Giuliani and the Generals
How interesting to hear Rudy Giuliani decrying "these terrible attacks" on David Petraeus, considering the former mayor's history of lashing out against another decorated general, Barry McCaffrey.
Speaking on an Atlanta radio show on Sept. 12, Giuliani slapped at Hillary Clinton's comment that Petraeus' testimony on the progress of the U.S. mission in Iraq hinged on a "willing suspension of disbelief." Giuliani also whined about MoveOn.org's "Gen. Betray Us" ad in the New York Times, calling it "disgusting" -- in his familiar made-for-late-night-talk-radio bluster -- and "very, very unfortunate."
Of course, this was all a petty and convenient distraction from Bush and his unnecessary and very, very unfortunate war. Sen. John McCain reached for the same red herring in separate comments. But it was also sanctimoniousness-a-usual on Rudy's part. Consider: In the fall of 1998, when Giuliani was New York's mayor -- and was "quick to demonize people as moral or social defectives when their only sin is to dare disagree with him," to quote Times metro columnist Clyde Haberman -- Giuliani assailed Gen. McCaffrey. McCaffrey was then the White House drug czar.
"I think Gen. McCaffrey is a disaster," said the mayor, whose proposal to end methadone treatment in New York was criticized by McCaffrey, a proponent of expanding methadone treatment, as well as by virtually every medical expert there was to be heard on the subject of heroin addiction.
When Hillary's husband appointed McCaffrey to the drug post two years earlier, McCaffrey was, at 56, the youngest four-star general in the country and the most highly decorated Army general on active duty, Haberman's coverage of the mayor's attack on McCaffrey noted. The general led the 24th Infantry Division in the Persian Gulf War, was twice awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the nation's second-highest medal for valor, and received three Purple Hearts for wounds he received in the Vietnam War.
While McCaffrey was braving enemy bullets in Vietnam, the man who peacocks as the toughest, bravest, most fearsome presidential candidate was clerking for a federal judge who wrote to the draft board to win him a deferment. Later, when a draft lottery was established, Giuliani's number was high enough to keep him out of harm's way.
Despite his proven penchant for petty confrontation -- which should give voters pause as they consider which candidate they can trust as commander in chief -- Giuliani avoids discussing in any detail his core rationale for running for president, his argument that he's the right man to deal with the existence and threat of terrorism. He sticks to controlled settings, where he can sound off without risk of challenge or real engagement about his Cheneyesque foreign policy ideas.
Maybe Giuliani deserves four stars-- for winging it.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
why is guiliani on the american stage at all, he is an ex mayor, that's it, nothing else.
Rudy is a 9/11 liar. He lied to New York, he lied to first responders, he lied to America.
Rudy, worse than Bush. 9/11 War Profitier.
You should have seen Hannity sucking up to Giuliani after the W address last night!
Well I'd say these boys just better "butch-up" and stop their snivelling.
Moveon.org criticizes THE GENERAL, so what?
someone criticizes the President, so what?
I'd say the bigger issue is that someone in opposition to what's happening, actually had the money to take out an ad in the New York Times! FINALLY!
Let's all send Moveon.org some more money so they can hit the airwaves and put another point of view out there in the main stream media.
The underlying message is that it's rude and disrespectful to criticize the status quo. In my opinion it's rude and disrespectful to ignore and belittle the wishes of the majority of people in this country. That's what's rude
God it is amusing to read all the braying over Moveon's ad when one can find such outrageous levels of name calling and patriotism-questioning on Fox news and conservative talk radio day after day. I don't see why Petraeus should be any more above the fray and untouchable than any other American. I did twenty-two years and my son is on the ground in Iraq, yet it seems to be perfectly acceptable for Ann Coulter to call me "treasonous" and a "troop-hater" because I think Bush/Cheney's invasion of Iraq was a terrible idea.
By the way I think Moveon was kinda' silly to use an already worn out message board insult in their ad. They could have gotten the message across without it.
Sam, I salute you and thank you for your service. However, I am so sick and tired of folks (on the left) screaming about the right questioning their patriotism. No intelligent, responsible person on the right has done that. Period. Its a straw man. Now if you want to hold up Ann Coulter as an example of the right, I must warn you there are worse examples on the left, just check today's Huffington Post.
I will say a prayer tonight that your son comes home safe. Semper Fi.
Oh please. Questioning the patriotism of the lefty liberals who didn't/don't support the war has been done since the beginning and throughout this self-inflicted unnecessary ordeal, and by far more many Republicans than Ann Coulter. I'm aware that "intelligent, responsible" people on the right don't all think like Ann Coulter or the people on these msg boards, but I was responding to my fellow msb board participators who screech their outrage at this ad and are glad to hold it up as an example of how "the left" thinks.
Petraeus may or may not be a bad guy but he knows who holds his reins and future income in their hands. He dare not say a damn thing about the disasters in Iraq. He is no better than Powell because, like Powell, he knows better.
In regard to the Move On ad...No One called the General a traitor or a treasonous soldier. THe ad only asked Petraeus not to betray the American people and tell the truth.
