Reporting on Giuliani ad attacking Clinton, media don't note he blamed troops for missing weapons
SUMMARY: In reports on a new Rudy Giuliani campaign ad
criticizing Sen. Hillary Clinton's position on the Iraq war, several media
outlets highlighted a quote from the ad in which the narrator says: "[J]ust
when our troops need all our support to finish the job, Hillary Clinton is
turning her back on them." But none
of these reports mentioned Giuliani's claim in October 2004, that U.S. troops, and not President
Bush, were responsible for the missing explosives at the Al Qaqaa weapons
depot.
Reporting on Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's recent campaign advertisement criticizing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) stance on the Iraq war, numerous media outlets -- including The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Post, MSNBC, and ABC -- quoted from or aired a segment of the video in which the narrator in the ad says: "[J]ust when our troops need all our support to finish the job, Hillary Clinton is turning her back on them." Yet none of these reports mentioned that Giuliani himself blamed U.S. troops in Iraq for allowing tons of explosives to disappear from a weapons depot at the Al Qaqaa complex south of Baghdad, telling NBC News host Matt Lauer in October 2004: "[N]o matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there."
On the September 14 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson aired the entire Giuliani campaign ad, after which he stated: "Ouch! That was the new Rudy Giuliani ad":
CLINTON: If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But now that she's running for president, Hillary Clinton has changed her position, even joining with the radical group MoveOn.org in attacking American General Petraeus. Clinton stood silently by when MoveOn.org ran this venomous ad in The New York Times. The same general she called an expert not long ago -- now she is questioning his honesty.
CLINTON: The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And just when our troops need all our support to finish the job, Hillary Clinton is turning her back on them. General Petraeus and the brave men and women now serving under him deserve an apology -- and our nation deserves better. Senator Clinton, do the right thing, apologize for your comments, and condemn the MoveOn.org ad.
[end video clip]
CARLSON: Ouch! That was the new Rudy Giuliani ad. This comes after Giuliani ran a full-page ad in The New York Times accusing Clinton of spewing political venom during a recent questioning of General Petraeus. Will it work? Is it now a two-person race, Hillary and Rudy?
In a September 15 article headlined "Giuliani Attacks Clinton on War," The New York Times described what was "on the screen," provided the "script," then purported to determine the "accuracy" of the video:
SCRIPT: Senator Clinton speaking before the war in 2002, "If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
The narrator then says, "But now that she's running for president, Hillary Clinton has changed her position, even joining with the radical group MoveOn.org in attacking American General Petraeus. Clinton stood silently by when MoveOn.org ran this venomous ad in The New York Times." Mrs. Clinton is shown at the Senate hearings saying: "The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief." The narrator says: "Just when our troops need all our support to finish the job, Hillary Clinton is turning her back on them. General Petraeus and the brave men and women now serving under him deserve an apology. And our nation deserves better. Senator Clinton, do the right thing. Apologize for your comments and condemn the MoveOn.org ad."
ACCURACY: Mrs. Clinton has always maintained that her support of a Congressional resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq was not an authorization to go to war, but she been faulted by her Democratic opponents for that vote and how it squares with her current criticism of the war. While the Giuliani campaign says Mrs. Clinton "joined" with MoveOn.org in attacking General Petraeus, there is no evidence to suggest that the group colluded with her.
While the Los Angeles Times, New York Post, and ABC's Good Morning America did not quote from or air the entire ad, they all mentioned the narrator's claim that "just when our troops need all our support to finish the job, Hillary Clinton is turning her back on them." From the September 18 Los Angeles Times article:
Giuliani ramped up his attacks last week with a full-page ad in the New York Times that criticized her for not condemning an antiwar ad by a liberal group, MoveOn.org, that mocked Gen. David H. Petraeus. The Giuliani campaign now leads its website with an anti-Clinton video.
"Just when our troops need all our support to finish the job, Hillary Clinton is turning her back on them," an announcer says.
Other Republican candidates have adopted a different tone. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas said in an interview last spring that Clinton was shocked but appreciative when he apologized to her for saying mean things about her during her husband's tumultuous White House tenure.
