About a week ago, TPMtv featured a revealing video montage of Rudy Giuliani going to almost comical lengths to duck the issue of Iraq. A leading presidential candidate, on the dominant issue of the day, simply doesn’t want to talk about it — and hasn’t for the last year or so.
With that in mind, I was encouraged to see a transcript the Wall Street Journal published over the weekend of a Giuliani interview with the paper’s editorial board. The WSJ’s editors, to their credit, seemed intent on getting some sense of the former mayor’s thoughts on the war. It’s a shame they came up empty.
The transcript is worth reading, if for no other reason than to enjoy the constant use of the phrase “on offense.” Giuliani demonstrated confusion about de-Baathification, repeatedly compared Iraq to New York City, and said national polls would show stronger support for the war if only pollsters would use the word “retreat” in the questions. All in all, the former mayor’s responses lacked a certain, shall we say, sophistication.
Consider this exchange:
WSJ: [Y]ou would give Petraeus all the time he needs?
Giuliani: Sure, if I thought he was right. I had a similar, on a lesser scale, issue with the police department or the fire department or whatever.
Or perhaps this illuminating question and response:
WSJ: So six months out and you’re on the campaign trail. The results of the surge are inconclusive, but Petraeus says “I can use more time” and you’re taking a beating for it, what are you going to say?
Giuliani: If I believe that General Petraeus is right, then I take the beating and you try to explain it to people. I think the American people in November 2008 are going to select the person they think is strongest to defend America against Islamic terrorism. And it is not going to just focus on — as some of the media wants it — just Iraq.
Yes, it’s that darned media’s fault Americans want presidential candidates to talk about a tragic war and how they’d handle it. If only journalists would stop asking these pesky questions, Giuliani wouldn’t have to go to such lengths to dodge them.
Larry Johnson: Not impressed by botched UK terror bombings.
Today’s Must Read: The Washington Post explores the “tranquility” of George W. Bush.
John Edwards, a distant third in this quarter’s primary fundraising, says he’s right on track for his “four-state strategy.” That and other political news of the day in today’s Election Central Morning Roundup.
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I/D-CT) explains how the surge is working miracles and the UK terror plots show we need more warrantless wiretapping in today’s Sunday Show Roundup episode of TPMtv …
“So incompetent as to be almost laughable.” That’s how former Scotland Yard detective John O’Connor described the botched UK bombings this morning on CNN. He also noted that it’s probably wrong to refer to these guys as ‘al Qaeda’. Check it out …
Late Update: A reader at Andrew Sullivan’s site has more thoughts on the way the Brits are handling this, as opposed to the way this is getting played in the US media.
CNN: Libby loses bid to remain free on bail.
Update: And it wasn’t even close.
Budget cuts, staff shake-up for McCain campaign. Always a good sign.
TPM Reader JS checks in from Bangkok …
Your link to Andrew Sullivan’s blog and the media coverage of the Glasgow events prompted me to write again.
I am in the last day of business meetings in Bangkok, and have been watching the media response with great interest. My hotel TV offers both CNN and BBC news coverage, and the difference between them is remarkable. When the Glasgow attack became known, CNN offered non-stop coverage which preempted all normal programming. The attackers were defined in no uncertain terms as Al-Quaeda members, despite any conclusive evidence of same. In stark contrast, BBC offered quite detailed coverage of the attack, but continued with normal programming covering weather, sports, international affairs, etc. BBC was quite careful not to ascribe any specific Al-Quaeda membership, and seemed to be more comfortable describing the attackers as “influenced by other Al-Quaeda types”. CNN created the image of a major world crisis, while BBC presented an isolated but obviously troubling event.
I would respectfully posit that such coverage by most of our American Mainstream Media is why the Bush Administration has been able to so easily play with the fears and emotions of Americans.