Rudy Giuliani – Professional Victim

18 Jun

The McCain campaign today let loose former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani as its attack dog on the issue of terrorism and Obama’s alleged softness on it. Not only with Jimmy Carter’s name be bandied about, but expect the dead of 9/11 to be used as a hammer against Obama at every turn.

But aside from the accident of Giuliani being the mayor of the city hardest hit by 9/11, what foreign policy/counterterrorism credentials does Giuliani boast?

Senator Joe Biden says it beautifully:

“It’s no surprise that it takes a man with zero national security and foreign policy experience to defend the policies of John McCain and President Bush. The facts are that the policies President Bush has pursued and Senator McCain would continue have not made us safer. We’re bogged down in Iraq with no end in sight and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan — the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 — have regrouped and are plotting new attacks. In fact, terrorist attacks around the world have increased since 9-11.

“When it comes to Guantanamo detainees, Senator McCain has been all over the map. A year ago, he recognized that Guantanamo was a stain on this country and joined me in advocating that it be closed down and recommending that the detainees be sent to Fort Leavenworth — where there has never been a question that they would have Habeas Corpus rights. Now, Sen. McCain insists that Americans must choose between our values and our security. That’s exactly wrong. Our values reinforce our security. Our failure to live up to them has been Al Qaeda’s biggest recruiting tool.”

38 Responses to “Rudy Giuliani – Professional Victim”

  1. Russell June 18, 2008 at 2:25 pm #

    If Sen. Biden is so concerned with national security and foreign policy credentials, he should take a look at his party’s candidate. Obama has just about as much to offer as Giuliani.

  2. vivian June 18, 2008 at 2:35 pm #

    Actually you should amend that last sentence to read ‘Obama has just about as much to offer as Giuliani or McCain’.

  3. Buffalopundit June 18, 2008 at 2:37 pm #

    Or George W. Bush ca. 1999.

    Or John F. Kennedy ca. 1960.

    Or Ronald W. Reagan ca. 1980.

  4. Russell June 18, 2008 at 2:50 pm #

    I wouldn’t exactly agree with all of that, Pundit. At least Reagan, Bush, McCain and Kennedy all served in the military, McCain and Kennedy in combat with distinction. And the case can be made that Kennedy before 1960 and McCain today had/have a hell of a lot more foreign policy and national security experience than Obama today.

  5. vivian June 18, 2008 at 2:58 pm #

    Just curious, but would you explain why you left George Bush off your list?

  6. Buffalopundit June 18, 2008 at 3:05 pm #

    @vivian: Bush senior served in the UN and worked in the CIA.

    @Russell: I didn’t realize that George W. Bush’s service in the Alabama and Texas Air National Guard earned him foreign policy points.

    Anyhow, we were talking about Giuliani. You didn’t rebut the fact that _he_ has no foreign policy credentials, yet has the nerve to criticize other people about it. Shameless, one might say.

  7. Russell June 18, 2008 at 3:12 pm #

    Yes, I did acknowledge that Giuliani had little to no experience. I pointed out that he’s pretty much on equal footing with Obama. Therefore, I have no problem with Giuliani criticizing Obama on this issue. What I did take issue with was Biden making such a statement while ignoring the credientials of the candidate he was supporting. Following your last point, what would you call Obama’s nerve to criticize other people with far more experience than he? I’d say shameful.

  8. Buffalopundit June 18, 2008 at 3:22 pm #

    @Russell: Duh. When I said you didn’t rebut it, that means you acknowledged it. No?

    Obama will surround himself with people who have foreign policy experience. People like Richard Clarke, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark, etc.

    Indeed, to rebut Giuliani’s “shameful” 9/10 remark, Obama’s campaign brought out Richard Clarke.

    McCain is use a person with no such experience as a campaign surrogate on foreign policy and terrorism.

    I’d call that silly.

    Obama: Richard Clarke
    McCain: Rudy Giuliani.

    Good luck with that, McCain.

  9. indabuff June 18, 2008 at 3:32 pm #

    Russell & BP…you guys should hold a debate closer to election…BP for BO & Russell for JM…I’d pay a couple bucks to see as others would I am guessing…give money to charity…

  10. Chris Smith June 18, 2008 at 3:34 pm #

    I’d pay a couple of bucks to watch Byrd and Splett sit around and lament how the system is a total scam and the system is out to screw the little man at every opportunity. We’ll call it ambivalapalooza!

  11. hank June 18, 2008 at 3:37 pm #

    All Biden did was attack the messenger.

    There’s no “ALLEGED” Softness to Obama’s stance on terrorism. It’s Jello.

    Ever see “Midnight Express”? That’s the level of rights and guarantees that American Citizens get in foreign Countries. keep in mind of course Turkey is a NATO ally that did all that stuff.

    These terrorists are NOT American Citizens. So why would they merit all the Consitutional protections that an American citizen should get?

    Tim McVeigh got HIS rights, but then again, he WAS A CITIZEN.

    Take a trip to Saudi Arabia with a Bible in your hands, and see how fast you end up in jail, and how many hands you have left when you get there if the cops are a bit over-zealous.

    FOREIGN NATIONALS who perpetrate violence and terror on innocent Americans–not unlike the 3000 who died on 9/11 (REMEMBER THEM?) do not deserve and should not expect the same rights we bestow on our own citizens. The trials of the 1st WTC bombings were an abomination of our system of jurisprudence. Obama condoning that practice and wanting to continue it shows what a limp dick he is on foreign policy–or perhaps he’s just a naive airhead.

  12. Chris Smith June 18, 2008 at 3:41 pm #

    Yes, we should base our human rights policies on those of Turkey. Hank is absolutely right.

  13. Russell June 18, 2008 at 3:42 pm #

    Really, that’s what it comes down to for you? Today, my attack dog was bigger than your attack dog? Unfortunately for you, more Americans recognize and possibly respect the view of Giuliani on this issue than they do Richard Clarke. I’d be willing to bet that at least 8 out of 10 Americans couldn’t even tell you who Richard Clarke is, but the same amount could tell you about Giuliani.

    I’ll choose based on the actual candidate’s credentials, not on the credentials of his current attack dog. I still would like to know, in the context of your earlier statement, what do you think of the nerve of Obama to criticizing someone with more experience?

    indabuff, that made me laugh. It’s a fun thought.

  14. Buffalopundit June 18, 2008 at 3:44 pm #

    8 out of 10 Americans couldn’t even tell you who Richard Clarke is, but the same amount could tell you about Giuliani.

    Terrorism boiled down to a Trident commercial.

    It is TEH SHAMEFULS!@%#%^

  15. Russell June 18, 2008 at 3:47 pm #

    Unfortunately, that’s the current state of our democracy.

  16. Chris Smith June 18, 2008 at 3:48 pm #

    More people know who Jessica Simpson is than either Giuliani or Clarke. I think the choice is clear!

  17. Russell June 18, 2008 at 4:03 pm #

    Chris, I know you’re just playing dumb, but the point is it doesn’t do much good to use a surrogate with great credentials when no one recognizes that surrogate or knows his credentials. Giuliani, people know, Clarke, not so much.

  18. Timothy Domst June 18, 2008 at 4:29 pm #

    “Our failure to live up to them has been Al Qaeda’s biggest recruiting tool.”

    This is false. Our support for Israel is bigger, and another that’s probably bigger is our set of western values. Too many people think that adjusting our foreign policy here and there will somehow make hundreds of millions of Moslems change their mind about us all of a sudden. It will do most to make a certain segment of our population feel better and not much else. Most European countries bend over backwards to defer to Moslems’ rights, but they bomb and murder people in Britain and the Netherlands anyway. 9/11 happened before the war in Iraq, before Guantanamo.

