Breaking: Hillary, Webb Demand Hearings On Pentagon's Iraq Withdrawal Planning
Game on. Again.
Ratcheting up her war with the Pentagon, Hillary Clinton is joining with Senators Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, and Robert Byrd to demand that the Senate Committee on Armed Services hold hearings to determine the status of the Pentagon's contingency plans for withdrawal with Iraq.
"The need for the Committee to know the status of Department of Defense redeployment planning is clear, yet past efforts by individual members to obtain this information were rebuffed," the Senators have written in a letter just sent to Armed Services chair Carl Levin.
The demand could dramatically increase the public attention on the standoff between Senator Clinton and the Pentagon over Defense Department contingency plans for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
This could have the effect of putting more pressure on the Pentagon to release info to Congress about its planning for the possibility or eventuality of withdrawal -- as well as draw increased media attention to a standoff that carries obvious political benefits for Hillary in the context of Democratic Primary politics.
More after the jump.
Clinton's demand for information about those plans has already led to an impasse between her and the Pentagon that has drawn intense media attention. Her initial demand -- made in May -- prompted Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman to condemn her request as helpful to the enemy. When that became public it in turn prompted Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Friday to distance himself from Edelman's remarks.
Now Hillary's demand for this info has been amplified by three new Senators -- Webb, Bayh, and Byrd -- all of whom cast their demand as driven by a desire to ensure that withdrawal was being planned in a way that would protect the troops.
"As you are aware, the roots of the many problems facing our men and women serving in Iraq were planted by the failure of this Administration to develop sound, realistic plans," reads the letter. "We cannot afford to repeat the same mistake when our forces redeploy. Congressional oversight will help to ensure that redeployment plans properly address the numerous challenges that our troops will face, including the resources and the diplomatic support required to ensure that any redeployment is safe and orderly."
It's unclear as yet whether Senator Carl Levin will acquiesce to the request. A call to his office wasn't immediately returned.
Full Hillary/Webb letter follows:
The Honorable Carl Levin Chairman Committee on Armed Services United States Senate R228 Washington, D.C. 20510Dear Chairman Levin:
We write to request that the Senate Committee on Armed Services hold a hearing on Department of Defense contingency planning for the redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq. Such a hearing could solicit the views of outside experts who have experience in the redeployment of large numbers of troops as well as administration witnesses. If necessary, portions of the hearing could be held in closed session.
The importance of holding this hearing was underscored this month when Senators Warner and Lugar introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act calling for the Administration to present its redeployment plan to Congress by October 16, 2007. As they noted, the safety and security of our military forces, as well as our nation’s credibility in the region, require that any military withdrawal or redeployment from Iraq be carefully planned and executed. A poorly planned withdrawal would compound the risks to our forces, coalition partners, and the government of Iraq.
The need for the Committee to know the status of Department of Defense redeployment planning is clear, yet past efforts by individual members to obtain this information were rebuffed. Following reports that the Pentagon was not engaging in detailed planning while the Iraqi Defense Ministry was preparing its own plans in the event that the United States and its forces departed Iraq quickly, the Secretary of Defense was requested in May to provide the appropriate oversight committees in Congress with briefings on the current status of contingency planning for the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman responded to this request on Secretary Gates’ behalf on July 16. A copy of his letter and other correspondence relating to this matter are enclosed for your reference. As you will see, Under Secretary Edelman raised spurious arguments to avoid discussing contingency planning and claimed that premature discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda. His assertion that necessary congressional oversight emboldens our enemies is outrageous.
As you are aware, the roots of the many problems facing our men and women serving in Iraq were planted by the failure of this Administration to develop sound, realistic plans. We cannot afford to repeat the same mistake when our forces redeploy. Congressional oversight will help to ensure that redeployment plans properly address the numerous challenges that our troops will face, including the resources and the diplomatic support required to ensure that any redeployment is safe and orderly.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely yours,
Hillary Rodham Clinton Robert C. Byrd
Evan Bayh Jim WebbCC: The Honorable John McCain
Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services
I don't think she could have picked a better overall group to team up with on this -- Byrd, Bayh, and Webb.
In addition, I predict the colleague whom they "cc'd" is probably going to spew some volcanic ass publicly.
tee hee
July 23, 2007 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, there is a certain puckishness there, isn't there...
July 23, 2007 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The cc is probably protocol to respect the ranking committee member from the other party, but it does have that funny twist.
July 23, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
She'll be accused, again, of grandstanding.
But this is exactly the kind of question a member of the Senate Armed Services committee should ask, whether or not they are running for higher office.
