Talking Points Memo takes issue with the comments of House Republican Leader Boehner regarding the sacrifice of the United States and its men and women in uniform:
BLITZER: 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.
Note that Boehner is specifically answering a question about troop deaths here -- which he calls a "small price," should we win the war.
This is an obvious point, but it bears making again, anyway: It's really uncanny how often those who aren't sacrificing anything for the Iraq war, aside for perhaps their health in the polls, are willing to...
(a) Describe the very real sacrifice being made by others as not being such a big deal
...while simultaneously...
(b) Describing the sacrifice others are making as their own.
Boehner's response was 'inartful,' as James Joyner points out. But Blitzer's question clearly referred both to financial cost and lives lost. And either way, Boehner's main point, that if the war is successful, al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated, and the Middle East is stabilized, then the sacrifice in blood and treasure will have been worthwhile--that seems entirely fair, especially given the fact that the Middle East was far from stable before this war started.
Sargent implies that Boehner is unfit to comment on what military goals are worth the loss of life, because they are 'the sacrifices of others.' That's not a serious argument. Our Constitution subordinates the military to a civilian leadership. And in the case of funding the military, Boehner has every right, and the responsibility, to judge what military goals are worthy of American taxpayer dollars.
Senator John Kerry is already demanding an apology, but again, as Joyner points out, all Boehner did was comment without the now required "disclaimers about how, of course, even the loss of a single American life is a tragedy and how the nation owes an internal debt of gratitude to all the men and women of our armed services for their sacrifices." That is a gaffe, but the left makes too much of it--do they really believe that Boehner doesn't respect the sacrifices of the American soldier?
I contacted Congressman Boehner for comment on this episode; he is in Iraq now, but his staff has provided the following statement:
"Mr. Boehner went to Iraq this week to thank our troops for their service on behalf of our country and take a firsthand look at the progress on the ground that Democrats are so desperate to ignore. There isn't a member of Congress who appreciates the sacrifices of our troops more, and Mr. Boehner had lunch with soldiers from his home state of Ohio today to thank them personally. It's apparent that Democrats and the Left are deeply afraid we are winning in Iraq now, and it's clear they will do anything they can, including make false representations, to ensure our troops come home after defeat, not victory."
Boehner is right about at least one thing: it's jarring to see a 'defense' of our troops from those on the left who sit silently by when the attacks are coming from their own side. Where was TPM when Kerry accused U.S. troops of terrorizing Iraqi women and children? Or when MoveOn.org was sliming General Petraeus?
