He'll probably get a f*cking promotion.

As an assistant to Cheney, he was part of the foreign policy network that hurriedly established the "intelligence" rationales for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Edelman, who is close to such leading neocons as Michael Ledeen and Richard Perle, worked closely in the vice president's office with Scooter Libby in establishing a policy network of hawks and neocons that was based at the Pentagon and Cheney's office but extended through key figures into State, the various intelligence agencies, and the National Security Council.

Right-Web via Wot Is It Good 4, from their analysis of Edelman.

the Pentagon is not the commanding officer of the Senate.

What he is, is 110% right when he writes:

"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," Edelman wrote.

Clinton demonstrates extremely poor judgement and an amazing lack of military strategy when she asks for this. But then she will surely claim that since
her leader, Reid of NV has claimed the war is lost such a question is perfectly okay.

The strong wording of the response is unusual, particularly for a missive to a member of the Senate committee with oversight of the Defense Department and its budget.

Anyway,

"Redeploying out of Iraq with the same combination of arrogance and incompetence with which the Bush administration deployed our young men and women into Iraq is completely unacceptable, and our troops deserve far better," said [Clinton spokesman Philippe] Reines, who said military leaders should offer a withdrawal plan rather than "a political plan to attack those who question them."

As she runs for president, the New York senator has ratcheted up her criticism of the Bush administration's war effort, answering critics of her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq invasion by saying she would end the war if elected president.

And if Bush does redeploy, and she's elected, she can then be the hero who "cleans up" Bush's mess from those complications.

But if Bush doesn't redeploy, and she's elected, she'll be the one responsible for redeploying the troops - and dealing with its inevitable complications.

Not so much opportunity to be a hero in that scenario.

Edelman's letter does offer a passing indication the Pentagon might, in fact, be planning how to withdraw, saying: "We are always evaluating and planning for possible contingencies. As you know, it is long-standing departmental policy that operational plans, including contingency plans, are not released outside of the department."

Deferment, Deferment, Deferment.

I looked for his birth date, but it's not listed.  With that info I could tell you his astrological sign and his Selective Service Lottery number.  I'm setting the over/under at 75.

On (a) and (b) KO was brutal in his comment, and Kerry explicit.  On (c) - I'll wait and see.

That they choose Clinton as there first direct effort is interesting.  Though they did try to smear Obama earlier in the year, indirectly, via their surrogates in the noise machine.

This is what you should expect over the next 16 months.  Smear, fear, hysteria, dirty tricks (push polls, voter suppression, etc.), McCarthyism, mudding the waters, and run of the mill negative branding.

It'll be interesting.  This time they won't have their traditional advantages of money, incumbency, and back-lash politics (anti-ERA, anti-integration, anti-gays in the military, anti-taxes, the price of gas, inflation, Bill Clinton's sex life, etc.).