ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Hillary 1, Pentagon 0

Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:59 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under:

BREAKING NEWS
From NBC's Courtney Kube
NBC News has obtained a copy of a letter that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates sent to Hillary Clinton late last night in response to her complaints that Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman was dismissive of her request for information about plans for Iraq. [Click here for PDF copy of letter.]

In the three-page letter, Gates tells Clinton that he "emphatically assures you that we do not claim, suggest, or otherwise believe that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies" (as Edelman alleged in his letter last week).

He says that he is willing to discuss ways to keep the Senate updated on "conceptual thinking" on the drawdown plan. He also expresses his "continued strong support" for Edelman, but adds that he "truly regret[s] that this important discussion went astray and I also regret any misunderstanding of intention."

****UPDATE****We have copied the text of the letter below. Also, some points of note:

-- Gates points out that Edelman's first presidential appointment was in 1998 ... under Bill Clinton.
-- Gates cc's Senators Carl Levin and John McCain.
-- Gates points out that he is an advocate of Congressional oversight (true from his speeches and actions so far)
-- Gates does NOT apologize, but does say that he regrets the incident

FULL TEXT:
(dated July 25, 2007)

Dear Senator Clinton,
I am responding to your July 19, 2007 letter regarding contingency plans for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.  In preparing this response, I have reviewed Under Secretary Edelman's July 16, 2007 reply to your request for information on those plans, as well your initial May 22, 2007 inquiry.

First, allow me to reiterate that I have long been and continue to be an advocate of congressional oversight as a fundamental element of our system of government.  I also have publicly expressed my belief that congressional debate on Iraq has been constructive, appropriate and necessary.  In fact, you and I have engaged in fruitful exchange along these lines.  Furthermore, I agree with you that planning concerning the future of U.S. forces in Iraq - including the draw down of those forces at the right time - is not only appropriate, but essential.  Under Secretary Edelman, along with the Department of Defense's senior civilian and military leadership, shares my views on these matters.

Specifically, 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.  My statements to this effect have been frequent and unambiguous.  That said, we all recognize that there are multiple audiences for what we say, and need to be careful not to undermine the morale of our troops or encourage our enemies -- the point I think Ambassador Edelman was trying to make in his letter.

With respect to your specific request, the Department's policy is to share appropriate information regarding policies, posture, and administrative plans with appropriate Congressional oversight committees.  But as Under Secretary Edelman and officials from many previous Administrations have stated, it is also the Department's long-standing practice and policy spanning decades and multiple Administrations that operational military plans, including contingency plans, are not routinely shared with the Congress (or with other departments of the Executive Branch). There are a number of time-proven reasons for this policy, including considerations of operational security, the fact that plans are continuously modified as required by changing security conditions, and the need to protect the operational commander's ability to implement the plan as flexibly as the situation warrants.  In short, the Department has to ensure that no commander is constrained by a plan that no longer comports with the situation on the ground.

All this said, I would be pleased to work with you and the Senate Armed Services Committee to establish a process to keep you apprised of the conceptual thinking, factors, considerations, questions, and objectives associated with drawdown planning.

Further, you may rest assured that such planning is indeed taking place with my active involvement as well as that of senior military and civilian officials and our commanders in the field.  I consider this contingency planning to be a priority for this Department.

Finally, I want to close by expressing my continued strong support for Ambassador Edelman.  Dr. Edelman is a valued member of the Department of Defense team and his wise counsel and years of experience are critically important to the many pressing policy issues facing the military and our nation.  Eric Edelman is a career foreign service officer who received his first senior Presidential appointment in 1998 as United States Ambassador to Finland.  He has served our nation with distinction through multiple administrations and I rely on his able assistance in addressing the many challenges facing the Department in the months ahead.

I truly regret that this important discussion went astray and I also regret any misunderstanding of intention.  However, I trust that this response addresses your concerns and that we can continue this dialogue in the months ahead in a manner that keep you and the committee properly informed and constructively furthers the national debate.

Sincerely,
Robert M. Gates

cc: Chairman Carl Levin
    Honorable John McCain

###

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

If the Pentagon decides to let her in on the pull out plans for Iraq, she better keep her mouth shut.  It may be the turning point in her career if anybody on her staff leaks the plans out.
I would just tell the bitch (Hillary) to take a hike. During wartime you do not provide the enemy with your withdrawl plans ahead of time. This is another reason why the stupid wench should not be elected into any political office. I think she should be keeping an eye on her husband so he doesn't go out and rape any other women like he was accused of doing.
Just goes to show you, Hillary Clinton is a "leader" in protecting our troops. She is just doing her job, something in Washington many politicians have forgot how to do. ie.G.W. Bush
Way to go Hillary! Shes just as tough as the guys.
For further information on Hillary, just go to hillaryclinton.com
chickenhawks all afraid of a strong woman patriot.
Steve- it's 2007.  Bill is NOT the candidate for ANY political office right now.  Get a life, and quit calling people names.  Besides- what's worse- raping a woman, or a whole country and it's constitution?
She had every right to question Gates.Requesting information does not provide the enemy with any information that will serve their cause.When Steve from Az calls her a "Bitch" it serves no purpose.Talk about the lack of civility.I believe he is threatened by strong women...Bill, Hartford
The only one "emboldening" the enemy is bush, with his incomptence, poor planning & stupidity. WW2 was won in less time.  Not to mention..Remember "Bring It On"? No real commander in chief would say such a thing, when troops are in harms way. I'm glad Hillary is asking, we should all be asking, since it doesn't seem bush knows what the hell is going on. He could care less about our troops, look at Walter Reed.
Hillary doesn't care about the troops either.  her husband proved that in 8 years of office.
And the politician they put in charge of the Pentagon caves to political correctness.

Sigh... don't you all understand that telling our enemies they are winning, and we are giving up, is giving AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY???

You know... those Al Quaeda in Iraq guys?  The ones Hillary says we NEED to be fighting...
Jerry, Are you saying that leaking confidential information that assists the enemy is treason?  Are you suggesting that leaking confidential information that endangers the life of an undercover CIA operative is treason as well?  

Senator Clinton has been privy to confidential briefings in her role as a member of the Armed Services committee for more than seven years, I am unaware of any claims that any other confidential information related to those briefings has been leaked by her or her staff to date. To suggest otherwise is misleading at best.

Steve P., your language should not be tolerated on MSNBC.  Why not try to elevate the conversation instead of trolling in the gutter with such personal insults?  Is that the best the pro-family, pro-"morals" conservatives have to offer?
Very professional response from Gates. What a shame he wasn't defense secretary from the beginning.
Wow Steve, looks like Edelman isn't the only one with issues. Anyway, asking if someone is planning for our eventual exit from Iraq is reasonable given that the Bush administration did zero planning for the occupation.

Hey MSNBC, how about posting the letter.
would it make everybody feel bettter if we kept our withdrawl date and plans a secret.That way enemy that has conttroled the field of operations wont be able to figure out if they are winning or losing.Much like the american people.Once again though if you are one who supports this endevour then i suggest you sign up and take some pressure off the military.They could use some bold warriors like some of the men who call women bitches.Just remember treat others as you wish to be treated.Can you say president clinton it should be easy by now.
By what misguided thinking do you headline this story with "Hilary 1, Pentagon 0". Gates wrote a conciliatory letter to smooth ruffled feathers and to foster a positive working relationship.  If you (the media) insist on scorecarding this on some won/loss basis, there is no wonder the discourse has coarse, idealogical and non-constructive.  
Oh please.  She stoked the coals for political points with the fringe left.

If she were so concerned with the plans for withdraw, where was her concern when she'd voted for the authorization?  Huh?

Yeah.  Thought so.

Anyone who deems this instance anything more than a political ploy to make her look tough and such is a fool.

Gates handled this very professionally; but, it's only  a matter of time before she tries to lay a little wood into him for ... [fill in expedient political purpose, here].

I doubt the "chickenhawks" are afraid of a strong woman patriot, it's just that there's no such woman available to use an example.

As for the Walter Reed comment ... that place had issues well before Bush showed up.  

Good gracious, people.  Dignified political discussion isn't possible when people continue to regurgitate pure crap.
I think people may not be seeing the full intent of the ForeFathers.  It is not for the Congress to micro-manage policy.  That is the job of the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief.  It is not for the Commander in Chief to devise and establish policy.  That is the job of the Congress.  The Commander in Chief (hence, the pentagon) needs to report to the Congress on their progress executing the policy set by the Congress (hence, the people).  We did away with the Military Commander in Chief establishing policy when we dumped King George in 1776.

Mrs. Clinton needs to get that information because she is a United States Senator.  That is information she needs to have to participate in establishing the policy of the United States.
We'll look forward to the leaked plans Hillary.
"WW2 was won in less time."

Ooh, I see you have a great grasp of history. Because WWII lasted from 1941 until 1945, right? Wrong. That was the amount of time the US was involved. WWII started in the 1930s and ended in 1945. We just didn't get involved until Pearl Harbor.

And it took the deaths of over 14,000,000 allies, and ended with two atom bombs being dropped into populated cities. Whereas Iraq has lasted 4 years, and taken 3,932 total Coalition forces lives.
Hillary 1, Pentagon 0? Doesn't look that way to me. Looks like the UnderSecretary did the right thing using the wrong words, got backed up by the SecDef, and anyone who thinks this makes Hillary look stronger than usual is just immature and silly. She got her apology. The plans will be discussed with her if she wishes it, but will not be given to her and the Generals won't be held accountable if they don't follow it explicitly. And they shouldn't be. A plan is merely the point of departure for contact with any enemy.

As for who is afraid of a strong woman patriot, when we see one we follow her too. We do our jobs because we swore to defend the Constitution, not because we agree with the man in the Office of the President, but because it is our duty to follow his orders. You who are ignorant of those facts need to stop politicizing the war and support winning it. Failure to do so IS unpatriotic and is also suicidal. Our country's existence as a free nation depends on stamping out radical Islamist thought wherever it rears its head, often by no more than our presence and willingness to stand against their tyranny. Failing to offer a plan to address this doesn't make you strong on defense. It makes you a loser. And Dhimmicrats subscribe to those losing thoughts as their very own. When the shoe fits, the losers wear it.

Subsunk
There is opinion and there is oversight.Hillary was expressing opinion as a portion of her run for president.She was not engaging in an active congressional oversight role.[Of which there is none worth mentioning anyway].
Gosh, what a surprise that NBC (which must stand for "nobody bashes clinton") got a copy of it. Aren't they her house organ?
Ding, Ding,...Round 2. Step up Hillary! This just goes to show you how critical our elected officials have become. Why should the Congress know every single move the military makes? They (the pentagon) base their judgement on 1. Experience, 2. Facts, 3. Information from the Ground.  Republican, Democrat...it just dosen't make any sence. She is only doing this as a tool to gain just another vote. Stupid if you ask me.
pete let me get this straight you are for the war but your mad that hillary and the senate untied your presidents hands so he did not have to come back for a declaration of war and when he ran our troops and mismanaged the  people of america(not preparing us for a long drawn out battle in iraq)you want to continue on down the same ole path.Im sorry did you mention you joined the military and are being deployed,otherwise stop trying to sign up others to do a job you havent deem important enough to do yourself .
Rick if only others were aware of the PROCESS of the goverment.  Statements made here are sometimes so of base.  The present admin KNOWS the process and systematicaly went about blocking every thing possible to pursue a POWER agenda.  They have stacked every single Department with people who follow the shrubs agenda and follow it beyond the limits of the law. Edelman is a political hack. Let Gates eat crow.
this is less than meaningful. clinton's "score" is against her primary opponents, not the military. she's making herself look inside and executive. smart. obama can't do something like this, and i doubt a biden would have thought of it. but her supporters understand that this is election-related posturing, which is why they're all over these comments giviing out the web address and spewing hollow bumper-sticker tropes.
Pete - I'm sure Hillary believed, as did 77 other Senators and a few hundred Represenatives, that the Bush Administration was capable of completing the mission in Iraq (which, correct me if I am wrong, was to ensure there were no WMD's in Iraq...I guess we got lost on the road to democracy or something) and that, once completed, the Administration was capable of withdrawing the U.S. forces.  The American people believed that as well, as polls suggest that a majority supported this action.  Unfortunately, we all overestimated the Administration.  

Steve - You need to learn some respect.  Regardless of your personal opinion of her, Hillary is a former First Lady and a United States Senator.  Calling her a wench and a stupid bitch is completely inappropriate.  Perhaps you are threatened by women in power?  
I'm a loony lefty... but I'm very proud of Gates for writing such a professional letter. This is the kind of civility and intelectual honesty I expect from a Defense Secretary. I just hope he is capable of bringing us out of the hole that Rummy dug us into.
That letter should satisfy her, but it won't. She's running for president. From the letter, she now knows that yes the Pentagon has plans and I'm sure these plans are dynamic, getting reviewed all the time. I'm sure she already knew this.

However, in this case this is all political. Does she need to know something that might change significantly in the next month? NO.

And why is Hillary even on the Armed Services Committee? Because she helped Bill get out of the draft? She had zero qualifications to get on that committee! Maybe she will get elected Commander-in-Thief, she certainly has the qualifications for that.
Hey Pete, YOU are regurgitating pure crap. Feel better now? You stink...
I can't believe how Naive many people are. It wouldn't surprise me that Hillary hoped for this when she originally requested the information. She knew the response would be no.  Now she has taken comments by Eldeman, who was trying to explain why an open discussion of the withdrawal plans isn't prudent, and twisted his words into a personal attack on her.

She is using her post on the Armed Services to score cheap political points.  You know that it was somone from her camp that leaked this.  Everytime their is something leaked, it's to her benefit.  She is publicly cutting down the Pentagon. If she gets elected, she needs to work with them to keep our country secure.  This isn't going to build her respect from them.

It was perfectly alright for her to request the information, but it is entirely unpatriotic for her to be disclosing this disagreement the way she has.  If her intentions were really focused on the troops and getiing them home safely, she would not have ran to the press with this.

She is the "most experienced" candidate running for president when it comes to being a sleazy politician.  But the media refuses to call her on it, because they like politics the way it is.
Let's see all of this for what it really is.  If the president had done the constitutional thing and went before a joint session of congress and formally asked for a declaration of war, then the congress would not be in a position to dictate to the president how he prosecute that war.  If the president had not been so worried about offending those "allies" who would stand to lose so much if a formal declaration were made by the congress (i.e. France, Germany, Canada, Haliburton, Exxon, Shell, BP, etc.) then all of this would be a moot point.

They set this up to be able to micro-manage the war, and there is not much any of us can do about it until the next election.

I do not vote republican or democrat.  I vote for who I feel will best handle the issues.  So far, I am at a loss to tell you for whom I will vote, because nobody impresses me too God-awful much.

I support my country.  I support my constitution.  I support my fellow comrades in arms, and I support my Congress and Commander in Chief.  But dang it, they better start doing thing constitutionally, or people will start getting ticked.

They all need to go re-take high school civics.  None of them are getting it right.  This is not really that hard to do - if they would just stop making promises they have no intention of keeping.
Hey Losers, I can't stand Bush or this Iraq war either but the fact of the matter is the Congressman and Senators don't know how to keep their mouths shut so if they were informed on any Pullout Plans it would be on the front page of Al Jazeera the next day.
No Carrie, Hillary is a lying bitch and I would tell it to her face if I seen her. She and Slick Willy are complete frauds. However, on your behalf I am not surprised that you NEO-RATS don't seem to recognize right from wrong.  NO more Clintons or Bush’s please.
Let's see now, President Bush sent our troops into battle "without" the proper equipment,not enough troops to complete the mission after more than 5 years,no "specific" end strategy,and no diplomatic strategy. Now we are to believe that he and the pentegon have allready planned for our troops "safe" withdraw from this conflict when the time comes, so that it will not look like Vietnam all over again. With people and troops leaving from roof tops ,while they shoot at the hillicopters.Thank God we have Hillary,using common sence in doing her "duty" to protect our brave troops. hillaryclinton.com   Thank God we have you doing your job! Now let's impeach Bush and Chaney,so that someone can do their jobs.
Funny how Fox News Fans & bush lovers forget Geraldo Rivera giving the exact location of our troops live on tv, by drawing their location in the sand. No wonder Republicans have never won a war, you're a bunch of tough talking, do nothing chickenhawks.  Want to talk abut emboldening an enemy? Any nitwit (bush) saying "Bring It On" while troops are in Harm's Way, doesnt give a good God damn about the troops, period. Sending them off to war ill equipped, understaffed, with no post wars plan underscores his incompetence. As for Walter Reed, thanks to bush's ill conceived notion of war, we have 28,000 wounded, more than anticipated, and no plans to take care of the overflow. Had the media not made a stink, what bush knows about that hell hole & has done nothing  for the past 4 years to correct it, would have remained in the dark. As for WW2, we made advances, we had REAL allies (not Poland) & a real cause. We didnt just win a "War", we also won the "Peace". With bush we hear and see the same failing strategies, repeated over & over, ad nauseum. As for Bill Clinton when he had a war, he had NATO approval & won it with no deaths to our troops. Compare that with the 3,690 dead, 28,000 wounded, 500 billion spent for this fiasco.  "The insurgency is in its last throes" more bushit from the son of "Read My Lips" bush. "Heck of a job, bush"
Gates need to stop being politically correct. He should have just told her, " You got your answer"
What I find inapporiate is that Hillary voted to remove habeas corpus. She also lied in the june 5th debate where she said all the republican support the war knowing full well that Ron Paul did not support it and in fact voted against Regime change in the 90's
when Bill was president. This bit about her and plans to leave is just to make her look against the war she supports leaving now cause it might get her elected but she wants to leave and over 50,000 troops there. How will that stop atks. on americans. She is a lier & supports amnesty and the war her mouth says one thing but her votes say something else. She publicly tried to fix the debates it was on TV when she said we had a program to not include other choices
in the presidential race and said that they need to get back to it we all seen it. I have nothing against having a woman president just not her. She is a neo just like Bush because all of her votes in the senate
support the Bills that Bush favors its public record please take the time to research @thomaslibrary.com
First Read,

I'm a Democrat but your bias here is flat-out disturbing. Why doesn't GE/NBC just endorse Hillary and be done with it?
Nothing justifies leaking military information in war time (that's now, for you who are denying it). Hillary is shamelessly grandstanding for political purposes.  I'd hate to think what would have happened in WWII (like VietNam, maybe?) if we had such 'patriots' like Hillary, Kerry and that ilk getting their stickies in where they don't belong!

