Well, here is the letter; and this is the passage that Hillary (and you) find so offensive:

  • Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia. Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks in order to achieve compromises on national reconciliation, amending the Iraqi constitution, and other contentious issues. Fear of a precipitate U.S. withdrawal also exacerbates sectarian trends in Iraqi politics as factions become more concerned with achieving short-term tactical advantages rather than reaching the long-term agreements necessary for a stable and secure Iraq.


To the objective reader this is hardly, as Hillary claimed, "outrageous and offensive." Its a discussion of whether the tactic proposed by Hillary is a good one. There's not a word in there about her patriotism or lack thereof.

The writer only argues that it is harmful for politicians to make public demands for early withdrawal because such public demands tend to embolden the enemy. He is making a claim about the wisdom and likely consequences of her actions, not about her motives.

Hillary, however, and her syncophants (such as yourself) appear to have no response OTHER than attacking motives. Witness the desparate need to argue that the writer, an employee of a republican administration is--SURPRISE--a republican.

In the 40s and 50s, there was an adage that "politics ends at the water's edge"--that America's political parties, whatever their differences on domestic policy, were obliged to present a united front to the outside world. They might disagree internally, but not in the pages of the New York Times and on the wavelengths of ABC News. The politicians understood that publicly attacking the mission undermined the troops and emboldened the enemy.

Today, however, people like Hillary (and, yes, there are Republicans who do the same thing [see, e.g., Chuck Hagel]) seem to want to invert this principle. They assert the moral right not only to undermine U.S. foreign policy but to do so with impunity.

They want to score political points criticizing the President while demanding to be immune from criticism themselves for their own statements and actions.