Clintons turned military into waiters

[snopes]

Comment: I was told that during the Clinton years, military people
returning home from service, were invited to the White House for a formal
dinner. When they arrived, they were handed white napkins and sent out to
be waiters, insulting the returning soldiers. This can NOT be true?

[Sara@home]

In another thread we were discussing the how effective the smear campaign against Hillary would be now that she has declared for the presidental race. We didn't dicuss how soon it would start up. We figured it would wait until she won the nomination but apparently not. I hadn't heard this crap for awhile but I easily found it posted on another forum (Free Republic, where else?) a month ago. Gotta tell the Hillary bashers to hold off until she gets nominated or she may not be the easy target the Republicans are hoping to go up against. For the life of me I don't understand the degree of hatred that people feel towards her which make them so willing to believe the most ridiculous stories about her.

To: Kimmers
Hillary treats everyone like crap- especially those who "serve" her - or the nation.

Haven't you read the stories of how she expects secret service agents to carry her luggage?

About how military aides at the Clinton White House were pressed into service as cocktail waiters at a Clinton party because their military uniforms were more impressive than the wait staffs? (admittedly no waiter has ever chosen to be buried in his uniform with all his medals)

About orders from Hillary's staff that no one who might be passed by her in a WH hallway was permitted to look into the eyes of "she who must be obeyed"?

Of how right after Bubba Clinton took office, Hillary's co-President staff directed there were to be no military uniforms worn in the White House (after an incident of extreme disrespect to Gen McAffery when he attended a WH meeting? About how a young troop in uniform, waiting in the WH visitor with his family, was pulled out and denied entry by a snot form Hillarys staff?) Anyone who worked in DC during the Klinton regime can attest to these incidents and policies.

Of how the First Lady's staff gave advance orders that - when the First "lady" was traveling on AF One, senior military officers meeting the aircraft on the tarmac (usually requires hours of waiting and standing to assure secure perimeter and to render honors upon VIP arrival) - were to stand some distance away so she didn't have to see them or shake hands?

It's all crap. Can't prove it because you can't prove something never happened. So the answer is to ask anyone who wants you to believe it's true to prove it did happen using a reliable source, not some unsupported claim in an anonymous post on a wacko website.

Oh, as a special treat, snopes is mentioned on that page to debunk the allegation that the Clintons charged the Secret Service rent. Of course, that crowd doesn't consider snopes (or, apparently, any of snopes' resources) reliable. Even if we could prove it never happened, the people who believe it would likely disregard the proof as they did the other urban legend.

[Malruhn]

Actually, Sara, it IS true - but the situation is taken completely out of context.

Many military galas - and things having to do with the military - have military members as servers and bartenders and the like. I know, cuz I was an admiral's bartender for six years...

If there is a party sponsored by the military, even just inviting folks over for dinner and the like, there will be military cooks, chefs, servers and stewards... it is the way we operate.

I can VERY easily see the Clintons - Pres and Mrs - going to some functions and then the above post is written because they hate the Clintons. It is true - but taken completely out of context - but I can see absolutely NO way a wandering trooper would be given an invite and end up serving. The parties are already staffed for stuff like that. If a sudden flu or whatever sidelines a server, there are people on tap to act as pinch-hitters.

My former commanding officer was the Presidential Staff Aide for the Coast Guard... and she was in full dress uniform all OVER the white house. Again, a BS accusation.

The last accusation, about the aides standing out of the way, well, THAT part is true - but not so she wouldn't soil her vision with their viewing - it was so that she could go left, straight or right without having to dodge out of the way. The Helo aides do that with EVERYONE - not just her. They know that a dignitary is coming, and who it is and what time - that's it. They don't know which direction they are headed... so they just stay near enough to be summoned, but far enough away to be out of the way.

I may not like Hillary - but these accusations are completely spurious and unnecessary.

I wonder how these people would react if I made known my belief that all republicans are nothing but liars and thieves, without a trace of integrity or scruples.

Oh...I just did. Well I still stand by it.

[DesertRat]

I wonder how these people would react if I made known my belief that all republicans are nothing but liars and thieves, without a trace of integrity or scruples.

Oh...I just did. Well I still stand by it.

Oh for Christ's sake... enough already with certain posters slandering the personal character of entire segments of the general population simply because you don't agree with their politics. It's arrogant, ignorant, immature, and only makes YOU look like an asshole.

GROW THE F**K UP. Snark intended.

(And no, I'm not a Republican... wrap your narrow little mind around that.)

[Sara@home]

Originally Posted by Malruhn

Actually, Sara, it IS true - but the situation is taken completely out of context.

No, it's not true. The military people -- those "returning home", no less -- involved were not led to believe they were invited guests only to end up being wait staff. As you said, the military people who were serving knew that they were going to be wait staff before they arrived.

Other than those three little words, I really appreciated your post.

[Troodon]

Originally Posted by DesertRat

Oh for Christ's sake... enough already with certain posters slandering the personal character of entire segments of the general population simply because you don't agree with their politics. It's arrogant, ignorant, immature, and only makes YOU look like an asshole.

GROW THE F**K UP. Snark intended.

(And no, I'm not a Republican... wrap your narrow little mind around that.)

Were Saddam Hussein and his supporters evil, or were we just slandering them because we disagreed with their politics?

