Pentagon: Hillary Boosts Enemy Propaganda
The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.
In a stinging rebuke to a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded to questions Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces.
A copy of Edelman's response, dated July 16, was obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.
"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.
He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."
Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman's answer "at once outrageous and dangerous," and said the senator would respond to his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Clinton has privately and publicly pushed Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace two months ago to begin drafting the plans for what she said will be a complicated withdrawal of troops, trucks and equipment.
"If we're not planning for it, it will be difficult to execute it in a safe and efficacious way," she said then.
The strong wording of the response is unusual, particularly for a missive to a member of the Senate committee with oversight of the Defense Department and its budget.
Clinton aides said the letter ignored important military matters and focuses instead on political payback.
"Redeploying out of Iraq with the same combination of arrogance and incompetence with which the Bush administration deployed our young men and women into Iraq is completely unacceptable, and our troops deserve far better," said Reines, who said military leaders should offer a withdrawal plan rather than "a political plan to attack those who question them."
As she runs for president, the New York senator has ratcheted up her criticism of the Bush administration's war effort, answering critics of her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq invasion by saying she would end the war if elected president.
If she wins, Clinton may find herself overseeing such a withdrawal policy, but she is hardly alone in raising the issue.
Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana warned Thursday at a hearing that if U.S. military leaders and Congress "are not prepared for these contingencies, they may be executed poorly, especially in an atmosphere in which public demands for troop withdrawals could compel action on a political timetable."
Edelman's letter does offer a passing indication the Pentagon might, in fact, be planning how to withdraw, saying: "We are always evaluating and planning for possible contingencies. As you know, it is long-standing departmental policy that operational plans, including contingency plans, are not released outside of the department."
Edelman is the Undersecretary of defense for policy. He is also a former U.S. ambassador and one-time aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. During the 2004 campaign, Cheney told Iowa voters that electing the Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards would risk another terrorist attack.
Kerry jumped to Clinton's defense, deriding what he called smear tactics by the administration.
"They will say anything, do anything, and twist any truth to avoid accountability," said the Massachusetts senator.
© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. In a stinging rebuke to a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded to questions Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces.
A copy of Edelman's response, dated July 16, was obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.
"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.
He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."
Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman's answer "at once outrageous and dangerous," and said the senator would respond to his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Clinton has privately and publicly pushed Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace two months ago to begin drafting the plans for what she said will be a complicated withdrawal of troops, trucks and equipment.
"If we're not planning for it, it will be difficult to execute it in a safe and efficacious way," she said then.
The strong wording of the response is unusual, particularly for a missive to a member of the Senate committee with oversight of the Defense Department and its budget.
Clinton aides said the letter ignored important military matters and focuses instead on political payback.
"Redeploying out of Iraq with the same combination of arrogance and incompetence with which the Bush administration deployed our young men and women into Iraq is completely unacceptable, and our troops deserve far better," said Reines, who said military leaders should offer a withdrawal plan rather than "a political plan to attack those who question them."
As she runs for president, the New York senator has ratcheted up her criticism of the Bush administration's war effort, answering critics of her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq invasion by saying she would end the war if elected president.
If she wins, Clinton may find herself overseeing such a withdrawal policy, but she is hardly alone in raising the issue.
Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana warned Thursday at a hearing that if U.S. military leaders and Congress "are not prepared for these contingencies, they may be executed poorly, especially in an atmosphere in which public demands for troop withdrawals could compel action on a political timetable."
Edelman's letter does offer a passing indication the Pentagon might, in fact, be planning how to withdraw, saying: "We are always evaluating and planning for possible contingencies. As you know, it is long-standing departmental policy that operational plans, including contingency plans, are not released outside of the department."
Edelman is the Undersecretary of defense for policy. He is also a former U.S. ambassador and one-time aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. During the 2004 campaign, Cheney told Iowa voters that electing the Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards would risk another terrorist attack.
Kerry jumped to Clinton's defense, deriding what he called smear tactics by the administration.
"They will say anything, do anything, and twist any truth to avoid accountability," said the Massachusetts senator.
Popular in Politics
- Poll: Most think IRS targeting was deliberate 88 Comments
- IRS scandal highlights leadership vacancies
- Obama: "Full focus" is on recovery from Oklahoma tornado
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK 786 Comments
- Former IRS chief: "I can't say" what led to IRS targeting
- Top Obama officials knew about IRS probe, says WH 63 Comments
- Letter to a young scandalmonger
- Benghazi-disciplined diplomat a prolific poet
The AT4 rocket launcher is a one time use anti-tank weapon. It was just the tube. The authorities say it might be 20 years old and not operable and there are no indications it has been fired recently.
Thank you for your post & explanation sshard! Maybe the following report may help you and others realize that this terrorist threat was real and present during the Clinton Administration.
Maybe this anti-tank weapon, as you call it, was only fired ONCE upon a time at a TWA Passenger Plane (Flight 800) in the last 20 years???? and if we ignore it its going to go away when Hiliary get erected. Right???
At the time of the TWA Flight 800 crash, there had been 26 commercial aircraft shot down worldwide by rebels or terrorist groups using shoulder-fired weapons. Since that time many more have been shot at or shot down including the El Al flight fired at in Africa and the DHL cargo plane hit at the Baghdad Airport last year.
The Hull Thread - The Tale of the Tapes - Transcripts and Audio Tapes of Pilot / ATC reports of missiles.
Terrorists Smuggled Missiles into America - 8-25-96
US Stinger Used Worldwide - 4-28-99
Evidence Mounts that Shoulder-Fired Missiles Downed TWA Flight 800 - 9-1-99
Experts Warn About Shoulder-Fired Missile Threat - 3-1-04
Missile-Like Sightings Around Long Island
Posted by j-whitman at 11:17 AM : Jul 21, 2007
Bush will just pardon him, like he's going to pardon everyone in his administration before he leaves office...if he leaves office.
Information uncovered in early 1999 now shows that TWA Flight 800 could have been shot down by one or more shoulder-fired missiles. The FBI was briefed by military missile experts in the Fall of 1996 that Flight 800 was well within the range of a shoulder fired missile. The FBI conducted a covert dredging operation for stinger missile parts between November 1996 and April 1997. CDR. Donaldson brought this new evidence to the House Aviation Subcommittee in testimony on May 6, 1999.
Unfortunately, the major media and the Congress are content to swallow the official line without question.
Stands to reason & we've come to expect that! Who was guarding the Hen House during this time or was it the Janitorial Closet mingling with the Broom & Mop Handles??
Posted by forthepeopl1 at 09:45 AM : Jul 21, 2007
hahahaha it takes 2/3 to override a veto... lol
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! March 23, 1775 Patrick Henry
USA's PLEDGE 2 THE WORLD GIVEN BY JFK!!
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
--John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 1961
"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." --John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 1961
One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Winston Churchill
congress has had the power to stop this war/occupation from the day this moron president said mission accomplish on that ship. they only had to DE-AUTHORIZE THE AUTHORIZATION TO USE FORCE. THAT SIMPLE. PERIOD.....
IF CONGRESS PASSES AND THEY CAN, A RESOLUTION TO DE-AUTHORIZING THE WAR,THE PRESIDENT HAS NO VETO POWER.
THE war POWERS ACT SPECIFIES THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT CONTINUE A WAR WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION..PERIOD..
SO WHY HAVEN'T THEY DONE THIS 3 YEARS AGO??? THAT SHOULD BE THE QUESTION ALL MEDIA SHOULD BE ASKING OUR ELECTED LIKE I HAVE BEEN. WHY ????
IT IS VETO PROOF....................... IT ONLY TAKE A MAJORITY. AND WE HAVE IT......SO AGAIN WHY?
He didn't just shoot himself and the Defense Department in the foot, he shot every neocon in the foot too. Again! I give him a week at the current job and long letter from the RNC requesting that he shut the hell up and go away. LOL!!! To quote the single greatest philosopher of all time, the one and only, the Great Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon!!!