PDA

View Full Version : Defense undersecretary blows up Hillary


Cochise
07-20-2007, 12:48 PM
PENTAGON: HILL IS HELPING FOE
By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent

July 20, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - The Pentagon yesterday launched a blistering attack on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for boosting "enemy propaganda" by demanding the U.S. military whip up plans for withdrawal from Iraq.

The forceful pummeling - in response to Clinton's request that the Defense Department "prepare plans for the phased redeployment" - came in a terse letter to the Democratic presidential front-runner from Defense Undersecretary Eric Edelman.

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote in the July 16 letter.

"Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks," he added.

Clinton, who voted in favor of the war in 2002, has been calling for the pullout of combat troops as she ratchets her anti-war rhetoric to woo liberal voters who make up the core of the Democratic Party.

In May, she called on Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace to design plans for an orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops and their equipment to avoid "the failure to adequately plan for the conflict."

In addition to the formal request, Clinton urged Pace in a private meeting to make a blueprint for the complex withdrawal - a plan she insisted was necessary, given congressional Democrats' increasing efforts to end the war.

"Any military operation requires contingency planning so that the military and our troops are prepared if the current plan is unsuccessful. It would be irresponsible not to engage in similar planning in Iraq," she said.

Edelman's stinging rebuke is surprising, given that Clinton is a rising member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has oversight of the Pentagon.

Clinton's Senate spokesman Philippe Reines said Edelman's letter was "at once outrageous and dangerous," and added that Clinton planned to respond directly to his boss, Secretary of Defense Gates.

ian.bishop@nypost.com

ChiefaRoo
07-20-2007, 02:30 PM
Hillary is a conniving Gunt whose lust for power is only exceeded by her overwelming desire to turn the US into a socialist shithole where everyone is entitled to everything but what your getting isn't worth a shite anymore because the people who provide it aren't getting paid by the free market.

Cochise
07-20-2007, 02:39 PM
Hillary is a conniving Gunt whose lust for power is only exceeded by her overwelming desire to turn the US into a socialist shithole where everyone is entitled to everything but what your getting isn't worth a shite anymore because the people who provide it aren't getting paid by the free market.

Thank you for derailing my thread with this drivel.

ChiefaRoo
07-20-2007, 02:40 PM
Thank you for derailing my thread with this drivel.

Your welcome.

Duck Dog
07-20-2007, 02:52 PM
If the Iraqi's aren't ready to provide a secure country for themselves and if they aren't willing to stand up and rebuild their nation by now, they never will. It is time we start a systematic with drawl.

Adept Havelock
07-20-2007, 03:11 PM
If the Iraqi's aren't ready to provide a secure country for themselves and if they aren't willing to stand up and rebuild their nation by now, they never will. It is time we start a systematic with drawl.


That's where I'm at. Leave a residual force to protect the training cadres and act as a quick reaction force, but IMO it's up to the Iraqi's to decide if they want to fight and die to keep the nation we've given them.

Cochise
07-20-2007, 03:14 PM
I just hope that this message board is still around if we ever have to go back and finish the job in Iraq, to remove the Al Queda puppet regime that will install itself in a matter of weeks when we inevitably cut and run.

It would appear that no lessons were learned on not 'finishing the job' as it were in Gulf War 1. We should have driven all the way through Baghdad and done all this in 1991. We could have removed Saddam, and established a democratic regime at a time when Al Queda was in its infancy.

Instead, we bowed to legislators who didn't have the stomach to do what needed to be done, and little more than 10 years later, a task many times larger and more difficult waited for us, and we were opposed by a global terrorist organization fighting us with everything they are worth.

Neglecting the genocide that will follow as soon as we leave... I wonder if around 2015-2020, we'll be going back yet again, and if that time we'll have the good sense to finish it once and for all.

Adept Havelock
07-20-2007, 03:29 PM
I just hope that this message board is still around if we ever have to go back and finish the job in Iraq, to remove the Al Queda puppet regime that will install itself in a matter of weeks when we inevitably cut and run.

