We just got in from a fast trip to Dallas, actually it was Fort Worth. We had a little meeting last night with some family (and friends) Demo organizers. We are determined to make Texas and Oklahoma blue.

As to Senator Clinton. Republicans, you all just keep on doing what you’re doing with your ugly tactics. Because it’s driving certain of us into the Hillary camp. We are warming to the idea of President Hillary Clinton.

I’m going for a swim out back. Then I am going to fix pan-fried potatoes, bacon, fried cornbread and virgin mary’s for me and my gal.

Might be misunderstanding, OK KIDDO @ 16 You got a bud in Tulsa with a lot to say regarding many of the topics here. Look him up, maybe? at: B A R T C O P ?

*Edited and released by MOD

Has anyone else read Michael Yon’s latest post. It seems the “surge” strategy is really working! The Dems must hate that.

He’ll never get a hearing now, not just for this, but because in 2003 he was a henchman for some guy named Libby doing evil stuff that I think has been mentioned a couple times at FDL.

Just a reminder that contempt & stonewalling have ALWAYS been Job 1.

Sandman @ 98

Thank you TiredFed, yes, two out of three are Repubs, but it was not always that way there was a time when we were a blue state! Even one response I got was a non response, just said they forwarded the question about electricity in Bagdad to the DOD for an official response, but seven months later I heard nothing and such a simple question.

I always get replies. From Dewine, Voinovich and really well written responses from Senator Sherrod Browns office

In our experience, DeWine & Vvich only started writing (occasionally on topic) after they got worried about reelection. I used to have to d-r-a-g responses out of DeW., and then only after complaining he was not addressing the issues.
Sherrod Brown routinely responds with detailed replies, and has even been known to send surprise, hand-written kudos for a letter to the editor that he thought particularly noteworthy. ;->

July 19, 2007

The Honorable Robert M. Gates
Secretary of Defense
The United States Department of Defense
The Pentagon
Suite 319
Washington, D.C. 20301

Dear Mr. Secretary:

On May 22, 2007, I wrote to you to request that you provide the appropriate oversight committees in Congress – including the Senate Armed Services Committee – with briefings on what current contingency plans exist for the future withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq. Alternatively, if no such plans exist, I asked for an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning.

I am in receipt of a letter from Eric Edelman, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy who wrote that he was responding on your behalf. Under Secretary Edelman’s response did not address the issues raised in my letter and instead made spurious arguments to avoid addressing contingency planning for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

As I noted in my original letter, “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.”

Rather than offer to brief the congressional oversight committees on this critical issue, Under Secretary Edelman – writing on your behalf – instead claims that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies. Under Secretary Edelman has his priorities backward. Open and honest debate and congressional oversight strengthens our nation and supports our military. His suggestion to the contrary is outrageous and dangerous. Indeed, you acknowledged the importance of Congress in our Iraq policy at a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee in March, when you stated, “I believe that the debate here on the Hill and the issues that have been raised have been helpful in bringing pressure to bear on the Maliki government and on the Iraqis in knowing that there is a very real limit to American patience in this entire enterprise.”

Redeploying out of Iraq will be difficult and requires careful planning. I continue to call on the Bush Administration to immediately provide a redeployment strategy that will keep our brave men and women safe as they leave Iraq – instead of adhering to a political strategy to attack those who rightfully question their competence and preparedness after years of mistakes and misjudgments.

Other members of this Administration have not engaged in political attacks when the prospect of withdrawal planning has been raised. At the June 7 Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing on Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, I asked General Lute “what level of planning has taken place” and “whether the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs have been briefed about the level of planning.” I also asked General Lute to determine “what kind of timeline would exist if a decision for either military or political reasons were taken to begin withdrawal” and if he considered this kind of planning to be part of his responsibilities.

General Lute replied, “Thank you Senator. I do think such an adaptation, if the conditions on the ground call for it, will be part of this position.”

I renew my request for a briefing, classified if necessary, on current plans for the future withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq or an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning. I also renew my concern that our troops will be placed in unnecessary danger if the Bush Administration fails to plan for the withdrawal of U.S. Forces. Finally, I request that you describe whether Under Secretary Edelman’s letter accurately characterizes your views as Secretary of Defense.

I would appreciate the courtesy of a prompt response directly from you. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,
Hillary Rodham Clinton

Electioncentral – TPM

mc @ 69

I know attacking Clinton on national security issues is big news, but I think we really just want to know about her relationship with Bill. Do they still sleep together, or do they have separate beds? And how much do her haircuts cost? You know, really important stuff like that.

I’m not much of a Hillary supporter myself, but for me the best reason for a President Hillary Clinton is it would drive the wingnnuts batshit crazy for eight years.

The problem with that is it’s the last thing our country needs right now. A candidate that would bring Americans together is what we need, and we need him/her now.

My comment was primarily snark, but I’m not so sure the 28%ers can be “brought together” with mainstream America. There will always be fringe lunatics in this country-that’s what makes America great. The problem now is that they’re running the country.

I also think our democracy thrives on confrontation and that’s not neccessarily a bad thing. I know we wish every one would just get along, but I want a leader who is going to stand up for what’s right and that might mean throwing the current administration bums in jail. That may not bring us together as a country, but it would return the Rule of Law to how our government works.

The hatred of Clinton, and Hillary in particular, is like racism in the worst way. Republicans hate Hillary like the KKK hates black people with the same logic. I’m not kidding. It’s not rational and it’s uneducated, like racism, and it’s based on more than fifteen years of smears and lies by the right wing machine.

I really like Hillary, but I have a feeling that the Republicans know exactly what they will do to fight her in 2008, whereas they don’t have a clue about what to do against Obama. (although you can count on racist innuendo and slurs there too.)

The Bushies may think they’re hurting Clinton by attacking her, but I suspect the more they turn her into the anti-Bush, the more attrctive she’ll be.