Here's the important passage in Edelman's letter.
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. … Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risk in order to achieve compromises of national reconciliation. …
Kaplan perceptively argues that what Edelman is doing is making the equivalent of a treason accusation against Hillary Clinton and that Edelman's treatment of Hillary might cause the Bush administration more trouble with the Senate and with female voters.
What Kaplan does not recognize is that Eric Edelman, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity all believe that Hillary Clinton in fact is committing treason when she advocates troop withdrawals. For right-wing audiences reinforcing "enemy propoganda" (what little there is of it) is a form of "aiding and abetting the enemy" under the definition of treason in the constitution. Likewise, they think of the Lincoln administration's suspension of habeas corpus, closing of pro-Confederate newspapers, and arrest of prominate pro-Southern political figures provides historical precedents for treating people like Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton as traitors.
What stops the Eric Edelmans of the Bush administration from openly advocating the arrest of
people like Hillary Clinton is their sense that they don't have the power to make it stick. But, that's really the only thing.
Posts
3 comments:
...And here we are again. Yesterday it was "Hillary-Anne" on the beach talking glibly of executing those of us opposed to the Iraq war. And now we have some piss-ant undersecretary of defense all but accusing Senator Clinton of treason, not because she actually did something for which she deserved reproach but because she had the temerity to ask a question as Senators have the duty to do from time-to-time. This tells us that the pentagon has a serious problem; they don't want anyone to know that there is no exit strategy because this President does not intend to exit. They don't want anyone to know that they intend to keep a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq. They don't want people to become aware of their long-term plans in the middle-east. The powers-that-be, from Bush and Cheney, to the aforementioned piss-ant undersecretary to the right-wing idiot-patrol on talk-radio and fox "news" have collectively isolated themselves from all the evidence, military advice, members of the President's own party, and the American people. They hope to capitalize the the notorious apathy of the larger part of the American citizenry who are barely aware that we are at war and to marginalize those who offer questions or dissent, be they Democratic candidates for President or the mother of a soldier needlessly killed who simply wants to know for what "noble purpose" was her son slaughtered. In point of fact, questions from members of the House and the Senate on both sides of the aisle have, for too long, been ignored or simply never asked. It is time for Congress to act on behalf of the American people and on behalf of U.S. soldiers. They deserve our strong, unwavering support. That is what Senator Clinton was attempting to do and immediatley she is treated as one who has given "aid and comfort to the enemy." Senator Clinton was right to ask her question and she is right in her refusal to back down. It is time for Congress to reassure the American people that the President cannot continue his dangerous go-it-alone foreign policy. It is time for Congress to put an end to the President's reckless disregard for the truth about Iraq. It is time to put an end to this disasterous war that never needed to be fought in the first place.
Yes, a candidate for office needs all of the military's plans, who by the way, plan for all sorts of contingencies, in order to properly wage her campaign in the Democratic primary.
Go it alone foreign policy? Great Britain, Australia, and all of the others that are participating in this would beg to differ. How noble of you to denigrate their sacrifice.
She has a right to know as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and as one of New York's U.S. Senators.
Great Britain sent maybe several thousand troops to our..what is it now..150,000 or better. I think their numbers there have been under 10,000 and because of the presence and casualties on a smaller scale than those we have suffered, Tony Blair's career ended with a fizzle and the new PM is pulling them out. I think Australia's contribution was/is in the high hundreds. I don't know if they've lost anyone. I certainly do not denigrate the sacrifice of any person who serves in any military but this hardly constitutes a "coalition."
Post a Comment