Hillary Blasts Cheney In Letter To Bush
Hillary to Bush: Whose side are you on, Robert Gates' or Dick Cheney's?
As expected, Hillary Clinton has now taken her running battle with Cheney and a Pentagon official over Iraq contingency withdrawal planning all the way to the top, blasting President Bush and the Veep in a long letter to the President himself.
We've got an advance copy of the letter.
In it, Clinton was responding to Cheney's support for Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman's recent claim that her request for info about Pentagon withdrawal planning aided "enemy propaganda." Cheney agreed with Edelman in a recent interview, putting him directly at odds with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who recently said he didn't share that aspect of Edelman's view.
Clinton sought to play up the division between Cheney and Gates in the letter, demanding that the President clarify whom he agreed with. She slammed Cheney for "impugning the patriotism of millions of Americans" and harshly criticized Bush, saying that his awful Iraq record had "earned" Congressional oversight.
"While it is not an uncommon occurrence for Vice President Cheney to offer support for, or participate in, politically motivated attacks against those who have a difference of opinion, it was surprising to see so outrageous a charge –- one which has been disavowed by the Secretary of Defense –- given credence by the vice president," Clinton wrote.
"I am writing to request a clarification on the position of your administration on the importance of Congress in overseeing our nation’s Iraq policy. Congress must hold your administration to the scrutiny which the Constitution demands and, frankly, your record in Iraq has earned."
By drawing attention to the feud, the letter furthers her policy goal of forcing the Pentagon to reveal info about withdrawal planning. But it also helps her politically, since a high-profile standoff with the White House and the Pentagon over Iraq would likely appeal to Dem primary voters and helps deflect rival Barack Obama's charge that her foreign policy positions are akin to "Bush Cheney lite."
Full letter after the jump.
August 2, 2007 The Honorable George W. Bush The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. President: Throughout our history, Congress has played a vital role in holding administrations accountable, protecting our nation and our military through rigorous debate and oversight. We can point to Senator Harry Truman, leading efforts in the Senate, under what would be known as the “Truman Committee”, to investigate war profiteering and military spending under the Roosevelt Administration. Our system of checks and balances is a source of strength, ensuring that the policies of our nation are tested in the fires of the democratic process. That is why, on May 22, 2007, I wrote to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to request that he provide the appropriate oversight committees in Congress with briefings on contingency plans for the future withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. In that letter, I noted that the “seeds of many problems that continue to plague our troops and mission in Iraq were planted in the failure to adequately plan for the conflict and properly equip our men and women in uniform. Congress must be sure that we are prepared to withdraw our forces without any unnecessary danger.” Withdrawing our forces from Iraq will be difficult and dangerous and we cannot afford to rely on rosy scenarios and hopeful predictions. Nearly two months after writing to Secretary Gates, I received a response from Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman on behalf of the Secretary. In that letter, the Under Secretary did not address the questions I asked. Instead, Under Secretary Edelman suggested that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies and public debate over Iraq “reinforces enemy propaganda”. In response to the Under Secretary’s absurd charge, I once again contacted Secretary Gates to renew my request for briefings – classified if necessary – and urged the Secretary to reject the political attacks proffered by Under Secretary Edelman. Secretary Gates issued a conciliatory reply, regretting “that this important discussion went astray” and reaffirming his respect for congressional oversight. The Secretary stated that he would work with me 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”. In fact, as a result of my inquiry, a classified Pentagon briefing regarding redeployment planning has been scheduled for Thursday, August 2, 2007 before the Senate Armed Services Committee. I welcome this briefing. This morning, I attended a classified briefing on redeployment planning to for members of the Senate Armed Services Committee by Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman, and Director for Strategic Plans and Policy Lieutenant General John Sattler. The briefing, arranged by Committee Chairman Carl Levin and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, was well attended by members of both parties. There is a growing desire in Congress around planning for the eventual redeployment of U.S. Forces from Iraq. Indeed, Senators John Warner and Richard Lugar have written legislation that in part requires the Administration to report to Congress on a new military strategy in Iraq. I am writing to encourage you and your administration to let the Congress work with you to plan for all conditions in Iraq including the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces in a manner that safeguards our national security interests and protects our men and women in uniform. It is unfortunate, however, that Vice President Cheney has disagreed publicly with Secretary Gates, throwing his support behind the statements of Under Secretary Edelman and casting doubt on the true position of your administration. When asked about the letter in an interview on CNN, the Vice President said, “I agreed with the letter Eric Edelman wrote. I thought it was a good letter”. It was a letter that impugned the patriotism of millions of Americans, including a bipartisan majority in the United States Senate, who believe it is long past time to change course in Iraq. While it is not an uncommon occurrence for Vice President Cheney to offer support for, or participate in, politically motivated attacks against those who have a difference of opinion, it was surprising to see so outrageous a charge – one which has been disavowed by the Secretary of Defense – given credence by the vice president. While I have urged vigorous debate between the executive and legislative branches, I did not expect a public a disagreement within the executive branch alone, especially on a matter as fundamental as the constitutional role of Congress to check and balance the president. As a Senator and member of the Senate Armed Services committee, there is no matter of greater importance and urgency than the safety of our troops. That is why I am writing to request a clarification on the position of your administration on the importance of Congress in overseeing our nation’s Iraq policy. Congress must hold your administration to the scrutiny which the Constitution demands and, frankly, your record in Iraq has earned. Sincerely yours, Hillary Rodham Clinton Cc: The Honorable Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America The Honorable Josh Bolton, White House Chief of Staff The Honorable Stephen Hadley, National Security Advisor Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, Asst. to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor The Honorable Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense The Honorable Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State
Hey, I'm definitely in favor of anything that bashes Dick and the Dick Branch of Government, but frankly, I'd like Senator Clinton to do something more than engage in a series of high profile letter writing campaigns.
For instance, how about Senator Clinton lay out HER foreign policy positions in a speech? Rather than reacting to someone else, why not act?
August 3, 2007 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
She has no power in the senate. Rethugs will kill it it if a legit proposal is proposed. It is so easy for you to say do this and that but the reality is Dems don't have the votes to get anything past the GOP in the senate or the house.
No pols would dare stop funding to the troops or their careers would be over.
August 3, 2007 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see why she shouldn't do that, too. A big speech as such.
But a big speech isn't any more more of a change agent than this, what is called here, a "letter writing campaign."
also. she initiated the confrontation.
so while she's re-acting here to cheney's statements, the first shot was fired by her.
so it's not a re-active effort in it's inception.
August 3, 2007 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was referring to the lack of any announced foreign policy plans from the Clinton campaign, but plenty of criticism of other candidates who actually, publicly, laid out what they would do.
You think this letter writing crap is going to do anything besides make her look good?
August 3, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, she initiated this confrontation. She reacted to Obama's comment at the debate, and to his FP speech at the Woodrow Wilson Institute.
When is she going to give such a speech?
August 3, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, there is a valid underlying policy dispute here. the pentagon has been dragging its feet on sharing info about withdrawal contingency planning and Hillary has actually forced some action. whether it will result in any real revelations about said planning is an open question...
August 3, 2007 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
sully18
"The Honorable George W. Bush"
I object to the word "Honorable".
August 3, 2007 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, she and the senate received a classified briefing on the withdrawal plan. That is a good first step. That is a foreign policy win right there for Dems. We already heard that the State Department is also planning to withdraw...I am sure she will offer her plan shortly. So far it considers it a win for Dems in general.
August 3, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
She should have copyread that 7th paragraph a little more carefully:
"I did not expect a public a disagreement within the executive branch alone"
I can't tell if she's meaning to say 'as public a disagreement' or 'a public disagreement'.
August 3, 2007 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the briefing yesterday probably wouldn't have occurred without Senator Clinton's pressure, but how is asking for a clarification from President Bush going to do anything except burnish her candidacy?
August 3, 2007 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
i don't know when she's going to deliver any such speeches.
i do know the campaign wants to advertise itself as a "conversation." and i seem to remember bill himself focussed on town hall settings in 1992 that were considered quite innovative at the time.
one other thing to add. if a reporter asks her to respond to something obama has said, she's gonna respond.
