I disagree. If you think any of them have a policy, then lets see what it is, and if it really boils down to more than “we need to do whatever seems tough and manly at the moment.” McCain isn’t just clear, he’s being more realistic: it’s not likely that Iraq is going to turn into one big happy family: most of the sides are just waiting for us to get out of the way so they can really go after each other. So we stay. Otherwise Iraq implodes. The rest of the Republicans de facto military tough roar, kill terrorists yay! but where is the acknowledgment of where that policy leads, and to what end?
shrug Hell if I know. Go to his website.
Kill Don Barzini.
I did. This is the entirety of what he has to say about his Iraq policy:
I don’t see a plan in there unless “praying for the troops” counts as a plan.
My question was asked in all seriousness. I have yet to hear the Mayor articulate any genuine policy or plan for Iraq other than the kinds of platitudes and mindless support of Bush exemplified above.
So how exactly did you know that it was a “gross characterization” then, hunh?
Here’s what his website, by the way has to say about Iraq:
That’s it. He opposes, essentially, saying anything about what we’re going to do, because tough guys don’t do that, or something. Failure there is bad. What’s failure? Hell if I know! Tough guys don’t have to worry about stuff like that. All we know is that other people need to be held accountable! Terrorism is reduced, somehow!
I didn’t watch, but it sounds like there were some entertaining moments. You can read a full transcript at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/us/politics/16repubs-text.html
Romney said the Guantanamo prison should be doubled in size, which is horrifying. At least Bush acts like it’s a regretful necessity.
Meanwhile, what the hell is this with Giuliani and Paul?
Rudy later replied that drawing a connection between the Gulf War and September 11 was “absurd,” and he’d never heard anyone say it before. What kind of mutants applauded Giuliani on that one?
I’d also like to know what he means by “an accountable Iraq.” Accountable in what way? Bush has said things like that too (like how our support for the Iraqi government “is not open-ended”). They’re saying we won’t leave Iraq until we “win,” then they define victory in terms of stablizing the country, then they say that our staying is contingent on the stabalization of the country. It’s an utter contradiction.
We have to stay because the country is too unstable!
If the country doesn’t stabalize, we’re leaving!
But either way, we’re staying!
How are intelligent conservatives able to reconcile this kind of gibberish and make it sound coherent to themselves?
Sullivan was exactly right. It was the questioner (and then Rudy) who characterized Paul’s stance as “inviting 9/11”. I only wish Paul had retorted that if Giuliani had a problem with it, he should ask the guy who said it. Also, when the questioner asked Paul if he really wanted to “disband the Department Homeland Security in the middle of a war”, I wish he had responded, “No, just the department, not the security.”
Cite?
The sketchiness of Giuliani’s policy prescriptions (if they’re even deserving of that moniker) on his website - not just about Iraq, but about everything - is truly mindboggling, for a guy whose candidacy is being taken seriously.
National security is his signature issue - and he doesn’t know jack shit about it, as far as anyone can tell.
And this guy is the GOP frontrunner.
The GOP base boils down to Og looking for someone to smash, and not being particular about whom.
Here’s what Sulllivan said in full:
“Some people have said, we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo.”
No, I meant about Bush having any genuine regrets about Gitmo’s function. I didn’t doubt Romney’s position for a second.
I used the word “acts” for a reason. I do think he’s recently said he would like to look at other options, perhaps because Gates wants it closed, though he is obviously in no hurry to do so. He wouldn’t say “double it.”
Could also be Jeb Bush doing that. :: shudders ::
Hmm…I don’t know. After the Schiavo fiasco, the 2000 election, and 8 years of having one Bush in office who obviously can’t lead the country, I think the American public has had enough of that particular dynasty.
It does make your skin crawl, though, doesn’t it?
Apparently, Rudy has been a scholar all this time and we never knew:
Somehow I don’t recall my mayor mentioning this line of study, but whatever.
And in other news, I’m running for President: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8613975#post8613975