I'll take the lack of additional terrorist attacks in the US as a supportable reason for the US to have deposed SH. If I hear another person complain about the lack of WMD in Iraq-what did Bill Clinton, Albright and Tenet say prior to Bush. That Iraq had WMD (whops) so did the UN.

Dear CNN …

You'll post replies from others that call me a "tool" and an "idiot" but you won't post my response to Jon in Sacramento? Then you ignore my follow-up posts regarding your refusal to post my response?

It made my decision that much easier!

See, I can post on the Chicago Sun Times blogs too. Tell me why I should take an hour-and-a-half to two-hours putting together a response or rebuttal to the questions someone asks me on a thread (like I did to Jon) only to have you NOT post it?

I've decided to not waste my time with your blogs, web site or your TV station as I'm enjoying the Sun Times lack of selective censorship already!

Don't worry, I know you guys certainly don't have the balls to post this either.

Keep up the censorship gang! Maybe you'll get a job at FOX News someday!

Man, I don't know why people just can't get it?! Sadamm had made death threats against the daddy before the 9/11 incident. Dubya's plan to invade Iraq and take down Sadamm started before 9/11. It wasn't going to matter whether or not WMD's were found in Iraq. Dubya had plans to take down Sadamm, plan and simple. I've seen Dubya in action ever since he was govenor of Texas, and he doesn't need any reasons to do anything at all, he just does it!!!!!!! It's PATHETIC!!!!

This response is almost as absurd as the first one. This is just another example of how this administration believes it answers to know one. And thank you Sen. Clinton for asking the question, and having the stones to ask something that know one ells did. It’s time for real leadership!!!

Rick in Chicago,

"UN Security Council Resolution 1441 was so “important” to the UN, that even THEY didn’t support using it as a basis for invasion. It’s a historical FACT that NOTHING WAS SUPPORTED based on UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Congress and the American people supported an invasion based on the “imminent threat of WMDs” LIE, and Dubya invaded based on “he tried to kill my daddy”."

Good grief - do you just pull your "facts" from thin air? Resolution 1441 (unanimously passed) authorized military action. There were approx 60 nations participating in the initial operation - granted the US and UK provided the vast majority of troops but many other nations participated to show support. Spin it however you like Rickey.

"Bush knew that no weapons were being found. And he knew that the longer inspectors searched and didn’t find them, the worse the US would look – especially if the US attacked, which was a foregone conclusion anyway since he was planning this since “practically the first day in office"

Did Michael Moore spoon-feed you, Ricky? Bush had this whole thing planned out from the first day in office??? Your statements reek of paranoia and conspiracy theory rhetoric. Hans Blix "faulted" the administration for proving they destroyed something they didnt have? RICK - WE GAVE SADDAM WMDs YEARS BEFORE! Saddam used them on his people. IF Saddam didn't have them - then why piss off the world AGAIN by kicking out the UN Inspectors? What did he have to hide??

“innocent until proven guilty” - Glad to know Ricky you thought Saddam was so innocent. THAT speaks loudest about your logic!

"Overwhelmingly EXCEPT for the people actually DOING THE SEARCHES who said Saddam was clean of the very weapons that this administration insisted he had"

The search wasn't finished. Saddam repeatedly kicked out inspectors. Do you NOT remember the Iraqi surveillance on the Inspectors? How UN Inspectors were thwarted by the Iraqi military - calling ahead to inspection sites before inspectors could arrive? How inspectors were prevented at times from entering certain sites? Have you conveniently forgotten the games Saddam continued playing?

Oh wait.. Saddam was innocent – Right, Rick?!

"We invaded based on CURRENT POSESSION of those weapons – not what he posessed a DECADE-PLUS prior."

This proved he would use WMDs mercilessly, Rick.

How about we put it a way a 5 year old could understand… If you're a dictator - guilty of gassing thousands of your own people, invading Kuwait, a history of 10 UN Resolutions calling for you to disarm ~ prove disarmament ~ and allow full inspections, DO NOT kick out UN Inspectors while the army of your enemy is next door (and yes - ESPECIALLY when you attempted to kill the father of the sitting President).

Thanks for the baseball analogy too. Suspecting your a Cubs fan - I completely understand why you're so uptight!

Anonymous … "Oh and Rick, if you are driving and get pulled over, and heroin is found, you are responsible, as the car’s owner. You still go to jail."

Good luck making those charges stick if the authorities know for a fact that others have been using your car for YEARS while you were gone - especially when "gone for years" means "already IN jail" when the heroin is found in the car.

"you better make sure you get the civilians out too."

No, WE don't have to get them out, they can just stay there because the Iraqis will have stepped up and started doing the fighting and the dying for their own damn country right?

If not … TOO BAD! It's THEIR fault, not ours. We gave them plenty of time to stop fighting at OUR expense.

"Oh, and in a few years when World War III starts in the Middle East if we pull out (as it surely will),"

LOL … WW3 is going to break out if we leave Iraq now? Just like you guys all said about Vietnam .. and were proven wrong!

"you can at least say you supported our troops."

I can say I support them NOW.

By NOT wanting them to die for people who have a nonchalant attitude towards the security of their own country, people who only show up every 3 or 4 days to complete their combat training, and for a govt who thinks it's "too hot" for them to sit and govern while WE fight and die - for them.

Can YOU say that?

Yeah, I didn't think so!

Rick from Chicago:

Thank you for always posting the truth on this blog site, your posts are always refreshing to read. Keep up the good work!

Oh Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied!! Christ, people the majority of the Senate didnt even read the damn intelligence report and voted for the war anyway.

Oh, but thats okay, they were misled, so…

Please. The fact is we screwed up and invaded, and made the country a mess. If you make a mess, youre supposed to clean it up, and that means cleaning it up completely, not just brushing dirt under a rug, and leaving it behind for someone else to fix it.

Oh and Rick, if you are driving and get pulled over, and heroin is found, you are responsible, as the car's owner. You still go to jail.

Furthermore when has the UN ever supported anything they've passed. Its full of a bunch of talk hard do nothing politicians, who were too busy lining their own pockets to really care about what was going on over there.

The fact is, if you pull all of the troops out of there, you better make sure you get the civilians out too. Oh, and in a few years when World War III starts in the Middle East if we pull out (as it surely will), you can at least say you supported our troops. Granted, more will die if we are forced to go back in, but thats okay, because at least it wont be based on Bush's lie.

The question is what enemy is US fighting in Iraq and why are they enemy?

Hillary is falling in the polls in the lead states.

Someone made a comment that it is not clear that the mid east region will fall into more chaos if we withdraw.

Actually, it has been well documented and even CNN is reporting on the issue and quoting ARAB diplomats in the area around Iraq. CNN didn't consult one politician in their investigation.

If you're justifying pulling the troops out because of no proof of greater conflict, then you haven't done your homework -at all.

Nothing is scarier than Shillary at the helm in this time of great conflict. Whomever you want to blame for the mess, go ahead, but pulling out is a second mistake far worst than the first. Wake up. The Peace Dividend is a myth.

Jon, Sacramento ~ Ca … "I’ll take my chances with our Military leaders."

Does this include the leaders who were retired for not telling Dubya the TRUTH - which wasn't what he wanted to hear?

Does this include the leaders who haven't gotten the job done after FOUR-PLUS years of trying vs a third world country with 1/1000th the military we have?

Or the leaders that unfortunately have no choice now but to blindly follow whatever orders and mission they're given like good soldiers regardless of the fact that there's no U.S. military solution to someone ELSE'S civil war?

And does this include Dubya (as a military leader)? The guy who was stupid enough to send the troops off to war without necessary armor to die based on intel he knew was suspect? Who said "I don't think you can win "it" - a war on terror - after he send them over to fight it? Who repeatedly lied and said we WERE winning the war up until his Sec of Defense said we WEREN'T? Who refuses to make Iraqis accountable for their OWN lack of progress in fighting their OWN damn war while their govt takes a vacation cuz its "too hot" to govern? The same guy who NEVER personally even saw combat because his daddy got him a gig in a champaign unit of the National Guard flying for Viet Kong over TEXAS in a plane not suitable for combat in Vietnam before he flunked a physical for reasons he won't disclose and refused to re-take the physical so he could continue doing the job the military paid him GOOD money to do?

Does it?

With leaders like THAT … I'll take my chances with anybody else.

Jon, Sacramento ~ Ca … "I’ll take my chances with our Military leaders."

Does this include the leaders who were retired for not telling Dubya the TRUTH - which wasn't what he wanted to hear?

Does this include the leaders who haven't gotten the job done after FOUR-PLUS years of trying vs a third world country with 1/1000th the military we have?

