The Pentagon Insults Hillary ClintonBig mistake.

Remarks from the Fray:

The only thing the article neglects to mention is the reason Ms. Clinton's request rankled the Defense Department. Yes, maybe it was because she's a woman or because Edelman has been infected with Dick Cheney's arrogance, probably all true. But when you talk to 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 comes down to a very different view of the context of that 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, 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 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.

--JimBob

(To reply, click here.)

While I agree that Senator Clinton's inquiry should have been handled in a manner more satisfactory to her, I think you're making much of the perceived patronizing attitude toward her as a woman. I was the Adjutant for my battalion while deployed to Afghanistan and when congressional inquiries came down-- often concerning topics that should have been handled at a higher level, but things just kept rolling downhill-- it was my job as a lowly captain to write the response with my commander's signature block. The letters always concluded with a statement to the effect of "Thank you for your concern in this important matter. We stand committed to continue to provide the utmost service; please feel free to contact us directly with any future questions."

--Anywhere

(To reply, click here.)

I agree that this is a serious breach of government on the part of Gates, but where exactly, except in the mind of the author, does this come across as sexist? It is clear that he is demeaning senators in general but there is nowhere even the slightest tinge of sexism. This is why people loathe Hilary Clinton democrats. They are constantly straining to portray Clinton as a woman attempting to overcome sexism on the behalf of all women everywhere when she is in fact the beneficiary of a corporate, big-money machine that her husband built.

--morganja

(To reply, click here.)

It's certainly possible that this is exactly the arrogant dismissal that it seems to be. But I think that it's also possible that this is a stalling tactic. I can imagine a conversation taking place that went something like this:

Edelman: Secretary Gates, I've been reviewing our contingency plans, but they're still a mess. The stuff Rumsfeld's people left us was a joke, and two months hasn't been enough time to fix them. We can't let the Senate see this.

Gates: Hmm, that's not good. Do you think another two months would be enough time to get them into shape.

Edelman: I believe so, yes. Can we stall them for that long?

Gates: Sure, but here's what you need to do. Write the nastiest, most insulting letter you possibly can, telling Senator Clinton that she's not entitled to anything and she's a traitor for asking. That's not true, of course, and she'll go bonkers when we say that. But after that we should be able to burn at least a month in some phony-baloney negotiations about what they're entitled to; At the end of that month, if we agree to give them everything they're asking then I'm sure they'll let us take another month to assemble and vet the material. I'm afraid you'll have to look like something of a putz in the media and the Senate, but don't worry about that--people in Washington have short memories. I mean, look at me--I almost got indicted during Iran-Contra, and that turned out to be a great career move.

Edelman: Thank you, sir, we'll have the letter out tomorrow.

--lonesome moderate

(To reply, click here.)

A true statesman concerned about the nation would be talking with Gates quietly to resolve this, not posting letters with the press to get publicity. Hillary must be publicly aggressive now to try to overcome the monumental lack of judgment she demonstrated in authorizing Bush to go to war. Sure he lied, but others saw the same evidence, did not believe the lies, and voted against the war. Trying to escape responsibility in the pack and not owning up to her mistake is not the sign of a world-class leader. We can't risk the presidency again. I don't trust Hillary enough to vote for her.

--party-of-one

(To reply, click here.)

(7/22)