Clinton and Kerry seek Pentagon's Iraq exit strategy

We have vanquished!!!(our own military)
A crime has been committed against America, by TeamBush.

I wouldn't give it to these traitor senators. They would leak it or one of their traitor aides would leak it. It's part of their nature.

I wouldn't give it to these traitor senators. They would leak it or one of their traitor aides would leak it. It's part of their nature.

Posted by: John D | July 20, 2007 7:51 PM

Hang em up! John D.carthy

Edelman is right,give her zip,nadda,zero! Hillary would of twisted this info and use it for B.J's-ooops-her own political gain.

Paulo
p.s.john kerry served in viet nam....4-3 months.

The problem here is that the Bushie Republicans in the White House don't have any plans to pull out of their stupid civil war in Iraq.......until Jan 09, when they will try to pass off the blame for their failures in Iraq and everywhere else to the new Democratic President.

"They would leak it or one of their traitor aides would leak it. It's part of their nature."

What if they promised that anyone who leaks information would not have a job in their administration?

Oh yeah, thats already been done...

Maybe they could mean it? That would be a nice change.

Could either Clinton or Kerry just be looking for an idea to offer as a proposal of their own while the Pentagon must keep it under wraps. Nah, that would be politics. Surely they wouldn't do that.

Could Edelman be a secret Hillary supporter?

His at a minimum "clunky" response to Hillary's request for info is a clear and unmistakable demonstration of the warmongering nature of this Administration. Catnip for the Hillary campaign.

He should be fired, of course, but he won't be.
Maybe somebody with a brain should read his letters before they go out, though.

Clinton and Kerry accuse somebody ELSE of making a "political" response?????

Paulo
p.s.john kerry served in viet nam....4-3 months.

Posted by: Paulo | July 20, 2007 10:18 PM

Paulo,where were Bushie and little dick for those 3 months?

Bushie was trying on cheerleader skirts and little dick had better things to do.

Really? Clinton and Kerry want the plans for what? What could these two military geniuses need with the plans for withdrawal?

Absolutely political, and absolutely a dangerous message being sent to our enemies- the problem is that our two altruistic senators don't want to publicly acknowledge that we actually have enemies, or that we just might have to be in this difficult war. Disgusting!

Dem policy 101:
Hurry up and lose this war before we actually are able to demonstrate more progress in Iraq

John Kerry is a decorated combat veteran who put his life on the line when Dubya was a no call, no show at the Alabama Air National Guard and Darth Cheney was a 5 deferrment "I had other priorities" draft dodger.

And John D. & Paulo are (wrong) for suggesting that Hillary AND ESPECIALLY KERRY are traitors.

Dem policy 101 - hurry up and lose this war

Posted by heartburn July 21, 2007 11:33 PM

heartdisease,
If W. and Cheney's civil war in Iraq is so damn important why aren't you over there fighting in it instead of staying here stateside and talking tough from behind your keyboard?

C H I C K I N H A W K
N E O C O N
"heartburn"

Doug, I mainly said that because your buddies say it all the time. So I thought I would just turn the tables. Having said that, her husband did sell U.S. military technology to China in exchange for 1996 campaign cash. And some of their comments overseas and elsewhere are rather traitorous. So, let's just say they don't always have the best interests of the U.S. at heart.
Also, you were quiet for a couple of days. Did John E. send you to the Loony Left Re-education camp?

Edelman is right,give her zip,nadda,zero! Hillary would of twisted this info and use it for B.J's-ooops-her own political gain.

Paulo
p.s.john kerry served in viet nam....4-3 months.

Posted by: Paulo | July 20, 2007 10:18 PM

That's 3 or 4 months more than you ever did chump.

Right, John D. and Paulo. go after Kerry while praising your draft dodging president and VP. You two are in such denial. Dick flunks out of Yale, then drops out of grad school in Wisconsin before finishing his degree after conveniently and successfully avoiding the draft. In the meantime, your esteemed Prez gets out of Nam by joining the Gaurd, and skipping out on that to work on some AL Repbulican campaign. AWOL is what that was called when I served. Cowardice is what both of them are guilty of. You still support these guys? Tells me a lot about the two of you.

