It's almost like the people in the media are "cherry picking" the letter, and trying to "start a war". Why I'm shocked that this could happen in this country. but we do have freedom of the depressed in this country hehehhee Kudos to you Mark.

The letter was an answer to Hillary and they thought that they could get sycophant press out of it by calling it an attack. Sooreboard. The MSM ate it like the poison apple. Oberman took the biggest bite.

The leak came from Hillary's office. They got the letter and had to score points with it. But that is how her machine works.

In combination with the executive order Bush signed yesterday, this is very, very dangerous.  This is designed to allow Bush to confiscate the campaign funds of all of the Democratic presidential candidates in the name of "national security" because they are critical of his policy.

That letter was a "thanks for calling, but we don't need any right now" kind of response someone might give to a telemarketer if they chose to actually be nice.  It certainly wasn't "caustic" or an "attack".

I'm sure the only reason why the media would consider that an attack is because they didn't bow to the queen and say "yes mam"

I do think it's significant in that it reveals how the Pentagon is now full-on brazen in its politicization of the War; there are no facts left to trust.

JJ in NJ,
any links to the signing referred to in your post?
The media fails to do its job once again and ACCURATELY report the "news"...it's a non-item, almost like a "form letter" response.  so what?...on to real issues

Alan, what you say is all true enough. However, the risk the Clinton campaign takes with this stuff is that the media doesn't like being suckered, and could backlash, as to some minor degree First Read seems to be doing. Plus, it just keeps adding straws to that camels back of impressions that her campaign manipulates content to mask their candidate's lack of content.

Good for you Mark...how about informing everyone else at MSNBC how they have been snookered.  They have been feeding this pablum all morning

****News alert**** Go to hillaryclinton.com for her response.

Thanks Hillary for thinking ahead and planning, something the Bush administration knows nothing about. Go to hillaryclinton.com...blog.

Did everyone hear that Cheney is going to be President while Bush gets a colonoscopy?  Well, at least we don't have to worry about marshall law.  Most of the army's in Iraq.

much to do about nothing

Gary, surely you aren't surprised that the Defense Department didn't counter the administration's points on this issue. And likewise surely you didn't expect it to send out any actual withdrawal contingency planning in a letter. Given what Clinton did with the response she got, I don't see how you can fault them for sending a canned letter.

First of all, where is your evidence that Hillary's campaign leaked anything?  Obama's campaign has had more incidents than Hillary's has...I find it disturbing that people continue to talk about the viciousness and sneakiness of her campaign.  If she leaked it, then she leaked it...but don't proclaim that she did without any evidence.  That's just not good form.

Secondly, I read that letter, and I was baffled by one line...about how talk of withdrawal unnerves the Iraqis that we are asking to assume enormous personal risks.  Excuse me?  Who else should be assuming these enormous personal risks?  It's THEIR country.  The Iraqi soldiers, government, etc., not the American military, should be the ones assuming the majority of the risks.  To suggest that we should tiptoe around so as to not "unnerve" them is so insulting.  Maybe they need to be unnerved.  Maybe that will motivate them to take responsibility for their country and their freedom, because it sure as hell should never have been OUR responsibility in the first place.  

"Tighten the knot on that plastic bag you have over your head JJ.  I think you're still getting  wisp of air.
Prevent C02, Save the planet from GoreBull Warming. Bag a Liberal."

Owe that’s brilliant Dave. Spoken like another brain washed hick. Say I to your sister for me. Or is it your cousin.

anybody have the over-under on how many new fronts in the "war on terror" will be opened tomorrow while Bush is under anesthesia? Presidential power in Cheney's hand scare the hell out of me.

This is President Bush's WAR, not Hillary Clinton's.
Stop lying to the American electorate this WAR, for all practical purposes is over & done with. Albeit the senseless maiming & death of our troops. Keith Olberman is correct take responsibility for this fiasco you've created. No!! you want General Petreas to bail you out or blame the Clinton's, the Republicans usual theme song. No more Hail to the Chief for you, now it's "Abandon hope all ye who enter into the Abyss of Iraq". Those who don't listen are doomed to failure. Yale University please don't graduate any more of his ilk, the world will not be able to recover from it.  

Okay, I bit. I went to Clinton's website. After "read the facts" posted, I thought the candidate might actually have a plan there. She doesn't. All she has is yet another letter to SecDef repeating her first letter. Now I feel as suckered as the military, because I wasted 30 seconds reading that blog.

Seems she is trying to dupe people into thinking she's leading the attack against this administration and its Iraq policy. And yet we still don't have an answer to that question:

Does she think the initial decision to invade Iraq was a good decision or a mistake?

Clintons and Bushes love to hate each other.

That's why the country needs a new voice, not the same pollster/PR relations campaign. That has gone on for 19 years now, we don't need another 9.

Carrie, who do you think leaked it? It was a letter from some guy at DoD to a senator. Are you suspecting DoD?

You did intrigue me with your comment about Obama. What has his campaign done to cause you to say he's had "more incidents" than Clinton?

hey Rob, Tampa FL

"I to your sister"

huh?

is that like "word to your brother"?

Cheneys Edleman(his  guy) made the speech and wrotethe letter---the same guy that Bush put in office during a recess----but did not get put back in office---but never fear Cheney had a job for him.I am surprised there are so many of you under the Bush-Cheney scary spell.Guess that will teach a member of the senate to ask these cunning wolves any question of importance to this country.

How embarassing for the Clinton Campaign!!!! That letter is not an attack and this is obviously and attempt by them to viewed as the leaders at being against the Iraq invasion.  If this is not concrete proof that we need new leadership with a new vision, I don't know what is. Shame on you Clinton campaign!! Do you really think the american electorate is that dumb???

Lewis  the answer is Yes they do think you are stupid. 900 FBI files keep all others at bay even some of the press and Oberman is on the payroll. I think he is pining for the spokesmans job if Hillary wins.

Responsibility in the Bush Administration??? That's big joke. If Bush would have prosecuted the person who leaked the name of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent (who was active at the time), then he should have fired Rove, Armitage, Cheney & Libby. Hypocrisy abounds within the Bush White House and many in the GOP ranks. Every one of them were so quick to fire the trigger against the Clintons and now when the gun is aimed at them, they claim Executive Privilege and not only attempt to disarm the gun, but also snub their noses at the law.

Sen. Clinton has querried the Pentagon. Her answer was not unexpected and was exactly what the Bush Admin. has done with this issue... If you're against us, you're the enemy. They want everyone to drink the coolaid, to allow them to gain more & more power, money, control, more money and power. Clinton is a politician, as is Bush. Nothing wrong with that. Their ulterior motives are the issue... Bush never refers to his office but always uses himself as CIC. He has to be terribly insecure to always want people to bow to his every wish. Clinton is one very strong-willed woman. She wants to be President but it remains to be seen if her term in the Oval Office would be one of meglomania or one of humble service to the people of the US. The war is a litmus test for everyone.

Our involvement in this war needs to end. Escaping it is our only solution, our only answer to end the horrors we've instilled in that country. When we invade a country to impose our will upon the people of that country and do it in the name of some crooked group of exiles or a despot we put into power, we can only see one solution to the efforts... failure. Even invoking the name of God will fail. One cannot win in this immoral game. Having secret plans and wearing a flight suit to show you're a (former) "pilot", can do nothing in securing peace.

Obviously, the Bush Admin. is ignoring the American people, who at somewhere around 76%, want us to get the heck out of Iraq. If the Bush-Cheney clan is on a suicidal bent, then they can act like Thelma and Louise and take that ride in one of Bush's SUVs... just leave office and let people who care about others run the affairs of our country.

I'm sorry, but does the letter say she shouldn't talk about withdraw, because it hurts the troops and the Iraqis?  Answer, yes.  You can slice anyway you want, but he is still telling Hillary or anyone else who are talking about withdraw to shut up instead of exercising the very democracy in which our troops are fighting for.  Those of you who are claiming to be democrats should be applauding hillary for exposing these people for what they are.  Those of you who are Republicans, you are just grasping at straws.  

I'm with you Carrie from Iowa.  Well said.  

The letter even used the stupid, lying,  --and endlessly repeated, -- Bushite talking point about "precipitate withdrawal," which not even Dennis Kucinich is advocating. The letter's obviously just another attempt to smear opponents of the war as unpatriotic -- and by the same gang of traitors that blew a CIA agent's cover. The Bushites are totally lacking in competence, integrity, and decency, but they sure make up for it with an oversupply of gall.

BEFORE THE CRAP COMES OUT OF YOUR MOUTH, YOU MAY WANT TO READ "ALL" THE INFORMAION FIRST. GO TO hillaryclinton.com...

yawnnnnnnnnn

No, Timothy, actually the letter doesn't say that. I says that premature and public discussion of withdrawal reinforces enemy propaganda and unnerves allies. This has been a Bush administration point for a long, long time.

Also the context of the paragraph implies that DoD was talking about its discussion, and why that shouldn't be public. It concludes by noting that troop movement planning is never discussed in public (in fact, such operational details are classified though I don't recall if the letter specifically mentions that).

No where in that paragraph or the rest of the letter does it say Clinton shouldn't advocate troop withdrawal. You can infer that by the one line about premature and public discussion, but again in context that line seems meant to justify why DoD isn't talking, as opposed to advising a presidential candidate not to discuss this issue.

Man, I'm really starting to dislike Clinton. Now I'm arguing on behalf of the Bush administration... sheesh.

Okay, "well da," I bit a second time. Fool me twice, shame on me. There's nothing else there about this. If you're referring to her "plan" for leaving Iraq, that's old news. I read that before, too.

By the way, you don't task the JCS and NSC for withdrawal plans. That's a case of simply throwing out the names of official bodies to make oneself sound knowledgeable. And her foreign aid plan for Iraq is great, except when we remember that's exactly how we got in to Somalia. And there is nothing in this "plan" which involved anymore planning effort that basically picking up a few talking points over the past year.

What I'd really like to see on her blog is a clear statement about whether the decision to invade Iraq was a good one or a mistake.

A recess appointee who couldn't get confirmed and a chickenhawk.
This guy is what the GOP calls, well qualified.

Standard letter...where's the blistering criticism?  If HRC gets her underwear twisted by an undersecretary of defense...how is she going to stand up to the pressures exerted from Ahmedinejad, Assad, Kim Jong Il, etc?  This shows that like GW Bush, Hillary cannot tolerate a dissenting opinion and completely lacks maturity for the presidency.

Timothy NY I agree you and Carrie said it best.
We as Dems have  to elimanate the evil of the gop. We should support all our candidates. WE should give every Dem running the benifite of the doubt.  Some times I can not tell the repugs from the Dems on these Posts

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."  Edward Abbey

"We as Dems have  to elimanate the evil of the gop."

Your confusing politics with Harry Potter.

HP - Thanks for your support, but I do not view the GOP as being evil.  Kind of hard for me to do, given that the vast majority of my family are registered Republicans.  

Paul - Do you think this Administration is above leaking? Let's be real.  I didn't say she didn't leak it, and I didn't say she did.  I asked for the evidence that she leaked it.  So far, I have not seen any, other than the typical "of course she did, that's how her campaign works" kind of response.  Sorry, it takes actual fact to convince me.  

As far as incidents involving Obama's campaign...I can think of two off the top of my head, although my memory is a bit hazy.  One in which he said something about Hillary, and issued an explanation/apology very shortly after.  The other was the My Space ordeal.  I can't for the life of me recall the specifics of either of these, I just know that there have been a couple occasions of Obama staffers or affiliates being a little too gung ho.  

Nick:  Clinton claimed executive privelege several times in connection with the Lewinsky and other investigations. He was the first president since Nixon to invoke it and then lose in court over it in one instance.

The investigation of the attorney firings are the second time Bush has invoked executive privilege.  The first time was to prevent release of Clinton Administration documents regarding a variety of issues early in the first year of the Bush Administration.   In other words, he invoked executive privilege on Clinton's behalf.  

The first two presidents to invoke executive privilege were Washington and Jefferson.  Those bastards!

Not that it will mean anything to you and yours.  You don't hate Bush over executive privilege, you just hate executive privilege because it's Bush.

There is a regular Libby Love and Hug Fest going on here today.

I don't recall the thing with my space. I'm assuming the other you referenced is the Punjab thing. Granted that's one from a staffer, and Obama owned up to it. Has Clinton owned up to the push-polling? Which is worse?

As for this "leak," no of course I don't see the administration as above doing it. They do it all the time. But in this case it seems clear to me that some undersecretary didn't send a copy of his letter to the press. Clinton was prepared to act when the response came, and obviously made that response public. I say that with no evidence, but complete confidence. In fact, I'd say its so clear that even her campaign assumes everyone knows she's publicized it. So clear, I wouldn't even call it a leak. Nor will you see any denial of the assumption from her campaign - which is very quick to offer any such responses.

In fact, that's part of her sales pitch, isn't it? She's the candidate who won't get swift-boated because she won't let any allegation linger. She'll fight back, fast and hard.

I believe her campaign on that point. And that's exactly why I suspect her campaign did initiate the "madrassa" thing, too. Fox and others reported it as coming from her campaign. The denial was awful timid for such a response machine.

JJ in NJ (Sent Friday, July 20, 2007 12:03 PM)

Exactly. That is what is so worrisome about the language from Edleman (sp).

For those of you who may not know about it, please read Mr. Bush's executive order that says the Secretary of the Treasury can take assets w/o notice from anyone who is assumed to be getting in Mr. Bush's way re Irag.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html?1

This order nestles up nicely with Mr. Bush's "Dictator Directive":
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html



It is my understanding the Ms. Clinton did not ask what the plan for withdrawal was - she asked if such a plan exists.

She is not the only senator or congressman to write such a letter. Almost all of the defense-related committee members have done so. I would like to know if they received the same kind of letter.

Lastly, all Eldeman had to say was "yes - such a plan exists" or "no - such a plan does not exist." Since the letter used such atrocious language for a formal response from a government agency, I cannot believe this is a form letter. If nothing else, it is reflective of such a lack of professionalism that simply amazes me that it comes from someone in that position.

For those of you that think Hillary is above leaking it was just reported on MSNBC by Ann Kornblunn that the Clinton campaign gave portions of the letter to AP.  Of course the portions that they wanted highlighted. "A sucker born every minute".

Olberman is a bombastic idiot who should have stuck to covering the NFL for all this specimen knows of history. His ''greatest debacle in the last century''regarding Iraq[see:his blog], would [and has,in the form of John Keegan,Americas greatest living historian today],get an argument from no end of historians who quickly observed that Gen.Mark Clarks singular Italian Campaign decision to go through the center of the German lines before Rome rather than its flanks cost TWENTY TIMES more deaths of American soldiers than have been suffered in Iraq. And this was one theater of one war. Yet for this,Clark was promoted.
          Hitlers invasion of Russia. The 1916 Somme Offensive[nearly a million casualties in less than two weeks]. The French[and American]wars in Vietnam.  The 1967 War. [for the 11 Middle Eastern nations at least]. The push to the Yalu River by MacArthur. Any one of these alone would have topped the Iraq War in spades in the arenas of debacles and bloodletting. Indeed,this war has been one of the least expendable in American blood for the period thus far fought in our history. [we lost more men in twenty minutes of fighting at Cold Harbour,Va.in 1864]. And yet the stakes in leaving are as grave as any since 1861,1914,or 1939.
                Pass to this letter,and the press,in its usual flair for the dramatic,[Que:The New York Times,again],grossly overstated the import of this letter.The undersecretarry is correct in that our al Qaeda opponants have and are using congressional opposition to the war to feed its propaganda machines.
              AL JAZEERAS No.1 American on all of its Middle Eastern feeds in 2005 was one Jack Murtha,who even pushed Bush off the top slot. Pelosi was praised for her spring visit to Damasacus by none other than HEZBOLLAH. The same HEZBOLLAH which has been cited in the newest NIE which warns that this group may target Americans within this nation. Zawahiri,al Qaedas No.2 behind bin Laden, in another of his latest letters, specifically cites the ''split''between pro and antiwar blocs within the American government and explores the means to capitalize on this ''split''. This same man,in a 2005 letter,formulated the reuse of the ''Vietnam strategy''[using Vietnam by name],as the means to achieve victory for the jihadists in Iraq. Its success lay in exhorting the American antiwar wing.[as a bonus,its more leftwinged adherants are allied to many of these terrorist organizations anyway]. As a result, al Qaedas propaganda machine has become more urbane,more slick in its deliveries.
                  Not that this is doing them any good in Iraq. Richard Clarke was wrong. The evidence is clear by the arrest of Abu Shahid. It is not ''domestic elements''in Iraq but outsiders belonging to al Qaeda that are pushing this conflict. Ignored by the press is the patent fact that the US is most certainly winning ''hearts and minds''by the simple expedient of converting former ''insurgents''and using them against al Qaeda as has been brilliantly proven in Anbar and Diayla provinces which is generating,at least as regards the Sunnis,fewer terrorists and more anti-al Qaeda fighters.
         And even here, all the press can do is to come up with more hackneyed excuses to defame these successes. As we speak,combat correspondant Michael Yon,now in Baqubah,Iraq, is taking on a increasingly phony story that was printed in this weeks NEW REPUBLIC, a dependable antiwar critic of the administration which may have used a ficticious ''soldier''[Iraq Veterans Against the War was busted using such a phantom two years ago],to report on ''atrocities''by ''shock troops''of the 4th of the US 1st Cav in Ramadi this month. Yon was with this regiment[1-4] while in Ramadi and observed no such behaviors,nor any cited by senior commanders.The search is on to find this person,who will be to Yon what ''Captain Jamil Hussein''was to the Associated Press. A non-person invented by al Qaeda.
            It is important to note that Hillary has expressed no plan regarding Iraq in response to the plan already underway in that country,as stressed by the Defense undersecretary. If she has a better one that will not engender a wider war,genocide,and more nations[like Turkey],falling into a radical Islamic orbit,nuclear weapons and all,then she should produce it.
                 

Any able bodied man or woman, who is under the age of 40 and who thinks the war in Iraq is THAT important, should be fighting in it....period.
Anything short of that is pure hogwash.
Also.....why did republicants engage in the very same thing, a fillibuster, that they verbally lmabasted democrats for doing 2 years ago? Unbelievable!
When Hillary becomes President (which IS going to happen by the way) I hope she sticks it to the GOP good!

This letter story will probably go away in a few days...Hillary's original vote for the war will never go away. That being said, I found the letter to be a little abrubt and way too political. The Pentagon could have offered a closed door briefing or something similar, instead of a "That's a stupid question" response. Seems as if the Pentagon is following Bush's cue to marginalize Congress.

Does that mean there is no plan B? And if they finally get a democracy going in Iraq, does the shrub intend to try it in America, and if so, wouldn't that nullify the Supreme Court's 2000 appointment of Bush to the White House?

Dick Cheney said "Hillary Clinton will not be President'. Now, that sounds like he knows something you don't.

Here's the statement from the Pentagon letter that is most troublesome:

"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."

In other words, the Pentagon is claiming that ANY discussion of troop withdrawal (not just classified details like troop movements) is aiding the enemy.  That's certainly not mere bureuacratic boiler plate. It's a highly inappropriate political comment for a Pentagon official to make.

No, Edelman is not coming right out and explicitly saying that Clinton is an enemy of the state, but that's exactly what is implied. The job of the Defense Department is to protect the United States through the use of lethal force. When the military establishment is subverted into serving as just another political tool of the Bush administration, it's a potentially serious development. Keith Olbermann gave it the treatment it deserves.

Are you news people just plain stupid? The letter was not an attack on Hillary Rotten Clinton. Reporting it as an attack when it clearly is not is just one more nail in your LIBERAL-BIAS reporting. After all, 85 to 90 percent of newspaper and television
reporters identify themselves as Democrats and have clearly promoted Democrat strategic aspirations for the last 3 decades.

RE: Houston, Did you actually read what you said? You are clearly describing subversion of our military by Politics! Hillary and the NEO-RATS have been subverting the miltary mission and the military since she was in college. I hate Bush just like you Liberal's but I also see the same error's being made again by politicians who kept putting chains on our Military that prevents them from doing their job.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):