I never listen to what a politician says when his actions indicate his beliefs are contrary. This is a perfect example.
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!
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.
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.
I responded to that way back @8:
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’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.
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”.
You’ll note that I’d said in that post you’ve responded to here:
And sure enough, what do I find in the first link I click - at the very top of the first link I click - cartoons:
Ah, the sweet smell of false triumphalism. Because I got high, because I got high, because I got high.
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.
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.
Gee, that’s a toughy! Hmmmmm…
Well, for starters…
They’re baaaaaack!
We’ll just draw a discreet veil over this bit of balderdash, there may be children present…
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.
Probably just as well he didn’t name any names. Might have been a tad embarassing.
It is encouraging to note a previously unknown droll sense of humor.
Does not equate Iraq War with a response to September 11.
Does equate Iraq War with a response to September 11.
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.
Mr. Moto @24:
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:
I’m still waiting for some backing for this. A retraction would be appropriate at any time.
Mr. Moto @62:
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.
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.
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.
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?
Does Ron Paul count? 
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?
Nobody has a good plan for Iraq, there is none. How candidates differ is in the degree to which they acknowledge this.
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.
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.
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.
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.