"This is an outrageous and dangerous position," Clinton said. "...Undersecretary Edelman's response was offensive and totally inappropriate."

Amen Hillary, you go girl!

Since the "Swamp" won't actually print what Edelman said, I'll have to do it:

" Although we share our commanders' belief in ours and the Iraqi Security Forces' ability to establish security in Baghdad, this is only a precondition for further political and economic progress, not a guarantee of it. 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. 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, and other contentious issues. Fear of a precipitate U.S. withdrawal also exacerbates sectarian trends in Iraqi politics as sectarian factions become more concerned with achieving short-term tactical advantages rather than reaching the long-term agreements necessary for a stable and secure Iraq.

I assure you, however, that as with other plans, 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.

I appreciate your interest in our mission in Iraq and would be happy to answer any further questions."

Edelman talks sense. Which is rare in D.C.

Edelman handled lethal Hillary the only way he could she was trying in her vixen like way to get some bureaucrat to favor the enemy like she and Kerry have been doing right along. Hillary doesn't fool anybody she is playing to the leftist kooks now running the DNC.The Dems are invested in defeat they own defeat when we are successful there is going be a wakeup call for these enemy lovers. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

The Dems are invested in defeat they own defeat when we are successful there is going be a wakeup call for these enemy lovers. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Posted by: Jerry White | July 22, 2007 10:01 AM

Americans are dying for an ill-conceived war. Iraq is a cluster %uck, and one with a puppet government. I have no idea why you're defending the morons in the White House. Your supporting a bankrupt administration in a failed enterprise. p.s. Several organizational failures: 1) Rumsfeld absolutely refused to plan for the post-invasion necessities in Iraq. 2) No one (including the President) asked the vital questions: How does the invasion improve our position in the region, and where do we want to end up vis a vis Iran? Although Saddam was an evil tyrant, he was an important counterweight to Iran. 3) Many senior generals "rolled over" when Rumsfeld bullied them, and gave up their important roles as the senior military advisors to the civilian government. 4) The coincidence of Cheney and Rumsfeld micromanaging the war clouded the advice given to the President. In many respects, the current war is a modern Republican version of "The Best and the Brightest". 5) The military meritocracy does not reward creativity (although GEN Patreaus seems to be an exception to the rule).

Isn't this marvelous? Two publicity/glory hounds get rebuffed for sticking their noses where they don't belong. And this is news?

Instead of screwing around with issues of "strategy," which isn't part of the Senate's job, why don't these two great Senators start introducing all the legislation they have been promising, especially the stuff Hillary has been promising in her campaign speeches?

If her idea's are good enough to pass into law when she's President (perish the thought), they are good enough NOW. Or maybe this stuff is good only to help her get elected.

Of course we really can't expect too much from John Kerry. He doesn't believe in writting or submitting legislation unless it puts him in the lime light - which explains why he has been responsible for so few bills during his tenure in Congress.

Edelman was right. This was just a publicity stunt, and the consequences of airing this stuff out in public would only be to help to encourage the warring factions in Iraq. It's amazing that our two wonderful Senators remain too stupid and stubborn to see this.

Edelman handled lethal Hillary the only way he could she was trying in her vixen like way to get some bureaucrat to favor the enemy like she and Kerry have been doing right along. Hillary doesn't fool anybody she is playing to the leftist kooks now running the DNC.The Dems are invested in defeat they own defeat when we are successful there is going be a wakeup call for these enemy lovers
Posted by: Jerry White | July 22, 2007 10:01 AM
Another posting from a fear filled, neo-fascist twit who is consumed with homosexual panic. Who's the president of your club-Paulo or JohnD?

