• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Damn Democrats emboldening the enemy yet again!

Status
Not open for further replies.
The first rule of exit strategy is you do not talk about exit strategy. The second rule is...


Pentagon Slams Clinton on Iraq

Thursday July 19, 2007 7:31 PM


By DEVLIN BARRETT

Associated Press Writer

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.

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.






http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6791520,00.html
 
bob_arctor said:
Wow. Marvin Gaye had it right but was much too nice about it. What the f*ck is going on? Seriously.

Democrats and critics just have to pick an appropriate and correct time to discuss Iraq so as not to embolden the enemy or cause our troops to be disemboldened (?...unemboldened).

That can't be pre-war of course. That's cowardly. And it can't be during the war because that's cut and run talk. Even shortly after the war ends won't be a good time either because Iraq will be fragile and words are just as damaging as grenades and bullets. The appopriate time is still TBD.
 
Sometimes I really hate this country.

I don't like saying that because people who aren't from here are all like "yeah you damn Americans!", but they're idiots too. I don't like your free-spirited country any better, hippies. I just hate this one. Sometimes.
 
Stoney Mason said:
Democrats and critics just have to pick an appropriate and correct time to discuss Iraq so as not to embolden the enemy or cause or troop to be disemboldened (?...unemboldened).

That can't be pre-war of course. That's cowardly. And it can't be during the war because that's cut and run talk. Even shortly after the war ends won't be a good time either because Iraq will be fragile and words are just as damaging as grenades and bullets. The appopriate time is still TBD.

and discussing it when the war ends and some time has passed will be "revisionist history"
 
I'll modify a Miyamoto (I think it was him, maybe Ken Lobb?) quote for all you left wing nuts: "A good exit strategy is only delayed until it is implemented; a bad one is bad forever."

I don't know if that works, but it kept me buying N64 games!
 
petition_header_iraq.jpg
 
Well, he's right about one thing; that region would be ****ed if we left. It would be VERY reckless of us. Then again I don't think we necessarily have to "succeed" but just be able to leave without the whole thing imploding. And even if it did implode, I don't see how it's a "grave threat" to America, any more than the region is now. I mean, could they POSSIBLY get *more* mad at us? I don't think that's possible at this point.
 
worldrunover said:
Well, he's right about one thing; that region would be ****ed if we left. It would be VERY reckless of us. Then again I don't think we necessarily have to "succeed" but just be able to leave without the whole thing imploding. And even if it did implode, I don't see how it's a "grave threat" to America, any more than the region is now. I mean, could they POSSIBLY get *more* mad at us? I don't think that's possible at this point.

Iraq is clearly one of the gravest threats our nation has ever faced. Right up there with the Civil War, WW2, etc.

That's why a small troop surge for a few months is clearly a great bargain for such a titantic struggle.
 

Freshmaker

I am Korean.
Stoney Mason said:
Democrats and critics just have to pick an appropriate and correct time to discuss Iraq so as not to embolden the enemy or cause our troops to be disemboldened (?...unemboldened).

That can't be pre-war of course. That's cowardly. And it can't be during the war because that's cut and run talk. Even shortly after the war ends won't be a good time either because Iraq will be fragile and words are just as damaging as grenades and bullets. The appopriate time is still TBD.
The only time it's ok is if you develop a soothing enough euphanism. Something like, "withdraw with dignity."
 
Freshmaker said:
The only time it's ok is if you develop a soothing enough euphanism. Something like, "withdraw with dignity."

Well of course. You can't have a "precipitous withdrawal". Instead what is needed is a "strategic redeployment".
 
"I emphatically assure you that we do not claim, suggest, or otherwise believe that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies, nor do we question anyone's motives in this regard," Gates wrote.

"I truly regret that this important discussion went astray and I also regret any misunderstanding of intention," Gates wrote.

While Gates has to carry the water he always appears to be the least objectionable and loathsome person within this horrid little administration.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3417276
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom