Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Iraq Not Among Rudy's Top Twelve Priorities

Harry Truman:
"The buck stops here."
George W. Bush:
"I’m the decider."
Rudy Giuliani on Iraq:
"We may be successful in Iraq; we may not be. I don’t know the answer to that. That’s in the hands of other people."
The New York Times reports that Giuliani presented his top twelve priorities yesterday, but dealing with the Iraq isn’t among them:
Not surprisingly, fighting terrorism was at the top of the list that Mr. Giuliani offered Tuesday. But noticeably absent from the speech was any mention of the war in Iraq, likely to be the central challenge for any new president.
Asked afterward about the omission, the candidate said Iraq must be viewed in the context of a broader fight against terrorism. It was not dealt with singly in the speech, he said.
In other words, if you don’t want to deal with the issue, simply redefine it. Of course, by defining the mess in Iraq as part of “a broader fight against terrorism,” Giuliani slides right past the problem that al Qaeda was not in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

All the R's are trying to "out Bush" each other. This one wins a prize since Iraq is not a priority for Bush either.

8:08 PM, June 13, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your headliner sounds shocking at first. "What a loon, how can anyone run the country without focusing on Iraq?" Some Joke, huh? At least that was my takeaway.

But after listening to 1150 am on his visit yesterday, I received a different take. Whoa.... Sort of like listening to one of the gospel's parables on one level and saying "that's a simple story, what's the big deal," then having its premise explained and going "Whoa, man, H e a v y dude."

The "take away" was that terrorism should be our focus, and by its implication and absence, that Iraq ......well we really shouldn't be there. This done without saying it directly which would cause a firestorm at this time and no doubt, derail his candidacy. One thing, no..... two things in "jewel"'s favor.....One,... he is the candidate who has experienced terrorism first ..How many funerals did he attend?

He is correct. We need to fight terrorism. But you don't fight terrorism with WWII campaigns. You fight them like we fought the Indian wars of the Old West. Small military engagements with significant social changes backing you up. In the case of our own history, it was the force of large scale immigration that really tamed the West: the military was just the point of the spear......

The second part of "jewel"'s message was tenacity. He preaches you keep after the terrorists.....
Perhaps few can still remember the pre "jewel"'s version of NYC. Under Koch, Dingle. it was a sewer. A corrupt dying city. Most of us thought it was aberration or the American dream......but "jewel"s surprised us and proved us wrong...... The most instrumental tool, and at the time quite controversial, (I remember being outraged) was arresting what at that time seemed like every black man in the city, for loitering, jaywalking, or any petty crime that could be construed. With all the criminals, drug dealers, off the streets being processed, the streets had less crime. Gradually elements of the population that had records, did not want to return to incarceration on Riker's Island, and chose to stay out of trouble. To this day, I am amazed as I walk through Times Square, or down the streets of Queens after 1 in the morning. Much safer than Wilmington I would say..........
In fact, as this purge of New York was taking place, Wilmington's troubles started percolating. During the 90's, most of the blame was on New Yorkers moving in on the local crime scene.

Reading Donvitti's "Goodbye St. Hedwigs" drives home what needs to be done. And "Jewel"s has done it............

A distinction, albeit a fine line, has been drawn between two Republican front runners......and remarkably it first took place here in Delaware. Romney, the Sussex chairman's favorite, is choosing a strategy that sucks up to the teats of the Republican "old school" (like the movie), surprisingly, even though his personal success in Massachusetts, has been the opposite tack of his party's mainstream. "Jewel"s on the other hand, is shying away from those teats, not sure if they belong to a cow or a bull, and is implying that his old time party base is messed up, and somewhat misguided.

He is really running on an independent tack, different than Romney or McCain, and actually by dismissing Iraq as one of his top ten priorities, gives even those on the other side of the aisle, the hope that this silly little war may be over soon, despite whoever is elected to office. Meanwhile, the war on terrorism will continue wherever it is needed, in Afghanistan, Malaysia, Philippines, Yemen, Somalia, Eritrea, Chad, Sudan, Mali, where the world's best fighting force, can fight "Dem Injun's" in the manner we do best........."American style"....

11:43 AM, June 15, 2007  
Blogger Tom Noyes said...

For Giuliani to seek the presidency without talking about Iraq is disingenous, deceitful and dangerous. Yes it would feel great to go back five years and start over, focusing on terrorism rather than going into Iraq.

But we are in Iraq, it's a mess, and there are no good options, except perhaps for Mr. Giuliani to pretend it's not there.

Sure we can "hope that this silly little war may be over soon," but it probably won't, and the mess in Iraq affects our security in ways that reach far beyond the daily dangers our troops endure. This "silly little war" is eroding our armed forces and weakening our political influence in the region, which is sliding further into chaos.

A serious presidential candidate has to talk about Iraq. Joe Biden has in considerable detail. The other major candidates have at least said whether they think we should stay or go. If Rudy Giuliani were to somehow reach the White House, he's going to have to do something. He should at least show us the courtesy to tell us what it would be.

5:47 PM, June 15, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish I could find the comments wdel played while I was driving. Because I got a different take on what he said, and my take was different from the NY Times article you quote in your next post.

We all know the war will have to be dealt with. Many people are vocal in their protest. But there are many ways of protest, and some of the most effective methods are the ones that catch us by surprise..... Perhaps some are taking his words literally when he washes his hands of Iraq, and based on what I heard on Wdel, I am reading between his words that his ignoring Iraq, is a subtle form of protest that essentially says, " our president/ vice president are mentally ill. Read between the lines that my not commenting on Iraq, is telling you that this whole Iraq thing is baloney. We should be fighting terrorism, not forcing Iraqi citizens to join the insurgency to force us from their country"

One could look at him as I first did, and say "what a fool." But when someone smart does something that looks foolish, it is usually for a good reason. For a brief moment it looked like the reason would turn out to be that "jewel"s would soon break with the current administration and call for withdrawal.

However if the NY Times has it right, it looks like he chose to follow the party line. I hope he still has wiggle room left to change his mind. Because were he to do so, he would obviously generate a lot of excitement.

As for tackling the Iraq problem like Biden does, anyone studying poll numbers would say "not a good idea."

6:37 AM, June 16, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home