Hitting Hillary's letter out of the ballpark again, Uncle Jimbo!

Cross-posted at Rosemary's Thoughts.

Reading all the threats everyday that this country is facing, sure can get to a person. That is why Uncle Jimbo is such a great guy. I can always count on him to lift my spirits. He has the right words at the right time to apply to right people. You just have to read his take on Hillary's question given to the Defense Department. He is spot-on!

Would you like to know the question? Okay, here it is:

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

(Hat tip: MyDD. Be careful. It's a 'Leftie for Hillary' site I got it from. lol)

If you will notice, her letter to him was released for publication. Was his? I don't know, but I doubt it. (Won't swear to it, though.) Anyway, I thought Uncle Jimbo handled this just fine. Yes, fine indeed. Go over and have a great laugh and a great day!

An alternate view on the war and legislation

I have a copy for you of what I retrieved from the Thomas guide. I copied it because everytime I've tried to link to it in the past, it did not work. Grr. The words I used were: no cutting off funding for the troops. If you would like to do the same search. Also, you will get 0 (zero) for exact match, etc. Go to the last one that has 1000 bills containing one or more of your search words.

I was listening to the radio when I received this information. Apparently this bill has been tabled to be put on the calendar at a later date. I don't know where Mark Levin got the 82 votes from...maybe another vote? (My fault. Sorry.) Rep Mike Pence also has a bill that has gone to the Congressional House Committee on Armed Services. The number is H.CON.RES.64.

Sen. Bill Clinton?

The thought of Bill Clinton taking over Hillary's seat in the Senate has escaped many minds, but Bill Sammon of the Washington Examiner has written about just this today.

Washington, D.C. - If Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the presidency, some top Democrats would like to see her husband, former President Bill Clinton, appointed to serve out Hillary's unexpired Senate term.

“As a senator, he’d be a knockout,” said Harold Ickes, who was once a top White House aide to Bill Clinton and now gives behind-the-scenes advice to Hillary. “He knows issues, he loves public policy and he’s a good politician.”

This is an interesting idea. Very interesting. How many of you are willing to sit out this next election now?

Hat tip: Drudge Report.

Update: Thanks to BizzyBlog, I now know the link had been moved. If you have any trouble with that link, try this one. Thank you.

Victory Caucus to be Mentioned on Pundit Review Radio

Tomorrow evening the Victory Caucus is going to be mentioned on Pundit Review Radio. You may listen to this wonderful program at 7pm-10pm EST by streamlining from your computer here.

Pundit Review Radio is a program that focuses mostly on bringing the old world media and the new media of bloggers into perspective. They have interviewed people such as Michael Yon, Soldiers' Angels, Blackfive (every week with "Someone You Should Know"), Bill Roggio, and many more.

Kevin and Gregg are two of the more intelligent gentlemen on talk radio weekends. Please pay them visit. It is really a good time! Thank you. Have a nice day.

Gen. Petraeus confirmed 81-0

And the Senate is trying to cut his knees out from underneath him before he even hits Iraqi soil again. Minority leader Mitch McConnel (R) is NEGOTIATING with Biden (D) as to what the non-binding resolution should say. I have made my voice heard on this made. You can too. Just go here. (It is the post before this one.)

I am very happy that Gen. Petraeus was confirmed. I am also happy that he condemned these resolutions by the democrats and republicans. Yet these elitists choose not to listen to them. That is why they absolutely need to hear from YOU. Please. Our troops are counting on us. They are not failing us. Do not fail them.

Not One Bloody Red Cent

There is a non-binding resolution that some Republicans believe means not a thing. Au contraire. It does mean that they are sending our young men and women into a war they do not support. It means they resoundingly voted for General Petraeus to be the man in charge of this new move forward, after he informed them that this non-binding resolution would get more of them killed. It would embolden our enemies.

Do they believe they know more than he? Do they really not want our men to die? Do they really support the troops? I say, "Hell no, they don't."

That is why I signed the petition that Hugh Hewitt and NZ Bear have created. I urge you to do the same. After you have done so, please call your Senators! Also, call Senators McConnell, Lott and Kyl at 202-225-3121. Let them know they will lose your vote and your dollars, and tell them why.

Don't forget to call Sen. Ensign. He is the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, and you will find him at 202-675-6000. Let him know he will not be receiving one bloody red cent because he is going to continue supporting people who vote for this evil thing.

Here is the name of some of the Senators who we may be able to be persuade through calm, serious and thoughtful discussion. Minnesota's Norm Coleman, Maine's Susan Collins and Oregon's Gordon Smith. They will likely be convinced to rethink possible support against the resolution in the light of the Petraeus testimony and the president's speech Tuesday. Senator Coleman's office number is (202) 224-5641. Senator Smith's office number is (202) 224-3753. Senator Collins' office number is (202) 224-2523.

We may not be able to change this Senator's mind, but you can reach Senator Collins' at: (202) 224-2523. She can also be e-mailed here.

We are at war. We should all be Americans, but the Democrats want this to be Viet Nam. The Republicans do not have a spine. We have witnessed this for the past 6 years. That is why we lost some very capable justices, tax cuts, energy bills, etc. This one, this non-binding resolution, is a hill I am prepared to die on.

I wish President Bush has the steel for them as he has for our troops. That is behind us now. These so-called Senators say you must know when it is important enough to for you to fight. If we do not fight back now, we are letting our troops down. I cannot stand for this. Neither should you. Thank you.

Update: Does anyone the 14 members who basically stopped the Senate from bringing forth any judges worthy of the Supreme Court or Appeals Court? Well, he's at it again. McCain has just made the announcement that he will work with Democrats (Carl Levin) to give Gen. Petraeus and PM Maliki 'benchmarks'! How dare he!

The good General is not even over there yet, and they've are already trying to tie his hands before he gets there. They claim it is for oversight. Barbara Striesand. They just voted overwhelming for him, and he is favor of President Bush' plan! God, I thought we had only one Commander-in-Chief.

Update 2: Newest post.

Update 3: A friend of mine is having an open trackback weekend. The name of his site is Church and State. He has many incredible articles over there. (No, not sermons. God, you people are weird! lol.) Have a good night.