August 3, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And she should. I guess I just started to wonder what Senator Clinton has put out there for discussion? Not her health plan. Not her foreign policy plan. If her campaign is just going to be a conversation (2007 version of town hall...) I think it's disappointing.
August 3, 2007 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Congress was not treated to a review of an operational plan. That simply is a no-no. They were given a review of the "process", as Gates wrote in his reply to Hillary.
I see this as a political win for Hillary. What do you mean by "this is a foreign policy win"?
August 3, 2007 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this grandstanding letter writing is ridiculous and accomplishes nothing. Particular when HRC has a history of opposing statements:
The truth is that Hillary can't lay out any foreign policy positions because she is all over the map based on what the polls say. Face it, Hillary just is not a leader on any issue she simply follows whichever way the polls are trending.
August 3, 2007 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, this is HR Clinton, of course it benefits her politically.
You want that she should act in the best interest of the country? Act Presidential...fuggitaboutit....she's in it to win it.
For her...not for America.
August 3, 2007 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
She writes this, and you all assume, as if someone is actually going to read it in the White House, when in reality it will hit the circular filing cabinet within 10 seconds of receipt.
August 3, 2007 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
OOOO you mean you wanted to know what she stands FOR...hahahahaha....gotta do a poll to find out
August 3, 2007 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly the exchange benefits her campaign efforts. Whether it was orchestrated to do so from the initial May letter is difficult to say. Still, it is important that the happily twinned issues of Iraq war planning and balance of powers be highlighted by the Democrats, as they attempt to frame the discourse in the media. Go Hillary Go. I don't care for Hillary, ever since she first ran for the Senate in my state, and am not looking forward to her prospective presidency. But I'll give her credit when she does something choice.
August 3, 2007 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who makes up these titles? I can see "Honorable" for elected officials but Bolten and Hadley?
August 3, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are ample polls already in existence on what the people favor in foreign policy and especially with regards to Iraq and terrorism.
Oh, you attempting a joke. Sorry, I thought you might want to have a conversation about policy and the candidates.
August 3, 2007 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
No need to disparage someone, most especially when they're at least doing something in the right direction. Maybe she ain't your favorite candidate but I'll guarantee she's thousands times better than the GOP field.
August 3, 2007 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that is the dark humor of it.
We can't have that discussion cause she has not told us her policy as she is busy reading polls and soon as she comes out with a statement the polls say something else then she has to switch her message. Her policy is whatever the polls say at any given moment.
August 3, 2007 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Politicians working within a system like ours can never be much more than what the system will allow." Gore Vidal
Why hasn't Clinton given her FP speech? Because she doesn't have to. Until she does, don't hold your breath.
You want her to "act presidential?" You want her to act in the best interest of the country?
Well, she's publicly taken on an Under Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Defense, the Vice President and now the President. And she's mercilessly criticised for it. If she hadn't done all this she'd be criticised for NOT doing it.
Professional critics...sheesh.
You think Obama doesn't do anything for political gain? He's so pure? Grow up.
August 3, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This creeped me out too, but it is corroborated in the Department of State Correspondence Handbook.
August 3, 2007 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton gave a major speech on her Iraq strategy two weeks ago in Iowa. Apparently, some have not read or listened to it:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=2366
August 3, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton does something we all agree is in itself positive, and even so 2/3 of the comments are something like "I don't like Hillary."
You know, this knee-jerk hostility to Clinton in a sophisticated venue like TPMCafe is not going to convince anybody, rather it's probably just antagonized some who are genuinely on the fence.
August 3, 2007 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I give Hillary Clinton credit for pushing about plans for withdrawal of our troops. And, that is not easy for me to acknowledge, because I clearly prefer that Obama become the democratic nominee.
August 4, 2007 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
OMG! NO! Hillary reacted to something Obama said while they were both at the same debate. Outragous! How dare she! The nerve!
And for the record to me at the debate it didn't sound like she reacted to what Obama said.
"to his FP speech at the Woodrow Wilson Institute"
I'm sure on planet Obama there is a rule that says other candidates have to keep their mouths shut. Here on earth you'll find things are much different.
"QUESTION: Senator Clinton, Senator Obama today said that the use of nuclear weapons would be off the table in Afghanistan or Pakistan. I'm wondering if you agree with that.
