Speaking about the tons of explosives missing from al Qaqaa, Rudy Giuliani said the following on the Today Show:
"The president was cautious. The president was prudent. The president did what a commander in chief should do. And no matter how much 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?"
(Note for those of you who don't trust Media Matters: the AP cites the last three sentences, which blame the troops. Transcripts aren't up yet, as far as I can tell.)
Wrong.
Let's be very, very clear here. Kerry is saying that al Qaqaa was not secured. Offhand, there wold seem to be two possible reasons it wasn't secured. One, the troops were ordered to secure it and they did not. In this case, supposing they were given adequate resources, they would be to blame. Two, they were not ordered to secure it, and they obeyed their orders. In this case, the troops would not be to blame. Soldiers are supposed to obey lawful orders, and this order, however unwise, would have been lawful. Moreover, if their orders were, for instance, to proceed to Baghdad, and they had instead stopped to secure this site, they would have disobeyed their orders, and would then be blameworthy.
Kerry alleges that what happened was the second of my two possibilities: that the troops were not ordered to secure al Qaqaa. In this case, as I said, they are not to blame for not securing it. Rudy Giuliani, by contrast, seems to assume that if al Qaqaa was not secured, it was not secured because the troops were ordered to secure the site, but failed. This contradicts what the troops themselves have said about their mission. Moreover, there are enough other reports of unsecured WMD and dual-use sites to make it plausible that our troops were not ordered to secure such sites. Nonetheless, Giuliani leaps to the conclusion that it must be the troops who are at fault, not the civilian leadership.
One of the things that bothered me about the President's remarks yesterday was that by saying that Kerry was criticizing the troops, he came uncomfortably close to saying that if al Qaqaa was looted after the occupation, it would be their fault, not his. He did not say that, however, and it's a judgment call whether what he did say really does suggest that interpretation. But Giuliani has made it explicit: if something went wrong, it's not George W. Bush's fault; it's the troops. This is shameful.
Well, I'm not sure what Rudy Giuliani's qualifications to opine on military matters are (I'll freely admit to near-zero), but if he thinks this sort of thing is helpful to the BC04 campaign - he should at least try to read the day's talking points before shooting his mouth off (ahh, but then he wouldn't be our Rudy!). IOW, Giuliani has just come out and said what Pres. Bush and his campaign have been dumping all over John Kerry for supposedly saying (he didn't, but never mind) - so I guess "blaming our troops" is now OK?
Jeesh, what a maroon.......
Posted by: Jay C | October 28, 2004 at 08:25 PM
Do you suppose Bush has been giving Giuliani pointers on squandering good will?
hilzoy: One of the things that bothered me about the President's remarks yesterday was that by saying that Kerry was criticizing the troops, he came uncomfortably close to saying that if al Qaqaa was looted after the occupation, it would be their fault, not his. He did not say that, however, and it's a judgment call whether what he did say really does suggest that interpretation.
I think you are being overly generous to Bush. While might not have explicitly said "4", he very clearly said "2+2". Of course, there are plenty of folks who have stubbornly insisted over the past couple of days that the correct sum is "22", but I don't think that is a conclusion that deserves much consideration.
Posted by: Gromit | October 28, 2004 at 11:04 PM
Gromit: maybe so. Despite what blogbudsman thinks, I am trying to be fair. Besides, it's not as though there's a shortage of straightforwardly damning stories just now.
Posted by: hilzoy | October 28, 2004 at 11:09 PM
Besides, it's not as though there's a shortage of straightforwardly damning stories just now.
You're right. It's just the rank hypocrisy, not to mention his obvious contempt for the voters' ability to think these things through, which gets to me. Bush needs to re-enter the private sector as soon as possible.
Posted by: Gromit | October 28, 2004 at 11:26 PM
(Note for those of you who don't trust Media Matters: the AP cites the last three sentences, which blame the troops. Transcripts aren't up yet, as far as I can tell.)
Atrios and, though him, Kevin Drum have links to an actual video excerpt of those last three sentences from the Kerry campaign website.
Posted by: Anarch | October 29, 2004 at 12:36 AM
This kind of stupidness is emblematic of our debased media culture.
Rather than getting somebody who knew what the eff he was talking about, like whatsisname from globalsecurity.org or David Albright, they choose to ask Rudy G. about this.
Well what the eff does he know? Clearly, he's going to spin, spin, spin the GOP line no matter what the facts are. So why bother?
Posted by: praktike | October 29, 2004 at 12:15 PM