CNN's King reported Bush admin. attack on Clinton over Iraq request, but not her response
On the July 19 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, guest host John King reported that the Pentagon issued "a stinging rebuke of Senator Hillary Clinton [D-NY]" in which Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman -- a former adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney -- accused Clinton of "promoting enemy propaganda by asking questions about the U.S. exit strategy in Iraq." King added that the "Associated Press reports" that Edelman "sent that biting reply this week to Senator Clinton about questions she asked the Pentagon back in May." But King did not report Clinton's response and gave no indication that he had attempted to contact Clinton. Clinton's response was readily available and included in the AP report King cited.
Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman's accusation "at once outrageous and dangerous," and added that "[r]edeploying 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."
The AP reported on July 19 that Edelman responded "to questions Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces" by telling "Clinton that her questions ... boost[] enemy propaganda." Clinton had asked the Pentagon how it planned to prepare for what would eventually be, in the AP's words, "a complicated withdrawal of troops, trucks and equipment." The AP reported that Edelman wrote in his response: "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." The AP further reported that Reines "said the senator would respond to his [Edelman's] boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates" and that "Clinton aides said the letter ignored important military matters and focuses instead on political payback."
A later version of the AP report also noted that Republican Sen. Richard Lugar (IN) shared Clinton's concerns. According to the AP, Lugar "warned ... 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.' "
The AP noted that Edelman is a "one-time aide to Vice President Dick Cheney." As Newsweek reported in Feburary, "During the run-up to the Iraq war, Edelman served as Cheney's foreign-policy adviser, directly under the vice president's then chief of staff and national-security aide I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby. After a two-year stint as ambassador to Turkey, Edelman was then nominated by President Bush in 2005 to replace [former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas] Feith, a key ally of the vice president's office in the often-contentious pre-war debates over Iraq intelligence."
According to a July 20 AP report, Clinton personally "responded Friday [July 20] in a letter to Edelman's boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, asking if he agreed with Edelman's charge." The AP reported that the letter asserted that "Edelman had ducked her questions and 'instead made spurious arguments to avoid addressing contingency planning.' " The AP also reported that Clinton "repeated her request for a briefing -- classified if necessary -- on the issue of end-of-war planning" and that she called Edelman's "claim 'outrageous and dangerous.' "
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the July 19 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
KING: Also from the Pentagon, a stinging rebuke of Senator Hillary Clinton. An undersecretary of defense reportedly argues the Democratic presidential candidate is promoting enemy propaganda by asking questions about the U.S. exit strategy in Iraq. The Associated Press reports Eric Edelman sent that biting reply this week to Senator Clinton about questions she asked the Pentagon back in May.
And what will the Pentagon do when Hillary is President? I can't wait for her to abuse power like Bush has. Whoopee! I hope she outlaws the Republican Party.
Seriously though why should we expect a news agency toprovide both sides of the story? Lazy bastards.
We expect news organizations to give us news, NOT PARTISAN TALKING POINTS- FROM EITHER SIDE...
We expect news organizations to deal with the TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH- you know, like our legal jurisprudence democratic way of finding the TRUTH- 'the whole truth and nothing but...
Perhaps that's why AMERICANS who love the Constitution expect the TRUTH from news organizations...
The pentagon's response to Mrs. Clinton's request was out of line. Their automatic response of accusing anyone of aiding the enemy when they are being questioned by a sitting Senator, is beyond arrogance.
If I was the leading candidate in the Democratic party for president, would it not be prudent to sort of anticpate that I might inherit responsibility for this occupation? If I am to be responsible, should i not be asking questions like this? This all besides my sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, not the gut of the "decider"?
KO pulled no punches last night when commenting on this latest Bush Administration insult.
Link to the transcript:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19859124/
Should be required viewing for further comment on this thread. Again, if Olbermann were running for something, I'd have to revise my list of candidates - including the very top of whatever he were to run for.
I'm sure they'll put as much thought into preparing for withdrawal as they did for preparing for the occupation.
"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
What is with these war mongerers that will just no let something go.
Are we so insecure as a nation that we have to make up a game called king of the hill and force other nations to play with us?
Why can't we just knock off the king of the hill mentality and be happy with being just another nation.
If we mature to where we can be happy with being just another nation we can concentrate on taking care of our infrasture. For God's sake we can't even rebuild New Orleans and we want to play cowboy around the world what does that tell you?
well said, thank you
Clinton had asked the Pentagon how it planned to prepare for what would eventually be, in the AP's words, "a complicated withdrawal of troops, trucks and equipment."
That's it.
That's the question that got back a "stinging rebuke", and something about "promoting enemy propaganda by asking questions about the U.S. exit strategy in Iraq".
Never mind "stinging rebukes", what about answering the question:
How has the Department of Defense planned to prepare for what would eventually be a complicated withdrawal of troops, trucks and equipment from Iraq?
It's a simple question, it must have an answer (simple or complicated), mustn't it?
Gee, in a Court of Law, to be asked a simple question, requires only an answer, not a "stinging rebuke" or rants about "promoting enemy propaganda"... in a Court of Law, were a simple question responded to with a "stinging rebuke", the Judge would interject:
Please answer the question
Unless there is no answer... unless nobody at the DOD has any plan about a "withdrawal" of anything from Iraq, Troops or trucks or equipment or whatever...
You mean, not even in the case of the "mission" (whatever that might be, at this particular hour) being "accomplished"?
No plan for "withdrawal" even under that contingency? Or any other contingency?
I can't believe that... that seems just too extraordinary to believe, that the DOD is so incompetent and so negligent as to have no plan for what would eventually be a complicated withdrawal of troops, trucks and equipment from Iraq...
I guess if I were that incompetent and negligent, I wouldn't have answered the simple question either... maybe I'd instead have responded with a "stinging rebuke"...
