Ratcheting up her OWN war with the Pentagon, Hillary Clinton is joining with Senators Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, and Robert Byrd to demand that the Senate Committee on Armed Services hold hearings to determine the status of the Pentagon's contingency plans for withdrawal with Iraq.
The letter was sent to The Honorable Carl Levin, Chairman Committee on Armed Services and a copy sent to who else but The Honorable John McCain,
Ranking Member Committee on Armed Services.The demand could dramatically increase the public attention on the standoff between Senator Clinton and the Pentagon over Defense Department contingency plans for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
This could have the effect of putting more pressure on the Pentagon to release info to Congress about its planning for the possibility or eventuality of withdrawal -- as well as draw increased media attention to a standoff that carries obvious political benefits for Hillary in the context of Democratic Primary politics.
No kidding? So the Pentagon steps on Hillary's toes a bit. It's about time. I'm not going to sit here and use all the big words so many of you feel imperative to use in regard to this gathered around the table, collar wearing, self centered Wuff, Wuff. Her request are of a coward, using Iraq as another back stabbing, knife gutting tool for her victory walk into the White House. Much of Hillary's motivation is looking for advantage as a candidate, not serving as a responsible Senator.
Clinton's demand for information about those plans has already led to an impasse between her and the Pentagon that has drawn intense media attention. Her initial demand -- made in May -- prompted Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman to condemn her request as helpful to the enemy. When that became public it in turn prompted Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Friday to distance himself from Edelman's remarks. It seems that Edelman's letter, which was leaked to the press yesterday and prompted a media explosion, drew a sharp reply today from Clinton, who sent a letter to Gates this morning demanding that he personally account for Edelman's remarks.
Edelman wrote
"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia."He added that:
"such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."The letter Hillary and her followers wrote and signed to Levin and McCain reads:
The Honorable Carl LevinGates response before he was thorn switched by Hillary was:
Chairman
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate
R228
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chairman Levin:
We write to request that the Senate Committee on Armed Services hold a hearing on Department of Defense contingency planning for the redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq. Such a hearing could solicit the views of outside experts who have experience in the redeployment of large numbers of troops as well as administration witnesses. If necessary, portions of the hearing could be held in closed session.
The importance of holding this hearing was underscored this month when Senators Warner and Lugar introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act calling for the Administration to present its redeployment plan to Congress by October 16, 2007. As they noted, the safety and security of our military forces, as well as our nation’s credibility in the region, require that any military withdrawal or redeployment from Iraq be carefully planned and executed. A poorly planned withdrawal would compound the risks to our forces, coalition partners, and the government of Iraq.
The need for the Committee to know the status of Department of Defense redeployment planning is clear, yet past efforts by individual members to obtain this information were rebuffed. Following reports that the Pentagon was not engaging in detailed planning while the Iraqi Defense Ministry was preparing its own plans in the event that the United States and its forces departed Iraq quickly, the Secretary of Defense was requested in May to provide the appropriate oversight committees in Congress with briefings on the current status of contingency planning for the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman responded to this request on Secretary Gates’ behalf on July 16. A copy of his letter and other correspondence relating to this matter are enclosed for your reference. As you will see, Under Secretary Edelman raised spurious arguments to avoid discussing contingency planning and claimed that premature discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda. His assertion that necessary congressional oversight emboldens our enemies is outrageous.
As you are aware, the roots of the many problems facing our men and women serving in Iraq were planted by the failure of this Administration to develop sound, realistic plans. We cannot afford to repeat the same mistake when our forces redeploy. Congressional oversight will help to ensure that redeployment plans properly address the numerous challenges that our troops will face, including the resources and the diplomatic support required to ensure that any redeployment is safe and orderly.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely yours,
Hillary Rodham Clinton Robert C. Byrd
Evan Bayh Jim Webb
CC: The Honorable John McCain
Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services
“I have long been a staunch advocate of Congressional oversight, first at the CIA and now at the Defense Department. I have said on several occasions in recent months that I believe that congressional debate on Iraq has been constructive and appropriate. I had not seen Senator Clinton’s reply to Ambassador Edelman’s letter until today. I am looking into the issues she raised and will respond to them early next week.”That statement appears to show that he's distancing himself in a big way from Edelman, a Cheney protege, as well as from Edelman's suggestion that public discussion of troop withdrawal by Congress is helpful to the enemy.