And she chose her allies well.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 23, 2007 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is strong stuff for Hillary, I think, but like someone before, I do question your judgment (if not motive) for using that absolutely awful picture of her on the TPM front page just below the link for this article. She has a winning issue here, and, as reported on this very site, she has the SecDef distancing himself from this fiasco. So why do you seem determined to make her look as she were against the ropes? A few posters had expressed this sentiment when you'd first used that photo of Hillary, and I believe they were right... If you need a more flattering pic, I am sure that the NY Senator would be more than happy to accomodate you. NYC is not short of glamour photographers and I am sure that the Senator has had her pic taken by the best of them.
July 23, 2007 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . .and this is why you never, ever tell a sitting Senator to fuck off. They will make your life a living hell.
July 23, 2007 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey they can always claim exec priviledge and refuse to testify again.
July 23, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this is a crass effort to boost her appeal to Democratic voters, she has succeeded. I am now looking a lot more carefully at her as my candidate.
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 23, 2007 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edelman needs a date before the Committee. He needs to explain exactly why he thinks that the Congress should not exercise its consitutional rights and duties in matters of war. If his answers are not satisfactory, Sec. Gates should be dragged up there to explain whether or not the DOD believes in oversight BY THE BODY THAT FUNDS IT.
This should be fun to watch. I've been wondering where the REAL Hillary has been hiding. I hope her aggressiveness here is a sign of things to come.
July 23, 2007 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again. I hope that if and when obama or edwards do things that are important and good for the country, election central can always footnote those things with the political benefits thereof.
i mean there doesn't have to be a mean sort of motivation for doing so. just a consistent one.
in my opinion, i don't see the point. nobody has to view elizabeth calling hardball to take on coulter within the context of primary politics. and wonder out loud about the political benefits thereof. even though ann's been ann for years now, elizabeth felt now was the right time to smack her down. i certainly wouldn't be inclined to focus on that.
nobody has to view the sound legislation proposed by clinton within the context of primary politics either.
it's a good course of action. no need to say anything more about it.
July 23, 2007 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any chance you could quit treating this as "Hillary's war with the Pentagon" and start dealing with it as the serious policy issue that it is?
I assure you Sens. Byrd and Webb aren't in this to boost the HRC campaign.
July 23, 2007 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ratcheting up her war with the Pentagon,
This is the wrong characterization. Hillary is not at war with the Pentagon. She is at war with a civilian hack at the Pentagon.
Most people think of Pentagon as the generals. She is not at war with them.
July 23, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ratcheting up her war with the Pentagon,
This is the wrong characterization. Hillary is not at war with the Pentagon. She is at war with a civilian hack at the Pentagon.
Most people think of Pentagon as the generals. She is not at war with them.
July 23, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately,it is fair to characterize Hill's letter as grandstanding.
Afterall, she is sending a letter to the chair making demands about a situation after failing to support the Chair Levin, when it was time to vote for the war. Hillary did not accept the lead of the Chair at that time, despite her not reading the NIE report. This comes across as "too little too late".
IIRC, Hillary also did not vote for Levin's amendment at the time as well. The amendment called for Bush to come back to the Senate for a war vote after the IAEC finished their job in Iraq. Hillary is nothing but an opportunist and this is grandstanding. She deserves the cyncism as she has earned it. What nerve to vote against the chair and his amendment when it was possible to prevent this disasterous debacle and now come whinning like a toddler demanding he act on her shrill demands.
Election Central should not be pushing this as a political plus for Hillary, her actions are doing nothing but polarizing the Armed Svcs committee as everyone knows Hillary is only acting now because it is politically expedient as she voted for the war. Hillary lacks leadership, timing and judgment when it comes to the Iraq war, it's approval, execution and options to end it. Her judgment is exceptionally poor and her Senatorial colleagues know this. Anyone who doesn't know it has not been paying attention to what Hillary has failed to do and only listens to what she says.
July 23, 2007 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a feeling that Edelman is befuddled by the reaction he's received. I see him as a true believer who thought he was simply responding along the lines of the talking points the higher-ups in the Admin have used for years whenever anyone questions ANYTHING about Iraq. His bosses don't want to talk about a withdrawal, so he deflects Sen. Clinton's is the preapproved manner.
It's just his bad luck that A.) he sucks at getting the message across and B.) he tried it with the wrong senator.
I, too, would like to see him in front of a committee. I want to hear him say his version of "I was only following orders." That would finally draw the direct link to the Nuremburg trials that I think of every time I read about the latest affront on rights and humanity in general by Bush/Cheney.
