http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/09/why_boehners_sm.phpWhy Boehner's "Small Price" Troop Deaths Comment Matters
September 13, 2007 --
snip//
Now, the key here is that Boehner was very specifically answering a question about troop deaths, or at least a question that was partly about troop deaths. And his answer was that the untold number of dead Americans that will result from the war would be a "small price" to pay for defeating Al Qaeda long term and indeed in exchange for achieving the rather far-fetched goal of "stabilizing the Middle East."
You can try to read Boehner's comment another way. You can look at the fact that he referred to the "investment" we are making, and argue that he was only referring to treasure, not blood. But I think it's perfectly reasonable to read the comment as a reference to American lives, too. At the very least, it's a point he can be pressed to clarify. But again, it's perfectly reasonable to assume here that Boehner actually believes that untold American dead -- and untold is the right word -- would be a "small price" to pay for defeating Al Qaeda and achieving Middle East stability.
Looked at that way, there's really no way around the fact that this is a reprehensible comment, and one Dems and others should demand that Boehner answer for. After all, the loss of an American soldier is never a small price for the soldier's parents, relatives and friends -- no matter what is achieved. Even if the U.S. military succeeded in turning the entire Middle East into a giant Woodstock festival, it wouldn't come at a "small price" for many -- it would come at the ultimate price.
It's become something of a cliche to point out that "if a Dem had done this, then there would be tons of attention..." etc., etc. But in this case, it's apt. Really, just imagine the outpouring of outrage on the cable channels and from pundits there would be if, say, John Kerry had said such a thing. Chris Matthews would be bouncing off the walls of his padded cell, and David Broder's computer screen would be covered with spittle flecks.
But as Kos notes today, not a single big news org (aside from CNN, which initially reported the remark) or pundit has murmured a word about it.
The reason for this disparity, however, doesn't reside just within the media. Recall what happened last fall with Kerry's botched troop joke. In less than a day, virtually every Republican in public life was condemning the remark in every conceivable forum. And Kerry's gaffe was obviously a screwed up gag, whereas there's very good reason to believe that Boehner meant his remark in exactly the way it came across. A very similar Republican message eruption happened with the MoveOn ad blasting General Petraeus the other day. In both cases, the media responded in kind.
By contrast, only a single Dem -- John Kerry -- has stepped forward to condemn Boehner. We hear various Democrats are weighing right now whether to try to make an issue of his comment. But thus far, there's virtual silence. This is astonishing -- particularly because Boehner's remark captures rather nicely what's going on with the war debate. Boehner, like the White House and most Republicans, is willing to sink an untold number of American lives into the pursuit of the fantasy of a stable Middle East and into the illusion that civilization as we know it will come to an end if we don't defeat the ever omnipotent Al Qaeda.
Is there even the slightest doubt that the Repubs would have cranked up the message machine in a big way had a Dem made this "small price" remark? No, there isn't.
Bottom line: It's hard to see what Boehner said as anything but reprehensible. And his remarks could become a big story, if Dems wanted to make it one.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
