Is a Vote for Rudy a Vote for War?
Rudy Giuliani has made a "promise" not to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear capability, even if it requires U.S. military action. Though the U.S. Army is scrimping to meet recruitment goals, Rudy has pledged to add at least 10 new combat brigades.
Speaking to an Atlantic Bridge conference in London, Rudy called for NATO expansion to include Japan, India, Australia, Singapore and Israel. Has Rudy thought this through?
Why would Japan and Australia, each of which already has a U.S. commitment to come to its defense, commit to go to war with a nuclear-armed Russia if it invaded Estonia? For joining NATO would require them to treat an attack on Estonia, or any other NATO nation in Europe, as an attack upon themselves.
Why should the United States commit to war for India, which has territorial conflicts and has fought wars with China and Pakistan? What vital interest is it of ours who holds Kashmir? As for Israel, are American boys now to fight Hezbollah and Hamas?
While FDR talked to Stalin, Ike and JFK to Khrushchev, and Nixon to Mao, Rudy would not talk to any "enemies bent on our destruction or those who cannot deliver on their agreements." Would he be even-handed in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute? Answers Rudy, "America shouldn't be even-handed in dealing with ... an elected democracy ... and a group of terrorists."
If Rudy rivals McCain as the hawk's hawk in the Republican race, the foreign policy advisers he has signed up make the Vulcans of Bush look like Howard Zinn and Ramsey Clark. Arnaud de Borchgrave titled his column about them "Dogs of War."
Team leader is Charles Hill, a co-signer of the Sept. 20, 2001, neocon ultimatum to Bush, nine days after 9-11, warning the president if he did not attack Iraq, his failure to do so "will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender to the war on international terrorism."
Yet Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.
A second member of Rudy's team is Martin Kramer, an Israeli-American who, according to Ken Silverstein of Harper's, "spent 25 years at Tel Aviv University and whose Middle East policy can best be summarized as, 'What's Best for Israel?'" Silverstein calls Rudy's eight-man advisory group "AIPAC's Dream Team"—AIPAC being the Israeli lobby, two of whose leaders go on trial in January for espionage against the United States
According to The New York Times, another key Rudy adviser is Daniel Pipes, "who has called for profiling Muslims at airports and scrutinizing American Muslims in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps." Another is AEI's Michael Rubin, "who has written in favor of revoking the United States' ban on assassinations."
Best known of Rudy's advisers is Norman Podhoretz, who wrote in June, "The Case for Bombing Iran" in Commentary, thinks we are in "World War IV" and writes that "as an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart" Bush will bomb Iran. Podhoretz sees us at Munich in 1938 and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Hitler.
"Like Hitler," writes Podhoretz, Ahmadinejad "is a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international order and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism."
Time to return to Planet Earth. Ahmadinejad is not only jeered at Columbia but at colleges in Tehran. He is openly attacked by rivals. He does not control the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. He does not decide on war or peace. He runs a regime with 2 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, no nukes and no navy or air force to rival ours. He is a Shia in a Sunni world. How is this 5 foot, 4 inch Persian going to strong-arm the United States, Russia and China, not to mention an Israel with 300 nukes, into his "new order"?
After the axis-of-evil speech threatening war on Iraq, Iran and North Korea, Podhoretz wrote that Bush had not gone far enough.
The "regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown ... should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority." After toppling them all, wrote Podhoretz, as he mocked the "timorous ... incorrigibly cautious Colin Powell," let's find "the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated."
Bush found the stomach. Near 4,000 Americans are dead, 27,000 wounded, Walter Reed is full, and Norman is looking for new wars. On a recent National Review cruise, he ranted that Iraq was an "amazing success," "a triumph. It couldn't have gone better." As for Saddam's WMDs, they were secretly "shipped to Syria."
After meeting with his candidate, Podhoretz emerged happy to assure us, "There is very little difference in how he (Rudy) sees the war and I see it." If true, a vote for Rudy is a vote for endless war.
And, as James Madison said, wars are the death of republics.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
Rudi may have taken this global warming thing too seriously and think that the Atlantic is going to cover a much larger part of the globe than now!
Although I loathe, despise, detest and extremely dislike Hillary Clinton, Rudy scares me much more than she. If they are our choices in 2008 - and given the trend, they will be - I will find a way to vote against both, not having thereby, as some would say, lost my vote, but having thereby maintained my integrity, my honor and the wellbeing of my soul! If we then get Hillary or Rudy, we will need to pray for God's mercy and grace. One also begins to understand what many in the Cotton States understood at the approach of and in the immediate aftermath of the elections of 1860: once someone of the bent of Lincoln (Hillary and Rudy) actually gets into power, it will be too late to contemplate peaceful secession. As the Cotton States and the Border States who eventually joined them would learn, even that move was too late. Once either of them gets control of the monopoly of state power, of the Patriot Act and of all of the legislation which flows out of and around that act, I would suggest that the days of this very website and the magazine which it reflects are numbered.
Rudy would be worse than Hillary because like Bush he would have little opposition. Every liberal/Wilsonian/centralizing initiative will be cheered by NRO et al as the "new and better conservatism." If the GOP is to remain even minimally related to a conservative vision it should lose this election.
On domestic issues, if she wants more and more illegals, the GOP will oppose her; if he wants them he will get them. If she seeks radical gay rights initiatives she will be called out on them; if he does he will be praised for his compassion. And so on into moral oblivion. As for the wars, Israel has no problem taking us down with them. Israel is a doomed state and we must not throw in our destiny with them. A friend and ally yes; but we are not tied at the hip. Why are we still involved in Biblical desert wars between fundamentalists tribes anyhow? Enough!
Just when Vladimir Putin pulled our chestnuts out of our own fire for us by using an alliance with Iran to make the idiot Bush back off, the evil Neocons and Likudniks have now reacted with insanity, paying no heed to the consequences of the alliance, finding a candidate as crazy as they are who will keep pushing for war. It was Bush's personal weakness that caused him to back down. Giuliani may not have such timidity, to our peril.
Yes, it is always preferable to have the wolf dressed in sheepskin, (Hillary) to the wolf dressed in shepherd skin. (Gulliani) But for most of us there is simply no reason to vote at all, except to stir the establishment by voting Paul.
(Re. comments #2 and #5)
"... having thereby maintained my integrity, my honor and the wellbeing of my soul! ..."
is precisely why
"... for most of us there is simply no reason to vote at all ..."
No legitimacy should be bestowed upon a shameless charade.
"“… for most of us there is simply no reason to vote at all …”
No legitimacy should be bestowed upon a shameless charade."
Better to vote third party than stay home. Voting third party sends a signal.
Since the Israeli government wants to take over Jerusalem, there would be an opening in Tel-Aviv for the White House, Congress and Supreme Court. If Giuliani were honest he would tell us his schedule for moving there.
(Re. comment #8)
"... Voting third party sends a signal. ..."
The privilege is yours.
(#9 was re. comment #7)
#8, Lee:
I could not agree more. "Israelites" got them all in the small pocket of their pants.
Norman Podhoretz is nuts. But so many of the neo-conservatives are, rootless people who advocate "creative destruction" in order to create their perfect world. To paraphrase King Henry II of England- who will rid this country of these meddlesome creatures?
"The privilege is yours."
So what is the possible benefit of note voting over voting third party?
The GOP(Gutted Our Principles)is a terminaly ill party, in the early throes of death.................They had 8 years to do something historical, and they blew it!.........Idiots like John McCain admitting "We spent money like a drunken sailor!".............Worse than that John. You guys went AWOL!.....Not counting the ones that were actually working for the socialist behind the scenes.(Ted Kennedy)..............Unless Dr. Paul get's the nomination, I'm voting 3rd party forever......................I just wish I could apollogize to Ross Perot and tell him, "You were right all along, and I should have voted for you."
Daniel Larison reports on an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that includes Pat Buchanan in a three way race with Hillary and Rudy. Pat appears to make the difference in defeating Rudy. It would actually make sense to vote third party to keep Rudy and his Neocon controllers out of the White House. Larison reports:
The latest WSJ/ABC News poll has numbers for potential three-way contests with named independent candidates, Pat Buchanan and Michael Bloomberg. Both of these are match-ups that are very, very, very unlikely, but the numbers are interesting for what they show about the decided lack of enthusiasm for Giuliani if there is a conservative candidate in the mix. In a three-way contest between Clinton, Giuliani and Buchanan, the results are 44-35-12 respectively. A Bloomberg candidacy seems to hurt Giuliani less and Clinton more, which makes sense, but it would only receive 10%. Combined with generally lower levels of identification with the GOP and less intense support for a generic Republican as President, which are also reflected in earlier parts of the poll, this seems to confirm that there are a lot of people who would normally be Republican voters who will jump at just about any chance to vote for someone other than Giuliani.
I herewith predict, not as a prophet, but as one who has, like Tonto, had his head to the ground among fellow evangelicals and fundamentalists, particularly among Southern Baptists, that Giuliani will have as his running mate none other than Mike Huckabee, that other Arkansan from Hope. Now, I will not bet the next litter of Catahoula Leopard puppies which I breed on this forthtelling - not foretelling - but infra are my reasons.
Giuliani would need a "Southern" partner to attempt to ensure that part of the Red State Block which was the Old Confederacy. Huckabee fits that. He needs someone who is staunchly pro-life and very pro-man/woman marriage to offset his own record. He would want someone who would share his pro-Israel views and his desire to take the war to the next level by whatever means. Huckabee shares those views. Giuliani needs someone who shares his statist views but hides it well. Huckabee fits that as well. I do not believe that Huckabee would have to be the second largest vote getting in order to get the nod from Giuliani. Huckabee, unlike Ron Paul, would not turn down such an offer.
Many of the 16 million Southern Baptists are moving to Huckabee as their choice. In addition, powerful voices like Don Wildman of American Family Network are moving to Huckabee. Pat Robertson has already opened the door to Giuliani. Most evangelicals cannot stand Giuliani, save for his love of Israel. Huckabee, however, has the "preacher" skills to help them swallow a Giuliani/Huckabee ticket.
Huckabee is an opportunist and is cunning and calculating. There must be something in the water at Hope, but he also has that WJC charm.
I wonder if our 'leaders' such as Rudy etc all, realize a good chunk of the American public has had it with the 90 year old Wilson play book, which has been used uninterrupted in every presidency since FDR.
Enough of the empire. You think Vietnam would have been the wake up call, but it will be interesting to see how Iraq is remembered 30 years from now. Somehow I doubt anyone will remember it as the aptly named 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'.
I will show the process all the respect it deserves, by voting Socks the cat for the 2008 race! A war against mice will no doubt be less expensive than a war against Persia!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/73/Socks_cat_1.JPG/200px-Socks_cat_1.JPG
368 × 300 pixels
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Socks_cat_1.JPG
LOL! I think you're right, Mr. Candido. Being a cat lover, Socks the cat is my choice. What do all you dog lovers think?
@21
The "dog lovers" already have plenty to choose from.
"The “dog lovers” already have plenty to choose from."
Touche!
I feel much the same way as Roho does. I became disillusioned with the GOP in the late 90s and I've voted Libertarian ever since in presidential elections. Ron Paul may be the last nominal Republican I ever vote for on a leap-year November Tuesday (if he's the candidate).
rudy's replacing george w. bush as the chivalrous male in israel's behalf. and pat robertson has given crazy rudy his approval in that regard. but so would fred thompson be the new man servant as well. they all vie for the role, it's bucks flush. obama sees only u.s. interests in israel, he puts it that way. due to his people's recent past he may be slightly more adverse to the man servant role. of course the only reason they can vie for the role is not because they are good butlers but because of the Golem behind them... the u.s. military. but israel herself is quite the golem these days with over 200 nukes and some of them on subs. aren't they all growed-up yet and can do they own thing? give israel a chance.
The Kerik trial will finish Rudolfo. A mobbed up goon who used WTC 7 as a fornication hideaway as Homeland Security Chief. How does that square with the gallant knight holding back Saladin's hordes? Al Qaeda and who knows else would have had more goods on Bernie K then the KGB and Johnny Roselli had on Jack and Bobby Kennedy's trysts with molls and Nazi spies.
"Al Qaeda and who knows else would have had more goods on Bernie K then the KGB and Johnny Roselli had on Jack and Bobby Kennedy’s trysts with molls and Nazi spies."
Johnny Roselli, ah yes, the poor fella who was found floating in a drum barrel in a south Florida harbor just days before he was to testify before the Church Committee investigating the CIA's relationship with the Mafia. The mobsters who whacked him neglected to shoot holes in the barrel - causing his body to rise to the surface instead of sinking as they had hoped - which led the Florida mob boss Santo Trafficante to complain that "you just can't get good help these days".
No doubt the neocons have the same gripe.
A matter has be brought to my attention. When I respond to Buchanan's columns, I always sign my own name, that my usual practice.
oh come one sid, aren't you me... you once accused me of being you. 'i am you you are me we are one.' -gibran ? no if god created actual others...we're similar but different too. blesses. p.s. leave sid alone, he's Not me. ouch...are they coming. remember to shoot the holes in the barrel. help! i kid.
m. zurich, you are our resident clown...
(1) "Charles Hill" (former deputy to Sec. Of State Shultz) is the Guiliani Campaign's Chief Foreign Policy Advisor and signed onto the neocon open letter to GWB after 911 urging, "Even if evidence does NOT link Iraq directly with the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and it's sponsors , must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq."
(2) On January 2007 prior to ever being on the same stage for a debate, 5 U.S. Presidential Candidates met simultaniously in a foreign country in a cordinated solidarity effort prior to the campaign season. McCain, Guiliani, Edwards, Romney, Gingrich(Later backed out)...............The event was the "7th Herzliya Conference" in Israel. And the money started pouring in......................For some.(Top Tier)
(3) "I would say, as a card carrying member of the neoconservative conspiracy, that I think Guiliani, McCain, and Thompson are getting really good advice--and Romney. None of the leading Republican candidates buy any of these fundamental criticisms that Bush took us on a radically wrong path, and we have to go to a pre 911 foreign policy."
William Kristol.
Editor of the "Weekly Standard".
why are all these swiss cities' names suddenly popping up? ... why are all those that are posting here? ... why is everyone here posting? ... who am i? ... why am i here? ... why, what, who and whence? ... daaaah? ...
A vote for Rudy is a vote for War against unborn babies. What is that traitor Pat Robertson thinking?
Of all people, Hugh Hewitt may understand Pat Robertson's reasoning. Robertson wants to 1) prove himself relevant, 2) thinks Giuliani is the best bet to secure the Supreme Court(Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter and maybe Scalia could leave during the next presidential administration) and 3) Robertson is anti-Mormon.
Or maybe Robertson is senile. Or crazy. I mean, come on, the guy thinks we should assasinate a foreign head of state because he's a jackass (Hugo Chavez, not Robertson, though I think they are both the south end of a northbound horse!). And then he said that Ariel Sharon had a stroke because he tried to "give God's land away" (i.e., finally make some small steps towards justice for the long suffering Palies). Somebody needs to throw a net over this guy and take him away.
This whole thing is exposing how hypocritical some of these people on the Religious Right are. They really don't give a rat's behind about unborn babies. All they care about is war war and more war against "Islamofascism". Islamic terrorists may be many things, but fascist doesn't immediately come to mind as they are non-state actors.
And the way they want to fight Islamic extremism will only play right into bin Ladin's hands. I think the real answer to their behavior is "Israel". Many of them are dispensationalists and have convinced themselves despite all the evidence that the modern nation of Israel and the biblical Israel founded by God are one and the same and they are not.
It is just simply bizarre to see supposed born again Christians declaring their support for a pro abortion, pro gay marriage, pro gun control, cross-dressing three times married guy with mob ties and a pedophile expriest friend and advisor.
Giuliani really scares me. He's being advised on foreign policy by Norman Podherentz. That ought to give anyone sleepless nights.
Even though there's not that much difference between them, I'd rather have Hillary than the New York Mussolini. She's a neo-con warmonger in Democratic disguise as well, but she's not quite a bellicose as the Rudster.
For my money, the one guy who really understands what a "Christian" foreign policy would look like is Ron Paul. He's got my vote, by write in if no other way!
Martha, I agree wholeheartedly. The way the neoconservatives toss around the word "Islamofascist" is at best nonsensical and more likely a dishonest semantic game. Mussolini, Franco and Horthy do not seem to be bin-Laden's mentors.
"Even though there’s not that much difference between them, I’d rather have Hillary than the New York Mussolini."
That is unfair to Mussolini, who was genuinely if incompletely anti-Cosa Nostra and supportive of Christianity as the thread holding his country together.
Do the kind thing. Put the old elephant down.