Really, what is John E.'s (Smirky McFlightsuit's navigator) obsession with calling those he disagrees with gay or homosexual? And why do the Trib censors keep posting that nonsense? Clearly he is using a sexual persuasion as a put down to others, which can be considered offensive. The Left and media had a cow when Ann Coulter called Joh Edwards a "fa--ot," yet in the Swamp here it is OK for John E to call those he disagrees with gay and homosexual. First of all, it's another Left hypocrisy. Second, I thought the Left was all about inclusion and acceptance? Ooops, I'm sorry, I should know better, the Left is NOT about inclusion and acceptance but separation and hate.

There is no exit strategy. The illegitimate and draft dodging AWOL cowards, Bush and Cheney do not have a clue what's going on in Iraq.

"Two publicity/glory hounds get rebuffed for sticking their noses where they don't belong." John W.

Yeah, right. We sure don't want members of Congress to interfere or even be aware of these plans, particularly after the spectacular success of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld's plans for the occupation of Iraq. And since Hillary may be the Commander-in-Chief when we finally do pull out, it'd be a shame to spoil the surprise when she finds out that our "plan" for withdrawal revolves around the party and ticker tape parade held in our honor by all the grateful Iraqis celebrating the 5 years of freedom, peace, and democracy we brought to their country with our invasion.

Yes John W., you're right, better to forge ahead with no plan for the future in Iraq and to hope that everything works out perfectly. Better to allow this administration to continue their incompetence with no Congressional oversite. Better To "stay the course" of failure. Better to expect the Congress to continue to fund the war as Bush demands with no information about what the future might hold.

Tom O:

Go read the Constitution. Then come back and tell me where the Constitution says that Congress, or even Senators in particular, have any business second guessing the President, much less sniffing up his you-know-where with regard to the conduct of a war.

I'll save you the trouble. It doesn't give them any power to second guess the President in the conduct of a war. Congress' power under the Constitution is limited to declaring war, raising and funding armies, maintaining the navy, making rules by which those in the military are to be regulated and governed, and to call, organize, equip, and discipline militias. (See U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8, Cls. 11-16.) Unlike some of his other powers, the President's power as Commander-in-Chief is not subject to the advise and consent of the Senate. (Id. Art. II, Sec. 2.) Nor is there any other provision in the Constitution which gives Congress, or the Senate in particular, the power to second guess or look over the President's shoulder in his conduct of military operations. The absence of a grant of power in the Constitution means that it does not exist.

If Congress doesn't like what's going on, their immediate option is to de-fund the war. That is one of the explicit powers they have. Apart from that, there is little else for them to do.

In other words, the subject of inquiry was none of the Senators' business. That is true regardless of what you or anyone else thinks about the conduct of the war in Iraq.

So John W, the Congress is expected to fund the war with no information about the conduct of the war or the plan for the war?

Tony:

You do a wonderful job of misrepresenting my position and putting words in my mouth. I never said that:

1. no one should have a plan for the future in Iraq;

2. the administration, competent, incompetent or otherwise, should be allowed to continue unchecked;

3. "staying the course" is a valid plan; or,

4. Congress should continue to fund the war.

Nor have I ever implied any of the above.

If Congress wants to de-fund the war, let them de-fund the war. If they want to fund the war, let them fund the war. But, if they want to change policy without de-funding the war (or threatening to de-fund the war), then they have to advocate; they have to ASK, SUGGEST and PERSUADE, rather than DEMAND.

As I already demonstrated once, there is NO provision for Congressional oversight over the President's job as Commander-in-Chief in the Constitution. The Constitution only provides for ONE Commander-in-Chief, not 536 of them. That is the Constitutional division of labor whether you like it or not - and that is all I said.

Tony, Congress is not privy to details about the war, no. Never have been for loads of reasons, the most of which is safety for the troops. Congress was not in on the details of the Normandy Invasion, for instance. Congress was not in the plans for the Bay of Pigs. Congress was not in the bombing of Libya. Congress does get general information, but not specifics.

Every President has briefed the Congressional leadership on war plans. Congress did not know the details of D-day, but they were aware that there would be an invasion of mainland Europe. We're not talking about detailed operational plans here, John W. We're talking about general plans for a withdrawal.

As to the funding issue: Congress in fact has three options: Fund the war totally, defund the war totally or fund the war partially. There is no reason, Constitutional or otherwise, that Congress could not pass a bill that would provide funding to an amount to allow the withdrawal plan to proceed, but not sufficienet for further combat coperations at the current level. In fact, it has been done before.

"But, if they want to change policy without de-funding the war (or threatening to de-fund the war), then they have to advocate; they have to ASK, SUGGEST and PERSUADE, rather than DEMAND."

It is equally true that if the President wants a certain funding level for the war he has to advocate, he has to ASK, SUGGEST, and PERSUADE rather than DEMAND.

Congress has an obligation when passing funding bills to know what said funding will be used for. An information request such as Senators Kerry and Clinton made is a reasonable part of that process.

You may be correct that the Constitution does not require the President or the Secretary of Defense to provide military information to Congressmen when they request it. (Athough it appears that the Constitution and US laws do not apply to our "unitary executive" president anyway.)

I wasn't arguing that the Constitution required the President to cooperate with Congress or provide them information on which to base their funding decisions. But that doesn't mean the Congress should simply ignore this administration's proven inability to plan for unexpected contigencies like Iraqis throwing bombs instead of flowers. These Congressmen are doing the right thing by requesting the information. The president can ignore their request if he so choses, but it certainly is the business of the Senate to know what they are getting for the money they spend. Does the Constitution forbid the president to cooperate with Congress? I didn't think so.

Tony & Tom O:

I don’t find much, if anything, wrong in what either of you just wrote. I agree with both of you that there really ought to be a cooperative dialogue between the executive and legislative branches of government, especially when the President wants something from Congress. But that isn’t what the Hillary vs. the Pentagon flap is about.

This is not the first exchange between Senator Clinton and the Pentagon over plans for withdrawal from Iraq. Previously, Senator Clinton had not simply asked, but demanded, that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and General Pace begin drafting plans to withdraw our troops from Iraq. For her, it has not, and never has been, an option for the Executive Branch not to comply with this demand.

So now, when she makes her so-called “request” to Secretary Gates to brief the Senate Armed Services Committee, she has not really made a request. She has only asked that the Pentagon show up and explain progress on what she previously “demanded.” And now that she has been rebuffed by one of Gates’ underlings, she has responded – along with her lap-dog, John F. Kerry, that “they” are going to pass legislation to “demand” a briefing, because they are “entitled” to have such a plan in place. So now, we see that her “request” was sandwiched between two demands, and made for the purpose of fulfilling her demands. Is that really a request? Is that really being cooperative? I think not.

More fundamentally, Senator Clinton went about this the wrong way. Last I looked, the Department of Defense is an Executive Agency, which means it is directly subordinate to the President, and not Congress. As such, Senator Clinton has no constitutional power, and has no constitutional right, to demand anything directly from the DOD. Her remedy was to request, and not demand anything, for starters. And then, she should have made her request to the White House so the President could make any accommodations as he chose.

One need not be overly cynical to believe that Senator Clinton is using the issue further her political aspirations. There is some truth to what Edelman said, that advertising a withdrawal is helpful to the enemy’s moral, and, thus, harmful to our personnel on the ground. It gives insurgents hope that they can survive the remainder of our operations.

So what does Senator Clinton do? She publicizes the whole thing. It was Clinton and Kerry who announced the whole flap to the media. It was Clinton who released her latest letter to Secretary Gates complaining about the lack of a plan to withdraw. Kerry echoed this sentiment. The effect of this publicity is to portray Senator Clinton as true to her pledge to get the troops out of Iraq. That is political effect. It takes a great deal of naiveté to believe the effect was not intentionally created, especially in light of the fact that she was warned of the possible danger to American personnel if she did so.

For the foregoing reasons, I have my serious doubts about whether this feud has anything to do with Congress’ legitimate interest in knowing why they are spending money. Clinton’s and Kerry’s only interest is to see to it that Congress spends only enough money to bring the troops home on their time-table, and not according to whatever the President has in mind. That look like an attempt to force the President to begin withdrawing from Iraq by forcing a withdrawal plan into his hands. This is something Senators Clinton and Kerry have no right to do, and which the President has no constitutional duty to accept.

Clinton’s and Kerry’s only interest is to see to it that Congress spends only enough money to bring the troops home on their time-table, and not according to whatever the President has in mind. That look like an attempt to force the President to begin withdrawing from Iraq by forcing a withdrawal plan into his hands. This is something Senators Clinton and Kerry have no right to do, and which the President has no constitutional duty to accept.

Posted by: John W. | July 23, 2007 9:11 PM

And again Joh W, you only focus on Bush's constitutional role and denigrrate the congress's.

The Congress had every right to determine what moneys are spent and to what end. They have no constitutional duty to provide the President funding at his whim, for military or any other spending.

I have serious doubts Bush's refusal to provide the information requested has anything to do with a belief that the informatyion will in some way "aid the enemy" or is primarily a defense of his constitutional perogatives. He's playing politics, pure and simple.

John, try and remember that the Executive and Legislative branches are co-equal. The Legislative branch does not exist merely to serve the Executive and to facilitate the goals of the Executive.

Tony:

I already distinguished between Congress' power over the purse - which they have - and Congress' power to oversee every aspect of the Executive Branch - which they DON'T have. I already told you that I agreed with you that Congress has a say in the war inasmuch as they can determine whether any more money is spent. As such, it is simply false to claim that I have focus entirely on "Bush's constitutional role and denigrate the Congress's."

You say the President is playing politics? I think Kerry and Clinton are playing politics. That is what I think is at the bottom of all of it. Remember, they are demanding a withdrawal plan from a subordinate of the Executive Branch, and not from President himself.

I will remember "that the Executive and Legislative branches are co-equal" to the extent they are. The idea that each branch of government is "co-equal" does not mean that each branch has equal power to act on any given issue. They certainly do not. Each Branch’s status as “co-equal” only means they each possess their own powers, the exercise of which must be respected, and not encroached upon, by either of the other two branches – except to the extent the Constitution requires the concurrence of two branches for the government to act. In short, co-equality only means there are no “master” or “servant” branches of government.

So, yes, you are right - the Legislative branch does not exist merely to serve the Executive or to facilitate its goals. But neither is the Executive merely a servant of the Legislature. It is no more proper for the Executive to tell Congress how to do its job than it is for Congress to tell the President how to do his.

You may disagree with me – in which case we will simply have to respectfully disagree – but I see Clinton’s and Kerry’s actions as an encroachment on the President’s powers, and not vice versa. A given strategy – which is exactly what Clinton and Kerry have demanded – is a function entrusted by the Constitution solely to the President. Congress has NO - I repeat NO – oversight power over strategy because the Constitution gives Congress no such power. Thus, a demand from Congress to an Executive Agency for an “exit strategy” is an encroachment upon the President’s constitutional prerogatives. It is the President, and not Congress, that has the power to ask of, or demand, plans for an exit strategy from his subordinates. Clinton’s and Kerry’s demand is clearly an attempt to substitute their own judgment and authority for that of the President – and that is an impermissible incursion on the Executive power.

You say encroachment has come from the President, inasmuch as he has insisted on support from Congress without giving them information with which to act. But he has done nothing to force Congress to act, or to impede Congress’ independence. If those in Congress feel they need more information to act upon the President’s requests, they can still tell the President that he doesn’t get what he wants until the requisite information is provided. They have no duty to give him anything he asks for, especially when it comes to funding. The fact that not one shekel will flow until Congress says so means that Congress still has its powers. Hence, there has been no Presidential usurpation of Congress’ prerogatives.