  19. Howard Goldman June 18, 2008 at 4:33 pm #

    Since 911, Bush’s policies have decreased terrorist attacks in the USA to zero. No matter which candidate you favor, it’s pretty hard to find fault with a record like that. I am sure that each candidate hopes and prays to have that same record.

  20. Chris Smith June 18, 2008 at 4:45 pm #

    Howard, since I started wearing Gold Toe socks, I have not contracted cancer of the foot. Coincidence/causation and all…

  21. Jon Splett June 18, 2008 at 5:04 pm #

    “I’d pay a couple of bucks to watch Byrd and Splett sit around and lament how the system is a total scam and the system is out to screw the little man at every opportunity. We’ll call it ambivalapalooza!”

    All it really takes is a 12 pack of Old Milwaukee and something to fire me up about.

    And I’m really not ambivalent. I know very well what I’d do to fix this country. End corporate personhood, scrape the entire voting system and install a parliamentary style system with instant run off voting, publicly finance campaigns and slash the military budget and put the money towards things that help people instead of kill them (like, you know, health care). I’m not exactly sure WHY that’s radical in America but it is and I’m well aware this is never going to happen but to say I don’t know where I want us to go isn’t true.

    Oh and as for a debate between Russel and Alan, I think I’d drop a couple bucks to NOT have to read them pick apart each others semantics in the comments every day. Married couples pick apart less trivial points than those two.

    A bareknuckle knuckle boxing match between the two though…THAT could get entertaining.

  22. hank June 18, 2008 at 5:57 pm #

    Chris–need you be so obtuse?

    The basic premise of the statement is Americans do not get preferential treatment when they commit a crime in another country. Our citizens do not engage in terrorism around the world. there are no American Based international terror networks.

    Bottom line–and you LOVE to forget this–is that we are at WAR against international terrorism.

    And after seeing a picture of you I can see why you’re not interested in joining that fight. If you were any softer Proctor and Gamble would be looking for you as a stand-in for the Snuggle Bear. Aint a sharp edge on you anywhere, just as I had figured.

    I suppose if a Hamas terrorist came in your house and raped and killed your wife, you’d make him a nice cup of tea.

  23. indabuff June 18, 2008 at 6:21 pm #

    The system itself isn’t a sham…the way politicians come off is a sham…

    Obamasham

  24. barney June 18, 2008 at 7:12 pm #

    come on war on terrorism? like the war on drugs.
    we cannot keep out tons of drugs yet we will prevent 5 terrorists from crossing the border, good luck with that.
    there will always be some freak in some mountain that wants to destroy the good ole USA so we will be in state of war forever.
    there where terrorists and evil doers before 9/11 and there will be some after Bin Laden and friends are long gone.
    so we should protect ourselves without giving up those rights that make america great.
    i was a politcal science major in school, we learned that govt programs have a very hard time contracting. the department will always try to find ways to spend the money it has and increase its budget. remember all of the doomsayers before welfare reform. i think the same can be made for our homeland security / defense complex. will there ever come a time to cut thoese budgets?
    we will never never completely eliminate the threat of someone blowing up a bomb at mall or on a plane.

  25. mike June 18, 2008 at 9:01 pm #

    Howard, Bush was the president during 911, so much for not on my watch. And you still have 6 month’s to sweet it out.

  26. alwaysright June 18, 2008 at 10:23 pm #

    I think being mayor of the most important city in the world, home to the UN, site of multiple terrorist incidents, gives Giuliani plenty of street cred on the issue of terrorism. The record is pretty clear. Prior to 9/11, America took a “law enforcement” approach to fighting terror. The result was a steadily escalating series of attacks, culminating in 9/11. Since 9/11, we’ve taken a “forward” approach to fighting terror, and have suffered no further attacks. Coincicdence? Perhaps, but I’d rather not bet the lives of tens of thousands of Americans on it.

    We’ve also liberated millions of Muslims from brutal, repressive regimes, and helped launch what could be a better way of life for the aforementioned millions. For those people, our “standing” is pretty damn strong, perhaps preventing the spread of radicalism, no?

