Maybe It's Giuliani Who Should Move On

The Presidential candidate and former New York Mayor ran a full-page ad today in the New York Times defending General David Petraeus and attacking Senator Hillary Clinton for saying that it would require "a willing suspension of disbelief" to take the General's Iraq report at face value. Giuliani added that by questioning our "progress" in the war and pushing Petraeus to be held accountable for his statements, Clinton (along with the New York Times, MoveOn.org and presumably anyone who questions our Iraq strategy) had launched a de facto "character assassination" on the General who has, according to Giuliani, "put his life at risk to protect us."

This is not the first time Giuliani has tried to stifle free speech and the fundamental democratic principle of holding our political leaders accountable. In last Sunday's The New York Times Magazine, Giuliani was asked about his hawkish stance on Iran, to which the former mayor responded as follows: "...after what we went through with the weapons of mass destruction, and particularly if we had a president who needed a high degree of proof, this might be something they [Iran] could assume they can get away with."

So Giuliani dropped $65,000 to criticize the fact that Clinton and MoveOn.org criticized Petraeus and on top of that is wary of having a President who will be held to a "high degree of proof." Coupled with his hawkish stance on Iran, this is a deadly mix. One could safely deduce that if elected President, Giuliani would not hesitate to move ahead with an Iran attack based on reliable, but not proven, accurate, but not conclusive evidence. Our impetus for the Iraq war was decided on similarly reliable, but not solidly conclusive evidence regarding the existence of WMDs and we have since paid dearly. Can we then afford to nominate and potentially vote into office another leader who believes that conclusive proof of a "high degree" is not needed before making the decision to invade a first, second, third country? The answer is frighteningly clear to me.

Comments

[Rescisco]

And we all know that "de facto character assassination" is a Republican thing. Rudy, like O.J., is just breaking down the door to reclaim what is his. He's sayin' "that's my gig (character assassination) m-----f---ers!"

[sixtimeseven]

“As for Nixon... he was an unprincipled puppet, which is the most dangerous kind.” -- Nikita Khrushchev.
More of the same.
42

[zendem1]

Rudy worked a political ploy to steal the newsday away from John MCCain. It's the ole Karl Rove/Lee Atwater misdirection play. It's when somebody picks something that the right-wingers on FuxNews and wherever else can really get behind and rally the "plain folks". It has to be simple because viewers of Fux and Fat Limbaugh fans aren't real bright.It has to be emotionally charged, because the aforementioned doesn't like to think, and it always involves attacking something.Oh, and it's always something the liberals have to agree with. Like 1988 for example. Dukakis was railing about the economy in the shitter after 8 years of Mr.Alzheimers, and Bush talked about flag-burning. Hillary was smart enough not to take the bait. Now, if some Democratic strategist would take kindly take the bark off Rudy, we'll all rest easier. It's not like Mr 9/11 has an empty closet, believe you me.

[3fingerbrown]

I'm with you all the way on this one, except the part that goes, "This is not the first time Giuliani has tried to stifle free speech ..."
The way I understand the story, the senator made a strong public statement doubting the veracity of the general's report. Giuliani then took out a newspaper ad to refute the senator's statement. How is this stifling free speech? Sounds more like he was simply exercising his right to free speech. Rudy is loathsome, but let's not get hysterical just yet. If he wins the nomination, by all means, get hysterical.

[Dianethegardener]

Remember,
This man has NO foreign policy experience.
He would have been more prepared to be president(if that is possible) if he became a Congressmen or Senator.I think the most important questions we should be asking ALL candidates is who their cabinet will be.
Could you imagine another bush type White House?
That's what you will get with Guiliani, MORE OF THE SAME.
In re: to Iran. You know this group will not be satisfied just to bomb the hell out of it.
How do we support another war?

[FearlessFreep]

Has Petraeus really "put his life at risk"? When's the last time a four-star general was a casualty of war? What he's really risking is the lives of thousands of GIS and millions of Iraqis.

"Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make"--the Duke in SHREK

[GenericBlogger]

That's my point in an earlier post. The overwhelming majority of our military has and is sacrificing, some paying the ultimate price, some enduring suffering and disability for the rest of their lives.

Petraeus has a cushy life, one that most in and out of the military would like to have and appreciate. Impressions made by others that Petraeus sacrificed his life and career are incredulous.

[swift goat pet for truth]

Rudy is a blowhard who will say anything about anybody on any situation. Reality has no meaning for him. Ethics and morality are completely foreign subjects to him.

He has all the marks of our next president.

[IntegrityIntact]

MoveOn's made a rebuttal to Rudy's phony attack ad on them and Senator Clinton.

It ends with: "Rudy Guiliani, a betrayal of trust." Guess you can say he asked for it.

[altohone]

Rudy gains favor with the right by attacking Hillary and Iran.

Hillary gains by being attacked.

Of course, she's once again having it both ways by distancing herself from MoveOn while rightly questioning the numbers Petraeus presented (that's a first for me btw, supporting anything Hillary has done, though qualified).


If we bomb Iran in another illegal pre-emptive war based on unproven assertions, we not only risk destroying and alienating the most anti-Al Quaeda islamic country, but also risk losing Iraqi Shiite support and destabilizing the monarchies and dictatorships who claim to be our allies.

Bombing Iran would be a disaster militarily, politically, ecologically and economically.

[Purple Girl]

Petraus is just another lacky for this emperor's secret agenda. The Dark One even tried to have his court jester tie it all up for us the other night- but he forgets W. can't read and tries to ad lib. that alone shows the Emperor ahs lost his mind- Time to be wheeled off to BINGO DICK !!!

[GenericBlogger]

Since the end of WW2, history shows that the greatest power of nuclear power is its threat, not the explosive power rated in tons of TNT.

For decades the West was concerned with the Soviet Union arming itself with more and more missiles aimed at strategic locations. The longer the range, the more critical the threat. To counter this threat we armed ourselves with many long or longer range missiles then sat at arms negotiation tables. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) were a major source of friction and tension, so was the Star Wars program that helped to bring down the USSR and disarm it. Through all that, not one missile was fired for war.

If or when Iran will have nuclear weapons, the problem will be their arm twisting negotiating power and their intimidation. Iran knows if they fire a missile in hostility, they will be a nuclear waste ground.

[FloaterBall]

I have to wonder, Oldpotsmuggler, if we would (will?) survive a nuclear explosion. America, politically, is fractured to an extent that we may have a hard time identifying authority under such circumstances. Will it be commandante Marv, who brings his aryan humvee horde down from Idaho, or Floyd-the-­neighborho­od-surviva­list kook, who looks to be reassuringly gunned up? Will the federal government, that did such a bang up job with Katrina, keep the peace as 100 million city dwellers try to fill their tanks and head for the sticks? Or maybe the Crips and Bloods, with their efficient lines of command, will provide stability. I'm sure we can count on our mainstream corporate media to give accurate, impartial information on where to get water, medicine, food, other essentials in a panicked nation. And I'm sure we can count on lefties and righties of all persuasions to resist the temptation to settle scores and work together for the common good. And of course, with all the planning that local and state authorities have been doing since 9/11, we should have little trouble knowing exactly what is expected from each and every one of us as we ride out the storm.
Whoa, wait a minute, got carried away there, got to remember to call my therapist Monday morning.
Never mind!

[mommamia526]

Well, yes, maybe it is time for Rudy to move on. At the same time it would not be a bad idea if Ahmadinejad also moved on to a quiet retirement home, and especially the religious establishment in Iran which is egging him on. If Ahmadinejad would stop advocating that Israel must be wiped off the map, and the U.S. as well, there would not be too many arguments left for the GOP. The problem is NOT that Iran would have nukes. The problem is that Ahmadinejad and his back-up crew have plans with those nukes the world does not agree with. The UN even has made resolutions on this issue, and Ahmadinejad is thumbing his nose. Now, see, that creates a problem for Persians, and others in Iran, who are not of the Arab shia variety. It is best that some Iranian spokeswomen address that with the source, Mr. Ahmadinejad. Never poke into a hornetsnest, Ahmadinejad, you just may provoke the hornets and they could sting when they get mad. By the way, is Mr. Ahmadinejad married? If not, some liberals might want to sort that out. What is behind this short guy acting out so fiercely? If he keeps putting up his dukes someone might just be in the mood for a little round of fistycuffs. But any real man would know that, of course.

[Nommo]

Do you have the exact quote that you attribute to Ahmadinejad? It has long been documented that he did not say that, and it seems that your entire argument is based on that "quote".
Besides, this is about Rudy. Maybe you are confusing the two? Hell if you are all bent out of shape about the nukes, we got more here that everyone else combined. We have made sure that Israel has a bunch themselves. The first one that goes, no matter the source, is the end of all of us.
Is that what you really want?

[matt is right]

we already know that iran has weapons grade nuclear materail, the IAEA has already confirmed that. any action against iran will be reactionary to something they do in iraq or against israel.

israel will be the ones to launch a strike on iran, not us. it is israel that is threatened almost daily with destruction at the hands or iran's leadership, so i wouldnt be surprised if they struck first, and we backed them up.

[altohone]

Wrong.

We do not know that Iran has weapons grade material.

No proof of this at all.

Iran is being threatened daily, not Israel.

[texanna]

Zenobius has it right, Guiliani is trying to make himself "Presidential" by attacking Hillary, who looks to be on track for the Democratic nomination. Really, it's such a lame, transparent effort that it's pathetic.

But on the Petraeus issue -- well, he brought it on himself when we entered the political area with the 2004 op ed right before the election and now agreeing to be Bush's shill. Frankly, I do feel betrayed by this guy, because I pay his salary, but clearly his allegiance is to Mr. Bush and not our shared country.