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