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.
Rudy, worse than Bush. 9/11 War Profitier.
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
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.
I will say a prayer tonight that your son comes home safe. Semper Fi.
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.
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...)
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.
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!
It's tough to look in the mirror sometimes...
As for Clinton, he made his own bed and he never took resposibility for it, not only that, but staight up LIED about it. And LIED about it to a grand jury, which is what the Republicans went after and rightfully so. He LIED to the entire world and Americans, flat out, with no remorse. Like a 16 year old. With that said, I really did not like how bitter the whole thing was and was not in agreement with everything. My big thing with that was him lying, over and over again about it, rather than face the music and admit and apologize. As the president, I want more balls than he had.
I didn't hear the Boehner thing, so I don't know the context of it and will not comment. Other than to say I would feel safe in believe that Boehner meant that the losses we have suffered so far of small with the losses we could suffer and will suffer if we don't win in Iraq and elsewhere.
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?
Where is the "counter" in that?
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.
Question: do you have to be an O-10 (4 star general or admiral) to be spared such accusations; or do you have to be currently a commander? I can think of some politicians who had been O-3s during the Vietnam War who you Republicans called lying traitors; and with less evidence: Republicans lodged accusations that were much more vicious and far less honest at former Army Capt. Max Cleland and former Navy Lt. John Kerry.
Of is it that Petraeus is lying on behalf of a Republican adminsitration that UrgentFury thinks should shield him from any accounting?
"MoveOn.org and its political recipients are now casting themselves as useful idiots."
At least we know that the war has to end somehow. If you wanted that end to be victorious, wouldn't you be telling Bush to get off his fat ass and start fighting to win??????
or something to that effect.
You see republicans could mock a vet's purple heart as they did to John Kerry and it's OK.
Or a republican candidate can go after a triple amputee who lost limbs serving his country, calling him a traitor.
Or a mouthpiece for the right wing, like Anne Coulter, can trash a hero like Max Cleland and it's OK.
But damn, a group of lefties get together to protest a policy being promoted by the military (which is NOT their job) and we are unpratriotic, don't you know. Worship the chickenhawks or be condemned.
Hasn't anyone given you the memo?
Chicken Hawks like Bush, Cheney, Guiliani and their chicken hawk advisers can trash vets and still claim to be supporting the troops.
But dems are never allowed to question the motives of a commander who has allowed himself to become a mouthpiece for policy.
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).
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."