Retired Lt. General William G. “Jerry” Boykin does not like Hillary Clinton. Boykin has a similar dislike of facts. Boykin, who is executive vice president of a hate group — Family Research Council — has penned “Jerry Boykin: These Are My Concerns About Hillary Clinton.”
In 1978 an Army psychologist tried to exclude Boykin from Delta force for being too religious. It is fair to say that Boykin does not like Secretary Clinton because she is pro-choice, a proponent of LGBT rights, a Democrat and she wears pantsuits. Conservative Christians do a great deal of reverse engineering. They start with a preordained conclusion and then, using selective observation, make their case.
For example, their book precludes the possibility that their god created gay people. Therefore, they conclude that homosexuality is a choice. They will find “evidence” without regard to credibility to support the conclusion which is based on their ancient chronicles. Another example is that abortion is bad, therefore abortion causes breast cancer (no it does not). Dealing with conservative Christian science is reminiscent of the Tobacco Institute.
Having concluded that Clinton is bad, very bad, Boykin must find just cause and does so without regard for credibility, including his own.
… our military is being devastated by the administration of Barack Obama and our military readiness is at the lowest point that I have seen since the end of the Vietnam conflict. Budget cuts have devastated military readiness with units now cannibalizing equipment to keep airplanes flying and tanks running.
When Boykin is not blaming Muslims or gays for whatever is irritating him, he is blaming President Obama. There is a very real problem caused by budget cuts. I am not qualified to judge whether or not it is as serious as Boykin suggests. However, I do know the history. In 2011 the House of Representatives, with its many Tea Party crackpots, was more interested in derailing the President’s reelection than doing the business of the country.
In 2011 the Budget Control Act was designed to to be so horrific that it would force Congress to work together. Things did not work out that way. The Tea Party cheerleaders have some serious intellectual deficits when it comes to basic arithmetic. The bill took effect creating sequestration in 2013, something that was never supposed to happen. The military has been victimized by budget uncertainties for the last five years. Congress has provided some relief to the military. However, in 2015, according to the Department of Defense:
Because of the Budget Control Act, readiness money was diverted to other needs, the chairman said.
Readiness – that combination of personnel, training and equipment that produces capability — suffered even as the pace of operations grew. “We had a period of prolonged commitments,” [Army Gen. and Chairman Martin E.] Dempsey said. “Those commitments have both taxed the force in terms of [operational] tempo.”
While readiness has improved from where it was, “it’s not where it needs to be,” the general said.
Fast forward to September 23, 2016 and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, along with Joint Chiefs Chairman Marine Corps. Gen. Joe Dunford appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee:
The secretary took on a more serious tone when he said that as an institution, DoD has three grave budgetary concerns with which Congress can help.
“One [is] budget gridlock and instability,” Carter said. “Two; micromanagement and overregulation, and three: denial of needed reforms. As you’ve heard consistently from me and DOD senior leaders, all three are serious concerns.”
DoD needs Congress to come together around providing normal, stable, responsible budgets, Carter told the committee.
In other words, Boykin’s complaint is legitimate. Blaming President Obama is misguided. Tacking the blame onto Sec. Clinton is absurd. Boykin continues:
Morale is lower than I have ever seen it due to the social experiments and the assault on religious liberty. Good people are leaving and quality young men and women are discouraged from entering the services as they see what our armed forces have become and how they would be treated.
For these reasons, I have very grave concerns about Hillary Clinton as the next commander in chief. She has helped create this current crisis and will make it even worse as president.
Boykin does not quantify this in any way whatsoever. More importantly he retired almost ten years ago. How, exactly, is he in a position to measure morale? I assume that the “social experiments” includes allowing gays to serve openly as of September 20, 2011, nearly five years after he retired. The Pentagon did an extensive study prior to repeal of DADT and the Joint Chiefs had to certify the repeal before it even went into effect. The end-of-world mayhem that was predicted by the religious right does not seem to have happened. Religious liberty is no different now than when Boykin retired. This is a favorite FRC talking point that might be good for raising money but it has no substance.
Remember that she left people to die in Benghazi, which is
inexcusable. Furthermore, she compromised national security with her
blatant disregard for classified materials rules and regulations that
were designed to protect the nation by denying the enemy a knowledge of
The accusation regarding Benghazi is outrageous. From what I can tell there are three primary complaints about Sec. Clinton’s performance regarding Benghazi. One is false. Two are true but portrayed falsely.
Before I get into this, it is the terrorists who are responsible for the deaths in Benghazi. Not the administration and certainly not Sec. Clinton.
The first complaint is that Sec. Clinton slept through the attack. There is considerable evidence that Clinton was fully engaged and in continuous contact with the President, military leaders and people in Libya. People don’t seem to realize that nighttime in Lybia is daytime here. The attack started at about 4:00 PM EDT (10:00 PM Benghazi time).
The second charge is that Secretary Clinton misled people as to the cause of the terrorist attack claiming that it was a reaction to an anti-Islamic video. Clinton did do that but she was repeating the guidance that she received from the Central Intelligence Agency. In any event, this was after the fact. Nobody died because Clinton blamed the video.
The third is that security at the embassy was inadequate. It certainly was in spite of numerous requests for additional manpower and equipment. However, none of that came to Clinton’s attention. State is an enormous enterprise. Overall the State Department employs 13,000 Foreign Service employees, 11,000 Civil Service employees and 45,000 Foreign Service local employees. The U.S. currently has 294 physical embassies, consulates, and diplomatic missions across the world. The idea that a few machine guns and additional Marine Corps. personnel are going to come to the secretary’s attention is ridiculous. In fact five people at State were suspended and then reinstated after a review.
Boykin’s assertion that “she left people to die in Benghazi” is dishonest. He certainly knows better. I am always amazed by the the ease with which some conservative Christians lie in spite of their self-righteousness. Boykin continues:
Hillary will complete the Obama agenda of the complete destruction of
America’s armed forces by continuing and even accelerating the pace
of the destructive policies of President Barack Obama. Consequently, my
grandchildren will have a dubious future and America’s enemies will grow
in strength and boldness while Mrs. Clinton panders to her socialist
allies who would love nothing more than to see this nation become a
third-rate military power.
“Hillary” is it? Okay Jerry. First off to suggest that there is an Obama agenda for the destruction of our armed forces is preposterous. If he is suggesting that a possible Republican-controlled Congress might obstruct President Hillary Clinton, whose fault would that be? If, the minute she puts her ass into the chair in the oval office, Republican leaders are scheming to deny her reelection four years into the future (which is what they did to Obama) then they are placing politics over the business of the country. In fact they would be engaged in deliberately harming the country for political gain. In all my years I have never seen Congress this politicized. I will forever resent what they tried to do to Obama at all our expense.
I have no idea who Clinton’s “socialist allies” are nor do I know what qualifies one to be a socialist in Boykin’s rather deranged mind when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Regardless of who becomes the next president, our military is unlikely to decline as Boykin suggests but Congress needs to remove budget uncertainties. Boykin knows all this. He is simply being dishonest.
I go back to my original point. Boykin does not like Secretary Clinton because she is pro-choice, a proponent of LGBT rights, a Democrat and she wears pantsuits. The rest is just BS to obfuscate the reality.