CNN ignored Boehner's "small price" comment after latching onto Kerry's "botched joke"
SUMMARY: On The Situation Room, House Minority Leader John Boehner stated: "We need to continue our effort here [in Iraq] because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop Al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids." CNN did not re-air Boehner's comments, or provide any discussion of the controversy that followed them. By contrast, CNN extensively covered Sen. John Kerry's October 30, 2006, statement -- which he later explained as a "botched joke" -- that, "Education, you know, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq," and the controversy that followed.
On the September 12 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer asked, "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? 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?" House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) responded: "I think General [David] Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We're making success. We need to firm up those successes." He added: "We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop Al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids."
Boehner's comments were first noted by Talking Points Memo blogger and media critic Greg Sargent, and numerous liberal blogs (including Think Progress and Daily Kos), as well as the Democratic National Committee, have also taken note. Additionally, in a September 13 post on the Huffington Post website, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) referred to Boehner's comment as a "stunningly cavalier statement about the lives of the young men and women who serve our country," and asked: "Where is Representative Boehner's apology?" However, between 5 p.m. ET September 12 and 1 p.m. ET September 13, CNN did not re-air Boehner's comments, or provide any discussion of the controversy surrounding his remarks.
By contrast, CNN extensively covered Kerry's statement -- which he later explained as a "botched joke" -- during an October 30, 2006, speech at a campaign rally in Pasadena, California that, "Education, you know, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq," and the controversy that followed. CNN first reported Kerry's comments during the 11 a.m. ET hour of CNN Newsroom on October 31, 2006. During the broadcast, guest Bill Bennett referred to Kerry's statement as "an extraordinary comment," and added: "What Kerry said is a disaster for John Kerry -- he'll never be president. I don't think he'll have a serious candidacy." CNN re-aired Kerry's comments during the noon, 1 p.m., 2 p.m., 3 p.m., 4 p.m., 5 p.m., 6 p.m., 7 p.m., 8 p.m., and 10 p.m. ET hours of news coverage, including commentary and discussion from anchors and guests.
As Media Matters for America documented (here, here, and here), the media frequently misrepresented Kerry's comment in the weeks following his October 30 speech. Kerry repeatedly said he was referring to President Bush's poor preparation for the war, not the education level of members of the U.S. military.
As Media Matters also documented, the media similarly largely ignored Boehner's comment on the November 1, 2006, edition of The Situation Room that "the generals on the ground," not former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, are to "blame for what's happening in Iraq," while covering Kerry's comments instead.
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the September 12 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Mr. Leader, here's the question. 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? 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: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We're making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop Al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.
This is a very important effort on the part of the United States to secure our national interests and to secure our security interests, especially when it comes to Al Qaeda, who has been our number one enemy here in Iraq.
BLITZER: Let me ask you a political question resulting from General Petraeus' testimony. A lot of the experts think he did, in fact, succeed in getting the president more time to continue this military operation, but a lot of the political experts are saying the Republicans should be careful what they wish for because if this continues with no real progress, with the Maliki government not taking the kinds of steps to come up and do what they need to do. By November of next year, this could cost Republicans big time in the elections not only for the White House but for the House and Senate as well.
What is the problem? Did he call our men and women in uniform dumb like Kerry did ? Is this it today for misinformation?
Sueeld
The problem is the word "Smallprice". Tell that to a parent of a lost kid in Iraq. It is disgusting and another example of the chickenhawk right wing saying things that are totally insensitive.
I think it's clear that Boehner was talking about the monetary price here. I thought it was absolutely insane the way Kerry got pounced on for saying nothing wrong and it would be hypocritical of me to join in on attacking Boehner.
Computer,
I think he should come back on the show and be given a chance to explain his comments. Until then, all we have is speculation.
Given the context of Blitzer's question, which brought up both money and the troops lives, It looks like Boehner was talking about both as a small price, which would be insensitive. He has a small window to come out and clarify and apologize, and if he doesn't do it soon, then he's a fool and a jerk.
I absolutely agree with that. Until he does though, I'm going to hold off on assuming what he meant. I don't think Boehner is the smartest guy in the world, but you'd have to be pretty stupid to say that men and women's lives are a "small price". He ought to clarify his remarks. And when/if he does, we ought to hold ourselves to higher standard than the cons who jumped all over Kerry and wouldn't accept his clarification/explanation.
obviously i already assumed that he was talking about money and not people. I guess I shouldn't even have done that. Just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, which it would be nice if it had been given to Kerry before.