I guess we will have to disagree.

You seem to feel that Bush's petulant refusal to provide information to the Legislative branch is pure, noble and wholly above politics, and that attempts by legislators to effect the most serious issue of our day are merely politics and an attempt to subvert the Constitution.

I happen to believe it's a bit more nuanced than that on both sides.

But hey, it's not like anything important is happening as a result of Bush's failed policies. 58 americans have died in Iraq this month. The same will happen next month and the month after and the month after, but Clinton and Kerry should just accept whatever Bush deems to tell them. They couldn't really have a principled objection to not having a plan to stop the killing could they?

Tony,

You have assumed way too much about what I “think” or “feel” regarding Duhbya’s actions. I have never tried to plumb his intentions with regard to Congress’ current endeavor.

Nor am I sure Bush has withheld any information that would help Congress do its job. To my knowledge, the only “information” that has been demanded but not received is an “exit strategy” from Iraq. Neither you, nor anyone else, has ever cited any further instance of a “petulant refusal to provide information to the Legislative Branch.” Tell me, what else has he withheld?

Next, consider the fact that neither Clinton nor Kerry ever asked for this “exit strategy” from President Bush. They demanded it from Bush’s subordinates only after going over his head. This isn’t asking for information; this is demanding strategy. In other words, they don’t want further facts – they want the President to act, and in default of that, his underlings to act – precisely in the manner they have chosen.

They are not interested in funding the war any further. So they don’t really need any further information in that regard. They simply want the war to end. That’s fine. But they need to do it within the framework of the Constitution.

You refuse to accept that, regardless of whether Congress has an interest in doing its job, that it has limits to the way it can do that job – and that there are right and wrong ways to do that job. Whatever the President or his subordinates have done wrong does not justify Clinton and Kerry overstepping the boundaries of their legislative powers to assume the role of the Executive.

Nor have I ever suggested – contrary to your rant – that Congress has to accept this war, or the mounting casualties that you have so eloquently recounted. Those in Congress don’t have to accept any of it. They have their own power to end it, regardless of whether the President has a specific “exit strategy.”

Specifically, if Congress doesn't like what the President is doing, they can and should de-fund the war. The Democrats in the House of Representatives – alone – have a sufficient majority to see to it that no further funding bill for the war ever gets to the President's desk. If they did so, Duh’bya would be powerless to continue the war; and so it would come to an end. So, please, don't give me this crap that Congress is powerless to stop the war, or that they must simply accept what the President says.

This isn’t a matter of powerlessness. Congress has the power. This isn’t a matter of a lack of public support. If the Democrats and the media have been telling us the truth this whole time, then an overwhelming majority of Americans support any action to pull the plug on this war. Counting out these two factors, everything else is political grandstanding.

On these terms, I also agree to disagree with you.

"I have never tried to plumb his intentions with regard to Congress’ current endeavor."

But you've made declarations about Clinton and Kerry's intentions.

"Two publicity/glory hounds get rebuffed for
sticking their noses where they don't belong."

Why is that John W.? Why are you comfortable making negative assumptions about thir intentions, and not Bush's?

"Specifically, if Congress doesn't like what the President is doing, they can and should de-fund the war."

Again, you falsely limt Congress options, all or nothing. You KNOW that complete and immediate defunding is not a viable solution, it will, in fact, take a great deal of money to withdraw our troops from Iraq. You present a Hobsons choice.

"This isn’t a matter of a lack of public support. If the Democrats and the media have been telling us the truth this whole time, then an overwhelming majority of Americans support any action to pull the plug on this war."

Come on John, you';re a smart enough guy to know that abandoning our troops in Iraq with no funding will not be supported ny anyone. Why do you pretend otherwise?

Just be honest here John. You don't want the Democrats to come up with a reasonable middle way, do you? Which of your two false options do you prefer, giving Bush everything he wants indefinitely, or abandoning our troops in Iraq without means to extricate themselves?