It looks like Rudy Rudy Rudy Rudy! (apologies to the Kaiser Chiefs) is demanding that Democrats denounce MoveOn for its criticism of Gen. Petraeus.
Wonder if he’ll also ask Republicans to denounce House GOP Leader John Boehner for saying that the American dead in Iraq are a “small price to pay” for a victory there.
Yeh, riiiiiight. 
So you simply don’t believe his assertion that he was referring to the money part of the question, not the human toll part?
Frankly, I’m inclined to believe him, if only because he’s a fairly experienced politican talking to a major media figure. Even if this was what he believed, I seriously doubt he’d say it in such a public way.
I am, too. If you read the transcript he clearly said “investment”, as in $$:
So… he’s just ignoring the 3K+ deaths (and I don’t even know how many tens of thousands of American wounded)? That’s supposed to make it better?
I have nothing against Rudy Giuliani or anything, but that quote definitely reads to me as if he was addressing the totality of Blitzer’s comment, which included the lives lost. Giuliani’s response simply does not distinguish out the issue of human lives.
Maybe he misspoke, but the words do say that.
Boehner’s response, you mean.
Frankly, his statement here is 100% spot on, but it’s dependent on “if”.
If we do stop al Qaeda in Iraq and we are able to stabilize Iraq, then in the long term our current costs (both in lives and in cash) will have been a small price to pay.
Unfortunately…the odds of his “if” clause coming true are, how shall I say…rather slim? And if it doesn’t come true…then we paid enormous costs for nothing.
From the transcript: Blitzer: “…The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?”
Boehner begins his response at that point. He does not refer to money before saying the investment is a small price to pay. Is he ignoring the fact that Blitzer was talking about our military commitment and American lives? That in itself would be crass.
Either he ignored the part about the commitment of American lives (which can also be an investment) or he stupidly implied that their lives were a small price to pay. Either way, what he had to say was cold.
And what are we being a success at doing exactly? You can take “making America safer” off the list now. We are being a success at keeping troops in Iraq. After all, that’s where the war is.
I can buy he mispoke, for as much as I care. But I don’t buy the retrofit, I don’t buy him pretending that he was only answering one part of a two part question, I think he (entirely reasonably) conflated the costs: the costs in blood and treasure. Which he considers a sound “investment”. (What’s that line from the Bad Old Days? “War’s good business, invest your children?”)
The important thing isn’t how he values one or the other so much as his being entirely wrong regardless. If this Custerfuck had cost us only money and not so much as a single soldier’s life, it *still * wouldn’t have been worth it.
Is Custerfuck what you meant, or is it an inspired typo? 
Well, from the transcript: Blitzer: “How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure?”
Why ignore that part? He begins his response after the second part because, presumably, that’s when Wolf stopped talking. And if Wolf interpreted his response as being about the loss of life, why didn’t he follow-up with a question about it? (Which brings up the point that it would be good to see the entire interview, not just this one clipped part. I looked on CNN’s web site and they don’t have that interview posted yet-- maybe tomorrow.)
At any rate, I also think it’s a false equivalency to compare a live interview, where someone is talking off the cuff, with a pre-planned ad like that of MoveOn.
Now, I’m personally not “outraged” by either the MoveOn ad or Boehner’s comment. I think we should take him at his word that he was talking about the money, and I’ll also note that MoveOn in backpedaling a bit today, too, calling the “Betray Us” part as meaning a “betrayal of trust”, and not how many people interpreted it-- as indicating something along the lines of treason. (No cite for that, but I heard the MoveOn guy say that on Hardball today.)
Yeah. Politicians misspeak all of the time, and I am trying to be more forgiving of such - especially if they clarify their statements afterward, as most do.
Ads are a very different story.
So you’ve condemned Rudy’s blatant lies and distortions in his ad? Glad to hear it!
Well, when it comes to Al Qaeda, we already have, since it wasn’t there before we devastated Iraq. And more importantly, the Iraqis have paid an enormous cost, and gained nothing.
Can anyone tell me just what was false or misleading in the NYT Moveon.org ad? I am not going to hold my breath waiting for a response.
I believe the “outrage” over the ad was mostly confined to the use of “Betray Us” directed at a US military man. As I noted above, that term can carry the connotation of “treason”. I thought the ad it was in very bad taste, and probably not helpful to the cause of ending of the war. Both sides would do well to drop the name calling, and focus on the issues.
I’m willing to give people a little more leeway on comments made in real-time compared to comments made in articles, books, advertisements, and the like. I really don’t follow Boehner’s record very much, but I’m not aware of anything that would make me think that he doesn’t care about American soldiers. I think he’s dead wrong for supporting the war, but just like I support our troops and oppose the war, I also think it is possible for someone to support the troops (in a genuine and emotional sense) and support the war. I just disagree with them. (And I will withhold comment about the Republican Congress’s efforts to underfund the VA – I think they put dollars and cents ahead of compassion, but I have no doubt they are genuine in their feelings of support for those who served in uniform.)
But MoveOn’s ad is disgraceful. It is childish, in poor taste, and a prime example of the character assassination type of politics that I hate in DC. Extremists on both sides do reprehensible things like this, so I think of MoveOn’s ad in the same way I think of Swiftboaters attacking Kerrey on an honorable war record. They should really be ashamed, and if I were any of the Democratic candidates, I’d return any money I got from MoveOn.
I note that in 2006, when Dems swept into Congress, MoveOn was extremely quiet. I don’t think it is a coincidence that they shut the fuck up and Democrats ended up winning in key states like Virginia.
Exactly.
Democrats are always saying they support the troops - well, Petraeus is one of the troops. He may wear stars instead of chevrons, but they all go on the same green clothes. He got shot once in a live fire training exercise. He nearly shattered his pelvis jumping from a plane.
Now, you may disagree with the guy, but I think you can express these disagreements without attempting to drag his character through the mud.
Or at least you ought to be able to do so had you some character yourself.
Like I said, Democrats say they support the troops - which is why the smarter of them have denounced the ad in question. Rightly so.
It wasn’t in your post?
And Blitzer has to mention the dead three times now to get an answer? Come on, John.
I’m not even saying that he doesn’t care about the dead and the 27,000 wounded Americans. Just that he said a dumb thing.
Moveon.org has a tv ad that’s out that’s more to my liking. I guess it will be up on the net by the time you read this.