Pentagon: Hillary Boosts Enemy Propaganda

Letter From Defense Official Slams Clinton's Questions On Troop Withdrawal

(AP)  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.

[pepperwood2]

Posted by sshard

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

[randalds]

RandalDS,,,, Another federal law violated, the Hatch Act. Using his office for political purposes..
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.

[pepperwood2]

Rocket Launcher Found in New Jersey Recently...

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??

[j-whitman]

RandalDS,,,, Another federal law violated, the Hatch Act. Using his office for political purposes..

[lars008-2009]

IT IS VETO PROOF.................. IT ONLY TAKE A MAJORITY. AND WE HAVE IT......SO AGAIN WHY?
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

[forthepeopl1]

let me ask all of you here something that i know is the truth.

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?

[randalds]

There was a commentator on Hardball this afternoon who said that when Hillary got that letter back she must have thought it was Christmas morning, because it was just about the best present a republican could have handed her. He said (and it's true) that the only that would have been better for her then what Edelman wrote to her would be if Donald Rumsfeld came out and endorsed Barack Obama. LOL! This guy stuck his foot in his mouth with the whole Senate big time! LOL! What an IDIOT!!!

[kansas1946]

Good God. Is there any level that this administration will not stoop to. Do they think that the "traitor" card is still working. If we want our soldiers home that we are aiding the enemy. That tune is out of date and out of tune. No one is buying it. Everytime the heat gets turned up, Bush runs out a few of his paid lackeys, this time from the pentagon, to blather about someone helping terrorists. Bullitin to the Bush administration: IT IS NOT WORKING

[randalds]

I wonder what Eric Edelman is going to do for a living after the republicans throw him under the bus to try to make this embarrassment go away? I suppose he could go back to his old job of giving BJ's to Cheney since he hasn't got Scooter around any longer?

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!!!

[randalds]

you know I really do wonder if perhaps Bob Gates and Eric Edelman at Defense is secretly a Hillary supporter, because he couldn't have come up with a better boost for her if he planned it. It's sort of like the chimp does so many things that play into bin Laden's hands and is his number one recruiter, but publicly says he hates bin Laden. The Bush Defense Department really scr*ewed the pooch this time and I for one couldn't be happier for it. Good job Eric!!! Go ahead and pick up your check...from the democratic party!

[randalds]

Unlike you j, I'll tell you straight up:

Go ahead and believe in what you want to believe!
Posted by singinrick at 02:43 PM : Jul 20, 2007

Just don't try to force feed myths to innocent children in school like swingingdick wants to.

[j-whitman]

Hillary was doing her job --- Obviously Cheney's ex aid Edelman should be Fired for using the Pentagon Politically ---- Another Violation of Federal Law, the Hatch Act

[randalds]

What is really constantly boosting the spirits of the enemy and the terrorists is that they know our country is currently being 'lead" by an incompetent moron.

[j-whitman]

Constitution of the United States of America:
1... Impeachment is mentioned 6 times
2... The Lord is mentioned only 1 time, in the date
3... God, not mentioned at all
Rick,,,, Quit trying to add words to it,, Our Founding Fathers had thier priorities correct.

[j-whitman]

Bush's Colonoscopy will only take 2 1/2 hours,, but it will take 4 days to clear the republicans out of the hole for the scope to fit.

[j-whitman]

Bush is going in for a Colonoscopy -- The Hunt for Ossama & WMD's continue ---
--- Bush is turning over power to Cheney for 2 1/2 hours,, it's all the time he has to invade & destabilize more countries.

[name_verify]

DNC NEW UPDATE

As Bush goes in for a doctor visit, *** Cheney temporarily assumes presidential powers.

Ultra-liberals tremble in fear.

[sshard]

The rebuke issued by Undersecretary pf Defense Eric Edelman should take no one by surprise nor be seen as an unbiased viewpoint. From Feb. 2001 to June 2003 Edelman served as the national security asst. to *** Cheney. While I strongly believe in the right of every citizen of the United States to have and express their opinions, there is a danger of those opinions being made %u201Cofficial%u201D because the office held. The Pentagon commands the military which does not serve the president alone, but serves all Americans. Any views expressed by the Pentagon that are tainted by political considerations is a deep and disturbing event.

The rebuke was aimed at one and only one politician, even thought the basis for the rebuke can be equally applied to scores of politicians, both on the right and left, as well as to millions of Americans. The danger of a politicized Pentagon threatens the very foundations of the American system, especially in these times of great fear and conflict. The potential for a politicized Pentagon to abuse the authority given to it, should make every citizen uneasy. With the Sedition Act in hand, the Pentagon should not nor ever be an insitution tainted by politcs.

[name_verify]

Imagine there's no liberals...
It isn't hard to do...
No poverty pimps or tax increases...
No terrorists apologists too...
You may say that I'm a dreamer...
But I'm not the only one...

[j-whitman]

lars008,,, You're just angry cause they don't give them out to Bush for starting wars of agression on contrived threats.