Why Rudy Believes The Iraq War Was Right and Supports War Against Iran

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:13:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

James Fallows writes:

Rudy Giuliani’s answer to the first substantive question of the debate. Knowing everything we know now, good idea or bad idea to have invaded Iraq?
Absolutely the right thing to do. It’s unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror. And the problem is that we see Iraq in a vacuum. Iraq should not be seen in a vacuum. Iraq is part of the overall terrorist war against the United States.
Huh???? . . . What you can’t understand, or at least what I have a hard time with, is why somebody who is not lumbered with responsibility for the Iraq war — didn’t help plan or execute it, didn’t even have to vote for it in Congress — would voluntarily link himself to the war in this way.

For the same reason he was so stridently pro-Scooter Libby pardon - his history of supporting choice, immigration, gun control, gay rights, etc. Rudy can not let the message be about that. It must be about fear, hysteria and lies about Iraq and the War on Terror. For the same reason Rudy flat out lies about Iran:

And during the debate the other night, the Democrats seemed to be back in the 1990s. They don’t seem to have gotten beyond the Cold War. Iran is a threat, a nuclear threat, not just because they can deliver a nuclear warhead with missiles. They’re a nuclear threat because they are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and they can hand nuclear materials to terrorists. And we saw just last week in New York an attempt by Islamic terrorists to attack JFK Airport; three weeks ago, an attempt to attack Fort Dix.

The following are all lies by Rudy Giuliani:

(1) Iran is not a nuclear threat, though they MAy become one.

(2) Iran can NOT deliver a nuclear warhead with missiles as they have neither the nuclear warheads nor the missiles that could deliver them.

(3) Iran cannot hand weapons grade nuclear materials to terrorists as it does not have weapons grade nuclear materials.

(4) The Fort Dix terroists were home grown and had no ties to Iran.

I looked at the coverage of yesterday's debate and I saw none of this mentioned. And it is scary. For Rudy's logic requires the conclusion that Iran must be invaded. Frankly, if Rudy believes what he said, he should be urging President Bush to attack Iran immediately.

Will anyone ask if he plans to do so?

< Are We Safer Now? | Rudy Was Against English as Official Language Before He was For It >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Why Rudy Believes The Iraq War Was Right and Supports War Against Iran | 46 comments (46 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Why did he say it? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:16:08 AM EST

What part of "Republican Primary" do people not understand? This is the same reason why there will be no mythical "veto proof majority."

: Our wise Washington pundits (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:24:07 AM EST

I love Fallows but come on Jim.

What reason would there be for a Rudy candidacy (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:56:14 AM EST

if not for fear?

His persona is a strong take charge in a crises type at best and an authoritarian, egomanical a strong take charge in a crises type a worst.

The question should be asked to Rudy at every opportunity, that given his desire to suspend elections after 9-11, because he was indispensible as Mayor, does he see himself as so indispensible that he could see himself suspending our democratic system of government during a similar crises.

Its been said before, but its worth noting again:

FDR: All we have to fear, is fear itself.

GOP: All we have is fear itself.

Aside: Jim Fallows is actually one of the better ones. Ouch!

You have no explanation (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 12:34:10 PM EST

for your lie.

: He never intended to have an explanation for it. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Edger on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 04:18:58 PM EST

That wasn't it's purpose. It was only to waste your time.

Head in the sand liberalism (1.00 / 4) (#4)
by Fritz on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 11:03:17 AM EST

It wasn't long ago the same was being said of North Korea. I remember the war monger, President Clinton, threatening N. Korea, that he would bomb them back into the stone-age. All the while N. Korea, like Iran, violated agreements, violations that are labeled as Bush's fault. Hitler marched across the Rhine, Iran has marched across the IAEA and in both instances, liberals pretend it's no big deal.

as for Hitler (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 11:06:09 AM EST

Do you really know so little history? It was the isolationist Republican Party that was ho hum about Hitler.

Stop the mendaciousness or, if you really are this ignorant, crack a history book.


As I have said before the problem with (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 11:15:55 AM EST

conservatives, is they have their own set of "facts" and if we cannot agree on the facts, we cannot have a rational discussion.

Thus the fact that conservatives where the islolationists in the 1930's is of little consequence to them. That inconvenient truth cannot get in their way of calling liberals cowards, traitors etc.

I am not sure what is to be done other than calling them on it as often as possible.

Their Own Set of "Facts" (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 05:42:24 PM EST

From Digby:

Conservapedia is just like Wikipedia, except that its 11,000 entries read like they were personally vetted by Pat Robertson and the 700 Club. Fed up with Wikipedia's purported liberal bias, Conservapedia's founder, Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, has created "an encyclopedia you can trust."
And you can trust them, to give you some pretty loopy definitions. Their entry on kangaroos, for instance, says that, "like all modern animals . . . kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood."
After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart, or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters."

