Senator Hillary Clinton ain't happy.
She had made some rather loud and public demands that the US department of Defense come up with plans for withdrawal from Iraq so Congress can `critique' them.
US Defense Undersecretary Eric Edelman sent a relatively respectful and civil letter to the Senator and prospective Democrat nominee in response to her demands that she is characterizing as `blasting her' for daring to question the Administration.
“I deeply resent the administration’s continuing effort to impugn the patriotism of those of us who are asking hard questions,” Clinton told ABC News.
Of course, when one reads the letter in full, it's obvious that Senator Clinton - with the AP aiding and abetting - is using what was actually a much more respectful response than she deserved to cast herself as an anti-war `victim' of the mean ol' Bush Administration.
Or, to put it another way, she's taking quotes out of context on a serious matter to play politics, get some credibility with the Democrat Party's Leftist base to head off John Edwards and Barack Obama and get the likes of DailyKos and MoveOn off her back.
Of course, there are some parts to the letter that correctly characterize her defeatist rhetoric.Apparently, Senator Clinton didn't like what she saw in the mirror.
As Undersecretary Edelman put it,"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 risks," he added.
Now, I realize that Senator Clinton is known for her decades of expertise on all things military....but could it be that she somehow assumed that the professionals in our armed forces somehow didn't already have a contingency plan drawn up to cover this little item?
As far as any legitimate concerns Senator Clinton might have had, I think the interview I ran yesterday with General Petraeus addressed that little matter when he said that he had all his energies focused on victory, and he wasn't going to waste the time worrying about defeat.
And in any event, Edelman responded directly to Clinton by simply stating "We are always evaluating and planning for possible contingencies. As you know, it is longstanding departmental policy that operational plans, including contingency plans, are not released outside of the department."
In other words, Senator, we know what we're doing here, but we have no intention of allowing you to play politics with it.
It will be interesting to see if the Bush Administration hangs Edelman out to dry and `apologizes' or stands by what he said. It would be a refreshing change if they decided to respond forcefully to Senator Clinton.
For years, the Bush Administration has allowed the most outrageous statements, political posturing and even the leaking of classified information that hurts our war effort to go unchallenged.Because of that, the bar has been consistently lowered.
In watching how the Democrats' candidates have conducted themselves during this campaign, one thing that has struck me is their total silence, for the most part, on how they're going to fight and win this war we're in. The implication of this is obvious.
The American people are going to have a clear choice next November on whether they are going to empower victory or defeat.
1 comment:
This is the game that leftists/democrats play. When someone questions the wisdom of their policy proposals, they accuse this person of questioning the patriotism. This works for them becuase many people don't read or listen to anything outside of the main stream news media.
You see it is generally considered bad manners to question someone's patriotism. After all most of us are patriotic and would not like having our own patriotism questioned. As such, if someone is questioning their patriotism, the logic goes that the person doing the questioning must be a bad person. By making the issue about patriotism they are able to avoid discussing serious issues and the media runs interference for them.
I'm not questioning Hiliary Clinton's patriotism, however, public discussion of military plans including plans for withdrawl is unwise. Eric Edleman responded correctly to Senator Clinton when he more or less pointed this out.
I agree that Edleman will likely be held out to dry by the Bush Administration, however, like you I hope the Bush Administration will stand by him.
The problem with the Bush Administration is they are running the model of managemement that college students learn in business management courses. Under this model it assumed that while people within an organization may disagree on how to go about achieving a goal everyone has the same goal. When there are disagreements over how the goal should be achieved, the manager who operates under this model attempts to forge a compromise between the people. When people have the same goals but have differing opinions on how to achieve them, this model of management generally works quite well.
It does not work well when people have different goals. When this is the case, there is simply no way find common ground between the people. If President Bush is going to be successful, he will need to abandon the model of management that he learned in college. Bush's stubborn refusal or his ignorance in failing to recognize that the model of management he learned in business school will not work for the situation he is in only makes things worse. The longer he sticks with this model he only digs a deeper hole for himself.
Unfortunately the business school models don't teach us much about what to do when members of an organization have different goals. In the case of a small business, the problems are generally resolved when management comes out on one side or the other and purges the organization of members who don't share their views. In the case of large organizations, everyone's compensation is tied into how well the organization does. This tends to keep people working together.
What should the Bush Administration do? They can't fire people the way a manager of a corporation can. Presidents ,espceially Republican ones, are subject to a huge amount of oversight and they lack the power over the government that corporate CEOs have over their corporations. Besides, if the Bush Administration fires someone that they can fire, this person gets a huge book deal and runs b*tching to the media about how terrible the Bushies treated them. In the media's narrative the fact that the Government employee who got fired was doing every thing in their power to destroy the President and his Administration conveniantly gets ignored.
First President Bush must understand that he probably going to be impeached. Personally I think he is the worst President in American history and is worhty of impeachment. Unless he changes course no one will come to his aid. The only way he will be able to avoid impeachment will be if he aggressively confronts his enemies. It just so happens that most of his most virulent domestic enemies are also America's most virulent domestic enemies. If he stands up to the Anti-American left who hates him so much, he just might get the support of more Americans. As long as he continues trying to appease them, he will incur the wrath of everyone.
Finally, no matter what any one thinks of the President or the Democrats we cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that America is currently facing an enemy who poses a far greater threat to it than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever did or likely ever could have posed to it. This enemy is Russia, China, and the Islamic terrorist states that they support.
Post a Comment