It would appear that no lessons were learned on not 'finishing the job' as it were in Gulf War 1. We should have driven all the way through Baghdad and done all this in 1991. We could have removed Saddam, and established a democratic regime at a time when Al Queda was in its infancy.

Instead, we bowed to legislators who didn't have the stomach to do what needed to be done, and little more than 10 years later, a task many times larger and more difficult waited for us, and we were opposed by a global terrorist organization fighting us with everything they are worth.

Neglecting the genocide that will follow as soon as we leave... I wonder if around 2015-2020, we'll be going back yet again, and if that time we'll have the good sense to finish it once and for all.

My guess is one strongman will show up (like they usually do) and rule, or it will devolve into it's pre-1920's state of being several different regions.

Cochise, I know what you are saying, but it's been made pretty clear that they are not interested in bleeding to defend the democracy we've given them. Given that, and an inability to make them interested, self interest suggests to me we GTFU (within the limits I've previously stated). :shrug:

You may be willing to assume a decades-long commitment waiting around for them to come around. I'm not.

BucEyedPea
07-20-2007, 03:41 PM
I just hope that this message board is still around if we ever have to go back and finish the job in Iraq, to remove the Al Queda puppet regime that will install itself in a matter of weeks when we inevitably cut and run.

It would appear that no lessons were learned on not 'finishing the job' as it were in Gulf War 1. We should have driven all the way through Baghdad and done all this in 1991. We could have removed Saddam, and established a democratic regime at a time when Al Queda was in its infancy.

Instead, we bowed to legislators who didn't have the stomach to do what needed to be done, and little more than 10 years later, a task many times larger and more difficult waited for us, and we were opposed by a global terrorist organization fighting us with everything they are worth.

Neglecting the genocide that will follow as soon as we leave... I wonder if around 2015-2020, we'll be going back yet again, and if that time we'll have the good sense to finish it once and for all.

No Bush Sr admin never should have given SH the green light to invade Kuwait.
Second mistake was creating permanent bases in SA. If none of these things had been done, and we just used ships in the Gulf as we did before there'd be no 9/11.

That being done, going all the way to Baghdad back in 1991 would likely have had the same results we're getting today. The reason we didn't then is exactly for what you see happening now. This was predicted exactly per Brent Scowcroft, Bush Sr's Nat'l Security Advisor, in 1991. It would have to be occupied which would be a bloody, long time and expensive proposition.

We were better off with SH as an ally in the region as he was the buffer between Iran and the rest of the ME. He may have been a thug but he was a petty one. Unfortunately, those people are used to such leaders....just look at them. Now we have thousands of SHs running loose and a new franchise for AQ.

The lesson that should be learned is intervention that has nothing to do with our national defense is always a mistake. It brought terror home to our mainland. Not only that but I read nuclear secrets have been smuggled out of Tenn here in the US. So much for preventing terrorists from getting nukes.

BucEyedPea
07-20-2007, 03:50 PM
My guess is one strongman will show up (like they usually do) and rule, or it will devolve into it's pre-1920's state of being several different regions.

I agree with this. And there is really nothing wrong with that either.
Problem is the oil rich regions that cut out the Sunni. Need a revenue sharing agreement on the oil to make it work imo.

You may be willing to assume a decades-long commitment waiting around for them to come around. I'm not.
It's not gonna ever happen so we might as well go now. It won't be any different then.

BTW I read Turkey has dropped bombs on Kurdistan already for it's terrorism inside Turkey. The Kurds want all their original land back including parts in Iran. It never ends.

Taco John
07-20-2007, 04:05 PM
I just hope that this message board is still around if we ever have to go back and finish the job in Iraq, to remove the Al Queda puppet regime that will install itself in a matter of weeks when we inevitably cut and run.



