Giuliani buggered out of Iraq Study Group to give $$$ speeches

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=tagos]
In that case you provide the cite for your Bush-mind-reading opinion. As it stands his words and actions say differently.
[/quote]

I never listen to what a politician says when his actions indicate his beliefs are contrary. This is a perfect example.

That he did not like the outcome has no bearing whatsoever on his initial support for it.

Bush has never supported anything that originated in Congress. You are asking us to believe that in this case, and this case only, Bush gave his “full support” to something originating in the Congress. It is to laugh!

[Mr.Moto]

As for Giuliani, here goes.

Wow. You could link to two whole speeches.

Address to the U.N. General Assembly.
Remarks welcoming Prime Minister Natanyahu. Keynote address, American Jewish Committee.
Remarks- Ney York City Conference on Immigration.
1999 Reagan Lecture.
Statement on the Future Status of Jerusalem.
Remarks to the 2004 Republican National Convention.

All of these address foreign relations and give considerable evidence to a unified worldview on the subject.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
This pretty much echoes my sentiments.

From RTFirefly we’ve basically got this:

-Giuliani is weak on credentials in foreign relations
-To fix that, he should have participated in this committee, he chose to make money instead, so he’s instantly a terrible candidate
[/quote]
As I said when I summarized @13, we can also say he welshed on his commitment to participate in the ISG without letting the rest of the ISG know he was doing so.

And it was an opportunity to serve his country that he’d already stepped forward and volunteered for, which again, he regarded as less important than making a few more bucks.

There’s all kinds of problems with that line of thinking. The biggest one is the leaping assumption that absenting yourself from an essentially pointless, waste of time committee equates to lack of interest in educating yourself about foreign relations. There’s no evidence of that.

I responded to that way back @8:

@RTFirefly

At a minimum, he would certainly have had excellent access to the ISG’s staff, who probably knew a lot more than most of the committee members. He could have learned a great deal from them about a volatile part of the world that will occupy our next President far too much, now that our current President has occupied it far too long.

At any rate, I don’t see much point in replying in great detail to your posts, if you’re not going to read what I say before responding anyway.

But it’s hard to resist this:

I might gives this thread a tad bit more credibility if it had been started by pretty much any other poster. RTF’s modus operandi the last few months has been to periodically start some random pit thread showing how X presidential candidate is terrible and shouldn’t be elected (with a preponderance of said threads being targeted at GOP candidates and this isn’t his first pit thread focusing on Giuliani.)

I’m sure you can back that up. :rolleyes:

I mean, seriously, you just might want to do a search of Pit threads I’ve started in recent months, before you go saying such crap. Just like Mr. Moto might want to go back and see whether I really said whatever it is he vaguely remembers me saying, before he compares what I’m saying about Rudy now, with what he sincerely believes I once said about Edwards.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Wow. You could link to two whole speeches.
[/QUOTE]
You’re welcome to show me how those speeches (how did you say that, again? Oh yeah) “do not go into tremendous detail on foreign relations, and are full of trite and trivial statements”. Oh, and since they’re on Edwards’ campaign website, how they are “thin on the subject with the exception of antiwar sentiment, and that not especially detailed”.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
As for Giuliani, here goes.

Wow. You could link to two whole speeches.

Address to the U.N. General Assembly.
Remarks welcoming Prime Minister Natanyahu. Keynote address, American Jewish Committee.
Remarks- Ney York City Conference on Immigration.
1999 Reagan Lecture.
Statement on the Future Status of Jerusalem.
Remarks to the 2004 Republican National Convention.

All of these address foreign relations and give considerable evidence to a unified worldview on the subject.
[/QUOTE]
You’ll note that I’d said in that post you’ve responded to here:

@RTFirefly

Feel free to show me where Rudy’s advanced beyond the cartoon stage of foreign policy analysis

And sure enough, what do I find in the first link I click - at the very top of the first link I click - cartoons:

@Rudy

It was here in 2001 in lower Manhattan that President George W. Bush stood amid the fallen towers of the World Trade Center and said to the barbaric terrorists who attacked us, “They will hear from us.”

They have heard from us! They heard from us in Afghanistan and we removed the Taliban. They heard from us in Iraq and we ended Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror. They heard from us in Libya and without firing a shot Qadhafi abandoned weapons of mass destruction.
They are hearing from us in nations that are now more reluctant to sponsor terrorists. So long as George Bush is President, is there any doubt they will continue to hear from us until we defeat global terrorism.

Ah, the sweet smell of false triumphalism. Because I got high, because I got high, because I got high.

[Mr.Moto]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Ah, the sweet smell of false triumphalism. Because I got high, because I got high, because I got high.
[/QUOTE]

Uh huh. And how is this substantially different from this:

And when John is president, we will listen to the wisdom of the September 11th commission. We will lead strong alliances. We will safeguard and secure our weapons of mass destruction. We will strengthen our homeland security, protect our ports, protect our chemical plants, and support our firefighters, police officers, EMTs. We will always…

(APPLAUSE)

We will always use our military might to keep the American people safe.

And we, John and I, we will have one clear unmistakable message for Al Qaida and these terrorists: You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you.

I’m sure you recognize this portion of John Edwards’ address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Uh huh. And how is this substantially different from this:

I’m sure you recognize this portion of John Edwards’ address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
[/QUOTE]
Of course, it would help if you were to explain the point you were trying to make with that. Because it neither supports yours, nor does it undermine mine, AFAICT. It’s just a fact that has no apparent place in this argument.

[elucidator]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Uh huh. And how is this substantially different from this…
[/QUOTE]

Gee, that’s a toughy! Hmmmmm…

Well, for starters…

…They heard from us in Afghanistan and we removed the Taliban…

They’re baaaaaack!

…They heard from us in Iraq and we ended Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror…

We’ll just draw a discreet veil over this bit of balderdash, there may be children present…

…They heard from us in Libya and without firing a shot Qadhafi abandoned weapons of mass destruction…

As is widely known, a process in the works long before The Big Buggering even began. Still marginally effective with the willfully ignorant, I suppose.

…They are hearing from us in nations that are now more reluctant to sponsor terrorists…

Probably just as well he didn’t name any names. Might have been a tad embarassing.

…So long as George Bush is President, is there any doubt they will continue to hear from us until we defeat global terrorism…

It is encouraging to note a previously unknown droll sense of humor.

[BobLibDem]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Uh huh. And how is this substantially different from this:
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Edwards]
And we, John and I, we will have one clear unmistakable message for Al Qaida and these terrorists: You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you.
[/QUOTE]

Does not equate Iraq War with a response to September 11.

[QUOTE=Guiliani]
It was here in 2001 in lower Manhattan that President George W. Bush stood amid the fallen towers of the World Trade Center and said to the barbaric terrorists who attacked us, “They will hear from us.”
They have heard from us! They heard from us in Afghanistan and we removed the Taliban. They heard from us in Iraq and we ended Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror.

[/QUOTE]

Does equate Iraq War with a response to September 11.

[Mr.Moto]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Of course, it would help if you were to explain the point you were trying to make with that. Because it neither supports yours, nor does it undermine mine, AFAICT. It’s just a fact that has no apparent place in this argument.
[/QUOTE]

Gee, I think it does. You were trying to say that the phrasing in Giuliani’s convention speech indicated a certain simplicity in worldview, and I was obtaining the equivalent speech by your guy to show that these speeches are of a general type, and employ similar phrases.

They do so for very good reasons, you know.

Perhaps you really ought to reconsider your support of John Edwards. All these things you say you don’t like seem to apply to him, and I wouldn’t want to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty or hypocrisy.

[RTFirefly]

Mr. Moto @24:

John Edwards in his campaign is avoiding talking about foreign affairs as much as he can, except to mention that the war is bad.

Having cited two rather detailed speeches of his on foreign affairs, I think we’ve put that to rest. I’m sure I can produce more if necessary.
Mr. Moto @30:

Well, as you mentioned above, they can also have a lot to do with issues of one’s personal finances, the ethical practices of one’s business partners and employers, and the moral implications of someone’s personal lifestyle.

'Course, you tend to dismiss such considerations when they come into play for your preferred candidate, and play them up for other politicians. Like I said above, that’s fair, just that you ought to just say why you are doing so.

I’m still waiting for some backing for this. A retraction would be appropriate at any time.

Mr. Moto @62:

My problem with you is that you are standing here with a handful of shit aimed at Giuliani, which as I said before is perfectly fair in this environment we all live in, but in previous threads where your precious furry monkey was getting dirty, you were acting particularly hurt.

When we were discussing the Amanda Marcotte controversy, you seemed offended that people were even critical of her blog postings, and amazed that folks would associate Edwards with them. Yet when the news drops this mound of shit at your feet, you happily reach down and scoop up to throw.

Same comment as above. A retraction would be appropriate at any time.

Especially since you’re so obsessed with honesty and all, having asked me to be honest in posts 24, 30, and 62. While still having produced no reason to suspect I’m not being truthful in any way.

I’m trying to think of a reason I should respond to whatever new BS you come up with, when you won’t even back up your earlier accusations. I’m drawing a blank.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Gee, I think it does. You were trying to say that the phrasing in Giuliani’s convention speech indicated a certain simplicity in worldview, and I was obtaining the equivalent speech by your guy to show that these speeches are of a general type, and employ similar phrases.
[/quote]
And this backs up your point how?