[musicgeek]

Originally Posted by Troodon

Were Saddam Hussein and his supporters evil, or were we just slandering them because we disagreed with their politics?

Not the same thing -- better to ask "are all followers of Saddam Hussein and the Baath party evil individuals devoid of any compassion or redeeming characteristics?"

The post Desert Rat was replying to stated unequivocally that ALL republicans are essentially duplicitous, unscrupulous individuals.

There are many who believe that the current administration's broad-brush approach to foreign policy, i.e. all Saddam's followers (would that be Saddamites?) were inherently bad and needed to be excluded from Iraq's future while all who resisted Saddam were inherently good and noble, was a major factor in the mess in which we now find ourselves.

[Troodon]

If someone rescues puppies and orphans all day but also supports (even just ideologically) the execution of his political opponents, he has redeeming characteristics but he is evil.

Of course, the current American government isn't going that far, but it does appear that our leaders have instituted a policy of systematic torture of prisoners, among other things. Thus, I'm going to go ahead and say that the willing supporters of the current administration are either foolish or evil. On the other hand, "Republican" is a vague term, and I suppose that there are people out there who consider themselves Republicans and yet don't support the administration.

[Sara@home]

Originally Posted by Troodon

If someone rescues puppies and orphans all day but also supports (even just ideologically) the execution of his political opponents, he has redeeming characteristics but he is evil.

Of course, the current American government isn't going that far, but it does appear that our leaders have instituted a policy of systematic torture of prisoners, among other things. Thus, I'm going to go ahead and say that the willing supporters of the current administration are either foolish or evil. On the other hand, "Republican" is a vague term, and I suppose that there are people out there who consider themselves Republicans and yet don't support the administration.

Republican (capital "R") is not a vague term. It refers to a political party when discussing American politics. And Heart of Darkness did paint all Republican politicians and party members with the same dark brush. He said they were "liars and thieves, without a trace of integrity or scruples". Moving the goalposts to define "Republican" as the Bush administration and focusing the discussion on torture and executions is disingenuous.

If Heart of Darkness's use of the lower case "r" is not anything more than laziness and if he indeed meant "republican", then Dessert Rat is even more right, it that's possible.

[musicgeek]

ETA:In response to Troodon's last post: (Sara has quicker fingers than I!) Ah, that makes things clearer. I would go so far as to say there are many who consider themselves republicans who don't support the current administration, and quite a few polls tend to agree. I'm a registered Democrat, but that doesn't automatically mean I agree with all that my party leadership does, or even all the planks in the party platform. Nor does it mean I vote exclusively democratic.

[Troodon]

I still think that "Republican" can mean several different things - there are different political philosophies whose followers consider themselves "Republicans". Even within the actual Republican party, you have people with different political philosophies, although of course party members will tend to work together more closely than people who simply self-identify as "Republicans".

I think that a particular political philosophy, one identified as "Republican", is evil. There are other political philosophies, also identified as "Republican", that I do not think are evil.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Troodon

I think that a particular political philosophy, one identified as "Republican", is evil. There are other political philosophies, also identified as "Republican", that I do not think are evil.

Sounds confusing. Perhaps you should find a more distinctive way to identify the philosophy you think is evil.

[Troodon]

Originally Posted by Lainie

Sounds confusing. Perhaps you should find a more distinctive way to identify the philosophy you think is evil.

I did, by explicitly saying that I though that the current US administration and its supporters were evil. The point I'm trying to make is that the statement "Republicans are all evil" means different things depending on which group "Republicans" refers to. It does not necessarily refer to everyone whose politics you (the general you) disagree with, although it is careless to use it without specifying.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Troodon

I did, by explicitly saying that I though that the current US administration and its supporters were evil. The point I'm trying to make is that the statement "Republicans are all evil" means different things depending on which group "Republicans" refers to.

What Sara said:

Originally Posted by Sara@home

Republican (capital "R") is not a vague term. It refers to a political party when discussing American politics.

Looks like this next political season is going to be fun. Time to order popcorn and a root beer.....

Okay, so far I've read about Hillary and her hate for the military, Obama and his secret Muslim agenda. If Kerry runs, they'll just drag out the swift boats, but who else have I missed?

[RBCal]

Well I personally would rather serve in DC than serve in Iraq. Much less chance of getting shot in DC.

Originally Posted by RBCal

Well I personally would rather serve in DC than serve in Iraq. Much less chance of getting shot in DC.

Are you sure? Murder Capitol USA

[RBCal]

Rep. King’s shoddy “report” has slowly gained greater circulation, appearing in the New York Sun and on the Rush Limbaugh show.

Here’s why the report is deceptive and false:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/31/dc-safer-iraq/


Hard to believe that the Republicans would use deceptive and false statements. Shocking really!

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by Sara@home

If Heart of Darkness's use of the lower case "r" is not anything more than laziness and if he indeed meant "republican", then Dessert Rat is even more right, it that's possible.

Now there's proof that DR is really a sweet guy!

Originally Posted by The Heart Of Darkness

I wonder how these people would react if I made known my belief that all republicans are nothing but liars and thieves, without a trace of integrity or scruples.

Oh...I just did. Well I still stand by it.

I can think of at least one Republican who would completely contradict your description -- honest, not a thief, and with integrity and scruples that are second to none. I'll let her identify herself should she want to.

So I guess your theory that all are liars is ... well, a lie.