home

Hillary Writes To SecDef Gates

Via Sargent, the most interesting parts of Hillary's letter to 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. . . .

. . . 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.

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
< Wilsons Appeal Dismissial of Plame Civil Lawsuit | Does It Matter? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Clinton's letter contains a lie (1.25 / 4) (#4)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:47:34 PM EST
    The Senator's letter says:

    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.

    That is untrue...or at least was not part of Edelman's letter that has been made public. What we know he said:

    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.

    As far as we know, he didn't say anything about "congressional oversight." Either Senator Clinton is lying (or at the very least, deliberately obscuring the facts) or the letter contains portions that haven't been released to the public.

    I find this part of Edelman's letter interesting:

    As you know, it is long-standing departmental policy that operational plans, including contingency plans, are not released outside of the department.

    Is that really regular policy? Is the Senator trying to change that policy?

    This little hissy-fit would disappear if Edelman's letter just became public. Then we could actually see why "Clinton aids" claim "the letter ignored important military matters and focuses instead on political payback." Until it's released, we have just their word for it.

    So far, the information we have about this is dramatically one-sided: all of it comes from Senator Clinton's office. It's a shame that the folks around here are so credulous as to rely on a single, clearly biased source.

    The letter is clear (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:07:45 PM EST
    Edelman refuses to discuss "plans" outside the department.

    You lied about Clinton lying.

    See if you can find Edelman's letter. Hint, the site linked in this post has it.


    Parent

    Found the letter (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:06:26 PM EST
    hereI don't know how to cut and paste from a pdf doc....

    Parent
    Thanks! (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:07:26 PM EST
    I'm reading it now.

    Parent
    You should have read it before (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:10:23 PM EST
    you called her a liar.

    You have really been a disappointment Gabe.

    A pathetic Wingnut to the max on this.

    Parent

    Wrong letter (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:12:00 PM EST
    Hardly (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:13:19 PM EST
    I thought you were referencing (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:16:17 PM EST
    something else.

    My apologies for my mistake.

    Parent

    No problem (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:19:06 PM EST
    Interesting point, Gabe. (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:50:32 PM EST
    I went to the AP website yesterday but the actual letter was not there...

    Parent
    Indeed. (1.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:06:48 PM EST
    I have not been able to find a copy of it yet. Everyone is yelling and screaming "Oh, it's offensive, he should be fired!!!1!one!" but they haven't even seen it. Those parts which were released to the AP weren't disrespectful or particularly offensive.

    In fact, those portions that have been released seem like common sense: it is disheartening for our allies in-country when we talk about throwing them to the wolves. Big. No. Duh.

    That shouldn't be the only factor when deciding how to approach the question of withdrawal, but it's not disrespectful to point that out. Pretending that our allies in-country aren't affected by domestic politics is sheer lunacy.

    Parent

    Keep acting like a fool (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:09:01 PM EST
    Clinton did NOT ask his opinion on that. She asked about the plans.

    Are you really going to be this type of disssembling shill Gabe?

    Pathetic.

    Parent

    This is sad and lame (none / 0) (#21)
    by kovie on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:41:00 PM EST
    Clinton asks for information on contingency plans for withdrawal, which even if the administration does not intend to withdraw, prudence and SOP suggests have been or should have been drawn up just in case (we have contingency plans for invading Canada, for Christ's sake), which members of the armed services committees in the house and senate are entitled to and have historically been made privy to (in closed session and under strictly confidential conditions, of course), and which, obviously, constitute legitimate and necessary oversight (or else why even have these committees, oversight, or congress?).

    So there's one lie of yours. Of course he was referring to oversight, even if he didn't use that word, because asking for this information was a legitimate and necessary part of Clinton's oversight duties. Did Henry II not call for the assassination of Beckett even though he didn't quite phrase it that way? Resorting to literalism to make a point is incredibly lame, especially on a blog run by expert lawyers.

    And second, that bit about the DoD not releasing plans outside itself is utter crap and casts everything else in his letter in a very dubious light. So the DoD doesn't share these plans with the president, VP or national security advisor, who are, of course, "outside the department"? And appropriate members congress are not entitled to such information as part of their constitutionally mandated oversight duties? Yeah, right. And Executive Privilege trumps the constitution. Hah!

    Like I said, sad, and lame, that anyone would claim or believe this.

    Parent

    What she will never ask..... (1.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Fritz on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:32:57 PM EST
    Secretary Gates, what can I do to help the United States successfully pacify Iraq?  The Answer:  Build public support for the mission; is simply untenable to leftists.

    Any Other Countries (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:36:06 PM EST
    YOu want to pacify? Evidentially,  wingnut neocolonialism is the latest fad. What's a bored lonley superpower to do? Enact PNAC.

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:38:50 PM EST
    And if withdrawl from the scam war in Iraq is popular at 70% than by your wingnut logic the country is 70% lefties.

    Sounds like America has woken from a long deep slumber.

