Hillary versus the Pentagon
EmailSen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, gave us an exclusive interview yesterday to discuss her concerns about whether the Bush administration has sufficiently prepared plans for US troop withdrawal, as well as the snarky letter from a former Cheney aide now at the Pentagon about her inquiry on the matter.
"I’ve been hearing that there was intense pressure from the Vice President’s office and other places that the kind of detailed planning that’s necessary to take our troops out safely was just not a priority," Clinton told us.
"I worry that we will compound the danger to our troops if we don’t plan carefully. And there’s no reason to have any confidence in the planning of this administration. They have consistently demonstrated a level of incompetence that I find deeply troubling."
The Vice President’s response, and more, can be read in our dot-com story on the subject HERE.
While I was interviewing her, I asked her the question that I asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., last week, (LINK) about what happens to the Iraqis were US troops to withdraw now.
"I have consistently said that it is likely that the violence will increase as we begin to withdraw our troops," she said. "The violence has not stopped since we have increased the number (of US troops). But it is unfortunately predicted that it will get even worse. But that’s going to happen if we leave next month or next year. Because the conditions for leadership by the Iraqi government are just not present."
Clinton said, "I regret deeply that there well may be continuing and perhaps even accelerating loss of life among Iraqis. But I see no alternative. And I don’t believe its right for us to put our troops into this sectarian civil war, put them at risk, they’re losing their lives, they’re being injured, when the Iraqis seem incapable of making the kind of hard decisions that only they can make."
I pointed out that last year she opposed setting a timeline for US troop withdrawal while now she was embracing one, and some see that as a political calculation in her race to the White House.
"I have tried all along during the debate about Iraq to make decisions that I thought were the right decisions and were ones that I could justify to myself as I looked at the situation we find ourselves in," she said. "If the administration had been willing to engage in the kind of political and diplomatic process that I and others have been urging for years now we might have a different situation that we have."
But what about the fact that she may well inherit the situation in Iraq, were she to be elected President?
Wouldn’t a President Hillary Clinton might face an Iraq, without US combat troops there, that has spiraled out of control and has become not just a civil war but a larger regional conflict where American interests — Arab allies, fossil fuels, Israel — are at risk?
"I don’t answer hypotheticals like that," she said.
What say you?
– jpt
Gulf of Mexico to Become Gulf of America? 
Can Mitt Romney Win Conservatives Back? 
Of course she doesn’t answer hypotheticals like the one you posed, Jake, because she’d actually have to commit to a position and then defend it. Unfortunately, Sen. Clinton is no different from the rest of the pack of candidates–both Dems and Repubs–who aren’t going to get specific as to what we are morally obligated to do if and when our troops leave Iraq. But in Sen. Clinton’s defense, the letter from the former aide to the VP was indeed a new low point in the courtesy due an elected official and a new high point in delf-delusion.
I find it infuriating that the Pentagon hasn’t made any plans whatsoever for any kind of troop drawdown, withdrawal, redeployment, or whatever you want to call it. What if some major natural disaster occurred and our troops had to leave that country? Apparently, the Pentagon officials who have taken their cue from our arrogant VP have already deemed the “Surge” a success and are going to continue with their plans no matter what reality may interpose. No preconceived notions here!
Posted by: chuck | July 20, 2007, 8:31 am 8:31 am
How does anyone know there is not a plan for withdrawal.It would be stupid to let us know so that we could broadcast to the enemy.Why dont people leave this fighting and planning to the ones that have to do it,If the politions had kept their mouths shut things would probably be a lot better.
Posted by: garwin baugh | July 20, 2007, 10:17 am 10:17 am
What I find infuriating is that we can only speak of troop withdrawal, why can’t we realize that other countries are different than ours and they will respond different to political decisions. The Iraqis have had tribal rule for centuries, what makes us think they can come to terms within a few years. In a war innocent people get hurt, one thing about this generation is that most of them have never see war like those in WWII. It is horrible and my hope is that our country will never have to see it on our soil. We are not unpatriotic if we oppose the war, but being so vocal as if we know it all, does give help to the enemy. I really feel that the only people in the know are the forces on the ground and even they are divided. We should have contingency plans, but somehow if we do, I am sure they would be leaked to the media and then then enemy would know our plans. What ever happened to “loose lips sink ships”? We really need to stop putting everything in the media for all to see. Granted we need to know, but it is a problem isn’t it?
Posted by: Linda | July 20, 2007, 10:19 am 10:19 am
If anything the Iraq civil war has lifted pressure away from Israel over the last several years. The suicide bombers seem to be going to Baghdad – not Tel Aviv.
Posted by: BenMurphyNYC | July 20, 2007, 10:29 am 10:29 am
What intelligences does she use, increase of attacks, Lets see Anbar province which once was thought lost is now one of the safest places. Propaganda to say there is an increase in violence, first of all the surge just started within the last few weeks.
What kind of President will she be, well she proved it she will go back to the appeasement mentality of the 90s, and allow thousands of Americans die before launching a cruise missile up a camels but.
I know the libs want us to give plans to the enemy I mean they leaked all that info to the Times, but when the Time found out about a desk jockey at the CIA the libs cried foul.
Did we make plans for withdrawl during WWII? Nope, (at least none that was publicized) so why do we want to publicize it during WW III?
The surge is a being a success even the Lib NY times had to admit it.
Is she speaking for Bin Laden since she seems to ignore NY, what has she done for NY as senator?
BenMurphyNYC – How can that can not be? the libs say there are no terrorists in Iraq.
Posted by: spock | July 20, 2007, 10:44 am 10:44 am
Oh since her and Bill put all there people in places like media matters, move on, nbc, cbs and so on she knows everything !!
Hilary has no experience, no backbone, and wants Maxism in this country, she was a student of Marxism remember?
Posted by: spock | July 20, 2007, 10:49 am 10:49 am
spock – point well made but ..from the Wash. Post: “Hayden catalogued what he saw as the main sources of violence in this order: the insurgency, sectarian strife, criminality, general anarchy and, lastly, al-Qaeda. Though Hayden had listed al-Qaeda as the fifth most pressing threat in Iraq, Bush regularly lists al-Qaeda first. (7/15/07). I’m most worried about the 9/11 terrorist in Al-Qaeda in Pakistan/Afghanistan.
Posted by: BenMurphyNYC | July 20, 2007, 11:21 am 11:21 am
Is Hilary Clinton or does Hilary want to be like Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher. No way.
Posted by: marc | July 20, 2007, 12:04 pm 12:04 pm
The Pentagon put together their contingency plans for war with Iraq, should we invade, a couple of years before we actually invaded. Yet the Liberal Left now cites the Downing Street memo as the proof that Bush and Blair had made up their minds to go to war. If the Pentagon acknowledged that we had plans for withdrawing, the Liberal Left would say…”See Bush intended to cut and run all along!”
Hillary Clinton was all for going into Iraq when it was popular. Then she was against a timetable when that was popular. Now that 61% of the American people want a timetable…Hillary is for it. A President Hillary Clinton will not be a leader, but a follower.
Posted by: James Danley | July 20, 2007, 12:07 pm 12:07 pm
It seems that we’re confronted with a most perplexing conundrum by which Sen. Clinton is condemned either way she acts. The issue of whether a president should be a leader or a follower is indeed one which colors political judgments from there on. We elect leaders to reflect our will and our opinions, as well as expect them to provide a future direction (“the vision thing”) for the country. Yet one segment of society condemns those very leaders for changing their opinions when facts and public opinion change; another condemns them for steadfastly holding to their course of action when circumstances dictate that they should change. So which type of leader is preferable: one who modifies his or her views as time passes and as the will of the electorate changes, or one who acts on unyielding principles and refuses to change with the changing world and the tide of public opinion?
Those who condemn Sen. Clinton, as they condemned Sen. Kerry for “flip-flopping” are those who unquestioningly support the President for his perceived constancy; those who condemn the unyielding President for “staying the course” despite the will of the electorate and changing situation in Iraq are those who support Sen. Clinton and others for their practicality and flexibility. I’m not certain which type is ultimately more preferable, but I’d think someone who demonstrates a flexibility and pragmatism over dogmatic adherence to “principles” would be more suited to a changing world.
Posted by: chuck | July 20, 2007, 1:57 pm 1:57 pm
Clinton is a total idiot.
Posted by: charles | July 20, 2007, 2:41 pm 2:41 pm
I am glad that Sen.Clinton (D), Sen.WARNER (R), Sen.LUGAR (R) and others have the foresight to ask if the Pentagon is planning this time.
Finally some bipartisanship cooperation and competency – Thank you Senator Clinton
Posted by: BenMurphyNYC | July 20, 2007, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm
Hillary and Bill have figured a way for him to hold office a third term as per usual of their lies and conniving.Her bringing troops home is a vote ploy and she will quickly run the same agenda as now. she doesn’t have full say. You have congress-senate-joint chiefs of staff.
Posted by: Vernon Page | July 20, 2007, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm
I am a lifelong democrat but, I have to say I am so sick of the self centered Clintons I could puke.
They are like the guests who came to dinner and won’t leave.
If it was someone else with this pentagon story it would be fun and interesting but, with Hillary it is a groan of dread knowing the obsession the media has with the Clintons will make sure we hear about this endlessly for days.
Posted by: vwcat | July 20, 2007, 8:20 pm 8:20 pm
We should limit campaining to six months before the general election then maybe we would be discussing real problems versus all the political grandstanding. Do your day job Senator. We need you.
Posted by: murl41 | July 20, 2007, 10:05 pm 10:05 pm
Okay, I read the letter. Clinton is trying to hype it as an attack. Its not. She’s a fake.
We still don’t know whether she thinks the decision to invade Iraq was a good one or a mistake. We know for all the other candidates; just not for her.
And now she’s trying to mask that ambiguity by painting herself as the leader in the anti-war effort. She actually had the gall to say she was forced to write legislation because the Pentagon was politicizing the issue. What? Who took this letter public?
Posted by: dutch1314 | July 21, 2007, 10:06 am 10:06 am
Chuck, it’s one thing to evolve and change your views. But it’s quite another thing to change with the wind.
Now if, as President Bush believes, that al Qaeda in Iraq is the same people who attacked us on 9/11, why on earth would he all of a sudden change course? Remember it WAS al Qaeda’s number 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahri, who declared Iraq as their primary battlefield. So even if they aren’t the exact same group, they certainly are in an alliance with Usama bin Laden. So cutting and running from THIS group, would BE tantamount to cutting and running from Usama bin Laden. Thus allowing Usama bin Laden to declare a military victory over the United States of America. Now THAT would be a huge propaganda tool and allow al Qaeda to recruit tens of thousands of more members…probably many from right here at home.
FURTHERMORE, it is President Bush’s core (to the bone) believe that al Qaeda and their supporters (whether actively, financially or morally) pose an imminent and serious threat to the survival of the civilized world. IF that IS true, then I certainly wouldn’t want the leader of the free world to all of a sudden change his mind because the American people say the war costs too much and can no longer stomach such a heavy sacrifice of human life.
Posted by: James Danley | July 21, 2007, 10:38 am 10:38 am
James, if al-Zawahri or bin Laden declared the central front on the War on Terror to be in the middle of the Atlantic ocean the GOP would march our army right into the middle of the sea.
Stop getting your facts from the enemy. Bin Laden is in Pakistan/Afghanistan. Study a globe, its 1400 miles to the left of Baghdad.
Posted by: Benmurphynyc | July 21, 2007, 12:22 pm 12:22 pm
Benmurphynyc, 1400 miles LEFT of Baghdad IF you are looking from the North Pole! And it is 5,900 miles on other side of Baghdad to New York; and 6,200 miles to Washington D. C. and Shanksville, PA. Al Qaeda is IN over 65 countries — and one of these IS Iraq. And WE ARE fighting al Qaeda in Iraq.
Posted by: James Danley | July 21, 2007, 2:20 pm 2:20 pm
Benmurphynyc: “Stop getting your facts from the enemy.”
Times Magazine: June 11, 2006 (in an article by Aparism Ghosh): “While Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri issued impotent threats from their hideouts, al-Zarqawi got his hands bloody in Iraq, turning it into the holy war’s primary battlefield.
I would not call Time Magazine the enemy!!
Posted by: James Danley | July 21, 2007, 2:47 pm 2:47 pm
I keep reading about how Bush did this , Clinton did that , Republicans are better than Democrats. etc. etc. until it makes me sick. No President can do any thing with out the consent of Congress PERIOD. The Congress has the power to over ride any and all Presidential decisions.
As long as corporate money is involved in politics there will be no honesty in politics Republican or Democrat.
Posted by: claude westervelt | July 22, 2007, 10:29 am 10:29 am
Rest Assured Senator Clinton: The Pentagon has contingency plans for any conceivable situation including the invasion of Mars. To imply that the US Military has no plans is utterly stupid. Did you not know that? If not, you are not qualified to be President. Finally the last thing we want to do is publish the details of the plan, unlike the defeat Senate Resolution that you supported which would give our enemy out time table for surrender, making it very difficult to get to our ships and helicopters. We did not even do that in Vietnam.
Posted by: LibSlayer | July 22, 2007, 10:36 pm 10:36 pm
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE PANEL OF TONIGHT’S COMMENTS: You demonstrated great self control, not letting your emotions and hormones get into the fray. No name calling, no demeaning of viewpoints. Gee guys what is wrong with you? Are you sick or taking dope?
Posted by: LibSlayer | July 22, 2007, 10:43 pm 10:43 pm
Clinton puts her finger in the air and votes and goes the way the wind in blowing.
I think it was better we chose the front line of this war, because the terrorists would choose NYC for the frontline if they had the choice.
Clinton has no clue if she did then her first terms as President it would of been solved.
Posted by: spock | July 23, 2007, 10:38 am 10:38 am
I continue to be amazed at the politically-motivated things coming out of Hillary’s mouth. She and Bill now think the military shouldn’t politisize the need for planning a withdrawal……the very fact that she requested the info is a politcal statement. Why doesn’t ABCNEWS challenge such an obvious ploy?
When our troops are redeployed it should be a decison made by the military not the politicians. It’s bad enough that the politicians are undermining the current war effort next they’re be putting our troops at risk as they are withdrawn. Didn’t we learn anything from Viet Nam?
Yet ABCNEWS doesn;’t challenge the politicans but rather feeds the fenzy!
Posted by: novimike | July 23, 2007, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
Hillary makes me mad because when a bunch of people voted for or against the war she voted for and now she is pretending that she is against the war.
Posted by: Ashleigh | July 23, 2007, 11:18 pm 11:18 pm
Novimike: I disagree that you think politicians should not be responsible for military decisions. If the military had no discresion from politicians, they would have a seemingly endless budget to launch whatever military campaign they so desired and thus drastically increasing taxes of the country. Politicians, while not always the most militarily experienced, regulate the cash expenditures of military operations and decide whether it is doable or not from a tax payers perspective.
Posted by: MCOMM 100 | July 24, 2007, 1:47 am 1:47 am
MCOMM 100 – The politicians in Congress can not and should tell the military how to fight a war period. Yes they control the purse strings, but that is it!
Posted by: spock | July 24, 2007, 3:30 pm 3:30 pm
I still haven’t heard Sen.Clinton say she was sorry she voted for the war in Iraq. Former Sen.Edwards has at least done that.
Troops in – troops out. The history Mesopotamia and its environs is not going to alter in it’s personal and cultural dimension.
Thinking the USA is going impose a political system destined to paralysis and in fighting harkens back to the 1950′s.
Congress Dems or Doze – are doing nothing.
I’m stuck with 2 Republican Senators who have no long term plan other than stay the course – there is no course.
The Iraq gov’t is nowhere – Without a government in place, the military is pointless.
I know the oil interests would be opposed – but perhaps The Kurds should be freed of this albatross….and I could go on.
No one has a plan – put pride aside – stop taking it personally – admidt the wrongs – and step up to your job.
I will not vote for Hillary Clinton – her time has come and gone. Leave her with her carpet bag in New York.
Interestingly – even though he’s been around forever – Chris Dodd has a voice worth listening to.
Ted Kennedy has it right – look for someone who inspires you. Hillary Clinton does not inspire me – not even a little.
Posted by: Donna | August 19, 2007, 8:37 pm 8:37 pm