Bush has yet to learn that old adage “if you run with dogs, you get fleas.” You may also remember Edelman as the Pentagon dog who embarrassed himself and his boss (Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates) by publicly rebuking Hillary Clinton when she enquired about Iraq disengagement plans; writing her that
"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."
I understand that point of view. Premature and public discussions can raise hell with the most devious of plans, especially when they appear in an editorial by Robert Novak. Apparently, Edelman feels that undermining northern Iraq’s Kurdish contingent by a deed so dastardly and perfidious that, in his own words, the U.S. role could be concealed and always would be denied, doesn’t unmask America’s willingness to abandon its allies in Iraq.
Define allies. Maybe Edelman means only the Brits. Novak concludes his piece,
Unconcerned is not an adjective you want to describe the mental condition of your president during a time of war.“The plan shows that hard experience has not dissuaded President Bush from attempting difficult ventures employing the use of force. On the contrary, two of the most intrepid supporters of the Iraq intervention -- John McCain and Lindsey Graham-- were surprised by Bush during a recent meeting with him. When they shared their impressions with colleagues, they commented on how unconcerned the president seemed. That may explain his willingness to embark on such a questionable venture against the Kurds.”
1 | 2
