Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton responds to Pentagon on redeployment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 10:44 AM
Original message
Clinton responds to Pentagon on redeployment
Edited on Fri Jul-20-07 10:45 AM by helderheid
Earlier this week, Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman wrote to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), telling her, “Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda.” Today, Clinton responded to Defense Secretary Robert Gates:

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. … 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.

Full letter below:

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


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/20/clinton-responds-to-pentagon-on-redeployment/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MissB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. Well done, Senator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. indeed
were there not so many even more egregious issues to address, a call for the asshole's resignation would be in order.

Gates might cashier him anyway - he did deep-six a couple of guys over the WR publicity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Which asshole should resign Gates? Edelman? Or both assholes?
...And also, what was the WR incident?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. all the assholes. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. well, they all should, but i menat specifically Edelman
WR=Walter Reed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Agreed, in fact Edelman sent Hillary Clinton a threatening letter calling
...her in essence a traitor. The real treason is going on behind the closed doors at the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
2. Well, Mr. Gates...the ball is in your court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
3. A very presidential letter, and of course as Hillary Clinton will be our next
...president, she obviously should expect the Chimperor* to set things in order so that her first order of business following her inauguration can be to throw his ass into prison along with Cheney's Rumsfeld's, Condi's, Rove's, Gonzales's, Meir's and Powell's collectives fascist asses too. "Let justice be done though the heavens fall!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
6. Is this Gatez guy a PNACer or a NeoCon...or Both? jus askin??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bongo Prophet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. More of a BFEE (Poppy's generation) enabler, IIRC
Along the Scowcroft/Baker line. Others may have more details, or just google.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Edelman is both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
11. k
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC