Mrs. Clinton, while we are talking about withdrawal plans, please explain why you didn't read the NIE?

"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."

Spurious dodge of a serious issue.

So, would you, Mrs. Clinton, like to address your ignorance to the NIE or should we consider your expected response as a spurious dodge of a serious issue?

That's it Petrous, you really argue with pertinent arguments, right on the subject of the thread. Second post and you are already trying to avoid the issue.

Well lets face it folks. The Pentagon as sssssssoooooooooooooooooooo much credibility.

They can't admit that even with the mercinary machine hired by the administration to "complement" their forces they can't whip a country that endured 12 years of sanctions.

Of course they have to blame someone. Its always someone elses fault. As if the "enemy" doesn't have enough propaganda fodder with the war itself.

If she read the NIE, there would be a need to withdrawal.

She's also a bigger fool to think the military doesn't have withdrawal plans.
Not Bush - the MILITARY. And, in no way should the military be disclosing such and she should know better - her husband should be able to tell her. There are some things even the President cannot share with the public. This is one topic that shouldn't be publically discussed. Withdrawal is not a topic for public discussion. Congress can do this behind doors. Perhaps she has forgotten what National Security stands for.

"Withdrawal is not a topic for public discussion. Congress can do this behind doors. Perhaps she has forgotten what National Security stands for."

That's probably why:

"She repeated her request for a briefing -- classified if necessary -- on the issue of end-of-war planning."

Not many responses -- just too difficult to argue with the direct and common sense statements explaining the error in judgement by someone who thinks they can be commander in chief.

There will only be raised ruffs and tail between the legs snarls from the left.

"explaining the error in judgement by someone who thinks they can be commander in chief."

vs. myriad errors in judgment by someone who currently IS the commander-in-chief?

San, if they provided it to her as classified, would she be allowed to make a public statement that she received a classified file regarding the withdrawal plans?

"...the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia..."

Guess the Pentagon's batting 1000!

"San, if they provided it to her as classified, would she be allowed to make a public statement that she received a classified file regarding the withdrawal plans?"

I don't see why not. Unless you are assuming we are NEVER going to withdraw from Iraq. If not, there certainly should be plans on the drawing board for whenever that time arrives. That fact wouldn't be a state secret, although there should, under no circumstance, be any leaking of what those plans entail.

From the article
"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."

If Edelman were honestly concerned with the possibility that talk about withdrawl would help the "enemy" he would have conducted his discussion with Hillary in some classified way. He didn't because he was really just trying to attack the Democratic front runner for president. He's more of a political hack than Hillary Clinton....and that's saying something.

Guess the Pentagon's batting 1000!

Posted by DUMPLING1
* * * *

Pentagon doesn't decide where to go, or for how long.

Pentagon Rebukes Hillary on Iraq


This is another example of another government agency that has been subverter by the GOP one party rule machine. Their purpose is no longer to serve the citizens of this country, it is to serve the political needs of the GOP. That is why underqualified political hacks are finding themselves in the top positions of the Pentagon, the EPA, FEMA, the Justice Department etc.,etc., etc.

"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."



Stinging rebuke??

Hardly. Just more republicant double-speak for "We have no fucking clue what we're doing".

"This is another example of another government agency that has been subverter by the GOP one party rule machine."

Aren't you glad that you have the CIA on your progressive side? They can save the nation now that they can investigate US citizens within the US, and use their offices to influence domestic politics (re: Plame).

If only Libby had been confined to prison, where his rights are extinct, and where your secret police agency could have waterboarded him into a confession, eh?

Hillary makes statements which appear to support the very enemy we are fighting, now, and with our soldiers being sacrifice by the terrorism of Islamic jihad, while Bush is supporting our troops and actively fighting our enemy and succeeding!

No wonder you all are so desperate -- your efforts to subvert this war in support of partisanship is failing! Your leadership is desperate to twist reality into a loss for our nation . . .

Take one of the quotes from the Pentagon and show it to be false . . .

I won't hold my breath. All you can do is misdirect and snarl viciously.

Aren't you glad that you have the CIA on your progressive side? They can save the nation now that they can investigate US citizens within the US, and use their offices to influence domestic politics (re: Plame).


Are you trying to imply that the NSA wiretapping was a goal of progressives? I think you should put down the brandy and start taking your meds.


If only Libby had been confined to prison, where his rights are extinct, and where your secret police agency could have waterboarded him into a confession, eh?


Are you implying that torture is also a goal of progressives? Oh and poor Libby, the neocon soldier who took the bullet for his boss. America is weakened when its covert agents are sacrificed for political gain.


Hillary makes statements which appear to support the very enemy we are fighting, now, and with our soldiers being sacrifice by the terrorism of Islamic jihad, while Bush is supporting our troops and actively fighting our enemy and succeeding!

No wonder you all are so desperate -- your efforts to subvert this war in support of partisanship is failing! Your leadership is desperate to twist reality into a loss for our nation . . .

Take one of the quotes from the Pentagon and show it to be false . . .

I won't hold my breath. All you can do is misdirect and snarl viciously.


Are you implying that Al Qaeda is getting weaker thanks to the policies of Dumya? I'd like to see you prove it since the latest intelligence estimates indicate Al Qaeda is resurgent and acts of terrorism have only increased since the beginning of his tenure.
It is you that has to prove that HC's or any of the anti-war republicans' comments are having an effect, something that your empty rhetoric fails to do.
I find your hyperbole on the war on terror funny, like the rantings of a wild-haired madman in urine-soaked pants.
Your attempts to link the failure of the Iraq policy specifically and the 'war on terror' in general to its critics is asinine.
I suggest you crawl back under the rock you've hidden in for the last few years. It'll be easier to defend your warped world-view there.

"Someone who thinks they can be Commander-in-Chief...."

Relative the ability of the non-entity who currently serves in that role, I nominate my dog Bob. Arf.

Great to see Tad back. I'm sure he realizes that Bush could have employed the standard counter-insurgency tactics he is using in Iraq NOW four years ago.

Everyone that KNEW such a thing as counter-insurgency tactics KNEW they could work, provided enough men were used to deal with the problem at hand.

Too bad Bush has not and will never send enough men into Iraq to do the job. More sad that those people counter-insurgency tactics are intended to protect are:

1) Dead
2) Migratory expatriots in their many millions.
3) Joined an ethnic militia three years ago.

Take a look, Tad. Bush has been peeing on your shoe. Arf.

No wonder you all are so desperate -- your efforts to subvert this war in support of partisanship is failing! Your leadership is desperate to twist reality into a loss for our nation . . .

No one has to subvert the war. Bushling is in charge. All we have to do is make popcorn and watch the show. The commander in chief is self subverting.

Tad-you really need to update your talking points dude-the ones you're using had no relevance when they were being thrown around about Vietnam.
Get your head outta bushitters ass Tad-the air is MUCH more breathable in the light.

One other REALLY great benefit-bushleague doesn't try to shit on your tongue anymore.....

Just exactly when did our military take on an active part in a presidential election?

I find this very disturbing. Although it is often present to a degree. This is an unpresidented degree at this time.

What next, a military coup?

I do not see a good thing at all.

Darth responds 05:54, "Are you trying to imply that the NSA wiretapping was a goal of progressives?"

No, I was talking about the CIA. Do all leftists inveterately misdirect?

Anyway, what 'wiretapping'? That practice in the USA is confined to other, police agencies. The NSA intercepts foreign communication signals. Do leftists remain ignorant of these things in order to lie about them?

"Are you implying that torture is also a goal of progressives?"

No, torture is apolitical and practiced by any ruthless agency or government. For one example, our prison authorities practice it, as you know very well, but stuff mush in your mouth in order to mumble some misdirections.

"Oh and poor Libby, the neocon soldier who took the bullet for his boss. America is weakened when its covert agents are sacrificed for political gain."

See? Already, you know that Armitage was the leak and not Libby or Cheney, but you literally lie to yourself, so you can lie here to others by implication . . . so sad.

"Are you implying that Al Qaeda is getting weaker thanks to the policies of Dumya? I'd like to see you prove it . . ."

I implied that Hillary, as commander in chief wannabe, promotes retreat and failure to complete our obligations to millions of Iraqis we have freed from one tyrant, and where our abandonment of them will allow the same human sacrificing Jihadists to tyrannize them again. While all this time, Bush has maintained a fight against these neolithic Jihadist theocrats to win and continue to try and protect millions in their newfound democracy. Then I asked you to do something I knew you would run like a dog away from answering . . .

Zed 06:16, "I'm sure he realizes that Bush could have employed the standard counter-insurgency tactics he is using in Iraq NOW four years ago."

I'm not sure what you mean? That's because at every time the military attempted an operation, after deposing Saddam, the left started attacking them and accusing them of murder, torture, rape and being tools of fascist nazi imperialist oil sucking idiots!

I think Rumsfeld promoted a sort of South Vietnamese style 'defensive pacification' policy to try and short-stop bad news. Of course, that just fell into the propagandistic hands of the left who used it to further vilify all concerned. Not for anti-war motives, but for votes.

"Everyone that KNEW such a thing as counter-insurgency tactics KNEW they could work, provided enough men were used to deal with the problem at hand."

It is nice to see at least one person say we are now on the right track.

"Too bad Bush has not and will never send enough men into Iraq to do the job."

You'll excuse me if I don't accept your opinion over that of general Patreous and, or the experts at the Pentagon who reason the strengths they need against ALL politician's desire not to be linked to our soldier's deaths by chanting dissident subversives attempting to gain political advantage by sowing fear and defeat, and ghoulishly counting soldier's bodies as partisan capital.

"More sad that those people counter-insurgency tactics are intended to protect are: 1) Dead 2) Migratory expatriots in their many millions.
3) Joined an ethnic militia three years ago. Take a look, Tad. Bush has been peeing on your shoe. Arf."

I don't get the allusion? Are you just trying to prove you are some sort of macho by spouting this prepubescent toilet talk?

Your list failed to notice that those individuals are not, in the vast majority, Jihadist terrorists. Those radicals are not in the great numbers the left infers to sow fear and gain defeat for the USA. That some are doing so, in tacit support of our present *enemy*, is anti-patriotic, at best, and out-and-out treason on the part of others; who may meet and reach agreements with our *enemy* outside of the constitutional limits of our nation!

I'm just glad you aren't one of those slimey war profiteers, sowing fear and defeat, selling our nation's honor for votes.

Oh great Taddy Boy and His Many "Pontifications" I find them to be all Rubbish. We can only HOPE and PRAY that Taddy Boy wakes up to reality someday. I highly doubt that will ever happen but We can always hope.

Larry

Tadowe is Pinche in a few decades.

Not many responses -- just too difficult to argue with the direct and common sense statements explaining the error in judgement by someone who thinks they can be commander in chief.

There will only be raised ruffs and tail between the legs snarls from the left.

Posted by tadowe


That's dumb. She is doing her JOB in making sure that there are plans for a withdrawal - do we not remember the utter lack of planning for the occupation?

She will come out on top of this one, becuase the public knows the record of poor planning on the part of both military and civilian leadership on Iraq, and the time for oversight and adult supervision of the little twit and his band of incompetents is slowly arriving - slower than I would like it, but arriving nonetheless.

LARRY

Well, he did just back from a camping trip. I was hoping he'd have an awakening, what with communing with the fishies and all that.

No such luck, I guess.

And speaking of Tadowe's camping trip, I couldn't help but wonder if he bit any rattlesnakes while he was out there.

Midiman reasons, "She is doing her JOB in making sure that there are plans for a withdrawal - do we not remember the utter lack of planning for the occupation?"

It isn't her job to plan for withdrawel. Her job is to advance laws for the US which benefit its citizens who depend on seperation of the branches to assure that one doesn't take over the other. Planning withdrawel is the responsibility of the executive and accomplished through the Department of Defense, the Penatagon and the services involved in any such life and death decision(s).