Computer,
I think that is fair. If he does not step up and clarify his remarks in this short window, is it fair to speculate?
Well, I guess so. Statements like these are really only relevant in the realm of speculation. I was just saying that I'm not going to speculate any further on it because I don't find that sort of thing entertaining/useful. The whole point here is not that the Republicans don't care about our troops lives, it's that they believe in the worthiness of the mission in Iraq and we do not. When we start to get into who cares more about the troops, that's when I think the debate just degrades into nothing. Both sides care about our troops. I think Boehner does too. He probably just phrased this thing wrong. That said, he should come out and clarify his remarks toute suite before speculation becomes reality. If he doesn't clarify, then I'll be forced to agree that he was saying soldiers' lives were a "small price".
Computer,
I was thinking the same thing. I am just having a huge disconnect from the Boehner I saw crying on the Senate floor about the mission to this offhandness about the same thing.
That's why my initial reaction is that he was referring to the money and not the lives of soldiers. I may be wrong though.
What he really meant was that losses in Iraq are a small price to pay for salvaging the reputation of the president and the Republicon party because they are in so deep right now that if they change course and admit defeat, the party is sunk for decades to come with their base voters.
Again, party over country, the Republicans at work.
I understand. It is reasonable. Never ascribe to maliciousness that which can reasonably be explained by abject stupidity. I think that applies to Bohner.
He should be given the same "benefit of the doubt" that Kerry got. In other words, none at all.
Billons and billions of doallars is a "small price"?
It looks like he was referring to both lives and money. Every once in a while I’ll go over to a right wing blog and post comments and questions. Whenever I bring up casualty numbers for American troops and Iraqi civilians someone always responds with: "x amount of people died during WW2”. I do think that the nearly 4000 American troops and the countless Iraqis civilians who have died is an insignificant number to a lot of conservatives in relation to whatever it is they are trying to accomplish in Iraq.
Sueld -
Are you really so ignorant as to have bought the line that Kerry was referring to the troops? I read the entire body of what he said and it screams out that he was referring to Bush. I'm confident that 75% of the right-wingers who used it to slam Kerry realized that he was making a dig at Bush and not talking about the troop. They were just so dishonest that they didn't care.
Get off it. The "botched joke" is just a pro-Kerry talking point. He was the worst thing ever.
It's not a talking point to any rational person. It's a statement of reality. The entire content of what Kerry said makes sense if it refers to Bush. It makes no sense at all if applied to the troops.
Kerry's speeches were planned and reviewed. There is absolutely no benefit to be gained by making that statement about the troops. There is benefit in applying the statement to Bush.
All of those who contend Kerry was referring to the troops are either ignorant or dishonest. Those are the only two reasonable options.
Please be a card-carrying Green party member. We can't take any more of you who dismiss large swathes of the population as "unreasonable" when they disagree with your opinion or personal choices.
I'm not referring them as unreasonable because they disagree with me. I'm using the term because it wouldn't make any sense for Kerry to say that in reference to the troops. If it were an interview situation, one could barely try to squeeze out a case for Freudian slip, but not in a prepared speech.
What we cant take are more lying propagandists and their appologists. Please leave the discussion to the adults
We Greens don't like Kerry. We remember his pro-war campaign of 2004.
So what you're saying is that if you were serving in Iraq you'd be more offended by someone who questioned your intelligence than by someone who minimized your sacrifice, correct?
No, and see my comment about Boehner further down the line. I'm just not going to be a hypocrite and say that Kerry didn't mean what he said, because it was a Freudian slip on his part as much as it was on Boehner's.
Freudian slips don't work their way into planned, vetted, reviewed speeches. Slips of the tongue and stumbling over the words do.
The speech makes no sense when applied to the troops. It makes complete sense when applied to Bush.
Have you every seen someone make the same Freudian slip two times in the same sentence?
It wouldn't make sense to label troops as uneducated...seeing as so many recruits sign up so that they have the $$ for college?
It wouldn't make any sense politically to make such a joke about the troops in a planned, vetted speech. It would be foolish and not funny.
It would make sense politically to make such a joke about Bush. It would be mildly clever.
Read his words and see how well they apply to Bush. It makes perfect sense in that context politically and as a joke. Remember the reaction of his audience. They understood the reference to Bush and laughed at it. Do you honestly think he would have gotten that laugh if they thought he was insulting the troops? I don't believe they would.
Don't bother trying to explain simple facts to dimwits - it's a waste of time.
I'm just not going to be a hypocrite and say that Kerry didn't mean what he said - Dex
I'm also not claiming Kerry didn't mean what he said. I'm just dismissing dishonest spin of what he said. Read the words. They apply very easily to Bush and it makes much more sense that way.
Kerry certainly did mean what he said, and what he said was a joke poking fun at Bush.
For what it's worth, I never cared much for Kerry in a great many ways. I simply dislike seeing someone smeared dishonestly.
Bill,
Kerry is my Senator, & I've never had much use for him.
When I first heard his statement [pre-explanation] I thought he was talking about the troops & wondered if he'd lost his mind. Once he clarified his statement it made more sense, but even though I'm no fan of Bush I still thought it was a pretty stupid joke.
Guys like Boehner piss me off. It's never a huge price I suppose unless they are directly involved. Does anyone know IF this guy has any family members in the military? Somehow I doubt it.
The first I heard of Kerry's statement wasn't a simple report of it, clipped so as to give the wrong impression that so many others got. The first story I read on it focused on the dishonest way it was being twisted by right-wing blowhards. I thought it could have been a mildly clever joke if presented well, but John Kerry is the wrong person to present a joke well. He has no sense of setup, timing or delivery.His entire campaign seemed to me to be very carefully calculated for message. There was very little that showed passion or spontaneity. It was really a lot like Gore's 2000 campaign in that way. However, Gore, unlike Kerry, seems to have relaxed and thrown off a lot of his phoniness. I don't see that happening with Kerry.
His political positions, however, were somewhat superior to Bush's so I feel very comfortable with having voted for him. Better a phony I agree with than one (Bush) I don't.
Then you are lying or willfully ignorant. Sure Kerry running for president decided it would be a good idea to show disrespect for the troops. The context makes clear it was about Bush. The written notes produced afterwards makes clear he was talking about Bush the only reason in the world you would believe otherwise is because you WANT to. No other reason exists.
It wasn't a Freudian slip. It was a slip. It was clear in the prepared text that it was specifically supposed to be a joke about GWB.
According to Kerry's prepared text, as provided to reporters, Kerry intended to reference Bush in that portion of the speech.
"Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy?" Kerry was to say. "You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."
The comment came in the midst of a series of attempts at humor. Just before his comments on education and the war, he said that Bush once lived in Texas but now lives in a "state of denial."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/11/01/kerrys_stuck_in_iraq_remark_ignites_firefight_with_bush_gop/?page=2
YOU get off of it. The rightwing LIE against Kerry was just that a LIE. We arent going to be convinced because you act crotchety. And compared to President GUMP, Kerry is Thomas Jefferson
Wrong. It was specifically meant to be a joke about Bush. The prepared text of the remarks showed it.
""We need to continue our effort here [in Iraq] because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop Al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids." --Boehner
He does seem to be saying that the men and women we have lost have been a "small price" for future gains that are not even assured. If I had a bro or sis who died in this conflict, I would not consider that to be a "small price." I think he made a terrible comment (intentionally or not) and should be called on it.
Kerry didn't call the troops dumb, Sue, but I'm calling you dumb for buying into the rightwing spin that he did. Read the entire context of his statements that day, and if you still believe he called the troops dumb instead of calling Bush dumb, you're still dumb.
"Did he call our men and women in uniform dumb like Kerry did ?"
No, he deemed them disposable.
Sueeld do you think the the parents, wives, husbands and children of the 3,776 Americans who have died in Iraq think them dying was a "small price" to pay? If it's simply a small price to pay why don't each and every Young Republican enlist? Why don't we bring back the draft since it's a small price to pay. Why don't the Bush twins enlist, after all according to Bohner their death would be a small price to pay.
Kerry did no such thing stop lying
No, Miss Troll, he didn't call them dumb. He called them expendable. He called the loss of their lives or their limbs or both a "small price to pay." But he didn't call them dumb. Give yourself a star.
Oh, but neither did Kerry. Give the star back.
Before you reply, think of what you posted: You are telling us that if Boehner had called the troops dumb, that would have been a cause for outrage. But because he called them expendable, that's no big deal. Disgusting.
Boehner was caught making an honest statement of his feelings. The fact is they don't care, or they would try to realisically discuss the Iraq situation and try to support the troops with proper equipment and reasonable rotations.
Just another RightWing dipstick making a Freudian slip. Doesn't anyone remember Rush Limbaugh's tireless efforts to downplay our casualties in Iraq by saying that more people are killed each year in any major American city?
Yeah, I do, Nerzog. Disgusting. I just wish they would repeat the statement and discuss it. Heck, let Boehner come back and try to explain it.
Do you remember him crying on the Congressional floor about people getting in the way of this "mission? And now we get this off-handed, casual statement? They don't seem to fit very well in my eyes.
I heard a woman , a mother of small boys,call in to Rush Limbaugh's show a few months back, complaining about the media making a big deal regarding the number of fatalities in the war.
She made the standard comparisons to lives lost in WWII, and was almost in tears. Not about the deaths, but that people were mentioning them.
Then she got honest, and got to the nut of her complaint, explaining that our troops were dying over there so that her kids wouldn't have to when they got old enough.
Just sick. She was willing to buy into the BS, and willing to have other people's families killed on the premise that it would spare her the same "inconvenience".
Small price. For other people.
I think the women who call in to Rush's show are the worst. Their general tone is sycophantic and fawning. They blubber on about what a great American Rush is, what a service he's doing for the country...yada yada yada...then they regurgitate his propaganda about the evil Liberals.
It's really gross.
No offence to women in this statement, but their natural tendency to submissiveness to power has a lot to do with that. Look at how the women of Germany fainted in the presence of Hitler, even though he had as much sex appeal as a dead fish. Unfortunately, it's a primate thing and we can't expect it to change much.
It has changed already. Men and women do evolve; we all have primal ("reptilian brain") instincts and higher brain functions that are altruistic and selfless.
The women who swoon over Rush have arrested development; just like the men who do likewise.
Good ol' Wolfie...
From the transcript:
BLITZER asks Boehner a question.
BOEHNER not only doesn't answer the question, he says "small price" (twice!) and manages to stuff his foot and most of his leg in his mouth.
BLITZER apparently does not hear, does not understand or does both and, incredibly, ignores what BOEHNER has just said.
BLITZER continues (reading?) his questions.
Goooooood puuhhh-peeeee!
Once again, Boehner proves that "Bay-nor" is not the correct pronunciation of his last name, regardless of what he claims.
The various angry righties conveniently ignore the fact that this is yet another example of how the media is not-so-liberal. Angry talk (a republican specialty) is all over the radio spectrum -- little real information, but lot's o frothing. Angry TV is hosted by O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.
The other thing that's missed about Boenher's comment is how fundamentally wrong it is. Just about all money / lives spent to-date in Iraq has be wasted. Bush and his ideologues have repeatedly erred in their approach, using a whole soveriegn country as their little sandbox. Even if the U.S. completely paved over Iraq with U.S.A. asphalt, Al Quaida would still be around.
Love your screen name. Have you an updated plan for overcoming any mine shaft gap?
The other thing most are ignoring in his statement is that he said "if we're able to stop Al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East" now, I don't know about you guys, but when Saddam was in power he was the stabilizing force in the middle east, like it or not. He kept Iran at bay, as well as Saudi Arabia, and Syria as well. Not to mention the fact that AQ is not primarily IN Iraq, they are spread throughout the world. How is "stopping them in Iraq" going to benefit us when there are plenty more terrorists in different pockets and cells around the world? He makes it sound like all of the terrorists in the world are residing now in Iraq and fighting American forces, and once we achieve "victory" (whatever the heck that means) we'll never have another terrorist attack again. YAY!
Unfortunately, reality is far different than the minority leader would have the American people believe.
Those are all good points, but I'd like to add one more. Al quaeda is a relatively recent addition to the mix in the Middle East. They may have added to the unrest, but no one can claim that the region was stable before Al quaeda became a player. There's also no reason to believe the region would become stable if Al quaeda were to vanish from the earth this moment.
I respectfully disagree with the Gen and Magnolia.
If the U.S. succeeds in Iraq the money and lives won't be wasted. Yes, Al Queda will still be around, but it will have been defeated again.
Saddam was a destabilizing force. He invaded Kuwait, fought with Iraq, used WMDs on the Kurds, bankrolled suicide bombers in Israel. His presence threatened the whole region and beyond. He was a despotic murderer.
I do believe Bin Laden has called Iraq , (and I'm paraphrasing,) the central front in the jihad against the West. If I remember correctly, he repeatedly calls recruits to get to Iraq to fight the U.S.
Beating him here would be a severe blow to his attempt at creating a modern day caliphate.
AA,
I know I have asked you this before, but what price would you pay for this conflict in Iraq or what price are you paying?
You seem, and correct me if I am wrong, to think that this war greatly affects our National Security. What are you willing to do for this effort?
Beating him here would be a severe blow to his attempt at creating a modern day caliphate. AA
You might want to get out your map and take a look at Indonesia, Saudi Arabia ( remember the 9/11 hijackers), Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan (remember that’s probably where Osama is hiding), Afghanistan (may be there too) just to name a few.
Bunk. Saddam invaded Kuwait, after getting a green light to do so from our diplomat there April Glaspie that was in 91 and he hadnt so much as SNEEZED in anyones direction since. He used WMDs against the Kurds in 88 WHILE HE WAS OUR GOOD ALLY. How upset were we at the time? Reagan stopped a UN investigation of it, we sold him MORE precursers for chemical weapons and gave him a low interest one billion dollar loan. It so silly when you guys trot out the things Iraq did WHILE we were allies and didnt even care enough about to break diplomatic relations with him as if NOW its a valid excuse more than a decade later for an invasion. It doesnt pass the laugh test. Yeah he was murderous thug. A whole lot like and not as bad as many we have ALLIED ourself with including Pol Pot, AFTER his genocide, Rios Montt, Suhuarto who killed hundreds of thousands of his people and we didnt blink an eye continuing to support him for decades. I suggest we do NOT base our foriegn policy based on the public statements of a man like Ben Laden. Al Queda was CAUGHT in an internal communication FEARING we would leave Iraq too soon and the newly recruited fighters would just go home. So what he says for OUR consumption isnt necessarily a glimpse into his innermost feelings on the subject.
Shhh, don't tell him the US has done bad bad bad things in the last fifty years....it may make his head explode if exposed to reality.
"If the U.S. succeeds in Iraq the money and lives won't be wasted. Yes, Al Queda will still be around, but it will have been defeated again."
Bush had no business invading Iraq in the first place so their lives were wasted.
"Saddam was a destabilizing force. He invaded Kuwait, fought with Iraq, used WMDs on the Kurds, bankrolled suicide bombers in Israel. His presence threatened the whole region and beyond. He was a despotic murderer."
Why do you guys keep going back 15 to 20 years to defend an invasion in 2003?
And we don't have to defend Israel; Israel is more than capable of defending itself against an attack.
"I do believe Bin Laden has called Iraq , (and I'm paraphrasing,) the central front in the jihad against the West. If I remember correctly, he repeatedly calls recruits to get to Iraq to fight the U.S."
It doesn't matter. If Bush invaded Egypt, that would be the central front; If Bush invaded Kuwait, that would be the central front; if Bush invaded Saudi Arabia, that would be the central front. If Bush threw a dart at a map of the Middle East to decide which country to invade next, that country would become the central front.
AA,
Didn't we defeat Osama in Afghanistan? Did that make him go away or weaken him?
You really don't have any understanding of this conflict or or problems with terrorists like Osama do you?
If the U.S. succeeds in Iraq the money and lives won't be wasted. Yes, Al Queda will still be around, but it will have been defeated again.
The phrase was "small price." Lives are by definition not of small value. Supposedly the fight is about protecting other lives, so it's just horrible to trivialize the deaths in this war, regardless of the outcome, the goal, or the legitimacy of the action.
Saddam was a destabilizing force. He invaded Kuwait, fought with Iraq, used WMDs on the Kurds, bankrolled suicide bombers in Israel. His presence threatened the whole region and beyond. He was a despotic murderer.
We pushed Saddam out of Kuwait 15 years ago, and contained him thoroughly.
We didn't give a crap when he gassed the Kurds, though we encouraged them to rise up. Regardless, if gassing the Kurds is an atrocity worthy of invading a country, then there are dozens of others on the list. Where shall we start?
As for bankrolling suicide bombers in Israel, so? Since when do we do the bidding of Israel, or the Kurds, or any other country? Particular a country that has demonstrated itself quite capable of fighting its own fights. Israel doesn't need us to defend it from suicide bombers.
His presence was contained. Bush's father better understood the region and didn't invade, and Cheney backed that decision back then by describing the possible scenario had we taken Saddam down in 1991. And his description of the events back then was a nearly perfect description of what IS happening today.
Had anyone in that region thought Saddam was such a destabilizing force, it was up to them to take him on. Not us.
I do believe Bin Laden has called Iraq , (and I'm paraphrasing,) the central front in the jihad against the West. If I remember correctly, he repeatedly calls recruits to get to Iraq to fight the U.S.
Had we not invaded Iraq, Bin Laden would be calling Afghanistan (had we stayed there in any real numbers) the front in the battle.
Regardless, beyond trying to figure out where he is, why should we give a crap what Bin Laden thinks about anything? Conservatives seem to think we should take Bin Laden's advice in how and where to fight this war, how to vote, and how to live now? You'd think he'd won the way regressives go crazy everytime that nutjob opens his mouth.
Beating him here would be a severe blow to his attempt at creating a modern day caliphate.
Should have beaten him in Afghanistan. That's where he was. When was the last time Bin Laden was in Iraq?
AA, scared of the evil Arabs. Your spinelessness is almost as bad as your lack of knowledge.
Wouldn't it be better (and cheaper) if we had 100K or so soldiers/reservists guarding our ports, nuclear and chemical facilities, borders, etc. than to be wasting away in Iraq?.
Let's just look at the context of the remarks, give Boehner the best interpretation possible and assume he was only talking about money.
Even doing that his remarks are wrong and do not consider the reality of the situation. The Iraq war is a debt generating engine for this country with no end in sight. Those bills are going to have to be paid and they are going to end up paid by increased taxes on individual citizens, decreased government services, a totally screwed up economy and potential economic collapse of this nation. So, are we merely fighting a war to trade the instability of the Middle East which the world has lived with for a very long time and we are currently making worse for the potential of becoming a third world nation ourselves?
Even just in money terms, the cost of this folly is rapidly outstripping any potential benefits that may or may not materialize in a future tens of "just one more years" away.
"the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop Al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East"
The ifs are the part that bothers me. It's assuming facts not in evidence. What if we're not able to stop Al Qaeda in Iraq, what if we're not able to stabilize the Middle East? He addressed the ifs as though they were foregone conclusions, but didn't talk about (and wasn't asked about) the if nots. The price is the same either way. If Al Qaeda is still doing just fine in Pakistan, if the Middle East is destabilized further by our occupation, if Al Qaeda cells are already here bringing small quantities of fissionable material through our ports that Republicans have left wide open for six years, will it still be a small price? Or will we just put up another memorial and stop talking about the price? Instead of clarifying his remarks, I'd rather hear him address the if nots. Okay, righties, please start holding your breath now.
"Stabilize the Middle East"...by backing Israeli land theft, arming the arab dictators to the teeth, invading and brutally occupying Iraq, and threatening Iran at every moment. The biggest DEstabilizer in the region is named the United States of America.
Rove admitted why we are there ...
Not to stabilize the region as Boehner says*
Not to fight for freedom *
Not for spreading Democracy *
Rove said twice on Meet The Press that we are there because of the stategic oil reserves.
NOW, about Boehner ... He is so disgusting that I would rather not even speak about him. Please vote him out of office on the very next election.
I just wanted to attack that age-old worn-out cliche about "stability in the region". Every admin has used it as they pumped loads of arms and cash into the region to keep the war fires burning.
Where are the voices of our "patriots" Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingraham, Beck, Chris Wallace and John Gibson?
Is that damned librul media stifling free speech again and preventing them from coming to the aid of our troops? I can't imagine any other reason that they haven't all screamed for an apology or resignation from Boehner.
And speaking of Gibson, here is a link to a Gibson interview with a certain Congressman who was outraged at the Kerry attempt at humor.
[link to thinkprogress.org]
Hey King Man ...
Good link on the Bone Man. Thanks!
Sam I Am
Well he does have a point - sort of.
It IS a small price to pay to have enlisted men and women do what they are paid to do, and what they signed up to do (ie fight and possibly die for their country), if that protected America.
The problem is of course that stopping to be "able to stop Al Qaeda here" and be "able to stabilize the Middle East" is NOT protecting America enough that these sacrifices are worth it. Stopping AQI does just about NOTHING for the safety of America, and their deaths do NOT stabilize the Middle East.
The cold hard truth, that many know but don't want to say out loud because it disrespects "the troops" is that they are doing their jobs, but for no good reason at all. They're dying for none of the reasons they signed up. Do you think they sign up to protect people in the Middle East? Hardly.
They're dying for someone else's cause, and we have scumbags like this idiot Boehner letting them get slaughtered because it serves him good, and he is willing to lie about it, just to keep his power. Disgusting doesn't even begin to describe it.