You were saying John Edwards doesn’t have a sophisticated view on foreign affairs; like you said earlier, he “is avoiding talking about foreign affairs as much as he can, except to mention that the war is bad.” I have refuted that, and your quote doesn’t un-refute it, any more than I’d be stripped of my doctorate if I misstated the quadratic formula.

But I asked you to show that Rudy had a non-cartoonish understanding of foreign policy. You produced some speeches supposedly in support of that proposition. But the first thing I found, in the first speech you provided that I opened, was a cartoonish understanding of the world.

If you produce evidence to show that he doesn’t have a cartoon view of foreign policy, and I open it up and find cartoons, what am I to conclude?

I might add that everything Edwards said in your quote was right - maybe simple, but true. As Einstein is reputed to have said, “everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” The problem with a cartoon understanding of anything is when it simplifies too greatly to be true.

Unfortunately for Rudy’s cartoon understanding of the world, the Taliban is still alive and all too well, dammit, in Afghanistan - the war the history books will say we lost because one war just wasn’t enough for some people. Sure, in Iraq we ended Saddam’s reign of terror, and replaced it with the reign of terror of militias, car bombers, kidnappers, and religious fundamentalists of both Sunni and Shi’a varieties. And Libya had been trying to rejoin the community of civilized nations since before 9/11.

Perhaps you really ought to reconsider your support of John Edwards. All these things you say you don’t like seem to apply to him, and I wouldn’t want to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty or hypocrisy.

I’m glad you wouldn’t. So your retractions (see previous post, in addition to this one) are awaited. I wouldn’t want to call you a liar.

[Liberal]

RT, are there any of the Republican candidates, major or minor, whom you believe to have a good plan for Iraq? If not, is there a Republican in existence anywhere for whom it might be metaphysically possible to have a good plan for Iraq? And finally, are there any candidates among the Democrats who do not have a good plan for Iraq?

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Liberal]
RT, are there any of the Republican candidates, major or minor, whom you believe to have a good plan for Iraq?
[/QUOTE]

Does Ron Paul count?

[elucidator]

OK, I think I follow the argument friend Moto is making: Rudy’s foreign policy gravitas should be regarded as roughly equivalent to Pretty Johnny’s because both make speeches that are largely shallow and insubstantial. Fair enough, so far.

However, Rudy offers the same old Bushivik Kool-Aid, from the turd enhanced punch bowl. If I must have shallow and insubstantial, is it too much to prefer the less retarded?

[elucidator]

Nobody has a good plan for Iraq, there is none. How candidates differ is in the degree to which they acknowledge this.

[Mr.Moto]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
However, Rudy offers the same old Bushivik Kool-Aid, from the turd enhanced punch bowl. If I must have shallow and insubstantial, is it too much to prefer the less retarded?
[/QUOTE]

Certainly not, and it would be fair to say so, if that was your preference. That is a policy difference between candidates, a perfectly reasonable distinction to make.

Why RTFirefly can’t be bothered to make it, I don’t know. He has to claim that somehow Edwards is a foreign policy mensch and Giuliani a foreign policy dunce. This is damn near impossible to prove for most politicians, and moreso for these guys.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Liberal]
RT, are there any of the Republican candidates, major or minor, whom you believe to have a good plan for Iraq? If not, is there a Republican in existence anywhere for whom it might be metaphysically possible to have a good plan for Iraq? And finally, are there any candidates among the Democrats who do not have a good plan for Iraq?
[/QUOTE]
Liberal, I can’t see what this has to do with the subject matter of this thread, and I’m not eager to turn this in to an imprmptu “ask the liberal Democrat” thread.

Start a new thread (something like (“Dems/Pubbies, are there any Pubbies/Dems who have a good plan for Iraq? Any Dems/Pubbies who have a bad one?”), and I’ll give as complete an answer as I possibly can.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
He has to claim that somehow Edwards is a foreign policy mensch and Giuliani a foreign policy dunce.
[/QUOTE]
Since you’re saying what I claim, mind if I restate that?

I think I’ve demonstrated that Edwards has - contrary to your strident claims - nothing to be ashamed about in the foreign policy realm. And your own evidence that Giuliani could say the same turned out to be cartoons.

That is what I claim.

Now, please to back up or retract your claims that I reviewed @91. Or maybe you’re just a guy who makes shit up about people, but won’t admit it when called on it.

[Captain_Amazing]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Liberal, I can’t see what this has to do with the subject matter of this thread, and I’m not eager to turn this in to an imprmptu “ask the liberal Democrat” thread.
[/QUOTE]

I think that what Liberal might be suggesting is that you’re partisan, and are calling Giuliani’s understanding of foreign policy “cartoonish”, and saying that Edwards has a nuanced understanding of foreign policy simply because Giuliani is a Republican and Edwards is a Democrat.