Telling someone not to back over you dog is not the same as accusing them of doing so.
You're kidding right, Boris? Have you seen the actual ad?
Giuliani is a "mean little man" and a "Thug." His children know that well, and that's why they cannot even stand him. Go to "therealrudy.org" and you will see "The Real Rudy!"
So typical - Republicans can give it but they can't take it. They can SWIFTBOAT Senator Kerry, also a decorated war veteran, but it's TREASON to call Gen. Petraeus the lapdog that he is. They screamed when Democrats filibustered in the Senate, and threatened the "nuclear option" but what are they doing NOW ? Blocking everything they can. Republicans SUCK.
Interesting how its always the Republicans who are the bad guys in this.They are the ones holding up the NY Times ad. Face it folks the MoveOn ad was a dumb move and they should be called to the carpet for it.
"Face it folks the MoveOn ad was a dumb move and they should be called to the carpet for it."
Whose carpet? If you, and others, find what they did distasteful, that's fine. They broke no law; they are not an arm of any government organization, and they are protected by the First Amendment. Moreover, anything they said about Petraeus pales by comparison to what right wingers have said about the Clintons, Gore, Kerry and many others. My dad, a lifelong Republican, heard one right wing wag say "Good riddance" on the day that JFK was killed. That sort of sets a standard, doesn't it?
Frankly, calling Petraeus a traitor stops well short of what MoveOn should have been saying: Bush is a traitor to all that is democratic (oh, wait, that's right, we're a republic, not a democracy...Jesus, you right wingers might want to read Rouseau, Montesquieu or Jefferson...)
Give us a bill that the Reps are blocking? FYI They don't have a majority in the House or the Senate.
I'll give you one. Sen. Webb introduced a bill where soldiers would receive an equal amount of time at home as at "war". 12 months there, 12 months home, 15 months there, 15 months home. THe repigs threatened a filibuster-the dems needed 60 votes to override and they didn't have it. The bill didn't pass.
FYI they need 60 votes which they don't have to pass a bill and override a filibuster.
FYI they need 67 votes to override a veto.
I wouldnt even know about the moveon ad if the republicans didnt make such a big deal out of it. They kept holding up big blow- up sized posters of the ad and talking about how horrible it was. Was the generals feelings hurt? Man up and Move on
One of the most cherished lies of the right (and their useful idiots among the "liberals") is how terribly *oppressed* the right is, boo hoo hoo. The USA is a country where those on the right are accorded an enormous amount of air time on and in the "mainstream media" and are allowed to spew verbal vomit almost at will, and yet those on the right are routinely allowed to lie about how unfairly they are treated. What passes for political/social discourse in the USA has become hopelessly corrupted by the aggressive malice of those on the right and the moral cowardice of far too many "liberals" and "centrists."
There is a HUGE difference in saying that a general is a disaster and saying a general BETRAYED us. Have you looked up the definition of betray? And also to say that BEFORE anyone even heard what he had to say makes it even worse. But you libs are too angry at everything to see anything clearly at this point. Your true colors are really coming thru!
The only thing that man could have said to satisfy the rabid Dems would have been, "We're losing, there is no way to win, it completely not worth it, Bush is dumb and America sucks." Then the Dems would have been dancing in the streets!
Wilson, how dare you think you can speak for "libs"? You are arrogant, misguided, naive, and rude.
Well darcy, I don't see many libs saying anything different. Just read to comments above, people still think he should have been called a Betrayer and still think MoveOn.org is legit.
It's tough to look in the mirror sometimes...
Rudy Giuliani has no room to talk. He has ignored the sick and dying from the volunteers of 911. That tried to rescue people buried in the rubble. Rudy Giuliani knew of the hazards that these people were breathing. Rudy Giuliani knew that WTC 7 would be "pulled" at 5:30 PM, on 911. Controlled demolition brought down the North and South towers. Anyone who doesn't believe me? Go to Google video. Watch 911 Mysteries. (Made by a life long Republican.) Now, Rudy Giuliani is using Al kuy DuHH and terrorists throughout his speeches. The only problem? Al kuy DuHH, doesn't exist! Don't believe me? Watch THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES Part 3. Again, Google Video or Information Clearing House. (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info) BBC made that documentary. It will enlighten you to say the least.
The Republicans are running scared. They know their time is up. The majority of this country is fed up with the continuious lies. Only MSM follows their ton of garbage they feed us. Ask yourself these two questions. Are the Corporations controlling our destiny? Or are WE controlling OUR destiny?
