| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
20 Jul 2007 11:33:03 AM |
| Object: |
Pentagon official sounded like a refugee from Limbaugh or Hannity |
http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/14130/pentagon-official-accuses-hillary-clinton-of-boosting-enemy-propaganda/
Pentagon Official Accuses Hillary Clinton Of Boosting Enemy Propaganda
By Joe Gandelman
Mark July 19, 2007 down as the day when a Pentagon official crossed a
line and veered not just into partisanship but a return to the
mid-20th century form of political demonization and categorization
known as “McCarthyism.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070719/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_iraq
It was the day the news emerged that a Pentagon bigwig talked about a
member of the opposition party — who also happens to be a United
States Senator — in a partisan manner that wasn’t even done by
Pentagon officials at the height of the Vietnam war.
The official sounded more like a refugee from Rush Limbaugh or Sean
Hannity’s show than the kind of stand-back and analyze and respond
official who is usually entrusted to be one of the Pentagon’s official
faces.
This was far different than the combative former Defense Secretary
Donald Rumseld:
The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham
Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually
withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.
So we have now apparently moved to a point where a United States
Senator who asks questions is in effect accused of enabling the enemy
(the words “aid and comfort” were NOT actually used).
Question:
Since when in American history have Senators and Congressmen been told
that their job descriptions don’t allow and require the most vigorous
kind of questioning — the kind of questioning and testing that often
results in either better policies or better explanations from
government officials to justify their policies?
MORE:
In a stinging rebuke to a member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded to
questions Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to
start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces.
A copy of Edelman’s response, dated July 16, was obtained Thursday by
The Associated Press.
“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 wrote.
He added that “such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi
allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks.”
One question, of course, becomes: how did the AP get the document?
Did they get it from a third party?
Or from a member of Ms. Clinton’s camp?
It actually matters little, since Edelman’s comments by implication
also accuse THE BULK OF AMERICANS of helping the enemy since polls
show support for the war is south and headed into South Pole polar
bear territory.
Ms. Clinton’s camp was not amused.
Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman’s answer “at once
outrageous and dangerous,” and said the senator would respond to his
boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
And how WILL Gates respond?
Gates is closer to the Bush 41 crowd, which had more respect for
coalition building, Congress — and the way the constitution was
originally set up. Will Gates ignore her response? Try to defuse the
issue? Or do what would be wisest: transfer Edelman from his job or
fire him?
Writes Andrew Sullivan:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/the-pentagon-vs.html
If the Bushies wanted to shore up her anti-war credentials with the
base, they’ve given her a golden opportunity to grandstand.
It was, in my view, a grotesque over-reach from a Cheney protege at
the Pentagon….Memo to the Pentagon: senators are not the enemy, and
asking for accountability is not treason.
Prediction:
if this is a new way to try to shut off Senate debate, it’s going to
boomerang.
The Bush administration is already beset in many ways, defying
Congress by the day and now saying it has the right to have the
Justice Department ignore Congressional requests for prosecution of
administration officials for contempt of Congress.
There are now some Republicans clamoring for either a change in policy
or an acceleration of America’s eventual exit.
And their numbers will grow.
So who will that leave as the country’s only “true” patriots who don’t
want to help the enemy?
Administration members and talk show hosts?
BOTTOM LINE:
This is one more strand in what is turning out to be one of the most
troubling, troubled and UNconservative administrations in all of
American history.
UPDATE:
The New York Daily News has some interesting background about the
official who contends members of Congress should shut up or they’re
helping the enemy:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/07/20/2007-07-20_hil_helps_enemies_sez_defense_big-1.html
Although Edelman questioned Clinton’s patriotism, political observers
called the attack by Cheney’s former deputy national security adviser
“a gift.
The barb from Edelman - who once worked for convicted liar Lewis
(Scooter) Libby - could reassure some anti-war Democrats still irked
by Clinton’s early support for the Iraq War.
“This helps her. She will be seen as the lightning rod that the right
attacks because she asks the tough questions. It’s a badge of honor,”
said Baruch College political scientist Doug Muzzio.
The caustic letter was part of a major White House political pushback
to buy more time for the Baghdad troop surge.
To that end, the Pentagon hosted classified briefings yesterday for
more than 100 senators and representatives.
Presumably members of Congress will now push back and DEMAND the
report in September as promised — but the military is now saying they
need MORE TIME than September to offer a judgment.
______________________________________________________
Harry
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
