Items 1, 2, 3 blah blah, and 4 MEANS"Kick you in the nuts!"
Posted on 09/05/2006 6:11:05 PM PDT by bnelson44
September 5, 2006
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid 528 Hart SOB United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Reid:
Thank you for your September 4 letter to the President. I am responding on his behalf.
A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires an accurate and fair-minded description of our current policy: As the President has explained, our goal is an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself. In order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy along three main tracks -- political, economic, and security. Along each of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics to meet conditions on the ground. We have witnessed both successes and setbacks along the way, which is the story of every war that has been waged and won.
Your letter recites four elements of a proposed "new direction" in Iraq. Three of those elements reflect well-established Administration policy; the fourth is dangerously misguided.
First, you propose "transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection." That is what we are now doing, and have been doing for several years. Our efforts to train the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have evolved and accelerated over the past three years. Our military has had substantial success in building the Iraqi Army -- and increasingly we have seen the Iraqi Army take the lead in fighting the enemies of a free Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces still must rely on U.S. support, both in direct combat and especially in key combat support functions. But any fair-minded reading of the current situation must recognize that the ISF are unquestionably more capable and shouldering a greater portion of the burden than a year ago -- and because of the extraordinary efforts of the United States military, we expect they will become increasingly capable with each passing month. Your recommendation that we focus on counter-terrorism training and operations -- which is the most demanding task facing our troops -- tracks not only with our policy but also our understanding, as well as the understanding of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, that Iraq is a central front in the war against terror.
Second, your letter proposes "working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources." You are once again urging that the Bush Administration adopt an approach that has not only been embraced, but is now being executed. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is pursuing a national reconciliation project. It is an undertaking that (a) was devised by the Iraqis; (b) has the support of the United States, our coalition partners and the United Nations; and (c) is now being implemented. Further, in Iraq's political evolution, the Sunnis, who boycotted the first Iraq election, are now much more involved in the political process. Prime Minister Maliki is head of a free government that represents all communities in Iraq for the first time in that nation's history. It is in the context of this broad-based, unity government, and the lasting national compact that government is pursuing, that the Iraqis will consider what amendments might be required to the constitution that the Iraqi people adopted last year. On the matter of disarming militias: that is precisely what Prime Minister al-Maliki is working to do. Indeed, Coalition leaders are working with him and his ministers to devise and implement a program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate members of militias and other illegal armed groups.
Third, your letter calls for "convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort." The International Compact for Iraq, launched recently by the sovereign Iraqi government and the United Nations, is the best way to work with regional and international partners to make substantial economic progress in Iraq, help revitalize the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of that nation, and support a fair and just political settlement in Iraq -- all while preserving Iraqi sovereignty. This effort is well under way, it has momentum, and I urge you to support it.
Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the region.
On the fourth element of your proposed "new direction," however, we do disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the time is right. Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard to the conditions on the ground. Because your letter lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated by the "phased redeployment" you propose. (One such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be redeployed as a "quick reaction force" to Okinawa, which is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad).
Regardless of the specifics you envision by "phased redeployment," any premature withdrawal of U.S forces would have disastrous consequences for America's security. Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain. This "new direction" would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists. That is not a direction this President will follow. The President is being guided by a commitment to victory -- and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the counsel and recommendations of our military commanders in the region.
Finally, your letter calls for replacing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. We strongly disagree. Secretary Rumsfeld is an honorable and able public servant. Under his leadership, the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million people. Al Qaeda has suffered tremendous blows. Secretary Rumsfeld has pursued vigorously the President's vision for a transformed U.S. military. And he has played a lead role in forging and implementing many of the policies you now recommend in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld retains the full confidence of the President.
We appreciate your stated interest in working with the Administration on policies that honor the sacrifice of our troops and promote our national security, which we believe can be accomplished only through victory in this central front in the War on Terror.
Sincerely,
Joshua B. Bolten Chief of Staff
Identical Letters Sent To:
The Honorable Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader
The Honorable Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader
The Honorable Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip
The Honorable Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
The Honorable Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee
The Honorable Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
The Honorable Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee
The Honorable Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee
The Honorable Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee
The Honorable Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
The Honorable John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
# # #
Ouch! That is going to leave a mark.
The major flaw in responding to Reid in a letter is the assumption that he can read.
...and if he could read he wouldn't read it. He is only trying to make political points at the expense of our secutity.
Bumping
very good!!!!!
Reid blocked too many punches with his head. He is a complete blithering idiot and incapable of understanding Boltens letter. Maybe someone will read it to him
They could have appealed to their moderate base and improved their image considerably by presenting the first three of these policies in a bipartisan format and essentially taking the issue off the table. But their lunatic fringe wants to turn the election into another 1972 anti-war jubilee. This course attempts to satisfy both and will end up satisfying neither.
Me thinks that the Rs are finally fighting back.
I think the Bolten letter had to have pop ups...or harry Reid could not read it..at least that is what his mommy said
"The major flaw in responding to Reid in a letter is the assumption that he can read."
....I think any freeper would be honored to read it to him!
Uh. Yer thinking of the Clinton Admin!?
Does it bother you as it does me to see the title "Honorable" before the names on Mr. Reid's letter.
Honorable...not!
I don't have the pics for this, but---where was Rumsfeld on 9/11, and where was Reid?
(Hint: it won't surprise anybody.)
I think that the point of the democrat strategy is not so much as to overlook what we are currently doing, as to point to the letter at some later time, thump their chests, and say, "Look, its finally working now that they took our suggestions!" It takes a pretty uninformed electorate for them to be able to do this, but thats not a problem in this country at the present time.
A complete waste of a good ink pen. Why respond with rational, logic, concise explanations when they will only be twisted for propaganda.
An informed educated American public would have no need for this if not for the constant hate-mongering, political cynicism and contemptible evil of the leftyloser congresscritters.
He should have sent a copy to Obama signed John Bolton.
This is so well thought out and well reasoned as opposed to the sloganeering of the traitorous left.
Rumsfeld, not a young man on 9/11, was in the Pentagon. He ran toward the devastation. He tried to help people. It's the kind of person he is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.