Being critical of McCaffrey has got to be one of the few things we should all be applauding Gulianni for. Over the years we've seen that McCaffrey fellow over and over like some regular from central casting. Why? He is ALWAYS muddled and typically wrong. Is it the white hair and the image that he's a competent commander? I don't know. He was Clinton's chosen head of his "war-on-drugs-lite" campaign and it seems he was put there because Clinton had to look tough and McCaffrey looked and talked tough but was obviously a dunderhead of global proportions, so the war on drugs could continue to fail and actually become even less effective (hurray for everyone...a weakened government determined to throw people in jail for victimless morality crimes deserves to be ignored until those responsible can be strung-up on the laws they create) and without Clinton being accused of actively erasing that blot on our efforts to bring reason and enlightenment to the real situation with illegal and legal drugs...McCaffrey's consistently given the most hackneye'd opinions and perspectives. I guess he's found a lucrative revolving door from running a desk in the pentagon's puzzle palace right into an "experts slot" on CNN and all the other so-called news programs...really the only news they're really interested in is news about revenues. When guys like McCaffrey as touted as experts you know that whatever you learn from the news program is likely to be neither new nor beneficial. I don't care much for Rudy, but calling McCaffrey the tool of unenlightenment is one instance in which we agree totally...and so should you.
No one should get a free pass requiring the suspension of critical judgment. Petraeus was promoted by the Bush Administration as a man whose motives were beyond criticism. MoveOn.org had both the right and the responsibility to counter that narrative.
Counter the narrative implies addressing the issues. That is NOT what MoveOn did. And for your FYI: The idea that General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are front men for the administration is ludicrous. Until he took the job as overall ground commander in Iraq, Petraeus was a favorite of liberal journalists: the Princeton man who enjoyed the company of the media and intellectuals, so much so that he was vaguely distrusted by other general officers who envied the good ink he received. Petraeus has no personal stake in proving the president right. He and his staff is much more likely to provide a balanced analysis of the reality in Iraq than senators and congressmen looking over their shoulders at opinion polls and future elections. As Petraeus said, “I wrote this testimony myself,” meaning, the White House had nothing to do with it.
They didn't counter the "narrative!" They completely discounted it before they even heard it! They jumped to assumptions and assumptions they don't like, so then they called the general a Betrayer.
Where is the "counter" in that?
I agree with you in some respects, but I disagree in that there was definitely a need to counter a developing narrative before it became embedded.
Colin Powell's popularity and credibility was used by this administration to sell us bogus information. They may not be trying the same trick again, but, on past performance, they probably are. Whereas once we had faith in our leaders, we are now fairly in touch with why this administration really, really cannot afford to say "Sorry everybody, it was all one monumental blunder!", which is the inevitable consequence of any concession to the fact that we cannot prevail in Iraq (even if we pick a side and foment open civil war, as seems to be the Petraeus plan for 'building from the ground up').
We need to question Petraeus' motives and credibility BEFORE we are hypnotized into following another proxy for a fool on a fool's pursuit.
The assumption that we would hear more of the same narrative - "real progess is being made" and "victory is at hand" crap - that we've heard for the past four years turned out to be correct though.
There is a difference between lashing out at a general whose views or actions you oppose and that of calling this commanding general a lying traitor to his country. MoveOn.org and its political recipients are now casting themselves as useful idiots.
Well said :)
Urgent got it in one!
I've always had respect for General Barry McCaffrey, AUS (Ret.) He's an officer of proven field merit, unlike the Pentagon warrior types like Colin Powell.
Il Duce Giuliani is beneath contempt. He was a power-hungry prosecutor and mayor. He's a warmongering neocon. And, yes, he avoided military service during Vietnam, as did so many other chickenhawks (Bennett, Bolton, Abrams, Thompson, ad infinitum).
'beneath contempt" - giuliani advisor podhoretz in the WSJ;
If Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, then Iraq was lost--according, at least, to the conspiracy-minded--on the pages of Commentary magazine and the other house organs of the neoconservative movement. Better yet, blame America's post-9/11 foreign policy on Leo Strauss, Albert Wohlstetter and Allan Bloom, regularly disinterred as the neocon godfathers.
Yet however much one loathes lending credence to talk of a neocon conspiracy--call it Cabal Theory--it does possess a certain element of truth. That is, the Iraq intervention found its genesis not only in the immediate crises of the prewar period, but also in a way of thinking about foreign policy that matured over several decades. In other words, "Ideas shape events. They are the moving force in history," notes Norman Podhoretz, editor in chief of Commentary for the 35 years ending in 1995, and a highly influential adventurer in the world of neoconservatism.
"If you stipulate that everything people allege was a mistake in Iraq, even if you stipulate that they all were actually mistakes rather than judgment calls about which reasonable men could differ and could have had worse consequences if they'd gone the other way--even if you stipulate that all the critics are right, these 'mistakes' are chump change compared to the mistakes that were made during World War II by great leaders like Churchill and Roosevelt,
"But even with these mistakes," he continues, "this country was indispensable in defeating the two great totalitarian threats of the 20th century. It was this despised bourgeois civilization that turned out to be the one bulwark against those monstrous enemies of humanity. I feel the same way today about Islamofascism."
Mr. Podhoretz is not dismissive of the costs the U.S. has incurred, quite; but better, he argues, to endure these convulsions than the previous arrangements. "We've paid an extraordinarily small price by any reasonable historical standard for a huge accomplishment," he says. "It's unseemly to be constantly whining."
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
