Rudy Proposes To Expand NATO To Include Israel

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 09:23:58 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via Greenwald, Rudy says one of the dumbest things said about anything by anyone this year:

In London this week, Rudy Giuliani proposed what is probably the single most extremist policy of any major presidential candidate, certainly this year and perhaps in many years:
Rudy Giuliani talked tough on Iran yesterday, proposing to expand NATO to include Israel and warning that if Iran's leaders go ahead with their goal to be a nuclear power "we will prevent it, or we will set them back five or 10 years." . . . .

If this is something the US would insist on, there would no longer be a NATO. The US would lose everyone with such a proposal. No serious person would even say this as a pander. A standard pander on Israel, one Hillary used in fact, is calling for a unified Jerusalem under Israeli control. As Yglesias notes, even Israel knows that is a nonstarter. But as a pander, it has been a standard call for many US politicians.

And I guess that was the point, Rudy felt he had to say something even more ridiculous. And he did.

< A Strategy For Democrats on Iraq | Phony Reed-Levin Iraq Bill Defeated In Senate >

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.

Rudy Proposes To Expand NATO To Include Israel | 23 comments (23 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Missing the trees for the forest (1.00 / 1) (#1)
by HeadScratcher on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 09:43:50 AM EST

I think Greenwald assumes most people don't understand NATO in a post-cold war world. If Bhutan were to attack Portgual in a dispute over the amount of thread used in sheets then, under NATO, the U.S. would have to come to the aid of Portugal. Take a poll to see how many U.S. citizens (or Europeans) and see how many people would support NATO action against Bhutan in their dispute with Portgual. My guess is that it would be somewhere south of 2%.

The bigger issue is that Rudy is proposing that any attack against Israel by Iran would be met with a huge response by not just the U.S. but also by the NATO.

BTW, Joe Biden said pretty much the same thing on one of the Sunday morning shows about 4-5 months ago.

I'm going to file this post under BTD's List of 1000 Reasons to Hate Rudy....

Are you sure (1.00 / 1) (#3)
by koshembos on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 10:36:35 AM EST

There is no reason to add Israel to NATO, but I wouldn't be sure that everyone will leave. The French and the Belgian will. The Greek may also, but why would anyone care. The Germans cannot leave and the British will stick with the US.

And after all, it's the same type of hype as the promise of presidential candidates to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (which it is for more than 50 years) and after the elections nothing changes.

What is somewhat racist is the repulsion some Netroots have to this impractical idea. No one would say a word if the former mayor of Detroit would suggest to add Egypt to NATO.

that's because (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 10:44:18 AM EST

the former Mayor of Detroit is not someone I am fsamiliar with.

BNut if he says something like tha,t be sure to let me know, as I will condmen it.

As I condemn your charge of outrageous racism charge.

Take a 1


Did you see Rudy's rationale for (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Geekesque on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 11:52:09 AM EST

flip-flopping on gun control?

Soooooo predictable.


It is the reason he exists (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 12:05:47 PM EST

9/11.

His favorite person in the world is Osama bin Laden.

We would never have heard about Rudy ever again but for that.


: I guess we need to have guns on planes. (none / 0) (#18)
by Geekesque on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 12:51:35 PM EST

Or, citizens need to be able to shoot down passenger jets before they crash into office buildlings.
Or he's trying to excuse a pandering flip-flop by citing the genesis of his national political ambitions.

Maybe he (none / 0) (#7)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 11:53:55 AM EST

actually read the constitution on that.


Well (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 12:04:35 PM EST

he said something different.

Are you accusing him of lying?


Don't tell em he re-flip-flopped. (none / 0) (#16)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 12:33:16 PM EST

: Huh? (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 12:47:47 PM EST

My guess (1.00 / 1) (#12)
by HeadScratcher on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 12:08:24 PM EST

Is that you'd support the idea if it came from Sen. Dodd as part of a speech regarding Iraq.