Talk about being in the dog house! Wonder how much that really cost him, not to mention in the letter below, she was really "pissed"...
The Honorable Robert M. Gates
Secretary of Defense
The United States Department of Defense
The Pentagon
Suite 319
Washington, D.C. 20301
Dear Mr. Secretary:
On May 22, 2007, I wrote to you to request that you provide the appropriate oversight committees in Congress – including the Senate Armed Services Committee – with briefings on what current contingency plans exist for the future withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq. Alternatively, if no such plans exist, I asked for an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning.
I am in receipt of a letter from Eric Edelman, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy who wrote that he was responding on your behalf. Under Secretary Edelman's response did not address the issues raised in my letter and instead made spurious arguments to avoid addressing contingency planning for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.
As I noted in my original letter, "the seeds of many problems that continue to plague our troops and mission in Iraq were planted in the failure to adequately plan for the conflict and properly equip our men and women in uniform. Congress must be sure that we are prepared to withdraw our forces without any unnecessary danger."
Rather than offer to brief the congressional oversight committees on this critical issue, Under Secretary Edelman – writing on your behalf – instead claims that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies. Under Secretary Edelman has his priorities backward. Open and honest debate and congressional oversight strengthens our nation and supports our military. His suggestion to the contrary is outrageous and dangerous. Indeed, you acknowledged the importance of Congress in our Iraq policy at a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee in March, when you stated, "I believe that the debate here on the Hill and the issues that have been raised have been helpful in bringing pressure to bear on the Maliki government and on the Iraqis in knowing that there is a very real limit to American patience in this entire enterprise."
Redeploying out of Iraq will be difficult and requires careful planning. I continue to call on the Bush Administration to immediately provide a redeployment strategy that will keep our brave men and women safe as they leave Iraq – instead of adhering to a political strategy to attack those who rightfully question their competence and preparedness after years of mistakes and misjudgments.
Other members of this Administration have not engaged in political attacks when the prospect of withdrawal planning has been raised. At the June 7 Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing on Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, I asked General Lute "what level of planning has taken place" and "whether the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs have been briefed about the level of planning." I also asked General Lute to determine "what kind of timeline would exist if a decision for either military or political reasons were taken to begin withdrawal" and if he considered this kind of planning to be part of his responsibilities.
General Lute replied, "Thank you Senator. I do think such an adaptation, if the conditions on the ground call for it, will be part of this position."
I renew my request for a briefing, classified if necessary, on current plans for the future withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq or an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning. I also renew my concern that our troops will be placed in unnecessary danger if the Bush Administration fails to plan for the withdrawal of U.S. Forces. Finally, I request that you describe whether Under Secretary Edelman's letter accurately characterizes your views as Secretary of Defense.
I would appreciate the courtesy of a prompt response directly from you. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Mistress Clinton and her temper tantrums, along with her "pets" by her side, sit boys, sit...are a disgrace to this nation. Further more, anyone who would try to slither into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the ethic she uses, when clearly it has been defined by more than one military leader that to leave Iraq at this moment would be devastating to the progress that has been already achieved there.
It seems to me that what she is wanting is for the United States to turn renegade, become cowards in the face of all nations, but more importantly to our own military personal who are serving not just in Iraq, but all over the world. What does this say to the families who have lost a child from this war, but who STILL believe that we as a nation have made the right decision in regard to expelling ourselves of rodents that infested human life.
Thank God every day we have young, old, middle aged men and woman who see the need to serve our country with dignity and pursuit. If everyone of "us" would go after Hillary with such passion she certainly wouldn't be fueling her bank account for this upcoming election, already having gathered 63 million dollars to do so. Just wait until this campaign appear on television with negative ads, along with her theory to promote her husband, the Fundraiser-in-Chief, to headline events and remind liberals of the "Two-for-One" package you get if the Clinton's are in the White House. For every person who thinks we need to pull out of Iraq, should have their bags packed and replace the ones coming home. There isn't a more reliable source to educate than the hands on method. It's not all about book work.
To be honest here, it will be interesting to see who will be able to match her right out in the face of the world open cleverness and see what approach will be taken to at least keep her and "boy bill" out of the White House.
