So -- did she commend two "special operations" companies, or not? In a very technical, legalistic way, perhaps yes:...
I feel pretty confident that she isn't lying about commanding 2
special operations companies. What she is doing is using the similarity of names and the general ignorance of the public to give a false impression.
Very much like the confusion between
assault rifle, and
assault weapon, two very, very different things that look similar and have nearly identical names.
Special Operations is NOT Special Forces!!! The difference is further muddied by the use of "Spec Ops" to describe any non "standard" mission, no matter who does it.
Special Forces includes all the "sharp end" guys we normally think of, Green Berets, Delta Force, Rangers, and Chuck Norris...
Special Operations "units" include everything that isn't an organic part of a line unit. And that covers a huge range of things OTHER THAN COMBAT!!
I had a friend, who spent his military career in "special operations". His job was in Special Services. He was one of the guys who managed the rec center, handing out sports equipment, and the occasional musical instrument.
Saying "I commanded a Special Operations" company while a truthful statement should NEVER carry the weight of expertise without qualifying specifics. Saying "I commanded Alpha Company 2/77th Rangers" (and dates) does.
I did get a kick from some of her other statements, both the outright factual errors, and the implied, or directly stated, opinions presented as facts.
Statements like this "the 5.56 mm ammunition used in assault rifles is intentionally designed to slow down upon impact", written that way for the express purpose of shaping the opinion of people who don't know the facts, and aren't going to bother to.
For instance, its not just bullets, cars are equally "designed" to slow down upon impact. Everything in the known universe slows down upon impact. The "design" in one of the laws of physics,
Another phrase, all too often heard is " weapons that don’t belong in civilian hands ".
We hear this all the time from the anti's, that's their opinion. My opinion (and that of the Founders) is that there are no weapons that "don't belong in civilian hands". Usually when this particular argument happens, the anti's jump all the way to nuclear weapons, as the greatest example of something that shouldn't be in civilian hands.
The irony of that is that, US nuclear weapons ARE in civilian hands! The President is a civilian.
It is a firm principle of our system of government that the military is under civilian control. All of our military's weapons are under civilian control in that sense.