Actually, the war games that they've run on this scenario counter the idea the Al Qaeda would take over. In fact, the war games show that a withdrawl would even weaken Iran, as they would be drug into a Shiite civil conflict that might spill into their own borders.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003793904_iraqexit18.html

penchief
07-20-2007, 05:34 PM
No Bush Sr admin never should have given SH the green light to invade Kuwait.
Second mistake was creating permanent bases in SA. If none of these things had been done, and we just used ships in the Gulf as we did before there'd be no 9/11.

That being done, going all the way to Baghdad back in 1991 would likely have had the same results we're getting today. The reason we didn't then is exactly for what you see happening now. This was predicted exactly per Brent Scowcroft, Bush Sr's Nat'l Security Advisor, in 1991. It would have to be occupied which would be a bloody, long time and expensive proposition.

We were better off with SH as an ally in the region as he was the buffer between Iran and the rest of the ME. He may have been a thug but he was a petty one. Unfortunately, those people are used to such leaders....just look at them. Now we have thousands of SHs running loose and a new franchise for AQ.

The lesson that should be learned is intervention that has nothing to do with our national defense is always a mistake. It brought terror home to our mainland. Not only that but I read nuclear secrets have been smuggled out of Tenn here in the US. So much for preventing terrorists from getting nukes.

You said it. Those are all excellent points.

Logical
07-20-2007, 07:00 PM
So a lackey for the Bush administration pulls a publicity stunt and Cochise buys it hook line and sinker. What a shock.

Logical
07-20-2007, 07:03 PM
That's where I'm at. Leave a residual force to protect the training cadres and act as a quick reaction force, but IMO it's up to the Iraqi's to decide if they want to fight and die to keep the nation we've given them.

Amen sanity is spreading and pretty much everyone realizes this now. Except for the delusional administration and a small cadre of residual supporters.

ClevelandBronco
07-20-2007, 07:49 PM
Amen sanity is spreading and pretty much everyone realizes this now. Except for the delusional administration and a small cadre of residual supporters.

Present and accounted for.

CHIEF4EVER
07-20-2007, 07:58 PM
I agree with this. And there is really nothing wrong with that either.
Problem is the oil rich regions that cut out the Sunni. Need a revenue sharing agreement on the oil to make it work imo.

Der de derrrrrrrrrrrr. Just poking fun kiddo. Actually, that is one of the benchmarks that the Iraqi Parliament hasn't gotten accomplished in 4 years. THAT is one of the things pissing me off.


BTW I read Turkey has dropped bombs on Kurdistan already for it's terrorism inside Turkey. The Kurds want all their original land back including parts in Iran. It never ends.

Don't believe everything you read. If the Kurds in Iraq get semi-Autonomy, they will be happy and you will see an influx of Kurds from Turkey.

BucEyedPea
07-20-2007, 09:00 PM
Don't believe everything you read. If the Kurds in Iraq get semi-Autonomy, they will be happy and you will see an influx of Kurds from Turkey.

All the news that's fit to print. I've been watching this Turk/Kurish matter for a while. Kurds are also wrecking havoc in parts of Iran too.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/10/frontpage/turkey.php
Turkey has blamed the PKK for the deaths of more than 30,000 people since it launched its armed campaign for an ethnic homeland in southeast Turkey in 1984. The United States and the European Union consider the PKK a terrorist organization.

The Turkish military has shelled suspected rebel bases in Iraq's north in the past week and has carried out several attacks against rebels in southeastern Turkey, moving troops to the area from garrisons in other parts of the country.

Firat, a pro-Kurdish news agency based in Belgium, quoted the rebel group Sunday as saying the Turkish military would "pay a high price" unless it stopped offensives against it.

Hog Farmer
07-21-2007, 07:19 AM
That Bitch needs the **** knocked out of her!

Felch83
07-22-2007, 03:00 PM
Seriously, anyone but her for president. I dont want that **** in the oval office.

penchief
07-22-2007, 03:35 PM
Seriously, anyone but her for president. I dont want that **** in the oval office.

