LEAVING U.S. NO HOPE FOR WITHDRAWAL

She asked a question. A damn good one. A question the military should have been pondering for some time now. If, and when we withdraw our troops in Iraq, do you have a viable plan for the withdrawal that will diminish, and reduce the risk to our troops? Simple, well thought out, and intelligent question, right? The kind of question you would expect from a Senator serving on the Armed Forces Subcommittee. Well, here was her answer.....

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon out allies in Iraq, much as we were perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia. Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks in order to achieve compromises on national reconciliation, amending the Iraqi constitution (written extensively by the U. S.), and other contentious issues. I assure you, however, that as with all other plans (short of the actual execution of the Iraqi war itself), we are always evaluating and planning for possible contingencies."

Eric Edelman, acting on behalf of Secretary Gates, Under Secretary of the Defense

Do they actually have a plan? Here is a brief snippet of what Mr. Edelman had to say in the first section of his letter in response to Sen. Clinton's letter......."it is premature to say with certainty whether and how a future phased withdrawal would be conducted." Let me translate the politically restrained response by the Under Secretary of Defense........"NO, we have no plan for withdrawal and we have no plans to withdraw anytime in your lifetime, bitch!!!" So much for planning. Of course, withdrawal plans are premature. Let's wait for the senate to get the 6 votes they need to stop the war. Obviously, Edelman thinks we should have stayed in Vietnam to this day. Keep up the good work, Hillary!! Ask the questions no one else will, or are capable of.

Today, Clinton wrote a second letter to Gates, informing him that this underling Edelman—"writing on your behalf"—seems to believe "that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies." Calling his letter "outrageous and dangerous," Clinton wondered whether it "accurately characterizes your views as secretary of defense." She then renewed her request for the briefing, "classified if necessary," and added, as a kicker, "I would appreciate the courtesy of a prompt response directly from you."