In the wake of the attack on Hillary Clinton by Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman, two major conservative editorial pages have published editorials suggesting that supporters of withdrawal from Iraq are treasonous and support genocide.
First, the New York Post published an editorial titled "Comforting the enemy" that suggested Clinton's focus is on "undermining [the] mission" of US troops:
Comforting the enemy
Don't be misled by the outraged tone of Sen. Hillary Clinton's response to a top Pentagon aide who accused her of "reinforcing enemy propaganda" on Iraq. The Democratic presidential front-runner was handed a political opportunity - and is milking it for all it's worth.
The fact is, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman was on the mark in his attack. Asked by Clinton about plans for withdrawing troops from Iraq, he wrote in reply:
"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."
It's difficult to argue with that - especially the part about "public discussion."
...Clinton responded with a public display of mock outrage, insisting Defense Secretary Robert Gates declare whether he agrees with Edelman's letter. Taken as a whole, it's hard to see why Gates would take issue with it.
The focus in Washington should be on helping the troops - not on undermining their mission...
In addition, the Washington Times ran an editorial titled "The genocide-ocrats?" suggesting Democrats "plan to milk defeatism," accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of attempting "to damage the war effort," and calling Clinton "invested in defeat":
The genocide-ocrats?
Although the Senate's refusal on Wednesday to permit the Democratic leadership to attach a surrender timeline to the defense authorization is welcome news, congressional Democrats remain convinced that opposing the war is a politically popular position, and they plan to milk defeatism for all it's worth...
The failure of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's latest attempt to damage the war effort gives our soldiers and diplomats in essence a two-month reprieve until Gen. David Petraeus delivers his much-awaited report on the situation. But we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that things will change dramatically one way or the other in the next few months...
Yet Mrs. Clinton is apparently so invested in defeat that she has been trying to browbeat the Defense Department into publicly discussing contingency plans for withdrawing from Iraq. After she sent a letter on the subject to DoD, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded by warning bluntly that premature discussion of withdrawal "reinforces enemy propaganda" that the United States will abandon our allies in Iraq — as we previously did in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kerry responded by introducing legislation requiring a Pentagon briefing on an Iraq pullout — in other words advertising U.S. willingness to abandon another ally. For the record, here's the way Osama bin Laden characterized Mrs. Clinton's husband's ignominious withdrawal from Somalia in an October 2001 interview with CNN: "America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing. America left faster than anyone expected." Now, Mrs. Clinton is apparently hoping to stage a repeat performance in Iraq.
Comments