My father, husband, uncles, cousins, sons all served in the military during war-time and I give thanks that this current crop of loons was not in office to gum up the works then!
God Bless America!
Wow, so I am a rat because I think it is wrong to call a woman a bitch and a wench?  Grow up, Steve.  Seriously.  
Read the whole thing, nope I cannot find any statement saying she's unpatriotic.  So when she stated that the "Letter" called her unpatriotic for asking for a plan, she lied on national T.V..  She's a liar just like her husband.  No more Clintons!
I think most of the people here can agree that the primary responsibility for the mismanagement of this war falls on Bush & Cheney.

But now we need to move beyond that and try to distinguish between and elect the best President.  The fact remains that Clinton voted for this war.  Whether she was misinformed, ill informed, or just doing what was popular at the time.  She gave Bush the authority to do it.  Her attempt to claim that she thought Bush would not actually invade as precipitously as he did is Bull.  Everyone in the country knew at that time what he wanted to do, let alone a Washington insider like her.  The fact is she either agreed with him or didn't have the courage to stand against him.

Obama showed courage and leadership in opposing the war.  Clinton won’t even admit that she made a mistake.  Clinton is a flip-flopper.  There isn’t anything wrong with changing your mind about something, and admitting you were previously wrong.  But that isn’t what Clinton does, is it?  She  fluctuates her position based upon what is going to get her ahead at the time.  This use of this Pentagon letter is just another example.

Do you think other nation’s leaders are going to be able to trust and respect her?  At least Bush is consistent.  The world might not like what he does, but you know exactly where he stands.  Clinton is the opposite/unreliable.  Obama strikes just the right balance between these two.  He is consistent and principled, but he also respects the will of the people.
Steve, you need to go back to school-"if I seen her?"A GED might help raise your self esteem so you don't swear so much.
hey fed up get your swift boat facts together Kerry was in Nam ,Bush was at home .however you would like to spin it facts are facts .Kerry went because he saw fit to go. Bush stayed at home he saw it fit to fight a war in alabama.Your hero worship is strangely misplaced.I am sure you have joined and requested iraq.Good luck and god bless you will need it with the likes of powell rumsfield ,casey,wolfowitz tommy franks ,on and on people who have recused them selves from the battle to write some books filled with wisdom on how to fight ,been right so far
Ok, I bit.  I read both letters and they say approximately the same thing.  The second letter was just stated less like a form letter and more like a personal response.  Both basically said that when and if the time of withdrawl comes, we will keep you informed of our plans, but not until then.  Thank you for your concern.  You can try and surgar coat the second letter anyway you want, and the news media will try and spin it every which way they can to create a sound byte, but the response was basically the same.
If it wasn't for political gain Ms. Clinton wouldn't be "leaking" the letters. It's 100% political.

How we going to win the war? How we going to win the peace? No, she's asking how the heck are we going to get out of Dodge. Why not ask the Colts, during the third quarter of the SuperBowl, how they are going to run off the field?

Geraldo Rivera, a democrat, giving away positions on Fox News has nothing to do with this subject. Nor do most of the comments. If the enemy is emboldened by Bush saying, "Bring It On" then they are the nitwits. Personally, as an ex-marine I am "emboldened" just trying to stay alive.
You must be joking!  What Undersecretary Edelman said (assuredly in a polite manner)....helps save the lives of our Soldiers, Sailors, Coast Guardsmen, Airmen, and Marines.  Attacking someone who is simply defending our way of life and those who come in harms way and who has an impeccable, non-political record w/ presidential appointments from both democrats & republicans...get over it and let our defense leaders focus on our strategy on not your election politics.  By the way, what are the timelines for getting every American health care or protecting the borders?
Let me remind all you numbskull republicans who treasonously leaked information on a working undercover DIA agent, thus ruining not just her career, but her networks in Iraq and Iran (the latter of which I'll bet Gates wishes he had right now.)  Hilarity has leaked nothing.  You can't say that for the Cheney-chimp crowd.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

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

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=292083

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google