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.
More of the same.
42
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.
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?
"Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make"--the Duke in SHREK
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.
He has all the marks of our next president.
It ends with: "Rudy Guiliani, a betrayal of trust." Guess you can say he asked for it.
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.
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.
Whoa, wait a minute, got carried away there, got to remember to call my therapist Monday morning.
Never mind!
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?
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.
We do not know that Iran has weapons grade material.
No proof of this at all.
Iran is being threatened daily, not Israel.
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.