Bill Clinton Backs Wife’s Withdrawal Plan Demand

In response to Lenny, I think it is important for you to understand this issue before speaking out on it. First off, many other Senators have asked the questions about withdrawal plans. Senator Clinton was just one of many senators wanting to know about if the Pentagon drew up plans for a withdrawal. It is important to note that drawing up plans does not mean we are leaving tomorrow or next week. It simply means that whenever the government says for them to leave (whether through congress cutting off funds or the president), that they want to know how the troops will leave. It is important to note Lenny that she is a part of the Senate Armed Services Committee, so she has a right to know this information. President Clinton was right about him, he’s an ideologue.
Also, in response to senator clinton ‘owning up to her vote’, she already has said that she takes full responsibility. It is important to note that the war has started already. Senator Clinton has repeatedly said that if she knew then what she knows now, she would not have authorized the war.. and further that as president she will end the war. The fact that she is is a candidate who wants to end the war is fine with me and many other Americans, not the fact that ‘she wont say sorry.’
Senator Clinton deserves to get a briefing on the military withdrawal plans….

In response to Lenny: You demand Senator Clinton publicly state that she will “completely withdrawal out of iraq” but then go on to say, “She will never do that as she knows that it will beimpossible as we can never leave Iraq for national security reasons.”
You then go on to “shame” her for this. What exactly are you saying? First, she is too smart to completely withdrawal because she knows national security depends on keeping a small amount of troops in the area. Secondly, you demand her to say the opposite? That’s very contridictory.

She is correct when she demands to see intelligence reports. It is her right and duty as a Senator. However, its obvious that they think she is going to use this information on the campaign trail.They have every right to be suspicious. I would like to see a law enacted that says a person must resign from public office at the minute of declaration if they are going to run for president(call it the good faith law). Our governments secrets don’t need to be used as cannon fodder during a campaign.

Not just Hillary Clinton, but each and every member of both the House and Senate that relied on the unclassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate posted on the CIA web site October 4, 2002 instead of walking down to their respective Intelligence Committee offices and reading the entire 93 page report sent their on the night of October 2nd, that was loaded with paragraphs and footnotes from career intelligence analysts from the State, Energy, CIA, NIA, NSA, DIA, and yes even the CIA refuting the conclusions in it that Saddam’s regime had WMD should opening admit they screwed up by voting for the war.
There was ample evidence floating around in public by that date that Iraq did not have WMD or programs to build them.
One such example was An economic study of Iraq’s Pre-Gulf war economy released by Cornell University on June 15th 1997 showed that Iraq’s economy was in shambles subsequent to the Iran/Iraq war which ended in 1989. “The Iraqi economy contracted 29% from 1984, the middle of the Iran/Iraq War to 1989, a year after that war. (1). This 5 year collapse compares with the 29% decline in the U.S. real GNP, 1929 to 1933, during the Great Depression. (2). With the war over, the Iraqi economy continued to contract: between 1988 and 1989, the reduction in GNP was 4%. Given the increase in Iraqi population, the percent change in GNP/capita is more dramatic (33% reduction), than the change in GNP between 1984 and 1989.# In short, Iraq simply did not have the economic means to reconstitute or sustain weapons of mass destruction or programs to develop them.
Another example was when James Baker, former Secretary of State under Bush’s father stated on January 9, 1996 during a PBS Frontline interview that, “He (Saddam), no longer has the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction, he no longer represents the threat to his neighbors that he did before.”
Finally we have Former U.S. Marine and top U.N. Iraqi Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in a Time Magazine Interview published on September 14, 2002 stated, “I’ve said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact. To say that Saddam’s doing it is in total disregard to the fact that if he get caught he’s a dead man and he knows it. We have tremendous capabilities to detect any effort by Iraq to obtain prohibited capability. The fact that no one has shown that he has acquired that capability doesn’t necessarily translate into incompetence on the part of the intelligence community. It may mean that he hasn’t done anything.”
Given that the intelligence used by the DoD under Rumsfeld stove piped over to CIA Director Tenet was supplied by a paid international fugitive and grifter Admed Chalabi who just a few short years before had been kicked off both the CIA’s and State Department’s payroll for misappropiation of federal grants, the universe of intelligence should have been dumped in a trash can. If it had, more than 3,600 U.S. troops would be alive today, 25,000 more would not be wounded and the U.S. would have at least $500 billion Congress could have wasted on ear marks.

“Earlier today I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces,” Clinton said.
“Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,” said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
Why don’t we hear about this anymore? Is it because there aren’t any Clintons being impeached?