Or the leaders that unfortunately have no choice now but to blindly follow whatever orders and mission they're given like good soldiers regardless of the fact that there's no U.S. military solution to someone ELSE'S civil war?

And does this include Dubya (as a military leader)? The guy who was stupid enough to send the troops off to war without necessary armor to die based on intel he knew was suspect? Who said "I don't think you can win "it" - a war on terror - after he send them over to fight it? Who repeatedly lied and said we WERE winning the war up until his Sec of Defense said we WEREN'T? Who refuses to make Iraqis accountable for their OWN lack of progress in fighting their OWN damn war while their govt takes a vacation cuz its "too hot" to govern? The same guy who NEVER personally even saw combat because his daddy got him a gig in a champaign unit of the National Guard flying for Viet Kong over TEXAS in a plane not suitable for combat in Vietnam before he flunked a physical for reasons he won't disclose and refused to re-take the physical so he could continue doing the job the military paid him GOOD money to do?

Does it?

With leaders like THAT … I'll take my chances with anybody else.

Thanks for remaining brainwashed by FOX News - where blind patriotism is routinely substituted for critical thinking and common sense.

Jon, Sacramento ~ Ca … I’ll keep track of how you're doing as I go along.

UN Security Council Resolution 1441 was so “important” to the UN, that even THEY didn’t support using it as a basis for invasion. It’s a historical FACT that NOTHING WAS SUPPORTED based on UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Congress and the American people supported an invasion based on the “imminent threat of WMDs” LIE, and Dubya invaded based on “he tried to kill my daddy”.

Then again Wolfowitz said the real reason we invaded Iraq was so we could remove our troops from Saudi Arabia - and the WMD's was the only thing that the Bush administration could get everyone to agree on as a logical basis for war to remove those troops.

So either way, you’re “we invaded based on Resolution 1441” argument is a based on a blatant lie.

0-1!

“This resolution also called for Iraq to surrendor current WMDs or provide evidence of their destruction.”
Not accounting for something did not automatically mean they currently possessed it. And Hans Blix faulted the administration for assuming exactly that. How do you prove you destroyed something you don’t even have? And that we STILL haven't proven they had?

See, here’s what Bush did … and he was smart in a way. Bush knew that no weapons were being found. And he knew that the longer inspectors searched and didn’t find them, the worse the US would look – especially if the US attacked, which was a foregone conclusion anyway since he was planing this since “practically the first day in office” according to Contradicta Rice. So rather than logically find the WMDs (that they weren’t finding) before he invaded, Bush decided to pull a switch and make a corollary that would put the burden of proof on Saddam rather than the US. Pretty much … “Well, we can’t prove he has them, so we’ll just make HIM prove that he doesn’t. We still can’t prove he’s guilty, so we’ll just make him prove he’s innocent.”

And, once AGAIN, The burden of proof is on the accuser - not on the accused. It’s called “innocent until proven guilty” - not visa versa. Perhaps you’ve heard of something called the Constitution? You might want to check under Duby’s foot for it.

0-2!

“Global Intelligence provided by England, Germany, France combined with the Clinton Administration’s compilation overwhelming suggested WMDs were present.”

Overwhelmingly EXCEPT for the people actually DOING THE SEARCHES who said Saddam was clean of the very weapons that this administration insisted he had. Clinton only had heresay as evidence. Dubya the most recent and CONTRADICTORY evidence possible - results of real-time, actual searches which turned up nothing.

And you can name and quote all the people you want (to support your “Well, they SAID so!” argument) who were WRONG about Saddam having WMD's - it doesn’t support your case. They were ALL wrong!

Bush chose to ignore the inspectors who told him they doubted Saddam had those weapons (based on actual SEARCHES) … and therefore chose to ignore the very people who would be the ones to KNOW whether or not Saddam had them. That’s like Bush demanding a lung be removed even though a licensed physician tells him there's no cancer!

So forget what the inspectors say … believe Chalabi, Curveball, the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress, and BLATANTLY forged documents right?

0-3!

“Not to mention Saddam USED wmds - killing thousands of Kurds.”

We invaded based on CURRENT POSESSION of those weapons – not what he posessed a DECADE-PLUS prior.

0-4!

“Granted after a thorough search no huge stockpiles were found - but warheads, documentation of development, etc were present.”

Yep .. documentation of PREVIOUS programs that were stopped. Are you gonna say that we should have invaded based purely on the existence of documentation - of abandoned programs - now too? You could attack pretty much any of our former enemies in the world with that logic!

And let’s look at those warheads shall we? Are you talking about the mortar shells that have been proven NEGATIVE for blistering agents? Or sarin shells that while found in Iraq, STILL cant be tied to Saddam by the U.S. govt’s own admission (Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt)?

You can prove that they weren’t left over from the Gulf War a decade-plus earlier or that they weren't from US recently since those m155 shells are still used by the U.S. marines and fired from an m198 howitzer?

Better yet, how can you prove that the “shells, etc” weren’t from any of the thousands of terrorists have been swarming in across the border into Iraq and bringing GOD KNOWS WHAT in with them since the borders weren’t secured by enough troops?

Let me put it a way that even a 10 year old can understand it. If you lend your car to someone while you’re away for a few years, and heroin is found it it, is it automatically YOURS? If you go on vacation and other people have been partying in your house for 5 months while you were away … is whatever found there while you were gone automatically YOURS? That’s the same situation in Iraq after Saddam was removed. And that’s why your “well … it was found there” argument isn’t conclusive proof and is completely irrelevant.

I wont even bother discussing those "mobile weapons labs" that turned out to be water trucks!

That would make you 0-5 buddy.

Good luck with your next post!

I could hardly bear to read the article due to the terrible grammar slapping me in the face in the first sentence! This is yet another example of what Morris Berman describes in Dark Ages America. We already know we can't trust anyone in the current administration.

The fact that Sen. Clinton has Robert Gates' attention should make it obvious who has the clout among the Dem hopefuls.

Jon California, your 5:12 posting could not say it any better.

Yeah, I know Clintonista's, only Bush lied and the world loved us when Clinton was in office.

Tell that to the people that lost loved ones in the 1st WTC bombing, USS Cole (my navy brother's), multiple embassies etc etc.

Bush lied and we were loved, keep repeating it doesn't make it true.

That's right Hillary! Keep that real Hillary hidden, don't want the unsuspecting public accosted by that vixen, right?

Shhh, Clinton, we need to watch out for the boogeyman!

Jon:

but CLEARLY pulling out now will only assure greater violence/bloodshed in the region, greater instability, and very likely us being drawn in (again) because of the resulting pull-out.

That's not clear at all. The only thing that is clear is that thousands of Americans will be back home, and the Fed won't have to be printing money overtime.

I believe President Bush, Sr. should have gone for the jugular during the Gulf War and removed Sadam. However, had he done so, well….what would have most Americans (and the world)said about him and this nation? The result..more than a decade for Sadam to prepare for inevitable! We cannot and should not back down in Iraq. We should continue to support our heroic Soldiers for what they are doing in the name of Democracy. If we do not, we send out a message to the world that the US does not stand behind what our forefathers believed in and established for all of us to enjoy today: The Declaration of Independence; Bill of Rights; and our Constitution!

I believe we will be in Iraq for many years and that our next President, once in office, will realize that one thing is running for President and another is when you are actually the President. God Bless America.

Pete, TS Florida

I'll bet you were one of those voters in Florida confused by the butterfly ballot and now you're just angry cause you voted for Buchanan and not gore?

Supporting troops = getting them home

Pete it may come as a huge surprise but we have military personnel deployed not just in Iraq: Germany, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Turkey, Netherlands, England, Cuba, Greece, Iceland, Bahrain, and Spain.

Are we not supporting THESE troops cause they're "not home"?

Supporting the troops means making sure the best resources available to get the job done… and THEN come home. I understand the cut-and-run crowd wants to hide behind the false pretense of helping the troops…but CLEARLY pulling out now will only assure greater violence/bloodshed in the region, greater instability, and very likely us being drawn in (again) because of the resulting pull-out.

How about we all let the Commanding Generals guide deployment policy? Granted I know you're quite qualified as a foreign policy expert… but I'll take my chances with our Military leaders.

Clinton stripped the budget because we just had won the Cold War.

It is called the Peace Dividend…taxpayers finally getting a return on their investment.

Now ironically we are spending more than we did during the peak of the Cold War to chase down people that hide in caves and don't have a single jet or ship in their arsenal.

We are not going to win any wars by going bankrupt or letting our country fall apart from within.

Vicki, Waterloo

“Maybe the candidates need to revisit the past before they demand anything”.

You should take a trip down history lane yourself; it was the first Bush prior to the gulf war who started the downsizing and troop reductions.

