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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Why listen to General Petraeus and ignore General Shinseki? Because - drum roll - General Petraeus says what George Bush wants to hear and does not say what the facts are. I don't think General Peteaus ever saw active duty as in serving where the bullets are flying. It is one thing to drive around in a limo with a flag on it and everyone saluting and another to walk down a street in Baghdad. He ain't fought in Baghdad. He isn't more knowledgeable than General Shinseki. He talks the talk but neither he nor Bush nor Cheney nor all the others have actually had to walk the walk. But hey - its a small sacrifice to have to walk down one of those streets.
And the Democratic cowards will all back down... they should be praising Moveon.org.
After attacking Moveon.org, Democrats will give Bush all the money he wants to continue his bloodbath.
What is Worse ? Republican Criminals or Coward Democrats. I really don't know.
I was thinking today about how (as I understand it) the gutless Weimar Republic enabled Hitler.
I don't know too much about this part of history. I think I will study up on it.
Ceteris Paribus, the next president of the US will have neither a military nor a national mandate to make war. From the beginning it's been obvious to me that this fake outrage over the Moveon ad is just a trick by the right wing to change the focus from the failed strategy in Iraq to the Democrats. In other words, the issue now is not the war, or the failed strategy, it's "the ad by a left wing group".
Where were these outraged republicans when Veterans Against McCain and the SwiftBoaters for Truth smeared two decorated war heroes?
I'm sick of republican hypocrisies: if it is not Family Values gays, it's draft dodgers pretending to be men of courage.
Azadeh,
I agree with your article title. "Maybe It's Giuliani Who Should Move On".
Giuliani had a mistress pad in World Trade Center 7.
New York Policemen and New York Fire Fighters have ostricized him for claiming he was in the 9/11 clean-up as much as they were. BS!
And of course Giuliani is a right-winger who never fails to claim that everything Bushco and his bunch do is always legal and above board. Yeh, right!
As for commenter 'oldpotsmuggler' I have to ask: How much of your product are you smoking?
Troubled
Rudy is just trying to pick up a few primary votes by attacking Hillary. In the general election he will probably be for withdrawal, but against a timetable. In reality, he's so opportunist that no one, including Rudy himself, knows what he really thinks. There's a good chance the Republicans will eventually notice this, and nominate someone else, probably Romney.
It's not gonna deter Hillary, or anyone else. After a fight with Rudy is a way to keep Democrats on your side without having to do anything.
I wish this Petraeus issue would go away; he's been a loyal military officer for a long time. On the other hand, as a matter of military ethics he should shut up and support Admiral Fallon, not go around promoting the idea of a "surge" in his area of command to political types, contrary to the wishes of his superiors.
Still, hang in there.
Petraeus was specifically required to testify by Congress, not even something Admiral Fallon can override. That said, there is reason to wish it were otherwise. Thus far, ignoring the gossip regarding exchanges between Petraeus and Fallon, I am quite impressed by Fallon. I think he is prepared to stand up to the White House when it comes to Iran, unless he sees compelling reasons for action. And, despite my comment below, an attack on Iran absent very compelling evidence ought to be avoided. I'll also add that I think that Iraq was a grand folly. Still, it is not cause for responsible persons, especially legislators, to act like their hair is on fire, nor is it cause for everyone to pretend they are privy to the realities (whatever they might be) visavis Iran, this article being a case in point.
I'm just gonna reply to you since you brought up something I wonder about.
If Patreus is so honorable, according to the Repubs and some scared Dems, why is he defying Fallon?
If Bush listens to the commanders on the ground, why doesn't he listen to Patreus? Why isn't he listening to Gates?
Those questions are more or less rhetorical unless you're a BushCo supporter (You know, everytime I invite a BushCo supporter to respond to a comment, they never do.), then I'm more the glad to hear your reasoning. Though, please, no name calling, no foul language. I know what you think of me as a progressive.
AND, AND!! Where is the traditional media?! The fourth estate?! What are these people studying in college?!
Report on this Katie Couric!! It's not like your rating can get worse!
I'm considering going back to being ill-informed. Ignorance was such bliss. ...And even then, I knew the war was a bad idea!
I'm not a BushCo supporter. The only question you asked that I can answer with certainty is that both Congressional orders (It was Congress who required Petrtaeus to report in person to testify about the surge and benchmarks) and POTUS orders (whatever they have been) outstrip Admiral Fallon. I'll leave it to history to judge whether Petraeus is honorable. I don't question his honor. I do question his pedigree, in the sense that he is an academic flag officer more than a fighting man with stars (e.g., Admiral Fallon). From all I know, I am comforted somewhat by the fact that Fallon is in charge and I sympathize with the position Petraeus is in, where he finds himself with so many masters. It should have been Secretaary Gates and the JCS Chairman in those chairs, not General Petraeus, but it was Congress, not the POTUS, that put him in that chair.
Petraeus assured Congress that he could make the surge work. In the real world you would have a neutral person or group collect the data to see if the surge was working. In the Bush/Cheney world you let the foxes count the chickens to see if they are all still there. Petraues and Bush are not the people to look to for the truth as they have every vest reason in the world to promote the idea of success even if that is not true. Petraeus may want to believe it is working but if it were working, why all the emphasis on Anbar when the surge was designed to help quell violence in Baghdad? And just who is Petraeus loyal to? The people or to the idiot in chief?
As far as Judilani is concerned, he didn't jump on Bush to disavow the Swiftboaters why all this money spent trying to try Clinton to the Moveon.org ad? I don't like nor believe Clinton, but she had nothing to do with the ad and the ad was accurate and truthful unlike the Swiftboat ads! Mr. I'm
Ground Zero is just telling another lie to distract the People from noticing that he also wears dresses or nothing at all!
Hi, I'm Rudy.
9/11.
Saved New York.
Vote for me.
Does it get any more exciting than that???
Rudi Giuliani avoided the draft. Let other men die for their country.
Rudy is a chronic opportunist sucking on the tit of the public tax dollars. He's a corporate lobbyist who pretends to be interested in common people-- Bull shit. Enough of this LIAR!
Enough of THIS liar? Are you insinuating that there is an HONEST polotician Dem or Repub? It is human nature to serve one's own interests and that is what they ALL do!
Anarchy is for me!
I love it when libs can beat Repubs at thier own game.....
I love the the shrill sound of the Republican whine.....
I love it when this ad can keep being brought up-more deeply entrenched in the voters minds..
betrayal, betrayal, betrayal..
.wmd,mission accomplished, we'll be greeted as liberators,
in it's last throes,.....
On the funny side-
Did anybody else notice that both John Kyl and Bob Schieffer accidentally said Betrayus instead of Petreaus on Face the Nation this morning?
Find a WMD and use it on your campaign. Go home. No one is buying it any longer - not even the republican rubes in the midwest.
What America cries out for to lead us in these dangerous times...Bush-in-a-dress!
If there has been a strong argument made that a nuclear Iran is more dangerous than a nuclear Pakistan (or nuclear China, Israel, or U.S.), I've missed it.
OBL bombed the WTC, killing 3,000 and a world united behind an invasion of Afghanistan. The country that uses a nuclear device in anger is almost guaranteed to kill in the hundreds of thousands. The visuals on this will be more graphic and dramatic than anything ever broadcast in history, and the reaction will be both instantaneous and universal. The reaction will be such that the only way for the citizens of the offending nation to protect their way of life will be to immediately turn against, and remove, their government. Barring this, the combined might of the militaries of the rest of the world will be on their doorstep at lightning speed, and an awful reckoning will be taken.
The world knows this. Viscerally we all do, and anyone sophisticated enough to run a nuclear power knows it intellectually. In addition to being one of the most highly coveted items ever, nuclear weapons are also, for any realistic purpose, already obsolete. Many want them, too many have them, and none can use them. It’s a modern paradox which should be the single greatest uniting fact of modern life.
No one can really afford enemies any more. For our part it’s clear that The United States no longer has any, if it is agreed that a true enemy must be a country from which we face any real and devastating threat. We survived the WTC. We survived Katrina. And we would (God forbid) survive a nuclear explosion. These things do not qualify as devastation, and yet there is no State actor both brave and foolish enough to even contemplate such an attack.
It is from this reality that the strength of our foreign policy can and must originate.
giuliani's advisor see's it different:
Commentary online 6/07: The Case for Bombing Iran by Norman Podhoretz
...
I have no doubt that this ominous prospect figures prominently in the President’s calculations. But it seems evident to me that the survival of Israel, a country to which George W. Bush has been friendlier than any President before him, is also of major concern to him—a concern fully coincident with his worries over a Middle Eastern arms race.
Much of the world has greeted Ahmadinejad’s promise to wipe Israel off the map with something close to insouciance. In fact, it could almost be said of the Europeans that they have been more upset by Ahmadinejad’s denial that a Holocaust took place 60 years ago than by his determination to set off one of his own as soon as he acquires the means to do so. In a number of European countries, Holocaust denial is a crime, and the European Union only recently endorsed that position. Yet for all their retrospective remorse over the wholesale slaughter of Jews back then, the Europeans seem no readier to lift a finger to prevent a second Holocaust than they were the first time around.
Not so George W. Bush, a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has demonstrated an unfailingly courageous willingness to endure vilification and contumely in setting his face against it. It now remains to be seen whether this President, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory, and weakened politically by the enemies of his policy in the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel. As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.
The foolishness of Rudy thinking about using nukes should astound me. It doesn't and that scares me. It doesn't bother me because the level of insanity just continues to rise.
Did Rudy declare a fatwah against Iran, with high priest Bush giving him the go ahead and take out 25,000 lives or so?
Maybe I'm just having a bad day, but it just gets worse. I can't stand these morons throwing around megatons. Who does Rudy think he is? What a jerk.
I would never vote for him, but I used to respect him as a decent mayor of NYC. Now he's on the neocon trash heap.
potsmuggler is right,the reason Iran wants nukes is so that it cannot be attacked.It has been stated many times that Israel has threatened to use nukes but luckily hasn't so far.Any use of nukes anywhere will collapse the world's economies with a post-apocalyptic rush for supplies and survival everywhere.The government would be ignored or shot and there would be no economic activity til all the surplus population[those with no food]had been killed off.I don't believe any of these scenarios would stop our imbecile in chief from using tactical nukes if his friend Jesus told him to.America will be a subsistence shithole waiting to be recolonised,and i hope not by a bunch of bible wielding sex maniacs this time.I know shrub is related to those witch-murderers.We'd have been a lot better off if the Indians had killed them,so many halfwits have claimed descendance.My feeling is those people had whores and horse thieves for ancestors,and were too dumb to realise it was a better lineage
Well, well. What logic. But here is the deal. Iran is threatening and developing nuclear power against UN resolutions. Ahmadinejad is thumbing his nose at the UN resolutions. He has stated that he is almost there. He also states tht he has improved kassam-like projectiles to deliver the nuclear weapons. He has stated, again and again, that Israel must we wiped off the map, and the U.S. as well. Now, see, Ahmadinejad should not do that. It is waking up some sleeping dogs. Some are already awake and on watch. A nuclear explosion may not qualify as devastation in your book, but some Saudis, Israelis, Lebanese, Iraquis and Turks would not be too happy with huge craters where there are now population centers. And you may have survived the WTC, but amny did not. You may have survived Katrina, but many did not. And, yes, there is a state foolish enough to contemplate such attacks; it is Iran under Ahmadinejad. Strength for international political negotiation depends on relative advantage, which may soon be lost. That is why timely action may be necessitated if Ahmadinejad does not come to his senses, should he have any.
A nuclear attack on Israel would kill more Palestinians than all of the deaths attributable to Israel combined. It would also render "The Palestinian Homeland" completely uninhabitable, and, Isreal being surrounded by Muslim countries, radioactive poison would plague fellow religionists of Iran. And all of this would happen even if Iran somehow managed to survive the event.
You make sense. Watch out, you are a dangerous traitor. 911!
Yep, I most believe it worked. Including Democratic strategist.
"Ya pays your money, ya takes your chances!"
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
