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled.”

The only legitimate claim of key involvement appears to be Hillarycare, though Mrs. Clinton’s apologists try to blame the failure on Republicans despite the fact Hillarycare went down in flames when Democrats still controlled both houses of Congress.

“With all the Hillary bashing during this time, she remained a great first lady. I don’t know any others who worked as hard as she did. She was too brilliant to just visit schools and read to the first graders and write books about the dog.”

[RWC] Ms. Berger failed to tell us what Mrs. Clinton worked hard doing. You’ll find this is a recurring trait of the letter.

You have to love the “[Mrs. Clinton] was too brilliant” comment. As far as I can tell, Ms. Berger is trying to dump on Barbara Bush, President George H.W. Bush’s wife. In her attempt to belittle Mrs. Bush, Ms. Berger failed to note Mrs. Bush founded The Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy in 1989. According to the foundation’s website, “Since its inception, the Foundation has awarded more than $30 million to nearly 650 family literacy programs in 48 states and our nation’s capital.”

“When the news reported the shameful conduct of the president, she faced people with her head up and continued her work. She did not go into seclusion as poor Pat Nixon did. She rose above it and became a U.S. senator, and, I might say, a hard working one.”

[RWC] I wonder how many letters Ms. Berger wrote decrying “the shameful conduct of the president” when it mattered. <g>

Ms. Berger failed to note Mrs. Clinton blamed her husband’s predicament on the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” not her husband’s history of cheating on her. How did Pat Nixon get dragged into this? Based on my recollection and a quick web search, I found nothing to support Ms. Berger’s assertion that Mrs. Nixon went “into seclusion” during the Watergate scandal. Based on the attempts to belittle Barbara Bush and Pat Nixon, it appears Ms. Berger is trying to “elevate” Mrs. Clinton by dumping on others. That doesn’t speak well for either Ms. Berger or Mrs. Clinton.

Frankly, having never been married, I’m probably not in the best position to give my two cents on this topic, but here goes. What about putting up with a cheater and liar – let alone a serial cheater – speaks highly of Mrs. Clinton or anyone else in a similar position?

You’ll note Ms. Berger failed to tell us what actions justified the description of “a hard working” senator. There’s a reason. Mrs. Clinton has been running for president since her 2000 Senate campaign (That’s why she ran for New York senator instead of Arkansas senator.) and has no Senate accomplishments to her credit.

“Now, she is a presidential candidate and certainly has all of the qualifications. I compare her to Eleanor Roosevelt, who was a great first lady and a leader before her time.”

[RWC] You’ll note Ms. Berger doesn’t list even one of “all of the qualifications” Mrs. Clinton allegedly has to be President.

“Hillary Clinton would make a great president. She is a great worker and has dedicated her life to fighting for the less fortunate. World leaders know she is tough and respect her.”

[RWC] Again, note Ms. Berger doesn’t present one piece of evidence to support her assertions about Mrs. Clinton.

“Give her a chance to bring peace and prosperity back to America.”

[RWC] If you thought the above was just the usual propaganda a worshipper spreads about her favored candidate, it’s worse.

If you’ve followed Ms. Berger’s letter writing for the past three years, you’re probably aware the vast majority railed against President Bush about the war in Iraq and demanded the troops be brought home immediately. Why, then, would Ms. Berger endorse Mrs. Clinton? Note Ms. Berger didn’t mention the war in Iraq even in passing in this letter.

Here’s a brief history of Mrs. Clinton and the Iraq War. In 2002, Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq War Resolution along with 58% of Senate Democrats. In 2003, in a speech before the anti-war group Code Pink, Mrs. Clinton forcefully defended her vote and told Code Pink why they were wrong. During one of the early Democrat debates in 2007, Mrs. Clinton refused to pledge she would have all troops (other than those guarding the embassy, etc.) out by the end of her first term as President. Of course, we’ve also heard Mrs. Clinton blame everyone else for the war and claim she would bring the troops home immediately. The version of the story Mrs. Clinton gives depends on the audience.

In fairness to Mrs. Clinton, Barack Obama (and John Edwards before he dropped out of the race) have also continuously flip-flopped depending on the audience. During the same debate I mentioned above, along with Mrs. Clinton, neither Mr. Edwards nor Mr. Obama would commit to have our troops out of Iraq by the end of their first terms, while telling a different story during campaign rallies.

I’ll ask my question again. Given Ms. Berger’s long-term and nearly single-minded focus on getting our troops out of Iraq and Mrs. Clinton’s history on the issue, why would Ms. Berger endorse Mrs. Clinton, especially in such glowing terms?

Could it be getting our troops out of Iraq immediately is only an issue for Ms. Berger when the President isn’t a Democrat? Could it be Ms. Berger inadvertently told us her alleged concern for our troops was simply motivated by politics?