Well, Ben, we DO deserve a full report, but until then, what? Just forget that the previous administration was so clear that Saddam had WMD programs that they attacked his sovereign nation? What changed from that attack to the one five years ago?
Stink-bomb of a letter? All I know of the letter is the line quoted in the piece:
“Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies.”
I suggest that the truth is an affirmative defense and I would agree with Mr. Edelman’s assertion. What’s the problem?
There is much that happens behind-the-scenes, eh? Even the folks who listen to NPR don’t know EVERYthing (though you’d think it listening to them). I assert that the Clintons will use every possible device for their own personal/political gain without regard for the truth. I’m sure that the appropriate requests are made and honored.
We are wasting our precious life energies discussing those people. Except for the damage they do to the world it’s just not worth it.
Also, people like Ryan didn’t arrive at their opinions through any process of reason so it is pointless to approach them with reason. They are not capable of taking in new information, even to “try it on for size” or for a thought experiment, if it doesn’t align with their core beliefs. I believe that’s what accounts for the viscerality of their responses and of their hatred (another frightening aspect of such people).

I have read many comments, checked facts, listened to the senate debates on Cspan2, read the blogs, and watched the news, to this conclusion.
We,as American citizens have a very important election comming up and we have to stay involved and informed. We need to focus on the issues and stay away from name calling, labels, and smear tactics.
Clinton has the right to question, Bill should support her rights, end of story. I am so tired of all the “spin”.
We are too image conscience in this nation, if Hilary or any front runner came out of the bathroom with toilet paper on their shoe,or had a bad hair day, the news would focus on that for weeks! Your personal life, privacy and hair cuts are not something I need to know about. I want to know about the issues.
There was a time in this nation when we actually read facts, debated issues and listened to opposing opinions. Now we play the blame game, promote name calling and character assinations; wait for photo ops of people tripping, etc. It says more about us than the person we are denegrating.
We need to stay focused on the facts, we will either vote on principals or personalities. We will come together as Americans to determine the future of this nation and its policies. This is a critical election, don’t forget that.
The press should just stop this crap!

Mr. Anderson – (I feel like Agent Smith from the Matrix saying that) I think your point on the 1998 strike is important but what I am trying to say it is impossible to know if the strike was legitimate until we know when the 1991 WMD were eliminated. If the weapons were eliminated in between 1998 and 2003 then the strike was with merit but we can’t know that with out a full report that details what happened to the weapons. Until then the public is missing the facts to determine the legitimacy of the 1998 strike.
With regard to the letter, Mrs. Clinton has a right to know what the plans are for moving troops in Iraq (in and out. She has made it clear that the discussion/briefing can be in private. What she got in the letter was a poor rational for not giving her any information, probably because the plan has not been drawn up.
Congressional oversight is so profoundly important, it’s inherent in the U.S. Constitution, and Mr. Edelman’s letter gives rational not to adhere to oversight and therefore the executive branch’s Constitutional obligation. That’s a problem.

H R C
A presidential wannabe!
Yes? No! Maybe so…
HILL NO! SHE’S GOT TO GO! TM
My fellow Americans,
Why would we want Hillary back in the White House anyway? Is it her experience as a wise, productive Senator? (Hey, New Yorker’s, what has Hillary really done for you?) Is it her vast experience as a First Lady who felt compelled to hire private investigators to report Bill’s “Bimbo eruptions” to her, his actions that scandalized the honor of the presidency? Why would any American woman want a president who’s been riding on the coattails of a cheater, a liar, a traitor, a felon, indeed a sexual predator, an alleged rapist who got away with it all because she’s skillfully covered for him for over thirty years!
Contemplating Hillary as president is anathema to those of us who hold FREEDOM near and dear to our American hearts!
HILL NO! SHE’S GOT TO GO! TM

i can’t believe after all the bungling of the invasion that these nitwits think they won’t be hectored for a GOOD withdrawal plan for the troops – god forbid more wasted blood shed due to the current administration’s military incompetence in Iraq

Ben, Ben… (This in the voice of the guy from “Ben Casey”…)
You are probably gone but I’ve got to respond to you:
How familiar are you with the contents of Mr. Edelman’s letter? Do you know more than the one-liner quoted above and the characterizations of the letter? I am going to make the assumption, for the time being, that you don’t know any more about it than I do. Therefore, I’ll not address your comments about the letter.
Re: Iraq’s possession of WMD’s–Clinton said in 1998 that they had them and programs to create them. Bush says it several years later and he is a liar. Please reconcile these “facts” for me.
I’ll admit to you that I don’t think any reconciliation is possible. The left (“sinister” in Latin) doesn’t operate on reason so no reasoning is possible.
WRT feeling like you are in the matrix… That’s the whole point of my name.
Thank you for playing our game. A lovely home edition is available as a parting gift.