“WE THE PEOPLE”

"Our men and women were not called upon. Bush said if the UN wouldn’t act, we would go it alone. So the UN kept reporting no foul play by Saddam, Bush swore their were WMDs, and the US invaded Iraq. The UN was right. We never found WMDs and that’s when the story started to change. “The people who caused 9/11 are in Iraq.” “We are helping people by removing an evil dictator.” It just makes me wonder what today would be like had we not invaded Iraq by mustering post-9/11 support around a false story."

Taylor, you may WANT to actually review the actual account of what happened preceding our intervention in Iraq - as opposed to what you think you remember.

UN Security Council Resolution 1441 - passed uninmously (including China, France, Russia, and Arab nations) on 11/8/02 - offering Iraq 'a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" - set forth in previous resolutions #660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, and 1284.

This resolution also called for Iraq to surrendor current WMDs or provide evidence of their destruction. Global Intelligence provided by England, Germany, France combined with the Clinton Administration's compilation overwhelming suggested WMDs were present. Not to mention Saddam USED wmds - killing thousands of Kurds. Granted after a thorough search no huge stockpiles were found - but warheads, documentation of development, etc were present.

Taylor - PLEASE look into the truth and quit just echoing the Bush-Lied mantra.

Jon, Sacramento

Immediately go to the E.R. and have your stomach pumped, you obviously ingested too much of the Kool-Aid. You don’t support the troops; you support the president and his misguided and illegal war.

Supporting the troops means not letting them die while Bush and co try to figure out what to do next. It means getting them home!

And by the way Clinton wanting answers is her job; she never wanted a public briefing.

“WE THE PEOPLE”

It is awful nice of Gates to extend her that type of courtesy. Quite frankly, I don't she can discern her butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to anything militarily. Nothing would mobilize the Christian right and anyone affiliated with the military more than giving her the nomination.

"Q: Who trained and equipped the military who so easily won the combat phases of the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq? Bill Clinton. "

LOL… oh my sides are hurting from that one!! The only thing Bill Clinton was training was Monica on how to be a cigar affectionado.

Saddam was given several deadlines to comply with UN Resolutions and allow inspectors to finish their work. He refused. Our good men and women were called on to inforce these UN Resolutions (with the help of other nations) - remove Saddam, eliminate insurgent resistance, and help establish law and order. It may not be very noble to you.. but I proudly support the efforts of our brave soldiers.

Our men and women were not called upon. Bush said if the UN wouldn't act, we would go it alone. So the UN kept reporting no foul play by Saddam, Bush swore their were WMDs, and the US invaded Iraq. The UN was right. We never found WMDs and that's when the story started to change. "The people who caused 9/11 are in Iraq." "We are helping people by removing an evil dictator." It just makes me wonder what today would be like had we not invaded Iraq by mustering post-9/11 support around a false story.

Thanks for giving us an incorrect history lesson.

I applaud Clinton for asking for proper Constitutional oversight to make sure that there is a plan in place for withdrawl. Not a *date*, people, just a plan. Considering how little attention the present junta paid to post-combat preparedness (over the objections of the military and just about any expert they might have asked), I think it is a proper request, despite whatever I feel towards Clinton as a candidate.
As for Vicky fom Waterloo and her comment that "(Hilary) can downsize the military just like her husband and the troops will be deployed longer and more often then they are now," ask a Q: Who trained and equipped the military who so easily won the combat phases of the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq? Bill Clinton. Who has had 6 years to increase the size of the military if he so desired? Bush II.
You can blame some things on Clinton, but not this one.

WHY NOT WORKING ON THE WAR,JOBS,ECONOMY,OUT SOURCE JOBS,TAXES?

I somehow recall the 'governator' making an important announcement on Leno's show. These are comedy shows and some of you sound like you could use a good laugh-choose Dave BETTERMAN!

If you want to lower morale of the military, elect Clinton. She can downsize the military just like her husband and the troops will be deployed longer and more often then they are now. Why not tell Congress the exact dates for withdrawals? There has never been a leak of sensitive information from Congress. Maybe the candidates need to revisit the past before they demand anything.

Andy ~ Rancho SM, CA "Defense Secy. Gates’ response is totally inadequate"

What would you have him say pubically, Andy? "Yes Hillary we're pulling out in 3 stages beginning April 2008 out of the Baghdad Airport at 7:30 am"??? Hillary is the one making this a public spectacle!

Jen ~ Portland "me explain..our soliders are dieing in vain because Iraq has never been and never will be a noble cause."

I understand many Americans have lost sight of what was really happening when the US Troops began liberating Iraq. Let me remind you… Our good men and women in the military were irradicating the Taliban from Afghanistan. Meanwhile Saddam (ruthless dictator with "reported" WMDs and continuing to defy UN resolutions) kicked out UN inspectors. Saddam was given several deadlines to comply with UN Resolutions and allow inspectors to finish their work. He refused. Our good men and women were called on to inforce these UN Resolutions (with the help of other nations) - remove Saddam, eliminate insurgent resistance, and help establish law and order. It may not be very noble to you.. but I proudly support the efforts of our brave soldiers.

In what sense does Hillary Clinton or any Democratic truly honor our troops when they dishonor our mission. What does Senator Clinton or Senator Reid think the troops hear when defeatist rhetoric is used?

The Pentagon already despises Hillary. Back in the "co-presidency" she refused to let officers where their uniforms in the White House. Not to mention their stripping the military of their budget. Yeah, Im sure they want to tell you anything Hill..

None of the demos seem to so cowardly that they can't tell the truth that our soliders have and are dieing in vain..do they just not understand what that means? well let me explain..our soliders are dieing in vain because Iraq has never been and never will be a noble cause..they do what they are told trusting the commander in chief, and going to war based on lies..If Iraq is a noble cause then why do the Dems want to impeach Bush, and why do most Americans want are troops home..Mike Gravel is not saying he is not supporting our troop, what he is saying is that our soliders are dieing for no good reason..For once could we get someone to tell the truth?The way it's looking with the 3 leading canidates, nothing is going to change.

Good point Jon. If she wants to see contingency plans why is she airing it to the press? Be responsible. I'm sure the Pentagon is anxious to show her all kinds of sensitive info after this public airing.

Yep, the invasion is the worst thing this country has done since Vietnam (and then some), but what do we do now? It's true that we need to be careful not to allow our eventual retreat to be exploited as a sign of our weakness, but maybe now is a time for a little humility since we caused this mess.
I love the last quote about us having no reason to have confidence in the administration's handling of the world's complexities anymore.
And get ready for the armchair warriors' responses about Democrats "cut and running" or whatever. I'd like to see these wannabes patrolling the streets of Tikrit.

Defense Secy. Gates' response is totally inadequate. I am not surprised anyway. This is yet another example of the inner-circle of George Bush, where they all conspire and question the patriotism of his opponent. I think it is time that American public wake up and realize that they have a crook/imbacile in the White House.

I am so tired of hearing that we cannot get pertinent information in the name of "national security" and that our troops are hurt by the American people asking questions. What exactly did our forefather's fight for again???? It has been lost in the bush!!

Hillary is not worried about the morale of our troops or her encouraging word to our enemies. Ditto for the rest of the demorats. Its plain to see that their highlighting of US deaths in a bias media provides them with shortsighted political advancements. "Stop the War on Terror" is their bumper sticker issue.

Treason: a crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor.

That looks "Presidential" Hillary… How about next time you just stamp your feet and throw a hissy fit because the Pentagon is worried about not PUBLICALLY discussing these issues… unlike you who sends letters and makes demands through news conferences.

Hillary Clinton - antagonistic, political, and personal grand-standing at the potential cost of our troops safety.

Nice.

What's the problem? Clinton already has said she plans on keeping 50,000 troops anyways.

Gates and Edelman are just playing games.

Thanx, you suddenly brainless Republicans. You've given Hillary Clinton major sand in the nomination fight with your obvious terror at the idea of another Clinton in the White House.

Wow. Clinton's lead is widening, even among blacks vs. Obama. As probably the most conservative of the Dems (note, whiners, I said "of the Dems"), Hillary is now the clear favorite to take on whomever the Republicans can come up with.

What more fun than a Hillary vs. Rudy prez campaign? Can you imagine the fun?

Better yet, Thompson vs. Hillary. No cue cards to help Thompson = ground long pig for Clinton.

So it was a lie when she said during the debate that he called her un-patriotic?

As usual she lies, gets great press and nobody calls her on it.

Gates: “need to be careful not to undermine the morale of our troops or encourage our enemies”

That would be EXACTLY what President Bush and his Neo Con supporters are doing by leaving our troops hunkered down in the slums of Iraq.

Bring them home now!