Imagine her with the arrogance and the willingness to abuse power that has exemplified the Bush Administration.

Could you stomach Hillary Clinton with the same power that Bush/Cheney has usurped for itself?

Would you tolerate it if the Hillary Administration exerted that power to impose their will on the American public?

If not, do you stomach the same power in Bush's hands, or Cheney's hands? And do you tolerate it when Bush/Cheney imposes their political will on the American people without the people's consent?

ChiefaRoo
07-22-2007, 03:57 PM
Imagine her with the arrogance and the willingness to abuse power that has exemplified the Bush Administration.

Could you stomach Hillary Clinton with the same power that Bush/Cheney has usurped for itself?

Would you tolerate it if the Hillary Administration exerted that power to impose their will on the American public?

If not, do you stomach the same power in Bush's hands, or Cheney's hands? And do you tolerate it when Bush/Cheney imposes their political will on the American people without the people's consent?


WTF are you talking about? Do you even understand the principles and workings of our Republic and the Co-Equal branches of the Fed. Govt? No one is abusing power. We elected the people we have to power and they are doing their jobs as elected. Approval polls are good for what they are but I don't want pols who follow polls blindly. I want leaders and if they fook up they get voted out or termed out.

Sounds to me you just don't like the system. What do you want a no confidence vote for Bush? Sorry, the founding fathers couldn't accomodate you by putting that into the constitution. Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin et al. What a bunch of dumbasses right PC? I mean they only birthed the most successful democracy and country ever known to man.

Cochise
07-22-2007, 04:41 PM
Imagine her with the arrogance and the willingness to abuse power that has exemplified the Bush Administration.

Could you stomach Hillary Clinton with the same power that Bush/Cheney has usurped for itself?

Would you tolerate it if the Hillary Administration exerted that power to impose their will on the American public?

If not, do you stomach the same power in Bush's hands, or Cheney's hands? And do you tolerate it when Bush/Cheney imposes their political will on the American people without the people's consent?

Every post is like a MoveOn fortune cookie.

Boyceofsummer
07-22-2007, 04:47 PM
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072007A.shtml

who is the worst President of all?

Felch83
07-22-2007, 04:54 PM
Imagine her with the arrogance and the willingness to abuse power that has exemplified the Bush Administration.

Could you stomach Hillary Clinton with the same power that Bush/Cheney has usurped for itself?

Would you tolerate it if the Hillary Administration exerted that power to impose their will on the American public?

If not, do you stomach the same power in Bush's hands, or Cheney's hands? And do you tolerate it when Bush/Cheney imposes their political will on the American people without the people's consent?

Huh?

Like Hilary is going to do anything againist terrrorism. ROFL

If she was in charge during 9/11, she probably would of just asked for an apology and be okay with that. :shake:

ChiefaRoo
07-22-2007, 04:58 PM
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072007A.shtml

who is the worst President of all?

Too bad Bush is married and doesn't screw around I bet that pic makes a lot of DC political chicks all moist and dreamy.

penchief
07-22-2007, 05:47 PM
WTF are you talking about? Do you even understand the principles and workings of our Republic and the Co-Equal branches of the Fed. Govt? No one is abusing power. We elected the people we have to power and they are doing their jobs as elected. Approval polls are good for what they are but I don't want pols who follow polls blindly. I want leaders and if they fook up they get voted out or termed out.

WTF are YOU talking about? I understand co-equal branches of government but this administration clearly doesn't. All I DO is harp on 'checks and balances' while all this administration does is circumvent them. Where have you been?

If you understood co-equal branches of government you would be equally as critical of this administration as I am. They've done everything they can do to thumb their nose at the other two branches.

By the way, polls have nothing to do with it but undermining the laws of this land do.

Sounds to me you just don't like the system. What do you want a no confidence vote for Bush? Sorry, the founding fathers couldn't accomodate you by putting that into the constitution. Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin et al. What a bunch of dumbasses right PC? I mean they only birthed the most successful democracy and country ever known to man.