CLINTON: Well, I'm not going to answer hypotheticals. But let's find Osama bin Laden and his leadership first.
And I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. Presidents, since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.
But I think we'll leave it at that, because I don't know the circumstances in which he was responding."
Hillary:
"I'm not going to answer hypotheticals"
Oh the outrage! Planet Obama is outraged. Here on earth things are much different. That's pretty much standard. A yawner.
"Presidents, since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace."
Hillary dares to restate the same policy regarding nukes that has been in effect since the cold war. Policies presidents follow, unless they are a loose cannon. Planet Obama is still outraged. Outraged I tells ya. Here on earth more yawns.
"But I think we'll leave it at that, because I don't know the circumstances in which he was responding"
Yup. Planet Obama’s outrage meter is way up there. Here on Earth, yawn.
Ya know it doesn't get much simpler than it is right now. And obamaites are dazed and confused [That's giving them the benefit of the doubt. The other choice was a pack of liars.]. And things are only gonna get more complicated.
August 4, 2007 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
If she was sincere she would have signed on and co-sponsored the Iraq War DeEscalation Act along with Feingold and Obama in January of this year with timelines for withdrawal. Not Hillary. She refused to do so.
Instead here she is 8 months later in a letterwriting campaign with Cheney, Gates and Bush.
Now she wants to get into some grandstanding letter writing campaign?...
This is nothing but Hillary trying to rack up points for Hillary.
If Hillary had integrity and conviction she would have demanded an exit strategy for this war before authorizing Bush to wage war endlessly. Instead this grandstanding now is five years and 3K American casualties too late.
She is so politically calculating she did not join with anyone earlier either to force redeployment by law. Hillary is all talk.
"Only Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the start and only Barack Obama has legislation that would, by force of law, begin a redeployment by May 1, 2007
August 4, 2007 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
sounds just like GWBush during the debates and now in the WH at Press Conferences.
the irony though is that he took us to war based on the hypothetical existence of WMD and the hypothetical of a small army being able to go in and get out...strike and be gone....darn those hypotheticals.
Just goes to show candidates who will not answer hypotheticals should not be elected. They fail to show us their reasoning process and then when presented with hypotheticals as Presidents they get to exercise their flawed decision making process with catastophic results real live results. Folks dead and dying due to flawed reasoning.
Hillary 'no hypotheticals"...needs to remain in the Senate where she has already demonstrated with that AUMF that she lacks good judgment.
August 4, 2007 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Not Hillary. She refused to do so."
Really? Just told Obama to screw huh? Please post links to transcript/video whatever you got. Not that I think you are a lying hack. But its those 'others', they might.
Strangely Hillary has several out of Iraq bills. Obama didn't sign on as cosponsor. Not Obama. He refused to do so. Webb, Byrd and others have. No Obama. Does Obama want out of Iraq? No. See how dumb that is? [No you don’t]
Here is Obama's really slick part: withdrawal combat troops. COMBAT TROOPS, get that. And only then if the generals say so. How about that second part also, did you get that? Want it in caps? Why do you play so dumb? It really is amazing.
February 17
Clinton Plan to End War:
Reject the President's Escalation; Protect U.S. Troops in Iraq; Begin Redeploying Our Troops; Enables President to End War Before Leaving Office
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=269481&&
Clinton, Kerry & Boxer Introduce Legislation Requiring Pentagon to Prepare for Iraq Redeployment
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=280364&&
Senators Clinton, Webb, Byrd & Bayh Call for Armed Services Hearing to Focus on Redeployment of U.S. Forces from Iraq
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=279525&&
And there is a lot more. In fact here's one more:
Clinton Proposes Legislation to Support the Children of Single Parents who Lose their Lives in Iraq & Afghanistan
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=269452&&
Obama didn't sign on to that. Why does Obama hate orphans?
August 4, 2007 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many times did Obama vote to fund this war?
August 5, 2007 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
why?
How many letters did Hillary send to Rumsfeld demanding an exit strategy prior to voting for the AUMF?
How many times did Hillary read the NIE report?
How much does Hillary have in earmarks?
August 6, 2007 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink