Hillary Clinton Responds To Edelman's Letter By Going To His Boss
By Nicole Belle Thursday Jul 19, 2007 3:50pm 
AP via Yahoo: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton hit back Friday at a Pentagon aide who charged that her questions about Iraq withdrawal planning have the effect of helping the enemy - calling the accusation a spurious dodge of a serious issue.
Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for president, had asked the Pentagon to detail how it is planning for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. She first raised the issue in May, pointing out that whenever troops leave, it will be no simple task to transport the people, equipment, and vehicles out of Iraq, possibly through hostile territory.
Eric Edelman, the Defense Department's undersecretary for policy, offered a sharply-worded response, saying such discussions boost the enemy.
"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," Edelman wrote. His tough language in a letter obtained Thursday was surprising in part because it came in correspondence with a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has oversight of the Pentagon.
Clinton responded Friday in a letter to Edelman's boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, asking if he agreed with Edelman's charge.
BREAKING: Clinton, Kerry To Require Pentagon To Brief Congress On Redeployment Plans
Copy of Clinton's letter to Gates below the fold.
From an email:
July 19, 2007
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
Login or Register to post comments.
first
Not bad, Hillary. Kind of presidential, even.
Gates does seem to act according to his own conscience so maybe we'll see something happen out of this. Again that wild and weird optimism is showing through. But this is the guy who was publicly breaking down over the death of soldiers. You never know.
I'm not a fan by any stretch, but that's how I'dve done it.
Right to the point, Hillary.
So whaddaya say, Bob?
Going straight to the boss and over your underling head = a big fuck you Edelman
This Edelman charactor is waaaaaaay out of his league. Hillary will eat his lunch.
Too much of Hillary's past behavior as a Senator has been too calculated (politically speaking) for me to be interested in her presidential bid, but her response to Edleman is on the mark. If she shows more signs of directness in her responses to other issues, I'll reconsider my feelings about her other political aspirations.
What I want to know is, who directed Edelman to send that letter? It's a shot across the bow at Ms. Clinton. Did Edelman once work for Cheney in some capacity or another, hmmm?
We are going about this all wrong. We need to stop arguing right or wrong and start arguing that Bush & Cheney are thoroughly incompetent. If the debate goes that way they have no facts whatsoever supporting Bush. When it's framed in hypotheticals about good vs evil he reframes it to the democrats detriment. Please read my essay detailing everything the REPBUBLICANTS have failed to achieve in every area of government to see what I'm driving at
NEW REPUBLICANT ACRONYM
Rich
Elitists
Professing
Unending
Bigotry,
Lacking
Integrity,
Compassion,
And
Never
Talking
Straight
Strawberry @ 7:
Yep. He'd better sign up for the Witless protection program asap.
Strawberry @ 7:
You may be right, but I'll bet Edelman didn't make those comments without the approval of the Bush administration. And we've all seen how little accountability is enforced by the administration under those circumstances.
Hey Edelman, you screwed the pooch. Your current overlords will be gone in January 2009. Hillary will either be president, or a senator for many years. Welcome to Suckville, population you.
Edelman's response was irresponsible. Hillary, however, is grandstanding here. If she was being Senatorial and really cared about the issue -- adequate contingency planning for eventual withdrawal -- she would be pursuing this through staff channels not in newspaper headlines. First and foremost, she's a presidential candidate skilled in the politics of division who must overcome a momunmental lack of judgement in voting for the war in Iraq. If the polls suddently shifted for the war, so would Hillary.
It's all kabuki. Hillary's one of the biggest neocons going. This was just a stunt to give Clinton some cred with the dirty hippies. That's just all it is.
Rusty Shackleford @ 13:
LMAO! That scene in ALIENS just popped into my head, where the queen alien slowly stands up and turns around and hisses just before she pounces.
Straight Shooter @ 9:
"His last assignment was as Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey from July 2003 to June 2005. From February 2001 to June 2003, he was Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs...."
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=45
so, yeppers, another cheney boy.
I don't give a shit if she's grandstanding with this, party-of-one. If she went another way, you'd possibly be all over that.
I don't like her and don't see any kind of world, galaxy or universe in which I would vote for her, I think kicking this pissant in the nuts and making his boss account for it is swell.
JMHO.
For those who may have missed it, the official Bush White House /RNC approved list of Republican talking points on Iraq has gotten a bit of a make-over in the past few days.
President Bush's staggeringly incoherent surge interim progress report last week returned "We're Making Progress" to GOP mouthpieces everywhere. Then, the Senate Republicans' successful filibuster of the Levin-Reed after all night debate brought the Rove stamp of approval for "Political Stunt." (This turn of events signaled the death of a previous GOP favorite, "Up or Down Vote.") And now, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman has updated John Boehner's "Embolden the Enemy" with a twist of his own, "Reinforces Enemy Propaganda."