    We need to stop having this collective guilt trip about what we did to defend ourselves after 9/11. It was just. It was far-sighted. It was noble. Our enemies will stop attacking us once they understand that it will not advance their aims.

  27. Pauldub June 19, 2008 at 5:48 am #

    Howard – zero terrorist attacks since 9/11 on American soil.
    But how many American citizens have been killed since 9/11 as a result of the war on terror?

  28. indabuff June 19, 2008 at 9:36 am #

    @PaulDub

    How many enemy attacks were there on American soil after Pearl Harbor and how many American citizens were killed as a result of WWII?

  29. Snarky Snarkmore McSnarkamaphone June 19, 2008 at 11:41 am #

    since I started wearing Gold Toe socks, I have not contracted cancer of the foot. Coincidence/causation and all

    That’s awesome, I’m totally going to vote for Bob Barr’s attack dog, GoldToe Socks. Someone call Roswell Park!

  30. Snarky Snarkmore McSnarkamaphone June 19, 2008 at 11:57 am #

    Meanwhile, Obama won’t fight against telecom amnesty and warrantless eavesdropping. In fact, he’s even helping one of the Blue Dog taintlickers, Rep. John Barrow, in his primary fight against another Democrat with a commitment to fight/reverse this stuff. Sweet! Didn’t Obama also accept the help of another one of those Bush-enablers, Jay Rockefeller, during the primary.

    Change. My. Ass. Or are Team Obama going to spin this (like opting out of public financing) too? I’d like to hear the “realpolitik” or pragmatic excuse; I’m sure I will.

    Glenn Greenwald’s piece.
    Atlanta Constitution-Journal’s article.

  31. Timothy Domst June 19, 2008 at 4:06 pm #

    I was wondering when someone would come along to say how Obama isn’t nearly liberal enough. There’s nothing like pushing the envelope ad infinitum, is there?

  32. Snarky Snarkmore McSnarkamaphone June 19, 2008 at 10:31 pm #

    I just think a good candidate should be attacked from both sides, Timmy. I’ll vote for Obama, but I ain’t drinking the koolaid. Still: Let’s paint the White House black, baby!

  33. Timothy Domst June 19, 2008 at 11:19 pm #

    Your statement proves that your vote is based on forming an identity for yourself, above all else. “I’m more left than anyone.”

  34. Pauldub June 20, 2008 at 5:44 am #

    @ Indabuff – FDR didn’t brag that the war against the Axis was being waged so there would be no more Pearl harbors.

  35. Snarky Snarkmore McSnarkamaphone June 20, 2008 at 12:12 pm #

    Your statement proves that your vote is based on forming an identity for yourself, above all else. “I’m more left than anyone.”

    Um, wtf? ok, Timmmmmmy.

    Anyway, I think Splett’s got me by a few degrees on that one.

  36. Timothy Domst June 20, 2008 at 4:22 pm #

    OK let’s say Obama does something about telecom amnesty and warrantless eavesdropping after he is elected. My guess is that wouldn’t be enough, and you’d complain about something else and say he was a “Blue Dog taintlicker.”

  37. Snarky Snarkmore McSnarkamaphone June 20, 2008 at 8:44 pm #

    OK let’s say Obama does something about telecom amnesty and warrantless eavesdropping after he is elected. My guess is that wouldn’t be enough, and you’d complain about something else and say he was a “Blue Dog taintlicker.”

    Oh, there’s more alright, of course. But no, I’d be genuinely impressed and happy. That’s no reason not to keep pushing him, though, why would it be? There’s a huge list of misdeeds that the current administration has perpetrated which need undoing.

    And also: Only Democrats that enable the Bush agenda achieve the epithet taintlicker.

  38. Timothy Domst June 21, 2008 at 1:58 pm #

    News flash, telecom amnesty isn’t the highest thing on every American’s agenda, and it probably never will be even with people like you carping about it all day.

Contribute To The Conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: