Take the gloves off on Giuliani's speech.
So, Giuliani makes this speech two days ago in New Hampshire very clearly saying, "vote for a Democrat and you will die in a terror attack."
The Democratic presidential candidates have all responded in one way or another, but none of them has directly attacked the core of Giuliani's statement in the American mind.
The answer to Giuliani is to look America in the eye and say:
"You've had a Republican President for SIX YEARS. Do you feel safer? Do you think the Iraq war, which Mr. Giuliani fully supports, is making us safer?
Al Qaeda recruiting is up. Al Qaeda has reestablished safe haven in Pakistan, and now, thanks to the decisions and policies of the current Republican administration, Al Qaeda has a foothold in Iraq and growing influence in countries across the middle east. Bin Laden and his deputies are still on the loose, reorganized and coordinating activities. Under this Republican president, Iraq has become a "cause celebre" driving Al Qaeda recruitment, fundraising, and activities from London to Algeria to Riyadh to Islamabad to Malaysia and the Phillipines.
I would say to Mr. Giuliani, 'really, you think a Republican president has made America safer?'
Port security. Air Cargo security. Border Security. Chemical Plant Security. Nunn Lugar efforts to secure Russian nuclear material, failed diplomatic efforts on Iran, North Korea, the Pakistani tribal areas.
I feel quite secure that Americans can see the reality past the rhetoric. The answer to Mr. Giuliani's stipulation is clearly no.
A Republican president has clearly not made our country safer.
Mr. Giuliani is making these statements in an effort to politically appeal to the ever shrinking minority of Americans who support this president.
So, no, I don't take Mr. Giuliani's statements seriously, because I like most Americans see that they are plainly not true."
That's the response I'd like to see.
Related: (NYTimes) "In a somber and wide-ranging assessment of the threat facing Britain, its top counterterrorism police officer, Peter Clarke, said Tuesday night that Al Qaeda had survived “a prolonged multinational assault” and that its supporters had established “an inexorable trend towards more ambitious and more destructive attack planning.”
The Democratic presidential candidates have all responded in one way or another, but none of them has directly attacked the core of Giuliani's statement in the American mind.
The answer to Giuliani is to look America in the eye and say:
"You've had a Republican President for SIX YEARS. Do you feel safer? Do you think the Iraq war, which Mr. Giuliani fully supports, is making us safer?
Al Qaeda recruiting is up. Al Qaeda has reestablished safe haven in Pakistan, and now, thanks to the decisions and policies of the current Republican administration, Al Qaeda has a foothold in Iraq and growing influence in countries across the middle east. Bin Laden and his deputies are still on the loose, reorganized and coordinating activities. Under this Republican president, Iraq has become a "cause celebre" driving Al Qaeda recruitment, fundraising, and activities from London to Algeria to Riyadh to Islamabad to Malaysia and the Phillipines.
I would say to Mr. Giuliani, 'really, you think a Republican president has made America safer?'
Port security. Air Cargo security. Border Security. Chemical Plant Security. Nunn Lugar efforts to secure Russian nuclear material, failed diplomatic efforts on Iran, North Korea, the Pakistani tribal areas.
I feel quite secure that Americans can see the reality past the rhetoric. The answer to Mr. Giuliani's stipulation is clearly no.
A Republican president has clearly not made our country safer.
Mr. Giuliani is making these statements in an effort to politically appeal to the ever shrinking minority of Americans who support this president.
So, no, I don't take Mr. Giuliani's statements seriously, because I like most Americans see that they are plainly not true."
That's the response I'd like to see.
Related: (NYTimes) "In a somber and wide-ranging assessment of the threat facing Britain, its top counterterrorism police officer, Peter Clarke, said Tuesday night that Al Qaeda had survived “a prolonged multinational assault” and that its supporters had established “an inexorable trend towards more ambitious and more destructive attack planning.”
posted by mikevotes at
7:06 AM
4 Comments:
You fail to examine the alternatives, which would be the opposite--if Ketchup-man Kerry had won the election.
Most Democrats, with the exceptio of Lieberman, have flipped their position on the war since it began--there is no room for arguement on this point (hey, that sounds like 'the debate is over'!).
Done whining yet?
By
Anonymous, at 2:09 PM
"Do you think the Iraq war, which Mr. Giuliani fully supports, is making us safer?"
Well, yes.
The global Islamist movement isn't going to drop their arms if we drop ours.
Vote for the Democrats and you will see Iran go nuclear, dark age fundies toppling Iraq and establishing a state that exports terror, the Patriot dismantled, and a Chinese veto over American foreign policy. I simply don't see why I should do this as a responsible citizen.
By
jhbowden, at 2:22 PM
Wow. Did I get linked somewhere that would surprise me?
Frank, I agree with you that about half the Senate Dems have flipped since the war authorization vote (23 nays in the Senate, I don't remember the house tally,) but that's really somewhat irrelevant to this conversation.
Jason,
I fully agree with your point that it's not over if we pull out of Iraq (which I don't favor fully, and the Democratic legislation doesn't support either,) however, Al Qaeda in Iraq represents a tiny, although very violent, portion of the problem.
Even if we "won" in Iraq, they would mostly just scoot out to the tribal lands of Pakistan.
Winning Iraq won't solve the Al Qaeda problem either.
(By the way, thanks to both of you for dissenting in a sane, non-obscene way. That doesn't happen alot on blogs.)
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 3:57 PM
By the way, Rudy never said what the press said that he said.
Your use of quotes is highly inaccurate. It's what we call a misrepresentation. Or if I'm explaining the same thing to my kids, I call it 'a lie'.
I did appreciate your comment about our ability to be civil while rebutting. That was very kind of you.
By
Anonymous, at 1:56 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home