Here, then, is the newly updated list of:
"The Official Republican Iraq Talking Points."
party-of-one @ 14:
You may be right in general, but I don't believe her original letter - which started this whole brouhaha - was sent via "newspaper headlines."
Nicekid @ 15:
Possibly, but anytime a Dem stands up and publicly calls "Bullshit!" on one of these repug stooges, it's a good thing.
Straight Shooter @ 9:
Old hard liner. He worked for Cheney and for Wolfowitz back when Wolfowitz worked for Cheney when Cheney was Sec of Defense. Just your ongoing neocon boys club.
A farce. Hillary's front-runner status is merely name recognition + unending hype from the so-called liberal media. Basically, she's the front-runner because they've been saying that all along. While she's handling this particular reasonably well, by Hillary Clinton standards anyway, she's still a lousy, counterintuitive, and ridiculously divisive candidate. Anyone that Big Media is ramming down our throats this hard is guaranteed to be bad news for the people of this country. We've had enough bad news already. No more Clintons or Bushes. Say it, breathe it, live it.
miss_kitty @ 18:
I don't know Miss Kitty, Hillary or Mitt Romney? Or Hillary or Fred Thompson, or Hillary or Ghouliani...
Strawberry @ 24:
Yes, Strawberry. If it comes to that, I'll vote for Hillary too. I just think there are better choices among the Dems since we're still in primary time.
sciguy @ 25:
Well if Clark would hop in, or Gore...(sigh).
I've never been a fan of either Clinton, but I'd vote for Chelsea before any Republican alive.
The pure arogance of this administration during its lame-duck period is indicative of the coup to come.
No matter what the cost we must get the Republican controlled voting machines out of use before they steal another presidency.
Strawberry
think 'write in,' "none of the above," a third party, withholding my vote.
In other words
Not. Voting. For. Hill.
And I'm in WA State-so the 11 electoral votes will be for the democratic party nominee. It doesn't matter HOW I vote.
But I can agree with her on this. I wish they'd all take the pisshers down. One letter at a time. It would be a beautiful thing.
No one has given a bigger boost to Al-Qaeda than Bush, so much so that Osama bin Laden has declared him his BFF.
miss_kitty @ 28:
Miss Kitty, my brother, Pharmo company, SUV driving, dickhead repug, brother wants Hillary to be the Democratic nominee because he believes the far left will never vote for her which might give a sqeaking victory to his choice...Ghouliani.
Strawberry @ 30:
Well, the party hacks should back off of sending her to the finals then, shouldn't they?
I'm just glad her high profile has given this issue attention.
miss_kitty @ 28:
In other words, because you're sure the Democrats will win in your state, you feel free to waste your vote. I hope you're right. But what about your district? Are the Republicans destined to lose every election you can vote in?
yes
Strawberry @ 24:
Hillary would not be my first choice either. I'd prefer Edwards, but I totally agree that any of the Democrats running is better than any of the Republicans.
Strawberry @ 26:
Those would be nice, especially Gore. But I would be reasonably satisfied with Edwards and Richardson too. (Obama is just too unseasoned for me to be comfortable with him at this point.)
but why would my not voting for Sen Clinton = Thugs winning everything else?
Why are you so concerned? And why are you going off topic of this post to address my voting record?
No need to answer-it's not the topic of this thread.
Quit hijacking.
miss_kitty @ 33:
Fair enough then.
Hillary will get a reply letter from Fred Fielding claiming Executive Priviledge in 3.....2......1.....
Bob Roberts @ 37:
That was yes to your question. I wasn't agreeing with your assessment of the status of my vote.
Hillary's ability to mobilize the repug base is a very real concern. Perhap's it the repug media machine that's continually touting her as the "front runner" and "the one to beat"?
The President will claim Executive Privilege for Defense Secretary Gates. He will not be able to give the Senator information regarding the military unless The Decider decides.
miss_kitty @ 36:
Doesn't = that, nor did I say it did. Just wanted to know if you were prepared to vote for the Democratic candidate in other elections or risk a Republican.
Regarding Hillary's response. I completely agree with it. Regardless of how sincere some of you think she is, Edelman's comments can be played for serious political gain by the Democrats and is another stick to publicly beat the WH with by everyone opposed to the Republicans. It will be interesting to see how much traction this issue gets with the MSM.
PNAAC Minister @ 40:
I'm concerned about Clinton's and Obama's chances of mobilizing the GOP base and turning off independents. Clinton is polarizing. She's also female. Obama is a visible minority. While polls claim neither of these things is an issue, I expect people in the voting booth will vote prejudices they won't admit to pollsters.
