Giuliani Denounces Troop Withdrawal Deadline

WCBSTV ^ | March 27, 2007 | CBS/AP

[FairOpinion]

Republican presidential hopeful Rudolph Giuliani on Tuesday called the Democratic-controlled Congress' challenge to President Bush's policy in Iraq "a terrible mistake" and equated it with waving a white flag in the war against terrorism.

"I can't imagine in the history of war anybody announcing a timetable to run out and retreat," he said at an appearance at a delicatessen in this suburb just over the George Washington Bridge from New York City. "I think it's a terrible mistake. To put up the white flag and announce a timetable for retreat seems like a very bad strategy to me."

Giuliani's remarks came on the heels of the U.S. Senate narrowly passing a nonbinding timeline that would have U.S. combat troops home by next March. President Bush is likely to veto the resolution.

"I hope that the president vetoes it," Giuliani said. "The full focus of our energies should be on supporting the troops that are there and trying to act against terrorism, trying to create an Iraq that acts as a bulwark against terrorism instead of a headquarters for terrorism."

He also didn't mince words when asked what he would do as president if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continued to flirt with developing nuclear weapons.

"What I would do is make clear to him that he's not going to have nuclear weapons. That's not an option. Containment may have worked with the Soviets, but as far as I can recall, the Soviets weren't planning to come here and kill us. They didn't blow up the World Trade Center twice. We've got a different kind of enemy here. Ahmadinejad has to be clear that we're not going to let him move to the stage where he can have nuclear weapons."

[supercat]

I suspect Rudy's great sin to some of these people is that he might actually win.

I don't think Rudy would do nearly as well in the general election as his supporters seem to think. The number of moderate voters Rudy grabs now probably exceeds the number of conservatives he's leaving behind, but how many of those moderate voters will he keep after the Democrats start actually campaigning for them?

One major advantage of working to secure voters in the "base" is that the Democrats won't be competing for those voters and consequently one won't have to expend scarce resources trying to hold onto them.

[gimmebackmyconstitution]

Although I cannot speak for Mayor Guiliani, I am of the opinion that he will take a more practical view regarding the 2nd amendment RTK&BA when he is setting national policy. you simply cannot compare urban NYC gun policy to one that is national. You cannot remain on the left side of this issue and win the election. It won't happen. He must move to the right if he wants to win in 208.
Furthermore, i think he will actually go after the brand new gun trafficking that is placing them in the hands of criminals and giving the rest of us law abiding gun owning citizens a bad name. Why are we protecting gun manufacturers right to flood the market with illegally obtained guns? it doesn't make any sense. Protect the right, not the gun sellers.

[fortheDeclaration]

You are a smart, intelligent, logical person. If only everyone else would have their eyes opened, as you have opened yours. Some still don't understand that "elections have consequences" and sometimes, as in today's critical times, really dire ones. Just imagine a Democrat president and a larger Democrat majority in Congress.

Amen.

I remember all the criticism against the GOP on these threads regarding spending and illegal immigration (and much of it justified), yet what have we now?

Change Republicans, do not elect Democrats.

[tkathy]

I admit, I didn't look it up, but I think oratorial describes Rudy's skills. :)

[Ultra Sonic 007]

I suspect Rudy's great sin to some of these people is that he might actually win.

His great 'sin' is actually a bunch of sins, and those sins happen to be his liberal positions on lots of issues.

Simply put, he would split the Republican Party in half should he win the nomination.

Some of our brethren don't want to win.

If we have to win by nominating a Republican liberal, then what have we won?

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Like I said, I appreciate his comments. But skillful rhetoric does not erase his unacceptable positions on many issues.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

I am of the opinion that he will take a more practical view regarding the 2nd amendment RTK&BA when he is setting national policy.

He enthusiastically supported Bill Clinton's nationwide assault weapons ban.

Color me unconvinced.

[elhombrelibre]

Thanks for the sarcasm. I was working and unable to keep up with things.

[veronica]

BTTT...

[motzman]

Hunter Duncan is running for President?

Who knew?

[Ol' Sparky]

Damn those stupid Republicans for failing to do what they were elected to do, which then enable the dems to get the house and senate back.

And, you think electing a RINO won't make matters even worse and cost the Republican party even more seats?

Electing RINOs -- from Christe Todd Whitman to Michael Bloomberg to Arnold Schwartzenkennedy -- has been a disaster every time it is tried, a disaster that lasts eight years and sets the Republican party and conservative movement back by years.

The only way to stop the bleeding is to nominate a conservative and to get principled conservatives elected.

[photodawg]

Our "fine conservatives" kept telling us how great it will be for Republicans to get the Democrats in power in 2006, now you are telling me that we might as well just surrender to the Democrats and give them full control of the country, because it doesn't matter?

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

No. I'm telling you that we were playing with fire by trying to teach the republican rinos a "lesson by allowing the dems to take power in '06. I wrote many posts arguing the paucity of that simplistic strategy for advancing conservative principles. Politics is a dirty game. The "damage is already done" statement doesn't concede defeat, but acknowledges the dems destructive power and control of the congress at this point with a lame duck president being attacked by everyone to the left of conservative. They have the votes to block the funding for the war, and they will do so. This will do great harm to America. They don't even realize how much harm. They are cunning and unprincipled and will do anything necessary to advance their simplistic, socialistic "one world" view. This will play right into the hands of radical islam and put us in serious harms way. I am not saying nothing can be done, only that we must accurately perceive the problem before we can attack it and advocate a solution..We on the right have "misunderestimated" the left due to the absurdity of their political ideology. We underestimated their ability to succeed in seizing political control and in manipulating the American voter. Its time for conservative, freedom loving Americans to openly support the battle in Iraq, and the war on radical islam and stop criticizing those on the right who are not "pure enough" ideologically for our principles. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

[GBA]

I completely agree with you and I very much hope that a true conservative is nominated in the primary.

But...if Giuliani is nominated I probably will vote for him. He may not be the kind of conservative I'd vote for in the primary, but I would vote for him before I'd cast a vote that would lead to another Clinton presidency. Giuliani would certainly be better than having that evil in the WH again.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Is that all you can say in reply?

[motzman]

What do you want me to say?????

You want me to take "political advice" from someone who doesn't recognize that Hunter Duncan has absolutely no shot at winning anything?

I know you mean well, but this is bare-knuckles high stakes politics. Name one blue state that Hunter can win. Just one.

If we don't win a good number of blue states next time, we're going to lose. Only Rudy can win blue states and red states.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Let's ignore those who vote exclusively along party lines. That leaves only independents, moderates, and single-issue votes.

Now.

Rudy's stance on the 2nd Amendment will cost him support from the NRA and Pro-Gun Rights Democrats (and yes, they do exist).

Rudy's stance on abortion and homosexual marriage might cost him the vote of a portion of the Reagan Democrats, particularly concerning the former part than the latter (how many votes his stance on abortion costs him will depend on how many decide to go third party/not vote at all).

Rudy's stance on illegal immigration (and I'm talking about his record, not the pandering he's doing right now) will most likely cost him the votes of the border states who are most heavily affected by illegal immigration. Think they'll choose another Pro-Amnesty candidate after Bush?

And his marital/personal issues - which seem much more problematic than those of other candidates - might cost him the votes of people who care about. I personally don't make it my sole deciding factor, but there are people who will (ironically, this is an area where Hunter has far less problems; married once, and has remained with his wife for years, and has two sons; one of whom is an Iraq War Veteran running for his father's old spot in office, and the second son comes here to FR on behalf of his father's campaign).

His fiscal conservatism. Although this is his strong point, looking at his record in the final years of his mayoral term reveals lots of spending and other troubling issues, so this might cost him some of the big business/Country Club Republicans.

Judges. A deciding issue for many people who realize how big an issue judges are, and Giuliani's record isn't good here. Some might retort that he was constricted by the Judicial Committee that selects what judges a mayor can appoint...but this becomes mute once you realize that the members of this Committee are selected by the Mayor. So the overwhelming amount of liberal judges he appointed does not speak well of him.

A lot speak of how much the media tried to criticize him in New York, and how that's a positive. Let's think about that: he brought down crime (which all liberals hate, for some reason). He brought down taxes (same thing). He supports Bush. He supports the War on Terror. And, most of all, he's a REPUBLICAN. Can't let Republicans look good, no matter how much they are alike to the liberals ideologically.

And also, if it comes down to Rudy vs. Hillary...who do you think the media will side with? Be honest. And remember that nearly 50,000,000 people voted for Kerry.

So he's spoken out in support of the War on Terror (not a unique trait amongst the candidates). He's a fighter against the media (again, not a unique trait; he just gets more screentime). A lot of people think of him in connection with his performance with 9/11, which is fine...but it's not an ideal way of picking a Presidential candidate.

Looking at all of this, I can only conclude that nominating Rudy will alienate Reagan Democrats and conservatives. Party-line voters will vote Republican/Democrat no matter who the nominee is, so the independents and moderates will decide everything. And these above issues will alienate a good many of them.

But hey, Hillary's not doing so well in head-to-head votes with candidates. Many people are going into the election with a mindest of "ANYONE BUT HILLARY."

So taking all of this into mind...noting that Giuliani will alienate a portion of the voting base, and noting that many people are against Hillary...doesn't it make sense to support a more conservative candidate? ESPECIALLY when we're not even at the primaries yet?

Think about it.

[Calpernia]

>>>>Name one blue state that Hunter can win. Just one.

That is honestly a bit of a trick question. The highest percentage of voter fraud is reported by the blue states. That is why http://www.fec.gov/hava/hava.htm, Help America Vote Act was passed. The eight attorneys at the DOJ were let go for not doing enough to investigate voter fraud.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1800101/posts
Attorney firings had genesis in White House (serving at the pleasure of the President)

The White House suggested two years ago that the Justice Department fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, a proposal that eventually resulted in the dismissals of eight prosecutors last year, according to e-mails and internal documents that the administration will provide to Congress today.

The dismissals took place after President Bush told Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud investigations, according to White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

Gonzales approved the idea of firing a smaller group of U.S. attorneys shortly after taking office in February 2005. The Gonzales aide in charge of the dismissals — his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson — resigned yesterday, officials said, after acknowledging that he did not tell Justice officials about the extent of his communications with the White House, leading them to provide incomplete information to Congress.

excerpt

---

So, unless the voter fraud is cleaned up signifcantly, I might win the 2008 election and surprise you all! :)

[amutr22]

I agree...so far Rudy is the only GOP contender that has taken a strong stance on this. I'd take him any day. Our republican congress people have proven they can't stand up the the RATS, at least I know Rudy can.

[motzman]

Rudy's stance on the 2nd Amendment will cost him support from the NRA and Pro-Gun Rights Democrats (and yes, they do exist).

There's no Democrat candidate who is "pro-gun", so WTF are you talking about?

Rudy's stance on abortion and homosexual marriage might cost him the vote of a portion of the Reagan Democrats, particularly concerning the former part than the latter (how many votes his stance on abortion costs him will depend on how many decide to go third party/not vote at all).

Rudy is pro-choice. Big deal, it's all about judges. Ted Olsen will be giving Rudy the list of judges to nominate, so I'm happy with that.

Rudy has always been against gay marriage so stop lying.

Rudy's stance on illegal immigration (and I'm talking about his record, not the pandering he's doing right now) will most likely cost him the votes of the border states who are most heavily affected by illegal immigration. Think they'll choose another Pro-Amnesty candidate after Bush?

Rudy's "problem" with illegal immgration is simply a pragmatic response to the complete lack of enforcement of immigration issues by the Feds in the '90's. When you look at why he did what he did, it was the right thing to do for New York. Rudy is for "normalizing" illegals. To me, that's a lot better tactic then trying to "round up" 12-20 million illegals, which is simply not possible. Rudy is pragmatic and works on solutions that work, not pie-in-the-sky fantasy land nonsense.

And his marital/personal issues - which seem much more problematic than those of other candidates -

Most people simply don't care about this stuff. The media will use at as a lever to try to dislodge support for Rudy. Funny how this stuff is NEVER an issue for a rat candidate. Don't fall for this nonsense. Everyone has some type of personal problems.

His fiscal conservatism. Although this is his strong point, looking at his record in the final years of his mayoral term reveals lots of spending and other troubling issues, so this might cost him some of the big business/Country Club Republicans.

Rudy is the most fiscally conservative candidate out there, period.

Judges. A deciding issue for many people who realize how big an issue judges are, and Giuliani's record isn't good here.

You answered your own question here. Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans in NYC, and Rudy had to deal with that. Ted Olsen will be picking the judges for President Rudy.

You clearly do NOT know Rudy. Rudy is the most UNIQUE candidate out there. I don't see anyone that can take on the libs and beat them except for Rudy. I watched him do it in the liberal viper-nest of NY for years. He'll do it in Washington.

Libs are scared to death of Rudy, because he does what he says, takes no bullcrap, and beats libs up.

That's what I want. Note my tagline.

[motzman]

So, unless the voter fraud is cleaned up signifcantly, I might win the 2008 election and surprise you all! :)

Great post, voter fraud is a huge issue that needs a Rudy-type response.

Any reform is going to piss somebody off. Rudy has no problem pissing people off to do the right thing.