Now, after reading this interview he gave today to the New York Times, how could anyone ever mention "Churchill" and "Giuliani" in the same sentence again:
“Neither one of these two wars – the one in Afghanstan/Pakistan or the one in Iraq – was nearly at the level of the planning we had done for the two wars we would have to fight at once,” he said. “Both of them would be considered small wars in comparison to that. So it would seem to me that we should have organized ourselves so that we could accomplish in Iraq what we had to accomplish without taking anything away from accomplishing in Afghanistan and Pakistan what we had to accomplish.”
First of all...we fought a war in Pakistan?! How did I manage to miss that. Maybe it was the week that the Eagles were in the Super Bowl, since I don't remember reading about it in my newspaper. If Giuliani were president when he made an offhand comment like that, it could spark the proverbial "international incident."
Beyond that, does anyone understand what he's trying to say here? It's clear that Giuliani wants to "accomplish" something somewhere that wasn't "accomplished," although I'm now sure what or where or, most importantly, how. It sounds like he's trying to sound like he's criticizing Bush without saying anything that could be later read by anyone as, you know, critical.
Does America really want this guy anywhere near the finger on the button? That war with Pakistan could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
No comments:
Post a Comment