For example, the day after the YouTube debate, the Miami Herald had a headline that read:

Obama, Edwards say they would meet with Castro, Chavez.

(http://www.miamiherald.com/579/story/179 947.html)

It doesn't take much imagination to envision these same headlines featured ad nauseam within the deluge of GOP campaign ads hitting the Florida airwaves morphing Democratic Presidential nominee Obama with Castro and Ahmadinejad. Tell me again the upside for the Democrats in needlessly angering the Cubans and the Jews?

Why should the Democrats elect a candidate who would so recklessly hand Florida's electoral votes to the GOP, and on a silver-platter, nonetheless?

The GOP will eat Obama alive on this one.

Eat. Obama. Alive.

Here we see both Obama and Edwards running so far Left they are at the point of no return. How can they go back to the middle now?

Go far Left on healthcare - yes. Go far left on Education - yes. But on Foreign Policy? Today!

Obama and Edwards couldn't get reelected to the Senate again with this display.

Here we have Clinton asking for withdrawal plans from the DOD and Gates scrambles to respond to her...

And Obama and Edwards want to meet with Castro!!

Who is the experienced politician here? Which strategy would America endorse if they had to chose one? Withdrawal plans or meeting with Castro?

I assure you, however, that as with other plans, we are always evaluating and planning for possible contingencies.

Gates also makes the same point about public discussion of withdrawal plans:

[W]e all recognize that there are multiple audiences for what we say, and need to be careful not to undermine the morale of our troops or encourage our enemies.

[A]s Under Secretary Edelman and officials from many previous administrations have stated, it is also the Department's longstanding practice and policy spanning decades and mulitple Administrations that operational military plans, including contingency plans, are not routinely shared with the Congress...

Specifically, I emphatically assure you that we do not claim, suggest, or otherwise believe that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies, nor do we question anyone's motives in this regard. My statements to this effect have been frequent and unambiguous. That said, we all recognize that there are multiple audiences for what we say, and need to be careful not to undermine the morale of our troops or encourage our enemies -- the point I think Ambassador Edelman was trying to make in his letter.

With respect to your specific request, the Department's policy is to share appropriate information regarding policies, posture, and administrative plans with appropriate Congressional oversight committees. But as Under Secretary Edelman and officials from many previous Administrations have stated, it is also the Department's long-standing practice and policy spanning decades and multiple Administrations that operational military plans, including contingency plans, are not routinely shared wit ht e Congress (or with other departments of the Executive Branch). The are a number of time-proven reasons for this policy, including considerations of operational security, the fact that plans are continuously modified as required by changing security conditions, and the need to protect the operations commander's ability to implement the plan as flexibly as the situation warrants. In short, the Department has to ensure that no commander is constrained by a plan that no longer comports with the situation on the ground.

All this said, I would be pleased to work with you and the Senate Armed Services Committee to establish a process to keep you apprised of the conceptual thinking, factors, considerations, questions and objectives associated with drawdown planning.

That said, we all recognize that there are multiple audiences for what we say, and need to be careful not to undermine the morale of our troops or encourage our enemies -- the point I think Ambassador Edelman was trying to make in his letter.

Finally, I want to close by expressing my continued strong support for Ambassador Edelman. Dr. Edelman is a valued member of the Department of Defense team and his wise counsel and years of experience are critically important to the many pressing policy issues facing the military and our nation.

You are already limited to 4 comments a day.

That was the higher ups decision.