beyond the pale

As reported by John Hinderaker at Powerline, Sen. Obama made a couple real humdingers today at a Memorial Day appearance in New Mexico. Go there to see some of the biggies, including a total misunderstanding of the purpose of Memorial Day--unless, of course, Obama claims to be able to see spirits. It would go well with a Messiah complex I guess, but I think this can be better written up to a man who is clearly not ready to have his every word and action scrutinized by thinking people. I guess for him it's a good thing that he's a Democrat.

I took particular umbrage to something that he said that is so UNBELIEVABLY dispicable that I am literally seeing red right now. Again, as reported by Mr. Hinderaker, Obama said this:

And part of what we need is to recognize that oftentimes our women servicemembers are more prone to post-traumatic stress disorder partly because they -- there's a sad, but real, problem of sexual harassment and sexual abuse for women veterans, and that makes them much more prone, then, to have post-traumatic stress disorder.

where to begin. . .

So what you're saying, Senator, is that women are "more prone" to suffer PTSD because they've been sexually harassed or abused.

More prone than what?

More prone than the men? So are you saying that women are more prone than men to suffer long-term degradation from battlefront experiences because of something the men are doing to them? That seems a bit sexist, I would think--I definitely couldn't foresee a women's empowerment czar or czarina broadcasting that message from the highest mountains. And it doesn't portray ANY man in uniform in a good light--that's a good day's work for a wannabe Commander In Chief!

Or did he mean that the prevailing conditions over there make women more prone to PTSD than if there was no sexual abuse or harassment? How, good sir, did you come to believe THAT???!!! Aren't the things that the women are doing over there every day--like even being there--perfectly legitimate activities to induce a long-term negative psychological effect? Or do you think that the women's contributions are such that they'd likely NOT experience PTSD--which is happening to the similarly-serving male populace in large numbers--were it not for the horrible culture that you insinuate runs amok over there?

Again, that's sexism AND a slander against the military.

The thing that gets me most is how off-handed the comment was. Clearly this wasn't scripted--I certainly hope it was not--but he said this whopper of a statement and didn't even think that what he was saying would be considered controversial or that it required more amplification. "Our men serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are a bunch of savages, and our women are their prey" he may as well have said. It probably would have been closer to his honest feelings anyhow.

And the real crux of it is: what will you do about it if you are President? We've got rules against that kind of wrongdoing right now, which you insist are simply not working. How will it be different under your administration?

Will you kick women out of the military?

Or will you just insist that no women serve in a combat zone? That's something you could do on day one of your presidency and have it take effect in about 2 weeks--will you do it?

Or will you just let things continue as they are now. And what is the reason for that course of action?

How much do you really care about these honorable women serving their country under the most challenging of conditions?

Do you care enough to give them their own voice?

Or is that a bridge too far for you?

Disgusting. Hillary, PLEASE make a big deal out of this!