In the 21st century, several phrases can at any moment remind you that, to the institution you’re dealing with, you’re a mere annoyance.

“Please visit us on the Web.”

“Your call is important to us.”

And the champion phrase of the Information Age, repeated in recordings, print or one of those messages assembled from individual words bolted together by a computer speaking English as a second language:

“Thank you for your interest.”

They all mean the same thing:

Go away.

Which was why it was so interesting to see it recently on Defense Department stationery, addressed to a U.S. senator.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. – maybe you’ve heard of her – wrote the Pentagon earlier this summer asking about contingency plans for departing Iraq, as many people seem to think we’ll be doing sometime, and which about 70 percent of the country thinks we should start doing now.

Recently, she heard back from Eric S. Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy. Most of the attention to Edelman’s letter has focused on his telling Clinton she should be ashamed of herself for even asking the question. “Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.”

Edelman’s suggestion – that by querying the Pentagon Clinton had signed up with al-Qaida – fits the Bush administration, which regularly accuses people of treason for questioning its parking policies.

But perhaps more striking was Edelman’s closing line: “I appreciate your interest in our mission in Iraq, and would be happy to answer any further questions.”

Edelman just about suggested Clinton should visit the Defense Department on the Web.

Many people thought it was remarkable for a Pentagon official to respond this way to a U.S. senator, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a not implausible next president. But the mark of the Bush administration is its close intermingling of incompetence with condescension (see: Gonzales, Alberto), and Edelman’s previous job was, as you might imagine, with Vice President Dick Cheney.

So you can see why Edelman might thank Clinton for her interest in Iraq as if she were a third-grader writing to ask if it was fun being undersecretary of defense.

Except she isn’t.

Demonstrating again why, unlike many Democratic candidates for president of either gender, Clinton will never face the question of whether she’s tough enough for the job, she replied not to Edelman but to his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

“Redeploying out of Iraq will be difficult and requires careful planning,” she wrote. “I continue to call on the Bush Administration to immediately provide a redeployment strategy that will keep our brave men and women safe as they leave Iraq – instead of adhering to a political strategy to attack those who rightfully question their competence and preparedness after years of mistakes and misjudgments.”

In other words:

Oh, no, Mr. Undersecretary, thank YOU for your interest.

Gates wrote back, “I truly regret that this important discussion went astray and I also regret any misunderstanding of intention. However, I trust that this response addresses your concerns and that we can continue this dialogue in a manner that keeps you and the committee properly informed and constructively furthers the national debate.”

Gates didn’t thank her for her interest.

He didn’t even assure her that her call was important to him.

Because, in ways that Gates seems to understand better than Edelman or even Cheney, it is.