...maybe not though... because I'd figure the "press" would see right through the fact I hadn't answered the question, and would have interjected (like a Judge in a Court of Law):
Please answer the question
Why would you be surprized. Remeber DOD was so unfamiliar with basic air defense tactics that they not only failed to order defensive air cover over the command center for 40 minutes after the second strike on the WTC they didnt even have an antiaircraft battery on alert. We need to outsource national defense to a competent military establishment. One might argue the apparent incompetence is really a cover for complicity.
We need to outsource national defense to a competent military establishment.
I know it's a joke (about outsourcing), but it draws us into consideration of the single most serious qualification for Office, for our next president:
To be able to successfully adminster for the American People, their Department of Defense; and in that capacity and as Commander in Chief, to fix what is essentially a 'broken' U.S. Army, and to plan and execute an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
This is the single most serious and pressing qualification for our next president...whatever is the second most important, is a distant second, due the seriousness of this issue.
The DOD, the U.S. Army, and Iraq: These are the challenges our next president faces... these are our (the American People's) most serious problems right now.
So serious, that were the presidential campaign (in it's next 15+ months) to be near exclusively devoted to only that issue, it would suit me fine (and many others too), and perhaps guide us a little better, toward selecting our next president, with those problems (and therefore the qualifications to solve them) in mind.
And whether or not you think Mrs. Clinton to be the one, to administer the DOD and, as Commander in Chief, fix a 'broken' U.S. Army and oversee our situation in Iraq...
Whether you think that or not does not change what we all know to be true: That for these things to be done successfully by our next president, it will require the services of Gen. Wesley Clark... either as VP or Secretary of the DOD.
I myself think we could use the man as our next president, these problems being as serious as they are.
Also, from the screenshot accompanying the item, we have as CNN's 'blurb' on the matter...
PENTAGON BLASTS CLINTON
That's bullchit!
Whether you'd characterize foolishly anything as a "BLAST", the fact is it wasn't the "PENTAGON", it was VP Dick Cheney's former aide, eric edelman (wasn't he one of the Monty Python guys?)
Again, it wasn't the "PENTAGON", it was former aide to VP Cheney, eric edelman.
(eric edelman... wait a minute! Wasn't he the guy who, as aide to Dick Cheney, successfully executed the VP's exit strategy out of Texas, after Cheney shot that guy in the face? ...after that guy got BLASTED in the face? Wasn't that eric edelman who helped the VP out of that mess?)
Edleman, in his 'heckuva job role', responded ONLY as a BUSHCO crony could respond; intimidation, accusation, blame and threat...you know, the way they have run this whole debacle of IRAQ!
Senator Clinton has both the DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY to be asking these questions for the sake of our troops who are dying there, on behalf of our American citizens who are 70% against this LIE to the American people and because of a Senator's pledge to uphold the Constitution. Those who care little for our Constutional law would be expected to respond as this BUSH BUDDY did.
Probably most of the equipment would be left behind. Give the Mil/Ind complex something to make money on for a few years.
yeah,eweston maybe that is their plan. Of course, that's none of your (or HC's) business,so just go back to what you were doing, and let them continue with their secret plan for Victory.
Well dangme.
They don't have to plan on how to leave, they never plan on leaving.
I think Edelman has not gone far enough to accuse the real culprits. The people who wrote the constitution. Those idiots actually gave the power to decide about whether or not to wage war to the congress! Didnt they realize this would always give aid to the enemy. Those damn representatives debating both sides of the issue. Every enemy knows that public opinion can end the war. If they knew what they were doing they would have given the decision solely to the president. I know it is politically incorrect to point out that Madison, Franklin , Washington and Hamilton were dopes but it is obvious isnt it? Really once a war is started we should have no elections even for President. What if an antiwar candidate runs. The enemy will be encouraged by the possiible change in that office. Geez --really if you think about it having a democracy puts us at an unpatriotic disadvantage in all wars.
CNN- promoting enemy propaganda
Really that this cronie thug who gets rewarded with his current job of Undersecretary of Defense, and makes such propagandist statements directed at a US senator who also happens to be the a leading candidate for President of the Untied States is just another neon red flashing sign on how corrupt and devoid of anything ethical this current administration is.
Keith Olbermann did and outstanding piece on this garbage at the start of Countdown last night with his special ccommentary. WOW! I agree with above posters, every American should have heard him, and use their thinking skills and love of America to denounce this kind of tactic.
This guy needs to go.
Keith also provided further information though other segments on exactly who Eric Edelman is.. not a very pretty picture.
I guess I won't do Media matters any harm with the right wing wing-nuts. According to O'Reiley, Savage, et al w this is a "hate site." right.
I'm thinking Edelman could stay in one of those poison FEMA trailers.. and make his propaganda statements to his heart's content. Then maybe he'd have some kind of excuse.. the fumes you know.
king has already set up the scenario when he refers to it as a "rebuke". as if hillary had done something so out of line that it was imperative to correct her. we find ourselves in the situation we do in iraq because of too many kool aid drinkers like edelman. when you have an administration that wanted to know the abortion views of those who were being considered for jobs in iraq, it's no surprise where we are at.
link to roe v. wade comments
http://www.limitedink.net/mrblog/?cat=2
scroll down to "mismanaging the emerald city"
Thanks for the link, MF. A while back, when I first heard of it, I posted links to some articles on the Regent University(Pat Robertson) graduate glut in this administration.
I got the same feeling from the item you linked to; why isn't this in the mainstream media, and why aren't Americans outraged?
Then I remember, although I live in a very Republican county, I'm in a pretty blue state, and don't interact with the extreme "social conservatives" on a regular basis.
And I realize, items like these, to an election-swinging number of Americans, would elicit no more reaction than "isn't that nice!"