Dallas-Mavs.com Forums - View Single Post

Janett_Reno · 10-22-2007, 11:20 PM

http://thehill.com/josh-marshall/giu...007-10-19.html

People tend to think of Rudy Giuliani as a political moderate. Strong on leadership, a tough guy and all that, sure, but not another Republican hard-liner.

What doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere near enough attention, however, is that Rudy is assembling a team of foreign policy advisers who are about twice as crazy — and probably would turn out to be about three times as crazy — as the Bush team that brought us the last six years of Bush-inspired catastrophes. Beside Rudy’s brain trust, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz look downright rational.

It’s true that candidates usually gather all manner of different advisers around them during a presidential campaign. And it’s not fair to hold them to every position this or that adviser holds. But the calculus is a bit different if the candidate would come to the White House with little or any foreign policy knowledge or experience. And like George W. Bush, that’s definitely the case with Rudy, even if he thinks kicking Yasser Arafat out of Lincoln Center counts as a foreign policy résumé. And the thing about the folks Rudy is picking as his foreign policy team — the folks who will teach him the topic, since he knows so little about it — is that they’re all pushing for more wars in the Middle East to build on the all the great things that have happened because of the war in Iraq.
So let’s run down the list of some of Rudy’s greatest gets.

First up, legendary godfather of neoconservatism Norman Podhoretz. Podhoretz is on the side of the debate that says the war on terror is actually World War IV (World War III was the Cold War, apparently) pitting the United States against the combined forces of “Islamofascism.” More pressing, however, is the decision Podhoretz has made about Iran. We have to go to war, says Podhoretz. Not “we might have to” or “we’re willing to go to war if that’s what it takes to stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons.” The question’s already been answered. It will take war. And we need to get started with it as soon as possible. Podhoretz even went over to the White House last month for a secret audience with President Bush and outgoing adviser Karl Rove to implore them to attack Iran as soon as possible.

If Bush doesn’t come through, presumably he has the inside track with Rudy.

Next up: Daniel Pipes, headman of the Middle East Forum, advocate of war against Arabs and Muslims abroad and paranoiac about Arabs and Muslims at home. Earlier in this decade President Bush nominated Pipes for membership on the board of the U.S. Institute for Peace. But his reputation for anti-Muslim bigotry was so deep-seated that he couldn’t even get confirmed while the Senate was safely in Republican hands.

Just last week, Giuliani added two new advisers to his team. One is Thomas Joscelyn, an aggressive propounder of the now-thoroughly discredited idea that Saddam Hussein had ties with al Qaeda. Now he’s moved on to the idea that Shiite Iran is a main backer of the Sunni extremist group.

And of course Team Rudy wouldn’t be complete without a key adviser on Iran specifically. And that would be Michael Rubin. You may remember him as a key supporter of disgraced charlatan Ahmad Chalabi. He also did a stint at Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans just before the outbreak of the war — where so much of the lies and nonsense was generated. And he even showed up in the news as the author of a proposed presidential directive to overthrow the Iranian government — the document at the center of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee espionage trial.

If you’re impatient with our slow pace of going to war with Iran, I think you’ve found your candidate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again dude, i feel you should switch from wanting Fred the nominee to Rudy because see what he has in store? Do you remember me mentioning the neocons? This man will carry out what you desire and what the neocons desire, war in the middle east and that probably means Iran and Syria. This is the problem dude.

The American public is not going to back it. Some and even some Republicans have mentioned the dirty money in oil is the reason we are in Iraq. Does the neocons actually think we are going to invade the middle east and keep the oil fields? Do they think Saudi will pat us on the back and say thank you W and Rudy for all the oil fields and countries you have taken over and given to us? I just don't think it will happen dude because number one, it was no Al Queda in Iraq untill we invaded and now it is. Sadam was enemies with Laden and Al Queda. They was terrified of him. Laden claims he wasn't and wanted to overthrow him but we did it.

Do you think those people are going to let us have those oil fields? Your reasoning is 100% with the neocons, to invade the middle east but what is the neocons goal and your goal? How does it benefit this country? You claim like them it was wmd's and when it is none, then they and you say, well they are some where. Then if that doesn't go far, then it was Sadam was a bad man so we needed to invade and if that doesn't fly, then it is well Al Queda is there. Do the reasons just come up after invasion and what sounds good?

The neocon stradegy has no ending dude because if it is a war on terror, then they can attack China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Pakistan and many more. All this article dude is another problem Rudy has and just like i told you and you did not know about with the big dirty money oil money that is backing Rudy. If you like W, you will love Rudy. They have the same agenda. I am one that feels we need to invest in our country. Let's keep our money and invest in our country and in our people. Why go give it all away to countries that hate us in the first place? See, this is where i just do not know what the final goal of a neocon is unless it is to conquer the world or to conquer oil wells across the country. We can't do that dude, ebven if you desired that because our allies won't let us and everyone would turn there back on us.

If someone attacks our country, we need to go after them and not play tiddly winks. Let's go and get what we need to do and really honestly do "mission accomplished" and not just pretend. Tell me dude, what is your reasoning why we should attack Syria and Iran as we keep fighting in Iraq and how many more do we attack and are you doing this for the usa, for Israel, for oil fields or what is the purpose? Remember if the answer is wmd's, then look what all other countries we have to attack and if your answer is terrorist, then look at all the other countries we are going to have to attack. What i am asking you is what the public will ask W and Rudy, how will they sell it?

10-22-2007, 11:20 PM	#1
Janett_Reno Platinum Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 2,150	Giuliani hoards nuts http://thehill.com/josh-marshall/giu...007-10-19.html People tend to think of Rudy Giuliani as a political moderate. Strong on leadership, a tough guy and all that, sure, but not another Republican hard-liner. What doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere near enough attention, however, is that Rudy is assembling a team of foreign policy advisers who are about twice as crazy — and probably would turn out to be about three times as crazy — as the Bush team that brought us the last six years of Bush-inspired catastrophes. Beside Rudy’s brain trust, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz look downright rational. It’s true that candidates usually gather all manner of different advisers around them during a presidential campaign. And it’s not fair to hold them to every position this or that adviser holds. But the calculus is a bit different if the candidate would come to the White House with little or any foreign policy knowledge or experience. And like George W. Bush, that’s definitely the case with Rudy, even if he thinks kicking Yasser Arafat out of Lincoln Center counts as a foreign policy résumé. And the thing about the folks Rudy is picking as his foreign policy team — the folks who will teach him the topic, since he knows so little about it — is that they’re all pushing for more wars in the Middle East to build on the all the great things that have happened because of the war in Iraq. So let’s run down the list of some of Rudy’s greatest gets. First up, legendary godfather of neoconservatism Norman Podhoretz. Podhoretz is on the side of the debate that says the war on terror is actually World War IV (World War III was the Cold War, apparently) pitting the United States against the combined forces of “Islamofascism.” More pressing, however, is the decision Podhoretz has made about Iran. We have to go to war, says Podhoretz. Not “we might have to” or “we’re willing to go to war if that’s what it takes to stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons.” The question’s already been answered. It will take war. And we need to get started with it as soon as possible. Podhoretz even went over to the White House last month for a secret audience with President Bush and outgoing adviser Karl Rove to implore them to attack Iran as soon as possible. If Bush doesn’t come through, presumably he has the inside track with Rudy. Next up: Daniel Pipes, headman of the Middle East Forum, advocate of war against Arabs and Muslims abroad and paranoiac about Arabs and Muslims at home. Earlier in this decade President Bush nominated Pipes for membership on the board of the U.S. Institute for Peace. But his reputation for anti-Muslim bigotry was so deep-seated that he couldn’t even get confirmed while the Senate was safely in Republican hands. Just last week, Giuliani added two new advisers to his team. One is Thomas Joscelyn, an aggressive propounder of the now-thoroughly discredited idea that Saddam Hussein had ties with al Qaeda. Now he’s moved on to the idea that Shiite Iran is a main backer of the Sunni extremist group. And of course Team Rudy wouldn’t be complete without a key adviser on Iran specifically. And that would be Michael Rubin. You may remember him as a key supporter of disgraced charlatan Ahmad Chalabi. He also did a stint at Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans just before the outbreak of the war — where so much of the lies and nonsense was generated. And he even showed up in the news as the author of a proposed presidential directive to overthrow the Iranian government — the document at the center of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee espionage trial. If you’re impatient with our slow pace of going to war with Iran, I think you’ve found your candidate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again dude, i feel you should switch from wanting Fred the nominee to Rudy because see what he has in store? Do you remember me mentioning the neocons? This man will carry out what you desire and what the neocons desire, war in the middle east and that probably means Iran and Syria. This is the problem dude. The American public is not going to back it. Some and even some Republicans have mentioned the dirty money in oil is the reason we are in Iraq. Does the neocons actually think we are going to invade the middle east and keep the oil fields? Do they think Saudi will pat us on the back and say thank you W and Rudy for all the oil fields and countries you have taken over and given to us? I just don't think it will happen dude because number one, it was no Al Queda in Iraq untill we invaded and now it is. Sadam was enemies with Laden and Al Queda. They was terrified of him. Laden claims he wasn't and wanted to overthrow him but we did it. Do you think those people are going to let us have those oil fields? Your reasoning is 100% with the neocons, to invade the middle east but what is the neocons goal and your goal? How does it benefit this country? You claim like them it was wmd's and when it is none, then they and you say, well they are some where. Then if that doesn't go far, then it was Sadam was a bad man so we needed to invade and if that doesn't fly, then it is well Al Queda is there. Do the reasons just come up after invasion and what sounds good? The neocon stradegy has no ending dude because if it is a war on terror, then they can attack China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Pakistan and many more. All this article dude is another problem Rudy has and just like i told you and you did not know about with the big dirty money oil money that is backing Rudy. If you like W, you will love Rudy. They have the same agenda. I am one that feels we need to invest in our country. Let's keep our money and invest in our country and in our people. Why go give it all away to countries that hate us in the first place? See, this is where i just do not know what the final goal of a neocon is unless it is to conquer the world or to conquer oil wells across the country. We can't do that dude, ebven if you desired that because our allies won't let us and everyone would turn there back on us. If someone attacks our country, we need to go after them and not play tiddly winks. Let's go and get what we need to do and really honestly do "mission accomplished" and not just pretend. Tell me dude, what is your reasoning why we should attack Syria and Iran as we keep fighting in Iraq and how many more do we attack and are you doing this for the usa, for Israel, for oil fields or what is the purpose? Remember if the answer is wmd's, then look what all other countries we have to attack and if your answer is terrorist, then look at all the other countries we are going to have to attack. What i am asking you is what the public will ask W and Rudy, how will they sell it?