If not, then why was Senator Clinton chastized by DoD for asking such a question?
2007-08-01 11:54:03 · 15 answers · asked by El Duderino 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Scott F - I served 24 years in the Army - in Iraq twice. I've HAD bullets fired at me in anger. Have you, tough guy?
2007-08-01 12:38:52 · update #1
When Clinton went into Bosnia to stop the Serbian ethnic clensing, there were constant calls from Republicans for an "exit strategy". In short they wanted to know "Once we achieve our goals, how are we getting out of here?" I had now problem with the question then and I have no problem with the Democrats asking for an exit strategy. No conflict can be left open ended. We aren't wired like that.
She was lambasted by DoD because an exit strategy has not been formulated. I've heard suggestions of permanent bases which frankly has me concerned.
2007-08-01 12:23:02 · answer #1 · answered by Deep Thought 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, it is not treasonous for a US Senator who serves on the Armed Services Committee, and who has security clearance, to ask if the military even HAS such a plan, or to request a briefing on the estimated costs and risks.
One would think that ALL Senators who are considering a vote on an issue would want to be as informed as possible when making that vote.
The fact that Scty of Defense Gates said it was a valid request should end the debate.
2007-08-01 19:00:05 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
No it is not treasonous for members of Congress to do their job. I had not heard about this. I imagine Senator Clinton was chastised by DoD because they do not have such a plan.
2007-08-01 18:58:02 · answer #3 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
the US military has contingency plans for all types of events--from leaving Iraq to invading Canada. Making them public is treasonous, that's why they're classified. She was attempting to politicize the war by pushing for an exit plan. A cheap shot during a campaign, and a misuse of her power as Senator.
2007-08-01 19:09:02 · answer #4 · answered by A Plague on your houses 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It is neither treasonous not childish. She is representing the wishes of her constituents, as she swore to do when she took office. The DoD has no such responsibilites, and they get very cranky when someone questions their judgement. Talk about childish.
2007-08-01 19:01:52 · answer #5 · answered by gilliegrrrl 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I wouldn't go so far as to call it treasonous. But, it's not within the scope of their duties. That is, it's really an executive branch call.
Honestly, it's just political jabbering on their part and Hillary, quite frankly, is an easy target.
2007-08-01 19:06:20 · answer #6 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
How would it be treasonous? Do you know the definition of treason? Obviously not!
While we still have a free country it seems one can ask anything they want. They may not get it, but they can ask.
2007-08-01 19:02:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
The letter was a rebuff from a Bushie who essentially said, "Now don't worry your little old head woman, us strong Republican menfolk have everything under control, so don't ask us annoying questions." I hope she goes after the guy and removes his balls.
2007-08-01 19:01:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is treason the way Harry Reid and Hitlery have handled it. Saying we lost is treason. The enemy hears this and thinks they can defeat us.
It is disgusting and I look forward to the day they pay for it.
2007-08-01 19:06:39 · answer #9 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Of course it's not. Just because a person disagrees with the path our government is on, doesn't mean they are any less patriotic then those who do.
2007-08-01 18:59:15 · answer #10 · answered by redphish 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