July 23, 2007 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I am noticing a decidely pro-Hillary and anti-Obama bias at Election Central based on the lack of coverage being giving to the latter's campaign.
July 23, 2007 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 'civilan hack' runs the Pentagon and can fire Generals, just as Rumsfeld did whenever any disagreed with he or Bush.
July 23, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your criticisms but what is she supposed to do now, just shut up?
We need Senators questioning the war on all fronts. Even if Hillary Clinton is late to the party, and you ably make the case that she is, it's the right thing to be doing.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 23, 2007 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is clear what you think of HRC's past votes and how you feel about her personally. However, what we do not know is whether or not you think that there is merit to THIS particular request by HRC to the Pentagon, or whether or not you think that congressional oversight of the Pentagon (especially under this administration) is a Good Thing. At times I wonder whether people who come here to post take leave of their senses before they do so. Even if Hillary's request to the Pentagon were 'grandstanding', have you wondered whether this 'grandstanding' might actually be good and sound policy that is also good for the country? Just because something might win a candidate political points does not mean that it must be a Bad Thing. It might be winning them political points precisely because it is good public policy!! In this case, whether it is politics, 'grandstanding' or whatever, it is also GOOD and SMART POLICY by HRC...your personal animus notwithstanding
July 23, 2007 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is late to the party and grandstanding as well.
It is hypocritical for her to challenge the Chair of the Armed Services committee at this late date. She failed to support the chair when he was right on the AUMF and needed her support and she also failed to support the chair when he introduced an amendment to not give this President all this power to make war endlessly.
What a sincere person would do is first publically acknowledge their gross error in judgment before attempting to challenge the leaders who were right on the issue from the beginning.
Hillary is not questioning the war on all fronts she is grandstanding for her political convenience. If she was willing to do the right thing she would take responsiblity for her wrong decision and then perhaps someone might be willing to take this latest letterwriting grandstanding she is doing as earnest rather than more political posturing.
As far as whether she should shut up, she pretty much has done that up to now so why is she so willing to step up on her soapbox now? Only because it benefits her politically.
If Hillary cared about this nation she would have stood up and taken a leadership position to oppose this war long ago. After all, she was a Senator from NY and had the perfect bullypit to do so.
She is shallow and has failed to demonstrate leadership on anything meaningful. Even tonight at the debate she failed to take leadership on Healthcare. she has no plan. She is just a paid corporate shill for healthcare now. All she could offer was that America needs committment...well where is her committment? What woman's issues has she taken a leadership role in and been an advocate? While we do need Senators to question the war. Hillary lacks leadership and sincerity.
Hillary only does the right thing when it is right for her. Not when it is right for America.
No Universal health care plan and a yes vote on the war tells me, she lacks the judgment to be President of the USA. She is untrustworthy and unreliable.
The most truthful thing she said during the debate was that she could only run as a women...that is true because she has no track record of accomplishment to be standing on that stage. A male candidate couldn't...let's face it she is an affirmative action candidate based on gender and she is not going to bring the troops home. The Middle East heads of state will not respect her. Her gender is a drawback in terms of negotiations and we will end up in another war because she will try to prove that the military is her set of cajones and deploy more Americans. Hillary is no diplomat.
Yes, we need voices opposing the war, but Hillary's is not going to help this country at all.
July 24, 2007 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Grandstanding is not good policy. Hillary is not being taken seriously on this issue because she is a Presidential contender and this letterwriting is inconsistent with the positions she has held onthe war up until now.
Hillary has no credibility on this issus. It is not about animus. It is about how she is viewed by her collegues. Russ Feingold told us that Hillary has been an impediment in the Senate when it comes to changing the policy and changing course in Iraq. Barack is the one who has worked with his Senate collegues.
I want the policy in Iraq to change just as much as you do. Yet, please stop and thing for a minute. Hillary is once again creating a confrontation and she is attacking the chair of the Senate Armed Svc committee, for pete's sake. If Hillary was a team player she would have support Levin back when he voted against the AUMF.
Could this be smart policy yes, I was addressing that it is clearly grandstanding. There is not merit to Hillary's request because she did not work through the chair of the Armed Svcs committee. Levin is the one who can push this through and find out the information, Clinton is demanding.
Her tactics defeat the strategys already in place to bring the troops home...can't you see this?
Hillary is working at odds with the team...she is winning political points only with those who are naive enough to believe that confrontational tactics work with this administration.
Hillary needs to learn how to be a team player. You would think she learned that from the healthcare debacle. Unfortunately, she did not.
Why do you think she needed to write this letter to Levin?
July 24, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink