Politics – The Chicago Tribune details the challenges Rudolph Giuliani, faces in casting himself as the tax-cutting, tough-on-terror heir to that conservative icon
the campaign is going to be dismal. but giuliani has so many skeletons in the closet that it might become slightly entertaining.
The Ds might care (considering Clinton maybe not) with the Rs it is not much of an issue.
Yes, anazing what the Rs will put up with to keep power
If he wins, the upside will be the end of those pesky social wedge issues in campaigns for the Rs.
What Up Ray? Help me. I'm agreeing with you!!!! Don't know if it's an upside, (those pesky social issues), but I think you're right on the money. If Rudy wins, those issues will matter less in forthcoming elections.
Never forget, all the great ideals mean nothing if your party is not in power. Nothing changes. The Repubs must find an Electable candidate that can beat Hills. (I think Hussein will self-implode.) McCain can't beat her, Mitt can't beat her..Rudy has a shot.
I'm of the opinion that Roe V. Wade was simply unconstitutional law. (bad law.) The Libs know this. That's why and how they pushed the agenda through the courts, rather than through the Congress. What matters to me, is Rudy's stand on Supreme Court Nominees. Activist or Conservative? This is one question that must be answered by Rudy.
this is ttoooo funny... for years the cons have tried (in vain) to claim the moral "high ground" .... they told people to vote rep because dems are pro-choice, vote rep because dems want to give legal standing to gay couples, yadda, yadda, yadda... and NOW they are gonna back a guy who is pro-choice and pro civil unions for gays....
and now you say that those things "arent much of an issue". you morally bankrupt cons sunk kerry with the "flip-flop" label. any con who votes for rudy will be committing the biggest political flip-flop in history...
what exactly DO you people stand for?
The sentiment I'm hearing is:
Its the war stupid.
I thought conservatives were a principled bunch!
From what you are saying, it seems something has become unhinged: the so-called intellectual purity trumpeted by the likes of Scalia, Alito, George Will et al.
Politics is the oldest profession in the world, that is why it is often considered the same as prostitution.
This sort of compromise with principles resembles pimping for the sake of power.
It's OK, you have probably lost your moral virginity. But please do not give us those fake, insincere lectures on principles. You guys are no different that the street variety!
I wonder is the left will make an issue of his personal life, such as living with gays will in the middle of a divorce or marching in a dress at a gay pride parade?
What has Rudy done besides be mayor during 9/11? What does he know about foreign policy? And just wait until the kooks come out about his living with a couple of gay guys after one of his marriages fell apart? And his stand on abortion? If they back him, they're gonna look like hypocrites.
Eliminated NYs budget defict. Reduced crime in NY. And turned down Saudi money.
Plus he had the UN to deal with.
He raised taxes.
He took federal money.
And he didn't invade New Jersey to deflect from his own personal failings.
Rumor has it that he lowered taxes as much as a Mayor can.
If you have a link on the tax raise I'd like to see it.
He and his buddy Bernie (the NYC Police Chief) have a lot of political, moral and ethical baggage that they just can't toss into the East River!
If 9/11 is his defining moment to claim Republican mantle for a Presidential candidate, people are smart enough to know that they do not want George W Bush II for 4 more years.
During his years as NY City Mayor, all minorities suffered immensely, police brutality was a fact of life and his own moral compass was so crooked that he cheated on his wives, and buddy Bernie ran quite a few sleazy operations under his nose.
It will all come out if he becomes a serious candidate and gets nominated by desperate Republicans.
What a hoot!! Bush a liberal! What are you smoking?
The Republican "big tent" is a myth perpetrated by the right wing to offset the general believe that they were just a party of rich white guys and religious kooks. The myth actually was almost made a reality by the machinations of Karl Rove.
Blaming Clinton for cuts that originated with Bush 41, just so you can blame him for 9-11 is silliness that is unbecoming to you. You sounded a little like chin2fat for a moment.
Evolving intelligence: President Clinton and the CIA
"Ironically, it was Bush who had initiated many of the changes that Clinton would implement, particularly the policy of moving the CIA towards the area of economic intelligence. In 1991, President Bush began the reallocation of resources "away from old Cold War concerns toward new economic targets, as the world marketplace became an ever more important battlefield for America." [12] During the Cold War, 50%-60% of its resources had been targeted on the Soviet Union. By 1993, that figure had dropped to 13%. [13] CIA analysts would continue to examine issues such as weapons proliferation, counter-terrorism and traditional espionage activities. However, given the economic situation that Clinton inherited, the CIA would now develop a greatly enhanced role in the area of economic espionage."
http://www.nthposition.com/evolvingintelligence.ph
David,
Our own CIA works covertly against us and even conspires against the president to promote war and terror, many times, they work together. I have just about had it with your posts trying to beat around the bush and blame people that are quite frankly, small players in the the issues you bring up. Seems you are happy to take the nearest Democrat and slaughter them for the crime of others.
If you would ever get it in your thick head that Clinton, Kerry, Bush, Blair, these guys are all related to the Queen herself in some way... you think all this is rubbish? you think all this is coincidence? Look up Cubana Flight 455, Pan Am 103, OKC, WTC93, 9/11, tell me what you read and what makes sense, then read this article below and tell me again how much corroborates what you actually see as truth.
I don't think it will in the least match what you think is going on and who really has power. This is about good and bad, not about R/D.
DAVIDHALKO:
"After OKC and WTC93, Democratic President Clinton should have shifted gears on the CIA."
Weak argument. If it was so urgent that Clinton reverse the CIA cuts, then even more blame belongs to:
(1) Bush Sr. for initiating those cuts?
(2) Bush Jr. for failing to "switch gears on the CIA" within the first 9 months of his presidency?
(3) Bush Jr. for scapegoating the CIA for "poor intelligence" on Iraq?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A201
(4) Bush Jr. for failing to act on a memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike within the U.S."?
DAVIDHALKO:
"In retrospect, had that been done, Al-Qaeda would have had a significant funding source cut"
Al Qaeda would have lost funding from whom--the Iraqis who Bin Laden had volunteered to expel from Kuwait, from the U.S. (under Reagan and Bush Sr.), or from the Saudi who declined Bin Laden's assistance? Regardless, this is all a speculative hypothetical situation for which you have no evidence.
DAVIDHALKO:
"I suspect Bush Sr would have reversed CIA cuts just as Bush increased funding after 9/11"
Speculation. You have zero evidence to prove this.
DAVIDHALKO:
"Bush Jr...was stupid enough to think that if the U.S. just left everyone alone that he would have no problems."
Unfortunately, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction with Bush Jr. believing that no one who disagrees with U.S. policy should be left alone. Both extremes, in my opinion, are wreckless. What's needed is a middleground, which Bush Jr. is not to concede.
DAVIDHALKO:
"It has been well documented that Saddam funneled money through al-Qaeda affiliated institutions"
Well-documented? Where? I'm citing primary sources from de-classified official government and intelligence reports, which I think trump your secondary sources.
It doesn't even make sense that a secular Saddam would fund a religious fanatic like Osama. Remember, Osama volunteered his services to Saudi Arabia to help repel Saddam's invading forces from Kuwait. Why in the world would Saddam want to support someone who was fighting against him?
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-3
"Saddam viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat, and his regime since its inception has arrested and executed members of both Shia and Sunni groups to disrupt their organizations and limit their influence."
"Saddam then specified that Iraq did no cooperate with bin Laden. According to Tariq Aziz, 'Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden. When the Taliban was in power, the Iraq government deliberately avoided opening an embassy in Kabul...The Iraqi regime issued a decree aggressively outlawing Wahabism in Iraq and threatening offenders with execution.'"
"Saddam immediately refused bin ladin's requests for the office, mines, and military training...bin Laden sent Abu Hafs al-Mauritani to Baghdad in order to request $10 million to be used to continue al-Qa'ida attacks against the West. Saddam refused to meet with Abu Hafs and explicity rejected the request for assistance. Saddam did not like bin Ladin because he called saddam an 'unbeliever....' Saddam asked why the al-Qa'ida representative ad chosen to come to Iraq. Hussein was worried that al-Qa'ida operative's presence in Baghdad would cause a problem for Iraq."
The DIA, FBI, and CIA found no evidence of Salman Pak being used as a terrorist training camp.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-3
"Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the source of reports on al-Qa'ida's efforts to obtain CBW training in iraq, recanted the information he provided...The DIA assessed that 'there has been no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq...No al-Qa'ida associates detained since 11 September have said they trained at Salman Pak...Postwar site exploitation of Salman Pak has yielded no indications that training of al-Qa'ida lined individuals took place there."
"Both captured former regime documents and former regime officials show that the IIS (Iraq Intelligence Service) did respond to a foreign request for assistance in finding and extraditing al-Zarqawi for his role in the murder of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley. In the spring of 2002, the IIS formed a 'special committee' to track down al-Zarqawi, but was unable to locate and capture him...the IIS did successfully arrest one of the individuals responsible, Abu Yasim Sayyem."
"According to the DIA, detainee information, and captured document, the regime was aware of Ansar al-Islam, but the groups' presence was considered a threat to the regime and the Iraqi government attempted intelligence collection operations against them. Senior Ansar al-Slaim detainees revealed that the group viewed Saddam's regime as apostate, and denied any relationship with it...The government of Iraq considered al-Zarqawi an outlaw and blamed Ansar al-Slam for two bombings in Baghdad."
DAVIDHALKO:
"Perhaps this is because of inadequate funding and a lack of people on the ground."
Perhaps. Or perhaps it was due to
1) the removal of safeguards that properly vetted intelligence assessments before they were passed on to lawmakers
2) conscious selection of intelligence pieces that agreed with a predetermined position against Iraq
3) over-reliance on spurious sources like "Curveball"
4) an active development and propagation of "alternative assessments" via the Office of Special Programs that directly contradicted CIA estimates
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/031
"some senior Administration people, soon after coming to power, had bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence."
"the Bush people dismantled the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information."
DAVIDHALKO:
"this memo on Bin Laden, that you quotes, as well as multiple communciations from Russia saying Saddam was about to attack America, and 9/11 immediately happened"
Three problems with this line of argument:
1) It presupposes that the Bush Administration places a high value on international consensus, which contradicts their disregard for the UN, the appointment of John Bolton, and the constant lambasting of the French, Chinese, and Russians for their antiwar positions.
2) By accepting Russian intelligence while denying estimates from other countries as well as our own, the Bush Admin merely cherrypicked the intelligence that supports predetermined policy on Iraq, while ignoring those that disputed what Bush already believed.
3) By taking Russia's word over the word of the CIA, FBI, DIA, etc., Bush has further eroded confidence in America's own intelligence services--as if everything else he had done (ennumerated in a previous post) wasn't enough.
(5) Bush Jr.'s politically-motivated personnel changes that resulted in the resignation or retirement of dozens of senior CIA agents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51579-20
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4045507.stm
(6) Bush Jr. for undercutting CIA intelligence through Douglas Feith's "alternative assessments" at the Office of Special Plans?
http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/20
7) Armitage, Libby, Rove, and Cheney for compromising the confidential identities of CIA agents by outing NOC CIA agent Valerie Plame
http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/2005072211332
http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/2005072211100
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&
Bush Jr. has done more to damage the CIA's credibility, confidentiality, and ability to operate than Clinton ever did by simply following suit on cuts initiated by Bush Sr.
DAVIDHALKO:
"The "resignation or retirement of dozens of senior CIA agents" was due, after failing to provide adequate intelligence to protect America"
Wrong, and you presented zero evidence to support this assertion. Read the article again:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51579-20
"About 20 senior CIA officials have resigned or retired since Goss left Congress to become director of the agency...The uproar at CIA headquarters caused by the personnel moves, which some saw as partisan in nature"
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2006/05/11
"Acting on the president's charge, Goss in effect purged the CIA."
DAVIDHALKO:
"alternative assessments were needed, assessments that were not so "cooked."
And that's why Douglas Feith is under investigation--for NOT cooking up intelligence?
DAVIDHALKO:
"Valerie Plame acted unethically in her position, being subversive to The President."
Valerie Plame's allegiance is to her country and its Constitution, NOT to a political leader. Plame was a CIA officer--it's her JOB to collect accurate intelligence. I find it laughable that of all the politicians propagating distorted evidence, you nominate to be fired one of the few intelligence agents who had the courage and integrity to discover the truth (regarding Iraq's allegedly active nuclear weapons program) and speak out about the truth--a truth that should have disputed Bush's primary justification for invading Iraq preemptively, averted a war, and saved the lives of THOUSANDS of American troops.
(cont.)
You believe Valerie Plame ought to be fired for sticking up for the truth?
Even after George Tenet received a Presidential Medal of Freedom for declaring it was a "slam dunk" that Saddam had an active WMD program? After Paul Bremer received the Medal of Freedom for disbanding the Iraqi army that contributed to the present sectarian violence? After Tommy Franks received the Medal of Freedom for sending in too few troops (according to Powell and Shinseki) to keep the peace in Iraq? After Porter Goss received the Medal of Freedom for decimating the CIA and resigning upon the surfacing of possible ties to Duke Cunningham?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A340
Pathetic.
DAVIDHALKO:
"Had CIA been able to keep WTC93, OKC95, and 9/11/2001 from happening, there would be no credibility issues"
What makes you think the CIA can prevent all terrorist attacks from occurring? Bush was hand-delivered a memo "Bin Laden Determined to Strike the U.S." and even he couldn't prevent it from happening.
"When Clinton saw that the FBI & CIA could not protect OKC in 1993, he should have changed course - the job of the President"
You can continue to scapegoat Clinton, but the fact remains that:
1) Bush Sr. initiated the cuts
2) Bush Jr. did not move to reverse these cuts before 9/11
3) Bush Jr.'s actions and political appointments to the DCIA have further decimated the CIA's numbers, instead of augmented it
4) The Republican Congress controlled the federal budget, not Clinton, and were responsible for "changing course" on CIA funding.
DAVIDHALKO:
"Clinton Administration had a policy which kept the CIA from sharing information with the FBI."
A policy that was designed to force assessments from a variety of perspectives and prevent "group-think."
DAVIDHALKO:
"Bush Jr. wisely removed Clinton anti-sharing rule after 9/11"
And what happened? Bush Jr. claims to have fallen victim to "group-think" in believing that Saddam had operational ties to Bin Laden and that Iraq had an active WMD program. Wise is NOT the word I would use to describe Bush Jr., and many disgruntled senior intelligence experts would probably agree.
DAVIDHALKO:
"I blame Clinton for his inaction."
Is this the same "inaction" that led Clinton to order missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan where the CIA told him Bin Laden was hiding?
http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/
This despite the fact that:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/24/clinton.bin
"The entire military was against sending special forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter. And no one thought we could do it otherwise, because we could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that al Qaeda was responsible while I was president."
Did you support Clinton's actions then, or did you join the chorus of Republicans accusing him of "wagging the dog"?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/
(cont.)
Not a member? Sign-up today!
168)
According to all polls, Rudy is the one Republican in the race who stands a real chance of getting elected. Which do conservatives care about the most. Electability, or lockstep march with their political agenda?
I'm a regular at many R sites. Not much concern about his stance on social issues. The thing they like most is that he wants to win the war against the fascists and he is not pandering by changing his stance on issues.
Simon,
Fascists are from the extreme RIGHT-wing parties, people who only vote repbulican because their friends do, and have no regard for the common man or social issues, or the peoples well being.
Your post clearly shows how misguided one can become if you believe everything you read. The funny thing is, you are caught up in the very shackles you think Giuliani is trying to free us from... right-wingers, rightists, Nazis, nationalist, xenophobes, racists, anti-Semites and neo-Nazis... antonym liberal, term Fascism...
Yet you are saying that most "R" sites believe we need to win the war on Fascism?
How nice.
Actually the Italian fascist were from the left.
Mussolini was a communist before he was a fascist.
National Socialism.
Hayek in "The Road to Serfdom" explains it. Published in 1944 when memories were fresh.
Socialism always leads to fascism.
Yep. We have to beat the Islamic fascists and their lefty enablers.
Did you know Iran was a socialist country? The Baath Syrian socialists model their government on the Nazis. Same for Saddam's Iraq.
Lefty - you need to get out more.
"Fascism is a new order and consciousness that served the same old power structure and promised to solve the ills of the many while protecting the interests of the few. Many of the measures enacted by fascists were frighteningly similar to those enacted today: They include the privatization of state owned enterprises, reduction of corporate taxes and inheritance taxes, defeat of unions, and the suspension of civil liberties."
Learn about who financed Hitler during WWII and why, then you can read this article below, then come back and tell me who the fascist is if you still have the guts...
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/dec96kurdi.htm
I will give you the fact that lately it doesn't seem to make a difference who's a democrat or a republican, 9/11 is starting to bleed, and I think people are going to get in big trouble, or there is going to be another revolution. Hillary, Giuliani and a host of others knew, neither can be trusted, and I ask you where that leaves us...
President Bush has done more to help Islamic extremist than they could possibly have dreamed of. Thanks to Bush, a war that might have been concluded in a decade will most likely last for half a century or longer. Moussilini was a socailist and editer of their newspaper, Avanti, that is until he rejected socialism and joined the fascist. Fascism was started by returning soldiers who were disaffected by their treatment and lack of opportunity and disillusionment following the first world war. The black shirts were ultra-nationalist but by no means was socialism their political stripe. Fascism is a right wing philosophy. Hitler despised communists. Afterall, Marx was a jew. The right is trying to recreate history.
Hanyman,
I was under the impression Hitler did indeed denounce communism, but only to gain political power and support, and then an eventual reversal of thinking, which was I assume planned.
Having grabbed a polish prisoner and shooting him in front of a German fort, claiming he had attacked the German's, and there in lay Hitler's reason to invade Poland. Hitler was also accused of setting fire to his own German consulate, and blaming it on some poor "challenged" boy who was caught behind the large building. It does indeed seem history is repeating itself.
not much concern? youre kidding right? how many real conservatives will vote for a guy who is very NON republican on many issues, key ones at that.
if hes the republican nominee, it will finally prove, beyond ANY doubt, that republicans care about power, not the issues facing america.
He is way ahead in the Republican polls.
You are seeing the world through your own stereotypes.
You ought to get out more.
To win the war you need power. Murtha sure ain't gonna do it.
i know how to read polls too.... frankly im astounded hes leading.. wont last long... and if it does i stand by the last part of my statement
In the last presidential primary Howard Dean was way ahead in the polls as well, then he dropped like a rock. It's way too early to start counting our chickens folks! (they haven't hatched yet)
They Voted for Bush and he is far from a conservative on many important issues