    Parent

    What are you doing towards this end? (none / 0) (#18)
    by kovie on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:24:46 PM EST
    And when do you deploy? Or is the DoD still keeping the 101st Fighting Keyboarders stateside to placate their mommies?

    Parent
    Wow. Much ado about nothing. (1.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:09:37 PM EST
    That was a most respectful letter. Clinton's staffers and the AP blew it.

    You must be a shill (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:18:46 PM EST
    The guy said even asking about such plans helps the enemy.

    I tell you what, let's see if Gates stands by what the man said about asking about withdrawal plans emboldening the enemy.

    What do you think Gates is going to say?

    And are youy ready to retract your charge that Hillary lied? Or are you a liar like most Wingnuts Gabe?

    Parent

    Indeed. (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:26:55 PM EST
    The guy said even asking about such plans helps the enemy.

    Boy, that sure does seem to be a big elephant in the room.

    Parent

    It is the insult (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:28:45 PM EST
    when no one ASKED him what he thinks about the effects of asking for plans!

    We'll see how Gates reacts but my bet is that GAtes did NOT approve that language.

    At the very least, it was very stupid of Edelman to include that.

    Parent

    LOL (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 03:20:07 PM EST
    Of course I would say most concerned progressives are more than willing to lie.  I guess it is all a matter of perspective...

    Parent
    Most respectful?? (none / 0) (#23)
    by LarryE on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 03:02:41 PM EST
    Are you joking?

    He said that even discussing withdrawal "reinforces enemy propaganda," "unnerves ... allies," and "exacerbates sectarian trends" in Iraq. He then said, in effect, that members of Congress have no business knowing what contingency plans the Pentagon may or may not have made.

    That is, he told her that she (and the rest of Congress) should just shut up and butt out.

    This is respectful? I'd hate to see what you considered rude.

    Parent

    The letter is in no waycomparable to Edelman's (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:03:01 PM EST
    I reject the comparison.

    Um, OK (none / 0) (#31)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:14:06 PM EST
    As I see it, Hillary was doing her job and used perfectly appropriate language. I don't recall making any comparison, but whatever.

    Her stock is going up with me lately. According to speculation elsewhere this is part of the GOP's machiavellian plan to ensure HRC is the Dem nominee. rofl

    Parent

    sarc (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:20:38 PM EST
    did and I responded to you because you seemed to accept that view.

    Glad to see I was mistaken.

    Parent

    Not a personal grudge match (none / 0) (#34)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:27:45 PM EST
    Her approach was entirely appropriate and his was not. The people have a right to know through their representatives what their government is doing, and to push things along when officials are failing to act with proper foresight.  

    Hardly (none / 0) (#41)
    by lousy1 on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 08:46:01 PM EST
    Sorry alien the people do not have a right to know contigency plans. In this case the mere publishing of those plans would make the Baqubah Guardians a bit more tenuous.

    [HREF]http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/7-rules-1-oath.htm
     Yon's dispatch

    Parent

    O Lousy One (none / 0) (#42)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 09:11:41 PM EST
    Members of Congress (representatives of We the People) certainly do have the right to know. Through the magic of security clearances they can be briefed on highly classified material when and if required, and frequently are. You're the only one talking about publishing the information.

    This is nothing but an attempt to dodge oversight, and a rather pathetic one too. We're not a dictatorship. Yet.

    Parent

    Political grandstanding. (none / 0) (#37)
    by lousy1 on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:52:03 PM EST
    Senators are expected to have access to general policy considerations of the administration. They are not expected to make detailed classified plans public. The request accompanied by a press release is a cause of concern.

    IMO Hillary was grandstanding. Although contingency plans are drawn for thousands of military eventualities they are confidential for obvious reasons.

    It would be more informative to the general voting public if Hillary discloses her contingency plans for the seemingly more probable outcome that the Iraqi people will get there act together, dismiss corrupt officials and politicians and find a peaceful solution to their issues.

    Unaffiliated correspondents are noting a sea-change in attitudes and the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces.
     It would behove us to make sure that any Iraqi local leaders, who are facing gruesome reprisals understand that their cooperation will be rewarded by our continued assistance.

     

    Who works for who in this country? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Sailor on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:32:13 PM EST
    It's really very simple.

    The defense dept is an employee. The people are their boss.

    bush's political appointee has no right to refuse oversight of the people in the form of our elected reps.

    and that goes for all the stonewalling they've done since day one of their misAdministration.

    Hmm. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:38:03 PM EST
    The DoD is an executive branch department. It is only subordinate to Congress insofar as Congress pays the bills. As a coordinate branch of government, Senators should content themselves to be treated in the same way as they treat others.

    Parent
    grasshopper (none / 0) (#43)
    by Sailor on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 10:08:55 PM EST
    The pentagon may work for the exec, but they report to congress by law.

    And your snarky comment about respect is mis-aimed.   As noted previously, if the pentagon had responded in the first place, as they are required by law to do, clinton's letter need never been sent.

    Parent