When you ask these guys about a plan for withdrawal, it's not a matter that, "Okay, some day we're going to have to get out of there, so what are you thinking?" It's not about a DoD that's "covered all bases and contingencies." It comes down to a very controversial view of the context of withdrawal. If Bush/Cheney's wet dreams come true, our withdrawal will be something like guests leaving a successful dinner party, all cheery farewells and thank-yous. If the outcome the rest of us fear comes to pass, it will be chaotic, bloody, disorganized and tragic. So, when Clinton asks for a plan, given her take on the war, she's really asking, "Have you made provisions for a full-on retreat under fire?" How can they answer this question? If they answer that no particular provisions are necessary because by the time we leave Iraq will be pacified and living under an orderly democracy, they invite the ridicule of the world. If they reveal that they have plans for a panicky airlift, they admit the possibility that things might not go as they hope. If they say they have no plan at all, we're back to the ridicule thing. So, you see, it's a lot more than the gender of the questioner, it's the question itself that is a dreadful tar baby for Gates and his DoD.

the reason Gates wasn't available to sign the letter that was sent to Clinton was because he was too buys (yesterday) crying on TV over the guys he killed in Iraq. I guess that was one letter he did sign : Their death warrant...

I thought that the primary job of the Pentagon was to create and drill contingency plans for every concievable circumstance that might require a military response. This is how we originally got the Powell Doctrine and Petraeus' counter-insurgency protocols. So, besides all this about political appointees and the Pentagon overreaching into politics...

She asked them to do their actual job and they said no.

milo asked the question that came to my mind about why this guy is still an Undersecretary; makes me wonder if there's something not yet reported.

But the thing that hit me first was that Senator (not Mrs.) Clinton sent her letter to the Secretary of Defense; the reply -- to a SENATOR -- came from an Undersecretary (not even a Deputy Secretary). An inquiry like hers should have been signed by Gates himself.

That was a calculated insult, it seems to me.

Perfect name and description of Bushboys government.

"the light-weights they have for '08"

Have you ever wondered if that's part of the plan? Nobody likes those other guys, so we might as well stay in office and defend - well, not that old rag the Constitution, but the higher ideal: freedom. Ours, that is. To do whatever we want. At your expense.

I was a little skeptical of the idea that the administration was not planning to leave office, but this latest declaration that they won't let the DOJ help Congress bring contempt charges makes my blood run cold.

From the misuse of the Department of Commerce as a vassaldom of Republican politics to the petty-chastisement of Senator Clinton by the Pentagon's Mr. Edelman, Mr. Bush's White House continues to operate without any rules of propriety, honor or legality. Their rules seem to be NO rules!

I see that Judicial Watch has filed some kind of lawsuit seeking to access First Lady Hillary Clinton's "records". Now, the Pentagon has joined in singling her out for a propagandistic dissing.

Is sure sounds like the Right is terrified of Hillary's candidacy and is lashing out with whatever it can muster. Balanced against the light-weights they have for '08, they're damned right to be terrified of Hillary's candidacy! She is a formidable candidate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902625.html

They are having their anonymous officials tell the press that the (remaining) attorneys in the DOJ will not be permitted to enforce contempt proceedings regarding the attorneys who got fired. Cute.

Ever since we have had more than enough nukes to completely blow all of civilization back to oblivion, we have not needed the huge military we have for the defense of the homeland. No country would dare attack us without risk of immediate annilation. And as far as terrorists - the $500 billion a year we spent on the military really helped on 9/11 – right. The pentagon as sized now is primarily there to enforce our influence around the globe and to make sure the have mores have more.

How do people work so hard at being ignorant. Since they are Consitutionally the only ones who can declare war, define the scope of a war and further yet fund the war, yes the Congress does get to tell the Pentagon what to do.

As far as Edlman, he is another political appointee who’s only purpose is political - nothing more than another shit stain transferred from Roves underwear into a governing position.

but he's too busy detailing the strategy to place Clinton under arrest for Treason. Man, when are these bozo going to be fed up enough to begin Impeachment?

Impeach. The just is just a colossal waste of time.

Why would The Pentagon acquiesce to any legal authority when the penalty for not doing so is...

n o n e x i s t e n t

Congress cut its own throat years ago by accepting The Bush Administration's unaccountability and outright lawlessness as standard operating procedure. But because it was Hillary! being dissed, this incident is somehow worthy of indignation?

Give me a fucking break.

Considering her shameful role in supporting the Iraq Atrocity - and the doublespeak, obfuscation, and total avoidance of accountability since taking a joyride on the Bush Bandwagon - the humiliation Hillary Clinton deserves shouldn't be coming from The Pentagon, but from Democratic voters - whose pathetic obedience to every official abuse of power since 2000 has revealed them to be every bit as feckless, unprincipled and opportunistic as the robots they reward with public office.