From the September 15 New York Post article:
It notes that Clinton had previously spoken favorably of Petraeus' abilities on the battlefield.
"Just when our troops need all our support to finish the job, Hillary Clinton is turning her back on them," the narrator says.
"Gen. Petraeus and the brave men and women now serving under him deserve an apology. And our nation deserves better."
From the September 15 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
LIZ MARLANTES (ABC News congressional correspondent): What's now clear, Iraq will remain front and center throughout the 2008 campaign. For the candidates seeking the White House, the challenge is not only figuring out how to end the war, but how not to get saddled with the blame.
STEVE SIMON (senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations) The war over who lost the war is already beginning. The opening volleys of that debate have been fired.
MARLANTES: Volleys like this Internet ad from Rudy Giuliani.
NARRATOR [campaign ad]: And just when our troops need all our support to finish the job, Hillary Clinton is turning her back on them.
MARLANTES: For Good Morning America, Liz Marlantes, ABC News, Washington.
However, none of these reports mentioned Giuliani's claim on October 28, 2004, that U.S. troops, and not President Bush, were responsible for the missing explosives at the Al Qaqaa weapons depot. Giuliani asserted that "[t]he president was cautious, the president was prudent, the president did what a commander in chief should do. And no matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?"
From the October 28, 2004, edition of NBC's Today:
LAUER: Let's talk about the missing explosives in Iraq. As you just heard [former Sen.] John Edwards [D-NC] say, it was a mistake, it may have put U.S. troops in further danger. The president was silent on the issue for two days, speaking out only yesterday about it. Although we don't know all the facts, why doesn't the president just come out and say, "You know what? The explosives were there, now they're not. A mistake was made, I'm commander-in-chief, I take the blame. We won't let it happen again."
GIULIANI: Because of what you just said. For the same reason that [Sen.] John Kerry's [D-MA] national security adviser said, "We don't know. We simply don't know what happened." John Kerry wants to pretend we do know what happened. We don't know what happened. And the best possibility is that those weapons were gone before -- or explosives were gone even before the troops got there. So the --
LAUER: It's not necessarily the best possibility. You know --
GIULIANI: But at least it's an equal possibility. John Kerry hasn't admitted that. Instead, John Kerry became an attack dog. He immediately began attacking the president. He immediately began saying, "There's a terrible mistake. There's a terrible" -- we don't know if it's a mistake or not. The president was cautious, the president was prudent, the president did what a commander-in-chief should do. And no matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough? We don't know the --
LAUER: But if you are commander-in-chief, you are in charge of those troops. And let's just say -- what it does, I think, doesn't it cut to the core of the problem some people have with this president, that he doesn't accept blame and rarely admits to a mistake?
GIULIANI: No it doesn't. Not at all. I think what it shows is that the president is not willing to put blame on the troops when it isn't clear that they should be blamed. Things go wrong in war. Abraham Lincoln had more things going wrong in the Civil War than probably any president -- but you have to stick with it. You have to find out what the truth is. And the reality is that we don't know what happened to those explosives, and they represent a small fraction of the explosives that were destroyed. The New York Times and CBS News, who covered this story, particularly the Times in pointing this story out, has never pointed out in its newspaper that 400,000 explosives like this have been destroyed by our troops since they've been there.
















SUPPORT OUR TROOPS....unless they're searching for weapons.
More like this:
"Support the troops! Unless of course they say something disparaging about the current White House administration, and then they're free game.."
That's how most republicans these days approach "supporting the troops" at least from what I've seen lately.
I'm still failing to see how "supporting the troops" means keeping them tied up in Iraq, getting shot at, having explosives go off in their faces, wounding and maiming thousands, while thousands more have died, and will die. How is that supporting the troops again? More like "Support the military industrial complex so they can make more money."
Well, you've put your finger on it. "Support the Troops" is just another GOP propaganda slogan, just like "Global War on Terror", "Fight them over there so we won't have to fight them over here", "stay the course", etc.