I liked Senator Clinton's email. The Pentagon toadies will do anything to please cokehead
Bob Roberts @ 43:
If Hillary is the nominee, I'm hoping that all those women (esp. the college educated ones)that don't bother to vote or vote the way their hubbies or boyfriends vote, will come out in droves to vote for the first female president, to make up for the disenchanted left. We should come up for a name for these women...People Magazine Vote or Vogue Magazine Vote. Whether or not you like Hillary, letting one of the bottom of the barrel repugs running now become president is not even funny.
Shannon @ 27:
And that's the scary part because after the last two Presidential elections, you gotta know they're going to try it again. Read Mark Crispin Miller's Fooled Again and be afraid, be very afraid.
Stash @ 41:
Maybe, if Rummy was still Sec. of Defense, I'd agree w/you, but Gates is of a total
different mold and has gained much integrity in his previous positions(even at Texas
A&M), so should bush try that "executive privilege" BS on him and tell him he cannot
communicate w/Hillary or others on the hill about what plans studies or plans in the
works as to withdrawal/redeployment, I personally feel that Gates would tell bush-lite
to f... off.. Hope I am right.
[Deleted. Please stay on topic here-Sitemonitor]
OK... I'll post it AGAIN!! (don't know what's up with this site but this is not the first time a post of mine just vanished into the ether since the last site upgrade... Wonder if it will suddenly pop up again after I post a second time?... Is this happening with anyone else??? )
In short... Edelman doesn't want to talk about leaving Iraq and uses the tired old scare tatic of providing aid an comfort to the ememy blah blah blah.. What the fuck ever.. FINE dude, I don't want to talk about it either.. I want all the serious political players to talk about getting rid of Bush and Cheney.. Get them out of power permanently.. In disgrace and via impeachment, then prison or the gallows.. THAT'S what I want to talk about.. Get rid of those bastards and anything good that could possibly come of this Iraq desaster, will flow from that change in our government... OK, I'm dun...Lets see if this posts and stays posted.....JD
I don't think anyone should look forward to Hillary or any other Democrat taking the office of President even though elected. The Administration did not engineer and establish dictatorial powers for the executive branch to hand it over to Democrats.
How are we going to get out of Iraq?
Indubio @ 50:
Oh you and some others with your "marshall law, seizing our properties, concentration
camps, etc...." Makes me wonder if ya'll have any faith in our U.S. Constitution and
"WE THE PEOPLE"(citizens). Elections will be held in 2008, the only concern I have is
that the votes, when tabulated and counted, are done accurately and verifiable.
She is making a better and better impression on the blogosphere. Her behavior vis a vis the Jet Blue nonsense was smart and right --a nice combination for any politician. I am growing increasingly wary of Obama's "safe" approach. I am beginning to wonder if he stands for much more than idealistic generalities.
When neither Gore nor General Clark showing signs of entering the race, despite the fact I like Dodd, Ms. Clinton is looking like a pretty savvy politician. Now, PLEASE, dump Murdock. He is a millstone that will drag you down.
Strawberry @ 7:
Or perhaps eat him for lunch.
Doggiebobo @ 47:
I agree with you. Rummy was/is a douchebag. And Gates can handle Bush.
Now, the real question is, "What does Dick want?" I don't know if Gates can handle Dick.
I saw a breaking news thing on MSNBC that Gates read the memo to Hillary before it went out.
Can't hide behind the Under Idiot guy now.
Clinton should respond and did so very well. This is a big issue. She has a right to these updates.
Congress can declare a war and Congress can end a war. Time to have them all walking around holding up the constitution at every single press conference and making some direct quotes.
If this is "grandstanding", we need a lot more of it.
Re: Edelman
His response to Clinton contained what appeared to me to be a set of trigger words for the E.O. allowing seizure of property for those undermining stability of Iraqi government. What better way to derail a threatening campaign than to seize all of the campaign funds?
Re: Clinton
She needs to be asking why we aren't out of Iraq yesterday. Anything else is bullshit.
FWIW, a supposed front-line agent reporting to the DEA Watch website is saying this has all been staged by Bush & Hillary. I read but didn't save the 5/25/07 report he references. Is anybody else more experienced with this site and can access the archives?
http://members.aol.com/deawatch/daily.htm
"Report from the Front:
Dear (DEA Watch):
In answer to your query, yes, I have seen the recent discussion about our troop evacuation plan -- or reportedly, lack of such a plan -- on our news station here.
As I said in my bc to you all last week there was much handwrenching here when you all published my 25 May 2007 report on our emergency evacuation plans. The only thing that surprises me is that it took CINC Bush over two months to activate a scheme to debunk me, but it does not come as a surprise that he would enlist Senator Clinton in this staged media squabble intended to convince al-Queda here and the Shi'a government -- who is ready to go abroad on a month-long "vacation" and possibly never return -- in a strategically timed PR effort to convince them that we are not prepared to depart without weeks, if not months, of advance notice.
I highly commend Sen. Clinton for working with CINC Bush and DefSec Gates in this good-cop/bad-cop scenario, but as the former president Clinton secretly consults with CINC Bush often, I can guess that they delayed activation until this moment right before the Iraqi government's vacation was about to kick in.
As for the facts I set forth in my 25 May report to you all... we're ready to disengage at any time so directed."
The simple fact that Lugar and other Republicans asked the same damn question a week ago that Clinton asked recently makes this even worse. Just when you think this Administration can't sink lower, they somehow always manage to lower the floor. Hell, I don't even think there are words existing in the English language to describe such despicable conduct.
Call me cynical, but I've seen this tactic before.
Edelman is a virulently pro-Israeli neocon. The neocon-Likudist batch of Israeli Generals are desperate to see Hillary elected, for a bunch of reasons. [Google YNet] This was a calculated PR campaign, in my view, to give Hillary a big help in the presidential defense character department. Lotsa press. Lotsa yammer yammer. Of course, she's on the right side of the argument, courtesy of the Constitution.
Call it a false flag media event. I ate this tuna last week.
more . . .
And now Hillary doesn't have to answer about her position on Iraq, because she's now established with wanting to end it. pleeeeze.
She has NOT (at least in this letter) established a desire to end the war. She is merely stating the obvious eventuality that we will probably, one day, leave Iraq. Since, in her estimation, the Iraq war went so poorly due to upper level mismanagement, she doesn't want that same incompetence to plague the withdrawal, whenever Bush decides that will happen. Notice how she doesn't mention that the whole war is based on deliberate lies by Bush, et al, She never says that the war was wrong to begin with, she completely ignores the relevant and good planning done by every other branch of the federal government and numerous NGO's that Rumsfeld threw out for his own plan. She continues to give credence to the ridiculous notion of incompetence and mismanagement ruining an otherwise noble mission, rather than intentional promotion of chaos for the purpose of inserting instability into the entire Middle East.
As I said before, the only question I want to hear from any politician is why we haven't left Iraq already (or, alternately, why haven't impeachment hearings started yet). Anything else is bullshit.
Nicekid @ 15:
I was thinking her response was exactly that. I doubt the original letter was part of a conspiracy though. And I think we should reserve the term "kabuki dance" for Republicans, the females in kabuki theater being played by men as a result of a centuries old ban on women actors in an effort to clean up the Tokyo theater district.
Who is the enemy?
I thought we were HELPING Iraq?
I thought we had liberated them and had purged the drug dealers from Afghanistan!
Ooops. I forgot. The heroin has gone up 12 times since 2001. (That is AFTER the Taliban had almost ended the trade with a seriously diminished export in 2000.)
Are we seriously making it hard for AL-CIA-DUH?
Why is Eric Edelman still in a job? He was recess-appointed in Aug. 2005 and his term should have ended with the last session of Congress, Dec. 2006. Did Bush slip something by us?
Senator Clinton is right on the mark with her letter. We have got to understand that these republicans are going to go after any and everybody that disagrees with Bushes war and they are going to use right wing media, all one million stations to out shout us.
This is simply what they are paid to do and we have to really get behind our democrats, each and every time this happens, to let them know that we are behind them in their efforts to get us out of this mess otherwise they only hear the voices of the biggots.
Notice I did not say we should not blast them (democrats) when they are not doing their jobs (smile)
There is a sad reality that very few seem to want to face about the election that trumps all the bickering about whether you like or hate Clinton.
The United States, the country that elected (yes yes, I know) 'the dubya' TWICE, is NOT ready to elect president:
1. A Woman.
2. An African-American.
This is pathetic and downright sad, but it is the reality we are facing.
The democran... uh, I mean, republicrat party... took an election there was no way to lose... and found a way to lose it.
Rusty Shackleford @ 20:
How did we find out about it, then? Did the DoD send it out? Or, did Rodham-Clinton's campaign organization leak it out?
The original letter was, obviously, a political ploy. If it got a blahblahblah response, she could say she was being stonewalled. If she got the actual information she was seeking, she would say that the current administration was already planning to pull out while argueing against a time-table. If she got a lesson on international affairs, she can scream about being how she's being blamed for everything that hasn't gone right so far. No matter what answer she got, she can spin it to the high hills. She got one she was already prepared for, and leaked it withing seconds of receiving. What a shocker.
Login or Register to post comments.