Heck, Rudy can say that the sun rises in the east and you would post that the sun doesn't actually rise and this shows his inability to understant astronomy...


: My guess is (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Warren Terrer on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 12:12:41 PM EST

whatever BTD says you will continue to post stupid comments.

: Boy (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 12:19:54 PM EST

Is that the best you got?
Do you need a pointer to where I disagree with Dodd, say on Pakistan and Obama's comments on attacking al Qaida there?
Maybe where I condemn Move On?
What a predictable Rudy supporter.

Pandering w/r/t how much we support (none / 0) (#2)
by Geekesque on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 10:04:11 AM EST

a foreign country or embargo a foreign country strike me as the single most idiotic aspects of the American political system.

There shouldn't be an Israel lobby. There shouldn't be a Cuba/anti-Castro lobby.

Yuck.

why not? (none / 0) (#5)
by HeadScratcher on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 11:43:21 AM EST

freedom is the ability to do what you want...


: Not, it's not (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Dadler on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 12:09:52 PM EST

Freedom, reduced to its most basic form, is the right to say no. "Doing anything you want" is called anarchy. I can get up in the morning, drive to work, eat a McDonald's burger for lunch, go home, watch tv, read to my kids, go to bed, then do it all over again, and all in the totalitarian nation of China. The only thing I can't do there is tell the government and its oppressive policies to go f*ck themselves. Increasingly, you can't do so in this country either. When the POTUS says MoveOn's Petraeus ad is an insult to the entire military, make no mistake, he is playing the role of Dear Leader, he is putting the military ABOVE the rest of us, saying it's beyond criticism, can do no wrong, and should be feared even by its own citizens.
It is facism, clear and disturbing. He is saying I should basically bow down to the military, to watch what I say, like these scumb*gs warned us after 9/11, watch what I say ...or else. That's the subtext. Or else. Or one of those brave warriors (or mercenaries) might just snap and kill you and it will be justified. That is all suggested and simmers below the surface of his, and Rudy's, dictatorial worshipping and wielding of militarism as GREATER than the rest of us peone free Americans.

It is also interesting to note (none / 0) (#8)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 11:55:59 AM EST

He also called for India and Singapore to be added to NATO. He just shows how little he know on foreign policy. He could be a dem.

: He's a Republican for good reason (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 12:03:59 PM EST

this is why i like the expanded (none / 0) (#19)
by cpinva on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 01:50:07 PM EST

campaign; it gives nitwits like guliani more than sufficient time to hang themselves. in a 2 or 3 month campaign, he wouldn't have the space to fill, so he might not make too many blunders.

yeah, i'm starting to enjoy this more and more. :)

NATO's raison d'etre (none / 0) (#20)
by diogenes on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:28:27 PM EST

Wasn't NATO formed as an alliance to protect democracies from invasion by totalitarian regimes? Isn't Israel a democracy (the only one in the middle east apart from Turkey, which is already a member). A rock-solid NATO may have deterred Soviet expansionism; having Israel under the NATO umbrella would deter Iran. If Taiwan had more solid and sure allies then China wouldn't dream of pulling a stunt there.

: Yes it was and yes it did. (1.00 / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:42:45 AM EST

Why the Left, in general, has developed this antipathy towards Israel is very strange, until you consider that the Left is, basically, the anti war Left, and almost completely removed from Liberalism as it was originally.
It is a pity the Repubs can't figure this out, adopt some liberal positions, and offer a home to those Demos who hate the seizure of their party by the MoveOn and Kos crowd.

Here's another candidate with the same idea: (none / 0) (#22)
by Donna Z on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 10:56:54 AM EST

In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down." The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, who recently launched a new presidential campaign, also said that Israel should be allowed to join NATO.

Just keeping the record straight.

: Sorry, post lost link (none / 0) (#23)
by Donna Z on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 11:02:03 AM EST

Rawstory