posted on July 19, 2007 06:25:50 PM
And you can bet her jockey shorts are in a bind over the Pentagons comments.
And kerrys comments are as good as a kiss of death to chillerys hopes.
---------
Pentagon Rebukes Sen. Clinton on Iraq
Jul 19, 6:52 PM (ET)
By DEVLIN BARRETT
WASHINGTON (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.
=====
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on July 19, 2007 11:15:35 PM
LOL....yep....the truth always hurts liars like hillary.
========
Sad thing is she's just anther liberal 'sell out'. One who will flip-flop on her PRO-war position to get her poll numbers up. Their life-line for sure.
Screw the national security...her WH bid is all that matters to her.
While the rabid left is still upset with her for not 'saying she is sorry' about voting to go to war.....lol....now she's flip-flopped because the polls were favoring obama until she changed her position. What a sham she is.
Even with slick willie helping her in her bid....again proving she can't make it/do it on her own - without his help....lol....she gives aid and comfort to our enemies. A position most liberals also support. Screw America. Help our enemies...give them the victory....admit defeat and run home....where they THEN have NO PLAN on what they'll do about the middle east. NONE.
sad, sad state of affairs...all these liberals working against America and in favor of AQ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 20, 2007 06:41:10 AM
Clinton Hits Back at Pentagon Official
Updated 8:41 AM ET July 20, 2007
By DEVLIN BARRETT
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton hit back Friday at a Pentagon aide who charged that her questions about Iraq withdrawal planning have the effect of helping the enemy _ calling the accusation a spurious dodge of a serious issue.
Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for president, had asked the Pentagon to detail how it is planning for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. She first raised the issue in May, pointing out that whenever troops leave, it will be no simple task to transport the people, equipment, and vehicles out of Iraq, possibly through hostile territory.
Eric Edelman, the Defense Department's undersecretary for policy, offered a sharply-worded response, saying such discussions boost the enemy.
"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. His tough language in a letter obtained Thursday was surprising in part because it came in correspondence with a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has oversight of the Pentagon.
Clinton responded Friday in a letter to Edelman's boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, asking if he agreed with Edelman's charge.
She said Edelman had ducked her questions and "instead made spurious arguments to avoid addressing contingency planning."
"Undersecretary Edelman has his priorities backward," Clinton wrote, calling his claim "outrageous and dangerous."
She repeated her request for a briefing _ classified if necessary _ on the issue of end-of-war planning.
The senator's spokesman Philippe Reines said: "We sent a serious letter to the Secretary of Defense, and unacceptably got a political response back."
As she runs for president, Clinton 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 a troop withdrawal policy, but others have also raised the issue, including Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana.
Edelman's letter does indicate the Pentagon might be planning how to withdraw, saying: "We are always evaluating and planning for possible contingencies. As you know, it is longstanding departmental policy that operational plans, including contingency plans, are not released outside of the department."
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on July 20, 2007 10:38:32 AM
Here's something else that aids , and multiplies, terrorists and the neocons are all for it:
Marine: Beating of Iraqis Became Routine
Updated 7:58 AM ET July 15, 2007
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (AP) - A Marine corporal testifying in a court-martial said Marines in his unit began routinely beating Iraqis after officers
ordered them to
"crank up the violence level."
Cpl. Saul H. Lopezromo testified Saturday at the murder trial of Cpl. Trent D. Thomas.
"We were told to crank up the violence level," said Lopezromo, testifying for the defense.
When a juror asked for further explanation, Lopezromo said: "We beat people, sir."
Within weeks of allegedly being scolded, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman went out late one night to find and kill a suspected insurgent in the village of Hamandiya near the Abu Ghraib prison. The Marines and corpsman were from 2nd Platoon, Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Regiment.
Lopezromo said the suspected insurgent was known to his neighbors as the "prince of jihad," and had been arrested several times and later released by the Iraqi legal system.
Unable to find him, the Marines and corpsman dragged another man from his house, fatally shot him, and then planted an AK-47 assault rifle near the body to make it appear he had been killed in a shootout, according to court testimony.
Four Marines and the corpsman, initially charged with murder in the April 2006 killing, have pleaded guilty to reduced charges and been given jail sentences ranging from 10 months to eight years. Thomas, 25, from St. Louis, pleaded guilty but withdrew his plea and is the first defendant to go to court-martial.
