<p>In an interview set to air tonight, CNN has VP Cheney offering his opinion on the Clinton/Pentagon dustup.</p>
<p>You may recall that, in May, Clinton sent a letter to Def. Secretary Gates asking for an Armed Services Committee briefing on Pentagon contingency planning for a drawdown of troops from Iraq.</p>
<p>Former Cheney deputy chief of staff Edelman (under Scooter Libby) replied in a letter to Clinton telling her that the Def Department would not brief Congress and that her asking gave a propaganda benefit to the enemy.</p>
<p>Clinton responded with sharp letter to Sec Gates, who replied that it was appropriate and useful for the Senate Armed Services committee to ask. Gates scheduled a closed door briefing with the Committtee for this Thursday morning AND designated Edelman as one of the briefers.</p>
<p>Today Cheney weighs in saying that he supported Edelman’s letter and considers it inappropriate to discuss planning with the Congress or the Armed Services Committee.</p>
<p>Clinton’s spokesman just released a press statement:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is the Bush administration taking stupid pills?</p>
<p>I don’t think the Bush administration needs to take any pills at all. The key players seem to do just fine with their natural high.</p>
<p>Seriously, this is one of the costs of democracy and separation of powers. On the one hand, of course Senator Clinton asked a serious question (and not a simple one, at all). Any patriotic Senator, considering what position to take on Iraq, and how far to support the President, would want to know what a drawdown would look like before supporting it. (I sure would.) On the other hand, of course the question was political, and part of political theater, as was Edelman and Cheney’s response.</p>
<p>I love the line about “the right hand doesn’t know what the far-right hand is doing.” Speechwriters must live for the opportunity to place one of those. (Actually, my guess is they probably stole it from Jon Stewart.)</p>
<p>I’m with you. Since the Pres isn’t contemplating a drawdown, and Sen. Clinton knows it, it’s all political theater, much like George Tenet meeting with the Democratic Senators on the Armed Serivces Committee in January/February 1998 and selling them the Big Lie about WMD, later to become the “slam dunk”. Any Senator, patriotic or not, knows that the question isn’t serious, and that the President or his cabinet wouldn’t waste political capital by talking about a drawdown even if the plan for one existed. </p>
<p>Are we better off today because George Tenet briefed Clinton’s “experienced” cronies?</p>
<p>The Pentagon is supposed to have contingency planning for all kinds of things they hope to not implement. The Senate Armed Services Committee is responsible for oversight of the Department of Defense. Or, to put it in more immediate political terms: the Senate Armed Services Committee is in charge of Defense appropriations. Secretary Gates scheduled a closed door briefing for the Senate Armed Services committee the day after tomorrow to review the Pentagon’s troop redeployment contingency planning.</p>
<p>Clinton wrote the initial letter in May because Pentagon generals were approaching her asking to push the line of questioning because the Vice-President’s office was preventing the Pentagon planning department from developing contingency plans.</p>
<p>The great thing about our elected democracy is that we have regular elections. Those who support the Cheney/Bush administration secrecy and abhorence of Congressional oversight have a number of find candidates on the Republican side to support in the upcoming election.</p>
<p>They never learn do they? Seems like only yesterday Rumsfeld and Cheney were forbidding anyone from planning for an occupation longer than six months.</p>
<p>Like it or not we all have to realize, and then deal with the fact, that VP Chaney, and the other neo-conservatives, put their political ideology ahead of the interests of the United States and its citizens. </p>
<p>The good new is that the American people are now aware of the disaster this administration is and has been. A recent news story reported, “The latest Washington Post-ABC News survey shows that 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush’s job performance, matching his all-time low. In polls conducted by The Post or Gallup going back to 1938, only once has a president exceeded that level of public animosity – and that was Richard M. Nixon, who hit 66 percent four days before he resigned.” The bad news is of course much damage has been done and the fact the Bush/Chaney administration has 18 more months to do further damage. </p>
<p>What the country desperately needs, is for the more traditional Republicans to rise above petty party politics, and to lead the opposition to the disastrous policies of the neo-cons, policies that are destroying the Republican Party, as they weaken American.</p>
<p>Tommy, I wonder if the American people are more dissatisfied, despite the recent polls. So many have just given up. Who would have thought Bush would have been elected a second term? Diebold?</p>
<p>When you have an administration succeed in stealing two presidencies, people give up and become apathetic. Even now, with a questionable
Senate leader, Pelosi, I see people being less and less interested.</p>
<p>Where are those Conservatives who are not neocons? We haven’t met.</p>
<p>The parallel I was referring to is a Republican running after a Republican two termer (RR) against a Dem (Dukakis). Mike should have been a shoe-in, but he wasn’t. Clinton won by a very narrow margin, 43% of the vote, and probably would not have won at all had it not been for Perot pulling votes from the GOP. That is rather astonishing considering the GOP had been in power for three terms at that point.</p>
<p>Hillary needs to get her unfavorables down under 40% for her to stand a chance, imo. I noticed Hillary and Obama are trailing Edwards in Iowa? Or did I hear that wrong?</p>
<p>FYI hereshoping……… the Rs can’t win the upcoming election their only hope they have is if the Ds lose as they did with Dukakis.</p>
<p>The Rs can’t win, they will have to make the Ds lose by running a Willie Horton/Swiftboat campaign. I can’t wait to see what happens whey they try that crap on Sen. Clinton, her people will come after your nominee with such a vengeance that the Tong Wars of old San Francisco will pale in comparison. Don’t get me wrong, I have not decided on which D to support yet. However, for me, one thing in Sen. Clinton’s favor is I relish the thought of her people (especially Harold Ickes) taking on the vaulted “Republican Negative Campaign Machine.” </p>
<p>Someone, anyone out there, tell me what the Rs can campaign on or for other than the Ds are worst than we are. A cry they have made more times than the little boy call wolf, and which Bush/Chaney have proven to be completely wrong. </p>
<p>P.S. don’t come back with the “and when Clinton counterattacks the people will see how mean she is and not vote for her.” Its not true and it won’t hunt.</p>
<p>Post # 11 …….Hillary needs to get her unfavorables down under 40% for her to stand a chance</p>
<p>Where did that come from….more than likely she will need to keep the Unfavs below 50% but not much more……the fact is that the better people know Sen. Clinton the more likely they are to vote for her……</p>
<p>I don’t want to make this personal, however the Unfavs below 40% comment demonstrate a lack of experience with and knowledge of polling and political campaigns.</p>
<p>Very simple … lack of any plan to address terrorism other than to undermine existing policies that have proven to be successful in warding off any further attacks in the US and in capturing top al Qaeda leaders. Check out Hillary’s web site under issues. She doesn’t even mention terrorism.</p>
<p>Of course, I don’t know if Hillary can match Tom Tancredo’s brilliant strategy for combating terrorism – promising to blow-up holy shrines at Mecca as a retaliation deterrent for Islamic terrorism. The shear briliance of Republican strategic thinking never fails to amaze me. Why didn’t I think of inflaming the passions of every man, woman, and child in the Muslim world like that!</p>
<p>ID, this is her Senate web site and not the one that she is touting as her positions as a presidential candidate. But, even at that, what is it that she is proposing other than more money for NY? Doesn’t sound like a very detailed proposal to me. Although it is consistent with the typical Dem approach to every problem - just throw money at it.</p>
<p>As for your reference to Tancredo, you are certainly smart enough to know that he does not represent the Republican views on foreign policy any more than the nutcase Dennis Kucinich does the Democrat’s view with his Department of Peace to replace the Department of Defense. Your establishing him as your strawman is just indicative of your partisan effort to avoid real issues and discussion.</p>
<p>So, you are suggesting that we should not invest resources in the global war on terror? What’s the Republican approach? Offer a tax credit for any American who kills a terrorist?</p>
<p>BTW, you might like Obama’s new plan. He publicly threatened a US invasion of Pakistan this morning. So, he now offers a two-pronged approach. An immediate Presidential summit, without precondition, with Ahmadinejad of Iran combine with a US invasion of nominal ally Pakistan.</p>