I'm sorry but it is you that doesn't understand the system and it is you that will be doing some soul-searching once you recognize that.

Don't you dare suggest that the founding fathers intended for this. That is so wrong considering that this is exactly what they wanted to prevent (A MASSIVE USURPATION AND ABUSE OF POWER WITHOUT REGARD TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE).

This is not what our founding fathers intended. You, my friend, are part of the problem.

ChiefaRoo
07-22-2007, 05:52 PM
WTF are YOU talking about? I understand co-equal branches of government but this administration clearly doesn't. All I DO is harp on 'checks and balances' while all this administration does is circumvent them. Where have you been?

If you understood co-equal branches of government you would be equally as critical of this administration as I am. They've done everything they can do to thumb their nose at the other two branches.

By the way, polls have nothing to do with it but undermining the laws of this land do.



I'm sorry but it is you that doesn't understand the system and it is you that will be doing some soul-searching once you recognize that.

Don't you dare suggest that the founding fathers intended for this. That is so wrong considering that this is exactly what they wanted to prevent (A MASSIVE USURPATION AND ABUSE OF POWER WITHOUT REGARD TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE).

This is not what our founding fathers intended. You, my friend, are part of the problem.


There is no problem. It's all being made up by Bush hating kooks and pols with political agendas. He's gone in 18 months. What more do you want?

penchief
07-22-2007, 06:03 PM
Huh?

Like Hilary is going to do anything againist terrrorism. :ROFL:

How do you know? Comepetence has been her hallmark since entering the senate. Incompetence has been the hallmark of the Bush Administration since entering the White House. From which holy mountain are you preaching from?

She might, in fact, be motivated by what is in the best interests of this country and go after the people that really attacked us instead of creating a straw man in Iraq in order to satisfy the eco-political goals of those who want to use America's strength to empower and enrich themselves via ideology.

If she was in charge during 9/11, she probably would of just asked for an apology and be okay with that. :shake:

This is a sophmoric view, imo. Please stop drinking the Kool Aid and use your own sensory apparattuses. If it ain't workin' and it didn't make sense to start with, it probably wasn't the right thing to do.

You have to start asking questions for yourself instead of swallowing the propaganda fed to you by your heroes and those in the corporate media who refuse to press the pertinent issues or ask the pertinent questions.

penchief
07-22-2007, 06:08 PM
There is no problem. It's all being made up by Bush hating kooks and pols with political agendas. He's gone in 18 months. What more do you want?

Accountability. Steps taken to assure that no president can ever again commit such aggregious acts against the sovereignty of the American people. I want them to answer for their crimes against this country and their abuses of power. That is the only way we can assure that future entities cannot use the mechanisms of our government for political, ideological, or economic self-interests.

The government of the United States represents all the people. There is no mandate of the minority in this country, which is what we currently have.

ChiefaRoo
07-22-2007, 06:15 PM
Accountability. Steps taken to assure that no president can ever again commit such aggregious acts against the sovereignty of the American people. I want them to answer for their crimes against this country and their abuses of power. That is the only way we can assure that future entities cannot use the mechanisms of our government for political, ideological, or economic self-interests.

The government of the United States represents all the people. There is no mandate of the minority in this country, which is what we currently have.

Mandate of the minority? Bush beat John Kerry and his huge head fair and square by the majority of the voters. Bush can lead as he sees fit. It's his job.

What exact structural change to the Govt. do you want? I mean how do you want to modify the constitution to ensure against the "abuses" and "crimes" you speak of? What crimes? What abuses? There are none. The worst thing you can accuse Bush of is fighting an unpopular war. Guess what? They're all unpopular because war sucks. That being said he's the Commander in Chief and he can do as he pleases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

banyon
07-22-2007, 06:53 PM
I want no part of having a Senate that must conduct debate while cowering in a corner worried about what the terrorists might think about what they say.

If you disagree with her, run against her or support someone who is running against her and get her out of office.

ChiefaRoo
07-22-2007, 07:10 PM
I want no part of having a Senate that must conduct debate while cowering in a corner worried about what the terrorists might think about what they say.

If you disagree with her, run against her or support someone who is running against her and get her out of office.


I agree the Senate can debate what they want to and Bush can keep the troops deployed as long as he wants too unless they vote to defund the war which I invite the Dems to do. Sounds like the checks and balances are working pretty well to me.

penchief
07-22-2007, 08:53 PM
Mandate of the minority? Bush beat John Kerry and his huge head fair and square by the majority of the voters. Bush can lead as he sees fit. It's his job.

What exact structural change to the Govt. do you want? I mean how do you want to modify the constitution to ensure against the "abuses" and "crimes" you speak of? What crimes? What abuses? There are none. The worst thing you can accuse Bush of is fighting an unpopular war. Guess what? They're all unpopular because war sucks. That being said he's the Commander in Chief and he can do as he pleases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Forget the voter suppression tactics employed by the republican party in Ohio. Even if Bush did win outright that doesn't give him the right to use his position to misrepresent the will of the people, exceed his authority, start a war, commit crimes, or do anything else that doesn't pass the people's muster.

Accountability doesn't start and stop with an election, irregardless of whether that election was legitimate or not. The whole reason a lot of us didn't get so upset at the time was because we knew the system was greater than the man. However, this administration has done everything it can to eliminate the checks and balances that provided that comfort.

The pieces are being assembled. The groundwork is being layed. The executive orders and the signing statements are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that won't come into view until the last second. At that point it will be too late because it will only take one event (a terrorist event) to flick that switch and all those orders will become fully functional.

I think they're going to try to use fear to win another election (go figure). And if they don't win all bets are off between November and January because the pieces ARE in place. If a person wants to believe that they would put them in place without any intention of using them......well, that's their right. But I'm not so trusting.

Dr. Facebook Fever
07-22-2007, 09:00 PM
You want to put pressure on the Iraqi government to get their shit together?.... start pulling our troops out and tell them to get their poop in a group and run their own damn country, we're not going to do it for them forever.

ChiefaRoo
07-22-2007, 10:30 PM
Forget the voter suppression tactics employed by the republican party in Ohio. Even if Bush did win outright that doesn't give him the right to use his position to misrepresent the will of the people, exceed his authority, start a war, commit crimes, or do anything else that doesn't pass the people's muster.

Accountability doesn't start and stop with an election, irregardless of whether that election was legitimate or not. The whole reason a lot of us didn't get so upset at the time was because we knew the system was greater than the man. However, this administration has done everything it can to eliminate the checks and balances that provided that comfort.

The pieces are being assembled. The groundwork is being layed. The executive orders and the signing statements are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that won't come into view until the last second. At that point it will be too late because it will only take one event (a terrorist event) to flick that switch and all those orders will become fully functional.

I think they're going to try to use fear to win another election (go figure). And if they don't win all bets are off between November and January because the pieces ARE in place. If a person wants to believe that they would put them in place without any intention of using them......well, that's their right. But I'm not so trusting.


It's all going exactly as Patteau and I have planned it. Bwwaaahhh hhaaaaa haaa hhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

penchief
07-22-2007, 10:42 PM
It's all going exactly as Patteau and I have planned it. Bwwaaahhh hhaaaaa haaa hhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Not as you planned it. You didn't plan anything. People like yourself have generally been harmless. However, since Cheneyburton is not harmless, and since they've been selling a false bill of goods to people like yourself who have bought the farm, you are an enabler.

Logical
07-22-2007, 10:45 PM
Forget the voter suppression tactics employed by the republican party in Ohio. Even if Bush did win outright that doesn't give him the right to use his position to misrepresent the will of the people, exceed his authority, start a war, commit crimes, or do anything else that doesn't pass the people's muster.

Accountability doesn't start and stop with an election, irregardless of whether that election was legitimate or not. The whole reason a lot of us didn't get so upset at the time was because we knew the system was greater than the man. However, this administration has done everything it can to eliminate the checks and balances that provided that comfort.

The pieces are being assembled. The groundwork is being layed. The executive orders and the signing statements are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that won't come into view until the last second. At that point it will be too late because it will only take one event (a terrorist event) to flick that switch and all those orders will become fully functional.

I think they're going to try to use fear to win another election (go figure). And if they don't win all bets are off between November and January because the pieces ARE in place. If a person wants to believe that they would put them in place without any intention of using them......well, that's their right. But I'm not so trusting.

Hey I don't like what they are doing but you appear pretty paranoid with this post.

penchief
07-22-2007, 10:48 PM
Hey I don't like what they are doing but you appear pretty paranoid with this post.

Maybe I am. I don't want to be that way but the totality of their actions sure does suggest a pattern. I'm hoping that it is paranoia.

ChiefaRoo
07-23-2007, 12:25 AM
Maybe I am. I don't want to be that way but the totality of their actions sure does suggest a pattern. I'm hoping that it is paranoia.

Don't forget that Bush and Cheney are both controlled by aliens from the Pegasus system.

Seriously, you should take a nice vacation somewhere relaxing you sound like a moonbat.

Amnorix
07-23-2007, 07:27 AM
I just hope that this message board is still around if we ever have to go back and finish the job in Iraq, to remove the Al Queda puppet regime that will install itself in a matter of weeks when we inevitably cut and run.

It would appear that no lessons were learned on not 'finishing the job' as it were in Gulf War 1. We should have driven all the way through Baghdad and done all this in 1991. We could have removed Saddam, and established a democratic regime at a time when Al Queda was in its infancy.


Al-Queda or not, it wouldn't have happened.

First, Iran would have been involved at least as hotly then as now. Second, you're ignoring the simple fact that "Iraq" is nothing more than some idiotic lines on a map drawn 80 years ago in London. There are a number of relgious and ethnic sects that don't like each other one damn bit. Then you have the fact that oil is in only part of the country, so splitting it up isn't at all easy.

Iraq, the country, has been ruled by an iron fist since it was created. Like Yugoslavia, the Austro-hungarian Empire, the USSR and it's Tsarist antecedent, or a number of other countries -- without absolute rule to hold it all together, it is pretty much destined to break apart into component pieces, or plunge into civil war.

patteeu
07-23-2007, 10:23 AM
It's all going exactly as Patteau and I have planned it. Bwwaaahhh hhaaaaa haaa hhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

LMAO Do you think we'll still be able to pull this off now that penchief has seen through our plan?

StcChief
07-23-2007, 10:37 AM
Defense undersecretary blows up Hillary
too bad she's still around.

jAZ
07-26-2007, 10:42 AM
Defense Secretary "blows up" Defense Undersecretary

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/gates-hillary/

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 (sic) 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 exchanges 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 wit ht e Congress (or with other departments of the Executive Branch). The 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 operations 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 e 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 keeps you and the committee properly informed and constructively furthers the national debate.

Sincerely,

Robert Gates

cc: Chairman Carl Levin
Honorable John McCain

ChiefaRoo
07-26-2007, 03:04 PM
LMAO Do you think we'll still be able to pull this off now that penchief has seen through our plan?

Once the mothership arrives we will beam PC up and re-boot his brain and then he will be one of us. Bwwaaaahhhh haaa haaa!

go bowe
07-26-2007, 07:58 PM
Thank you for derailing my thread with this drivel.omg...

if drivel is outlawed, i won't have anything left to talk about... :huh: :huh: :huh:

go bowe
07-26-2007, 08:10 PM
Every post is like a MoveOn fortune cookie.heh, no fortune cookies here, but "you're lucky number is 74"...

and "you're going to meet a new friend"...

you can have the paperwork...

i like the cookies...