Planning for withdrawel, outside the executive branch, before becoming the commander in chief, and which suggests that all our enemy has to do is wait us out until they can win with Hillary, is actually aiding them and abetting their human sacrificing cause . . .

"She will come out on top of this one, becuase the public knows the record of poor planning on the part of both military and civilian leadership on Iraq ..."

You are a partisan and won't listen to any reasoning presented to your, because to you it appears to be a sporting event, where you support your team, no matter how much they cheat to win . . . by withdrawing a allowing our enemy to know that are her plans if she becomes president.

Really, more and more people are starting to realize that your interests are only in party, and not all of our nation's honor, pride and sense of duty. It seems the party will say and do anything to force a loss for all of America, and all of our allies, in Iraq, so that you can gain power for Democratics; takeover.

In a way, it is like the entire Democratic party is trying to shoot itself in the foot to avoid having to accept a place in winning this war . . .

I can't say anything else and retain my posting privileges. Saying more in describing this would earn me a ban, again.

I can't say anything else and retain my posting privileges. Saying more in describing this would earn me a ban, again.

Posted by tadowe

The Iraq War was lost the moment it began. People like Taddy Boy need to accept that fact. Dubya was on the wrong side of the Legal Moral Ethical High Ground.

Larry

You are a partisan and won't listen to any reasoning presented to your, because to you it appears to be a sporting event, where you support your team, no matter how much they cheat to win . . . by withdrawing a allowing our enemy to know that are her plans if she becomes president.


I can't believe a Bush apologist is accusing ME of this! You obvously haven't read much of what I wrote, since I used that exact same line myself - or are you just trying to flatter me?

Are you saying that the Pentagon should not have continency plans for withdrawal? Are you suggesting that members of relevant committees have no right to ask questions and receive briefings? Wher did YOU go to school? Red state?

How about we just watch and see who comes out on top? Perhaps it's too subtle for you, but Hillary wasn't asking to be included in the planning - thank goodness SOMEONE is interested in the existence of actual PLANS.

Please, give us a defense of the planning that went into the invasion and occupation. Oh wait, I am the partisan one here! Ha!!

Oh, by the way, did you attack Sen Lugar for asking the very same thing some weeks ago? Oh wait, I am the partisan one.

You guys are laugh out loud ridiculous.

Ah, poor Tad. No, deliberately decorticate Tad. When it was obvious we needed to reinforce Iraq three years ago, it was the "chanting Right" that shouted us down.

What lines were we fed at the time? That we should have more "more faith" in our fighting men was one.

Well, the problem was never with them. And if you don't undertand allusions, let me re-introduce you to my dog Bob, a superior Commander-in-Chief. Arf.

How much time did the Right burn wailing over definitions of words, such as "guerilla" and "quagmire"?

Well, if we leave or if we go in Iraq we may be equally screwed. That finally settles the quagmire thing. Since it's the toss of a coin, I say go.

A fairly easy choice, given we won't be able to sustain tropp strengths beyond next May,

but the bitch's answer to the pentagon doesnt even refer to what they said. I see no place in any of the pentagon statements that can be construed as saying that she is not patriotic. what it does say is...and let me put it in a way that liberals can understand it.

"keep your fuckin mouth shut, bitch, we are still trying to win this motherfucker and everytime you and your cohorts invested in defeat talk shit about getting out, it makes our allies, who could be risking thier lives and families lives, nervous."

okay so if this were a turf war with the gangs in la....thats how it might come down.........

"keep your fuckin mouth shut, bitch, we are still trying to win this motherfucker and everytime you and your cohorts invested in defeat talk shit about getting out, it makes our allies, who could be risking thier lives and families lives, nervous."


Is this what they said to Sen. Lugar, too?

Get used to Hillary's mouth, southern boy. Unlike Kerry, she won't take any shit from your chickenhawk crowd of dumbasses. Count on it.

""we are still trying to win this motherfucker""

We??

You doing your fighting from the golf course??

Tough talk, chickenhawk tough.