Rudy Discusses Terrorism

From usatoday:

[quote]Giuliani: U.S. should focus more on Pakistan
Says more action needs to be taken against al-Qaeda
By Susan Page
USA TODAY

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa �?? Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said Thursday that the United States should do more to capture Osama bin Laden and dismantle al-Qaeda operations in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan �?? even at the expense of an ally, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

While he wasn’t explicitly critical of President Bush, the Republican presidential contender outlined in an interview with USA TODAY a more aggressive stance and a different emphasis than the administration has pursued in the region that spawned the terror network.

The United States has been distracted “for a while” by military setbacks and political heat surrounding the Iraq war, Giuliani said, not focusing enough on al-Qaeda’s resurgence in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“This cannot be like a horror movie,” he said. “You know, in the horror movie you kill the monster, and the hand re-emerges. And if you’re not looking, the hand grows back and then the monster’s there again. That cannot be allowed to happen.”

Giuliani, who has led the GOP presidential field in the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll through the year, was interviewed near the end of a two-day campaign trip to Iowa. He visited an ethanol plant and promised as president to appoint “strict constructionist” judges who would not reinterpret the Constitution.

His presidential campaign has been tied largely to his leadership in New York after the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. Giuliani was most animated when he turned in the interview to the subject of battling Islamic extremists, with a copy of the National Intelligence Estimate that was released Tuesday at his side. They were his first substantive comments on the formal assessment of the nation’s terrorist threat.

The report warned that al-Qaeda has significantly strengthened its operations over the past two years, creating a “heightened threat environment” for the United States.

Some of Giuliani’s comments echoed critics of the war in Iraq who argue that the invasion drew attention and resources away from the battle against the home base of al-Qaeda, which carried out the 9/11 attacks. Giuliani, however, called the Iraq war “enormously important,” but he said other challenges from Islamic terrorism also demanded attention.

“I said it a long time ago �?� America is too consumed with Iraq,” he said. “We’ve got to be patient and committed (in Iraq), but we’ve got to multitask. We’ve got to have conversations beyond Iraq. We’ve got to talk about Iran �?? Iran is more dangerous than Iraq �?? and we have to get the job done in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.”

He said that might involve reorganizing United Nations forces, committing more U.S. resources, considering U.S.-led airstrikes on al-Qaeda targets in northern Pakistan or taking a tougher line with Musharraf �?? or pursuing all those steps.

Giuliani expressed little patience with the Pakistani president, who last fall brokered a cease-fire with tribal leaders in northern Pakistan that let them police their own territories. The White House said this week that the deal helped open the way for al-Qaeda to rebuild its infrastructure.

“Musharraf is important to us to the extent that he helps us remove this existential threat to him and to us,” Giuliani said.

“And to the extent that he recognizes that it’s an existential threat to us and to him, he’s valuable to us. To the extent that he doesn’t, he isn’t,” Giuliani said.[/quote]

Several interesting aspects. Note the focus on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and bin laden.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Several interesting aspects. Note the focus on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and bin laden.

JeffR[/quote]

Has he any ideas how to pay for that?

Its nice to see him finally showing that he knows a little bit about what we should be doing.

Even if critics have been lamenting these points for the better part of 4 years.

Rudy slips on many points:

  • Ben Laden matters not; The genie is already out of the bottle. It’s a decentralized organization. There’s no head to cut.

  • Pakistan struck a deal with the Taliban not with Al-Qaeda. That exacerbates the hatred of the latter towards the Pakistani government. Not that they were buddies to start with. 'em being Takfirist and all…

  • The US military is already streched in Iraq. Extended tours are common place. Go ask any army recruiter about the daunting task they face everyday. In this light, how can he deal with the Pakis while remaining “committed” to Iraq?

He sounds like someone out of touch with reality. The US needs change, not someone who follows in Dubya’s footsteps.

[quote]Ren wrote:
Its nice to see him finally showing that he knows a little bit about what we should be doing.

Even if critics have been lamenting these points for the better part of 4 years.[/quote]

I love how people are calling him a terror ‘expert’, even though he refuses to acknowledge that terrorists have any reasoning other than ‘Me hate freedom. Me blow freedom up!’.

This stuff isn’t new. This is the stuff Clinton’s old advisers told Bush when he came into office. Both Clinton and Bush failed to act on it. Why would Rudy be any different?

Excellent opinion piece:

JeffR

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Ren wrote:
Its nice to see him finally showing that he knows a little bit about what we should be doing.

Even if critics have been lamenting these points for the better part of 4 years.

I love how people are calling him a terror ‘expert’, even though he refuses to acknowledge that terrorists have any reasoning other than ‘Me hate freedom. Me blow freedom up!’.

This stuff isn’t new. This is the stuff Clinton’s old advisers told Bush when he came into office. Both Clinton and Bush failed to act on it. Why would Rudy be any different?[/quote]

Hey, Beowolf.

My best guess would be that he was there when the results of a failed policy became stunningly obvious.

It appears to have affected him greatly.

The only guy (besides McCain) who I would trust with safeguarding the U.S.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Ren wrote:
Its nice to see him finally showing that he knows a little bit about what we should be doing.

Even if critics have been lamenting these points for the better part of 4 years.

I love how people are calling him a terror ‘expert’, even though he refuses to acknowledge that terrorists have any reasoning other than ‘Me hate freedom. Me blow freedom up!’.

This stuff isn’t new. This is the stuff Clinton’s old advisers told Bush when he came into office. Both Clinton and Bush failed to act on it. Why would Rudy be any different?

Hey, Beowolf.

My best guess would be that he was there when the results of a failed policy became stunningly obvious.

It appears to have affected him greatly.

The only guy (besides McCain) who I would trust with safeguarding the U.S.

JeffR

[/quote]

So you wouldn’t trust the security to those who saw that the policy was going to fail before it failed? The ones who saw how obviously retarded we were acting?

You’re a strange fella.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Ren wrote:
Its nice to see him finally showing that he knows a little bit about what we should be doing.

Even if critics have been lamenting these points for the better part of 4 years.

I love how people are calling him a terror ‘expert’, even though he refuses to acknowledge that terrorists have any reasoning other than ‘Me hate freedom. Me blow freedom up!’.

This stuff isn’t new. This is the stuff Clinton’s old advisers told Bush when he came into office. Both Clinton and Bush failed to act on it. Why would Rudy be any different?

Hey, Beowolf.

My best guess would be that he was there when the results of a failed policy became stunningly obvious.

It appears to have affected him greatly.

The only guy (besides McCain) who I would trust with safeguarding the U.S.

JeffR

So you wouldn’t trust the security to those who saw that the policy was going to fail before it failed? The ones who saw how obviously retarded we were acting?

You’re a strange fella.
[/quote]

Beowolf,

You mean those who turn their back on the troops mid-stream for short term political gain?

No, I wouldn’t trust them.

Don’t ask me to say anything more about rodham (in particular).

I’m hoping she’s the nominee. After that, all’s fair.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Ren wrote:
Its nice to see him finally showing that he knows a little bit about what we should be doing.

Even if critics have been lamenting these points for the better part of 4 years.

I love how people are calling him a terror ‘expert’, even though he refuses to acknowledge that terrorists have any reasoning other than ‘Me hate freedom. Me blow freedom up!’.

This stuff isn’t new. This is the stuff Clinton’s old advisers told Bush when he came into office. Both Clinton and Bush failed to act on it. Why would Rudy be any different?

Hey, Beowolf.

My best guess would be that he was there when the results of a failed policy became stunningly obvious.

It appears to have affected him greatly.

The only guy (besides McCain) who I would trust with safeguarding the U.S.

JeffR

So you wouldn’t trust the security to those who saw that the policy was going to fail before it failed? The ones who saw how obviously retarded we were acting?

You’re a strange fella.

Beowolf,

You mean those who turn their back on the troops mid-stream for short term political gain?

No, I wouldn’t trust them.

Don’t ask me to say anything more about rodham (in particular).

I’m hoping she’s the nominee. After that, all’s fair.

JeffR
[/quote]

Actually, Mrs. Clinton supported the Iraq war. I was talking about those who didn’t.

AKA Mike Gravel and Ron Paul, as well as anyone else who knew exactly what we were getting into before we got into it.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Ren wrote:
Its nice to see him finally showing that he knows a little bit about what we should be doing.

Even if critics have been lamenting these points for the better part of 4 years.

I love how people are calling him a terror ‘expert’, even though he refuses to acknowledge that terrorists have any reasoning other than ‘Me hate freedom. Me blow freedom up!’.

This stuff isn’t new. This is the stuff Clinton’s old advisers told Bush when he came into office. Both Clinton and Bush failed to act on it. Why would Rudy be any different?

Hey, Beowolf.

My best guess would be that he was there when the results of a failed policy became stunningly obvious.

It appears to have affected him greatly.

The only guy (besides McCain) who I would trust with safeguarding the U.S.

JeffR

So you wouldn’t trust the security to those who saw that the policy was going to fail before it failed? The ones who saw how obviously retarded we were acting?

You’re a strange fella.

Beowolf,

You mean those who turn their back on the troops mid-stream for short term political gain?

No, I wouldn’t trust them.

Don’t ask me to say anything more about rodham (in particular).

I’m hoping she’s the nominee. After that, all’s fair.

JeffR

Actually, Mrs. Clinton supported the Iraq war. I was talking about those who didn’t.

AKA Mike Gravel and Ron Paul, as well as anyone else who knew exactly what we were getting into before we got into it.[/quote]

You must have missed the part where I said, “You mean those who turn their back on the troops mid-stream for short term political gain?”

Translation: Vote for the war, say in March 2007 that she’d never vote to defund the troops, June 2007 vote to defund the troops.

I can’t be any clearer.

JeffR

P.S. I know you loathe rodham as much as the rest of us. This really isn’t directed at you.

Looks like Rudy is turning up the gain.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=EAF08585-3048-5C12-005F4CF2A8941F32

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Ren wrote:
Its nice to see him finally showing that he knows a little bit about what we should be doing.

Even if critics have been lamenting these points for the better part of 4 years.

I love how people are calling him a terror ‘expert’, even though he refuses to acknowledge that terrorists have any reasoning other than ‘Me hate freedom. Me blow freedom up!’.

This stuff isn’t new. This is the stuff Clinton’s old advisers told Bush when he came into office. Both Clinton and Bush failed to act on it. Why would Rudy be any different?

Hey, Beowolf.

My best guess would be that he was there when the results of a failed policy became stunningly obvious.

It appears to have affected him greatly.

The only guy (besides McCain) who I would trust with safeguarding the U.S.

JeffR

[/quote]

You would trust him knowing he claims to be a terrorism expert despite no evidence to support his claims, knowing he has a history of overruling experts in their respective fields to make an uneducated and ultimately moronic decision?

Anyone who refuses to admit they have been wrong on a multitude of occasions involving incredibly important issues will never get my vote…

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Looks like Rudy is turning up the gain.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=EAF08585-3048-5C12-005F4CF2A8941F32

JeffR[/quote]

Turning up the gain huh? Sounds like a salvage operation to me.

But still, I can’t trust a guy who turns every question into something about terrorism or 9/11.

I’m looking forward to this man debating whatever dem bradley and his pals select.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vlog/2007/08/an_hour_with_rudy_giuliani.html

JeffR

This is what wins elections.

Remember bradley (of all people) trying to castigate Rudy for his personal life.

Here’s Rudy’s response:

[quote]DES MOINES - Toward the end of yesterday morning’s GOP presidential debate here in the heartland, each of the nine candidates was asked to describe in 30 seconds a defining mistake in their lives.

When the question came to Rudy Giuliani, he shrugged, lifted his arms and eyebrows, and said to much laughter, “To have a description of my mistakes in 30 seconds?”

Prodded to answer by the debate’s moderator, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, whose father is a Greek Orthodox priest, Giuliani shot back, “Your father is a priest. I’m going to explain it to your father, not to you, OK?”
[/quote]

From: Newsday | Long Island's & NYC's News Source - Newsday

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
This is what wins elections.
[/quote]

What, being unable to recognize your own weaknesses or admit to mistakes? Or is it simply not bothering to prepare for obvious debate questions and getting caught looking like a chump?

You want a comic book character to vote for, don’t you Jerffy?

[quote]vroom wrote:
JeffR wrote:
This is what wins elections.

What, being unable to recognize your own weaknesses or admit to mistakes? Or is it simply not bothering to prepare for obvious debate questions and getting caught looking like a chump?

You want a comic book character to vote for, don’t you Jerffy?[/quote]

Just stop posting. Has JeffR ever responded to a single inane, limpwristed post that you’ve made?

Rudy appears to be dumber that Bush. He [Rudy] is an absolute moron.

[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
Just stop posting. Has JeffR ever responded…[/quote]

Yes, but then he got his ass handed to him and he’s such a coward that I’ve been on “virtual ignore” ever since. I’ll stop posting (at him so much) when he stops being such a big pussy.