Lopezromo, who was not part of the squad on its late-night mission, said he saw nothing wrong with what Thomas did.
"I don't see it as an execution, sir," he told the judge. "I see it as killing the enemy."
He said Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the insurgency.
Lopezromo and two other Marines were charged in August with assaulting an Iraqi two weeks before the killing that led to charges against Thomas and the others. Charges against all three were later dropped.
Thomas' attorneys have said he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury from his combat duty in Fallouja in 2004. They have argued that Thomas believed he was following a lawful order to get tougher with suspected insurgents.
Prosecution witnesses testified that Thomas shot the 52-year-old man at point-blank range after he had already been shot by other Marines and was lying on the ground.
Lopezromo said a procedure called "dead-checking" was routine. If Marines entered a house where a man was wounded, instead of checking to see whether he needed medical aid, they shot him to make sure he was dead, he testified.
"If somebody is worth shooting once, they're worth shooting twice," he said.
The jury is composed of three officers and six enlisted personnel, all of whom have served in Iraq. The trial was set to resume Monday.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on July 20, 2007 01:04:37 PM
Another truth about liberals:
"Why would dat help da enemy, (blink, blink)?
They REALLY and rarely EVER see their actions causing the damage it does. They're blind in so many ways.
Imo, it's because they lack the ability to 'see ahead' - to see beyond their own noses. Never going further to evaluate the consequences of their choices until it's too late.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 20, 2007 01:09:52 PMIn truth chillery has no need to know the EXACT military plans (yet) for withdrawl.
The truth is the military has no withdrawl plan. If Bush could be elected to a third term and actually win, it would be 2011 and he would still be saying "stay the course", "the enemy is in its final throughs", "let's have patience", "give the surge some time". In 6 years the Bush administration has proven they do not have a plan for anything. They did not have a plan when they invaded Iraq, they did not have a plan after removing Saddam and now they want us to believe they will have a plan to "defeat" the enemy and claim "victory".
"We are buying time at a cost of the lives of our soldiers." -- U.S. ambassador to Iraq Chester Crocker,
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on July 20, 2007 01:55:47 PM
""Imo, it's because they lack the ability to 'see ahead' - to see beyond their own noses. Never going further to evaluate the consequences of their choices until it's too late.
"""
EXACTLY like the bushit's when they started a war with NO PLANS for the aftermath of the invasion.
They either were too stupid or, MORE LIKELY, the slimey bas!urds didn't give a damn....
"""Seems like you previously posted that same unproven allegation."""
Unproven? You don't believe the testimony under oath of Marines?
[ edited by mingotree on Jul 20, 2007 01:57 PM ]
[ edited by mingotree on Jul 20, 2007 01:58 PM ]
posted on July 20, 2007 02:40:10 PM
LOL....one has to laugh at the continuing IGNORANCE from the left. There are ALWAYS plans for everything. Especially on the part of our military.
And the Generals/commanders are ASKING for more time....they continue to say we ARE making progress.
But that's opposed to the liberals who upon unanimously approving Gen. Petraes and his mission....starting calling for the defeat of his mission. Go figure.
No guts to stand up to him....but rather they all voted FOR him. Within DAYS they started working against him. tsk tsk tsk
So much for their phony supporting our troops. They're calling for their DEFEAT...for them to SURRENDER by withdrawing. It would KILL them to see America successfully turn over Iraq to the Iraqi's. NOPE....failure for America is their ONLY goal. Shame on the defeatists.
edited to add another where our generals/commanders are making Americans aware of their needs in order to complete their mission.
Not the mission of DEFEAT nor SURRENDER nor from those who have no backbone to act in Americas best interests in the ME.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 20, 2007 03:11:04 PMImo, it's because they lack the ability to 'see ahead' - to see beyond their own noses. Never going further to evaluate the consequences of their choices until it's too late.
Exactly what Bush has done from the beginning - and now it's too late and beyond repair. The damage has been done and history will remember him as an incompetent failure.
posted on July 20, 2007 03:48:25 PM
As noted in the WSJ today:
That's Been True for a Long Time
"Democratic Senate leaders knew going into Wednesday's procedural roll call on their proposal to withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq that they didn't have the votes to win, but victory wasn't their goal."--San Francisco Chronicle, July 19
===
All talk...NO ACTION.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 20, 2007 03:59:58 PM
And since we're talking about the flip-flopper, hillary:
from the Patriot Post.com
GROUP SUES FOR HILLARY'S RECORDS
In April 2006, Judicial Watch, "a non-profit, public-interest law firm
dedicated to fighting government corruption," requested documents from the
Clinton Library regarding Hillary Clinton's tenure as First Lady. Specifically,
they requested her "calendar, to include but not limited to her daily office
diary, schedule, day planner, telephone log book, and chronological file," from 1 January 1993 to 20 January 2001.
The Clinton Library has yet to respond to the request, made under the 2006 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Clinton Library's refusal to accommodate suggests that they fear researchers may find something unfavorable toward Mrs. Clinton. Perish the thought! Judicial Watch has sued for the right to obtain and review the
records. Perhaps they should seek out the services of Sandy "Socks" Berger.
====
Isn't THAT the truth. Thief that he was....
But then, as with most things liberal....the clintons probably think the freedom of information act doesn't apply to THEM.
================
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 20, 2007 04:03 PM ]
posted on July 20, 2007 04:17:56 PM
"""But then, as with most things liberal....the clintons probably think the freedom of information act doesn't apply to THEM. """
Bushit doesn't believe it applies to him.
let's not have any double standards!
Haha...linduh, your hatred for Hillary will eat you alive
So jealous of any woman with a man...TSK TSK TSK LOL!!!
================
posted on July 20, 2007 04:25:58 PM
Don't project your stupid thoughts on me, sybil.
I would THINK most Americans don't like corrupt elected officials....like the clintons. But obviously the ethics of liberal Americans have slid so badly....all that matters is getting their agenda in place. Not the character of their corrupt leaders.
And the clintons BOTH have a LONG, long record of corruption.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 20, 2007 04:28 PM ]
Early troop pullout could force return to Iraq: US military 2 hours, 39 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) - An early troop withdrawal from Iraq could force a US return to finish the job, Marine Corps commander James Conway said Friday.
"My concern is if we prematurely move, we're going to be going back," Conway told reporters.
Several high-ranking military chiefs have asked for more time in Iraq, as Congress and US public opinion grow impatient with the war, but Conway insisted that a US retreat without some show of success will be viewed as a victory for Al-Qaeda.
"And if they're perceived to have won, you're going to see resources, recruitment, momentum -- all those things that are gained by the winning side -- make it that much tougher," he said.
"It's critically important, I think, that the American people understand what the risks are, what the costs are, compare the cost to what we potentially lose, what we potentially gain over time," Conway said.
[in part, from yahoo news - today]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 20, 2007 04:34 PM ]
posted on July 20, 2007 05:40:32 PM
What a joke you are, sybil. Nothing more than this nonsense to continually add.
But after all...you're a progressive liberal and they usually don't have anything but garbage to add to any conversation. And you're the QUEEN of garbage here.
So this isn't unexpected from you. It's your MO here, sadly.
posted on July 20, 2007 05:55:00 PM
And while hillary and other 'surrender' liberals work towards our withdrawing....we hear OUR commanders on the ground telling us how there are successes in Iraq.
Of course, the liberal press isn't too interested in making Americans aware of ANY successes.....that ARE happening.
------------
Anbar Situation Has ‘Turned the Corner,’ U.S. General Says
By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service
[in part]
WASHINGTON, July 20, 2007 – The security situation in Anbar province has greatly improved in recent months, thanks to additional U.S. troops provided by the surge and the growing presence of trained and vetted Iraqi soldiers and police, a senior U.S. military officer said today. (Video)
Statistics show that daily insurgent-generated violence, as measured by small-arms, mortar and improvised-explosive-device attacks, has decreased in Anbar since this time last year, Marine Maj. Gen. Walter E. Gaskin, commanding general of Multinational Force West, told Pentagon reporters during a satellite-carried news conference.
“I can report that the future of the province looks promising,” said Gaskin, who has commanded MNF-West for about six months. But there remains “a lot of work left to do in al Anbar,” he cautioned, noting al Qaeda in Iraq is still active in the province.
Still, trends show the surge of U.S. forces is having an effect on insurgent operations in Anbar, the general said, adding that he believes “we have turned the corner.”
Gaskin said the province experienced 428 insurgent attacks during July 13-19, 2006. This year, from July 12-18, Anbar experienced just 98 extremist-mounted attacks, he said. Combined with other recent developments, the statistics demonstrate that the counter-insurgent strategy of clear, hold and build is working in Anbar province, Gaskin said.
Today, about 34,000 Iraqi soldiers and police in Anbar province work side by side with U.S. troops, Gaskin pointed out.
“We owe the lion’s share of the progress we’ve experienced to the hard work, dedication and in some cases, bravery, of the Iraqi forces,” Gaskin said, noting there are now Iraqi police in every major city of the province.
Gaskin said the combat-tested 1st Iraqi Army Division, “plans and operates independently in their own
But of course, the liberals who don't want to see America succeed....want us out before our military even has a chance to make their mission a success won't let this good news change their positions of see America FAIL.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 20, 2007 05:59 PM ]
posted on July 20, 2007 06:21:34 PMDEFEAT BECOMES HER
IBD ^ | July 20, 2007
Iraq: The Pentagon was right to accuse Hillary Clinton of serving enemy purposes by demanding details on how we might pull troops from Iraq. When will Democrats stop trying to manage surrender and help us win? "In war there is no substitute for victory," said Gen. MacArthur. But when it comes to Iraq, defeat seems to be the only thing Democrats want to talk about.
The former first lady, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in May formally asked to be filled in on our contingency plans should we pull out of Iraq, as she and so many...
Hope in the next 17-18 months the American voters finally open their eyes that NO democrat at this time, with the exception of Lieberman, is ABLE to protect America. They're always waving the white flag of surrender.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 20, 2007 06:24 PM ]
posted on July 20, 2007 07:56:51 PMPetraeus Is Talking; Is Anyone Listening?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Leadership: It's pathetic when a major political party holds a pajama party to publicize its desire to surrender during a war. But it's even worse when such shenanigans drown out a vital message from a real leader.
-------------
They were SO willing to make fools of themselves once again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 20, 2007 07:59 PM ]
posted on July 20, 2007 09:07:09 PM
And with hillary...it's really NOT just her flip-flopping on the Iraqi war that should matter to patriots/ Americans'....her socialist agenda should be of GREAT concern also, imo.
Be an INFORMED voter...not one who just believes everything the liberal press MSM tells you. They're NOT presenting all sides of the issue...nor the political agendas of the extreme left. Know what direction THEY plan to take America in...and be SURE it's the America YOU really want for yourselves and your future generations to live in.
Socialism is NOT the road I want to see America travel down any more than it already has. Back to the way our founding fathers set up our GREAT nation....and it wasn't as a socialist/communist nation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 20, 2007 09:10 PM ]
posted on July 22, 2007 08:18:30 PM
it is the 21st Century! You can disagree with, or even hate, Clinton's politics, but calling her a b*tch reflects on your own lack maturity. Linda,did you forget that if it weren't for the first feminists, The Suffragets, you would not have been able to vote for your precious Bush?
[ edited by coincoach on Jul 22, 2007 08:21 PM ]
[ edited by coincoach on Jul 23, 2007 09:20 PM ]
[ edited by coincoach on Jul 23, 2007 09:22 PM ]
[ edited by coincoach on Jul 23, 2007 09:24 PM ]
[ edited by coincoach on Jul 23, 2007 09:25 PM ]
[ edited by coincoach on Jul 23, 2007 09:30 PM ]
[ edited by coincoach on Jul 23, 2007 09:32 PM ]
posted on July 22, 2007 08:31:45 PM
I understand, CC, that you'd rather focus on hillary being a women....rather than a part of the twosome clinton presidency. A corrupt administration.
I care more about them being corrupt...than her being a woman. Besides SHE did none of those things you mentioned.
She supports most everything that is against what America has always stood for.
She could be a herm [him/her] for all I care....she's part of the past....part of the corruption that we've already lived through. And she's FULL of all the baggage from their past. WHICH she has instructed the liberal press NOT to mention.
Some might vote for her because she's a women...and for no other reason. I vote for people by their political PLATFORMS....NOT their sex.
And I'm not sure which sex hillary is anyway.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
SO appropriate.