What the heck... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by desertswine on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 06:05:54 PM EST

is a "baramin?"


: Baramin (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 06:13:39 PM EST

You may not recognize the word "baramin." It's a 20th-century creationist neologism that refers to the species God placed on earth during Creation Week. Special for kids: I wouldn't use that word on the biology final. Although maybe your parents could sue the local school board for failing to teach the Book of Genesis in science class.
digby

Most (none / 0) (#11)
by Fritz on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 11:58:01 AM EST

Americans were against US involvement in WW2 prior to Pearl Harbor.


: How does that explain your lie? (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 12:04:28 PM EST

Robert A. Taft attends 2008 Republican (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by andgarden on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 11:20:18 AM EST

debate. All hell breaks loose!


andgarden (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 01:04:19 PM EST

As a leader of the Old Right isolationist wing of the GOP he (Taft) strove to keep the United States neutral during 1939-1941, and opposed the draft. He supported the general principles of the America First Committee but did not join it. However he strongly supported the war effort after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Sounds like Taft would have been a hot contender for the Demo nomination.

Funny how things change over the years.


Nope (none / 0) (#20)
by andgarden on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 01:31:29 PM EST

The Taft (now Pat Buchanan) wing was dominant in the Republican party until the 1950s. His positions on unions alone make him unlike any non-Dixiecrat Democrat who ever lived.


andgarden (1.00 / 1) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 05:29:29 PM EST

Not really.

The Repubs never threatened to defund the Cold War.


Non-sequitur n/t (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by andgarden on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 05:41:39 PM EST

: andgarden (1.00 / 1) (#32)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 06:04:02 PM EST

Not all.
My comment was that the Repubs were against the US becoming involved in WWII. You expanded it until the 50's, which was well past the start of the Cold War.
The Repubs were strong supporters of the Cold War.. Slowly the Demos moved towards opposing the Cold War, and the Repubs moved towards a Wilsonian view of the world.
Today's Demos and Left are just extension of that position, as is the Repub position is an extension of their Cold War position.

You said "may" (1.00 / 1) (#10)
by Fritz on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 11:54:48 AM EST

So Republicans were isolationists in the 1930's, it's 2007. Why do Democrats wish to ignore today's mounting threat along with their socialist Euro friends?


Pfft (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 12:03:58 PM EST

You wrote this fool:

Hitler marched across the Rhine, Iran has marched across the IAEA and in both instances, liberals pretend it's no big deal.

You lied on both counts.


BTD (none / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 03:16:02 PM EST

I'm guessing he was writing of this.

On March 7, 1936 a small contingent of German troops, increased considerably in number in the following days, marched into the Rhineland demilitarized zone bordering France.

Hitler had ordered his troops to immediately withdraw should France offer any resistance. Some think France's failure emboldened Hitler to go further.

His geography may be off, but that hardly makes him a liar or a fool.

Please. You are supposed to be a leader.


Uh, no jim (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 03:40:15 PM EST

The problem with it is the words "liberals pretend it's no big deal".

If you can't comprehend the basic points at issue, please try not to waste our time with one of your patented point-missing comments. Thanks.


WT (none / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 05:27:01 PM EST

That wasn't my comment.


Jim (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 05:34:11 PM EST

This is the worst I've ever seen from you. You were 100% in the stupid zone in your earlier reply and with this lame, moronic follow up. But true to form, you just had to respond with another non sequitur, even though you were completely punked for your stupidity.

If you took the time to read the thread and figure out what is going on rather than just looking for the fastest cheap shot you think you can find against BTD, you would spare yourself some, if not all, of the embarrassment that you frequently suffer here.


WT (1.00 / 0) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 06:09:53 PM EST

That is pure nonsense, and you should be ashamed.

My comment gave a factual reference to what Fritz, I guessed, was trying to say and noted that BTD was being harsh when he shouldn't be.

Note that I didn't make an attack on "liberals," just noted what many believe. That France's lack of response emboldened the German's.

If that gives you a problem, then enjoy, because I am not put on this Earth to run around playing cheer leader for anyone.


So you really are just (5.00 / 0) (#35)
by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 06:12:21 PM EST

stupid then and not trying to disrupt. Ok.


WT (1.00 / 0) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 06:23:10 PM EST

You are starting to make Squeaky look good when you say someone wrote something they did not.

As Squeaky said:

Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

Comparing Rove's Methods (none / 0) (#42)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 06:50:21 PM EST

To those of Goebbels is accurate and far more benign than advocating assassinating world leaders or shooting looters like you do, no?

Re: Murder or Treatment? (none / 0) (#57)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:42:52 AM EST
Killing looters, good. Killing medical patients, bad.

Glad you understand (1.00 / 0) (#43)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 07:05:47 PM EST

I certainly believe in shooting looters who are firing at First Responders.

And looters who do not stop their looting when ordered to do so.


Yes We Know How You Feel (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 07:30:18 PM EST

Property rights trump civil rights and due process is for commies.

Just like it used to be.


squeaky (1.00 / 2) (#49)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 08:21:44 PM EST

No, no, no. Please get it right.

Without the right to own property, there can be no civil rights. All you have is anarchy.


: BS (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:31:26 PM EST

Whatever you say, still doesn't defend you when you are for shooting looters on site. In your particular example you would have sent orders to shoot all the looters. The tragedy that would have resulted would have been enormous. As it turned out the rumor stemmed from incidents where Blackwater mercs on vacation from Iraq, licensee to kill, who were shooting at stranded black people for target practice.
All of the stories about looters shooting first respondents were shown to be bogus.
DIdn't we go through a big ugly period where there were lynching based on that kind of thinking?

What Warren Terrer said Jim (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 03:56:22 PM EST

Stop playing games.


BTD (1.00 / 1) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 05:27:57 PM EST

What WT said was wrong. Try reading the thread.


A swing (5.00 / 0) (#29)
by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 05:35:13 PM EST

and a miss. Strike 3. You're outta here.


WT (1.00 / 0) (#37)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 06:20:15 PM EST

Are you blind??? You wrote:

Uh, no jim (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 03:40:15 PM EST
The problem with it is the words "liberals pretend it's no big deal".
If you can't comprehend the basic points at issue, please try not to waste our time with one of your patented point-missing comments. Thanks.

That wasn't my quote. It was Fritz's. Here's mine.

BTD (none / 0) (#21)

by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 03:16:02 PM EST
I'm guessing he was writing of this.
"On March 7, 1936 a small contingent of German troops, increased considerably in number in the following days, marched into the Rhineland demilitarized zone bordering France".
Hitler had ordered his troops to immediately withdraw should France offer any resistance. Some think France's failure emboldened Hitler to go further.
His geography may be off, but that hardly makes him a liar or a fool.
Please. You are supposed to be a leader.

Are you incapable if seeing the difference???? I made a factual linked comment and just left it there. I did not address his "liberals....." comment. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I thank you in advance for the apology.


So my reply (none / 0) (#45)
by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 07:33:41 PM EST

to this gets deleted, but not this comment of jim's?


Not So Quick (none / 0) (#46)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 07:37:53 PM EST

YOur undeleted comment may be safely swimming upthread


Oh Well (none / 0) (#47)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 07:42:14 PM EST

Maybe you are right,....there are some missing (deleted) comments.

Happens to the best of us, and sometimes not the worst of us. Go figure.


: Well if (none / 0) (#48)
by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 07:46:51 PM EST

they would prefer that jim post here and not me I will be happy to leave. But I would like to be told that and not just have it implied.

Said about North Korea? (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 11:04:25 AM EST

By who? You are just making that up.

I really can't stand comments that just make crap up.


BTD (1.00 / 1) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 11:37:43 AM EST

Items 1, 2 and 3. "Not yet."

Item 4 - You confuse the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the needed attack on Iran as standalone actions. They are no more standalone than the various battles during WWII.

The home grown terrorists are mere extensions of the call for jihad against the west being issued daily by various radical Imams in various locations. This speaks badly about what we thought would happen, the assimilation of the young into our culture. The problem is much worse in Europe, which demonstrates the problems caused vy the much higher percentage of population, and the concentration in ghettos.

Frankly, if Rudy believes what he said, he should be urging President Bush to attack Iran immediately.

How do you know he has not??

If he does, I hope that he tells no one until the hour of attack. Otherwise we'll read about it a week in advance in the NYT.

Iraq and Iran were enemies (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 12:02:49 PM EST

It seems bad military strategy to me to have a coordinated plan to attack both.

But seriously Jim, you gotta be kidding me.


: Kid you?? (1.00 / 1) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 01:05:40 PM EST

You gotta be kidding me.

Thank you (none / 0) (#17)
by Lora on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 12:52:21 PM EST

...for your comment:

I looked at the coverage of yesterday's debate and I saw none of this mentioned. And it is scary.

It IS scary. I think we all need to look hard at why this is. Is the right wing agenda a war with Iran? I think so. Is the media complicit with this agenda? You tell me.