It's their all-purpose inocculation against any and all criticism of the war criminal currently occupying the White House, and I guarantee you that the idea to abuse it came from one of his speech writers, if not Karl Rove himself. The sad thing is that the 30 percenters actually believe that, by perpetuating this war, they are somehow "supporting the troops". It's madness.
The GOP is more like this:
"SAY You Support the Troops, and Accuse Democrats of Being Unpatriotic and Haters of America.
Then When No One is Watching, Do Everything You can to Screw The Troops (vote against pay cuts, slash veterans benefits, re-deploy again and again, etc.)
"the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there"
Oh, snap. Mr. Super Terrorist Fighter dissed the troops. Well, since it was in defense of President Numbnuts, I guess that doesn't count. Of course, we all know that this "you don't support the troops" yaya is just smoke to give the Moron in Chief political cover for his idiotic foreign policy.
It's a waste of time and money, slinging that long ago dead rhetoric around (just dressed up a little different), and thinking it means anything.
"finish the job"?
Doesn't that sound a lot like "stay the course"?
I don't mean to give rudy any free campaign advice, but maybe he didn't get the memo:
The American People have so long ago rejected the foolish rhetoric of "stay the course", that even George W. Bush and his minions don't say that anymore (and I believe they've even claimed they never said it at all).
"finish the job" is just "stay the course", except I guess decked out in the newest Fall Fashion.
That must be the name of rudy's line of clothing this Fall: "finish the job"
(But if you look real close at the threads, you'll see that it's just a knock-off from the George W. Bush Fall of 2004 line, "stay the course". Call it a "retro" design if you like.)
It's hard to "finish the job" when nobody who's saying that you need time to "finish the job" tells you the definition of "finishing the job" ...
Well, according to those obscene "Freedom Watch" ads, we're there to "Defeat Terrorism". Nothing like a well defined, realistic mission statement, eh? Maybe we can cure cancer and eliminate world hunger while we're there. Hey, they can even initiate World Peace in their spare time...naaaaaa. No profit in it. Our Stock Market would collapse.
The thing about empty senseless rhetoric is, sometimes the more you fill it out and expand on it, the more you expose how empty it is.
You bet, there are those who would say U.S. Troops are being sacrificed in Iraq by the thousands, in order to "Defeat Terrorism".
I'm partial at the moment, to filling that out a bit, into "Iraq is the Central Front in the Global War on Terror"...
And if you expand it just a little more, it gets even better: "Iraq is the Central Front in George W. Bush's Global War on Terror"...
And so ultimately we inflate the thing up to it's full-size:
"Thousands and thousands of U.S. Troops are being sacrificed in Iraq, on George W. Bush's Central Front in his Global War on Terror."
It's like a balloon: You just keep blowing it up with air, until it POPS!
Gee, where are all of our "Democrats-hate-the-troops" Regurgicons? I thought they'd be all over Giuliani for this one. Oh...wait...how silly of me...Republicans can say whatever they want to about the troops, because they're "strong on defense".
Giuliani has been pandering to the far right since the 2004 Republican convention.
If he had acted like this back in his post prosecutor/pre mayor days he'd have never been elected mayor of this primarily democratic city once much less twice.
The positive thing I can see in all this is he's too stupid to realize it's suicide to carry water for this very unpopular president.
It may play to the far right but they are a minority in this country.
That's right Rudy, blame Hillary blame the troops put the blame everywhere except where it belongs: squarely in the lap of George W. Bush, the most powerful man in the world responsible for nothing.
You can count on the eventual GOP nominee to distance himself from Bush. This aint the general election and the public's attention span lasts about as long as it takes OJ to drive to the airport. This is being covered as though Hillary is running against all the Republicans right now. She's not and their not running against her. Everything they do right now is designed to play to the base. Much of what the Republicans are doing is even meant to play to the Democratic base as well.
The GOP wants to run against Hillary in the general election, that's why they're going after her now. I think more people might realize this if we'd think more about the nature of the primary vs general election campaigns.
they're not. Dammit. Wish we could edit these things.
Sun - They want it to be Hillary so bad they can taste it.
You know that old saying though - Be careful of what you wish for......