Subject:McCain (Rudy Says Prepare for Failure in Iraq, More Troops May Mean nothing)

National Review - The Corner ^ | 4-12-07 | Rich Lowry

[TitansAFC]

You quoted McCain as saying, “Before I left for Iraq, I watched with regret as the House of Representatives voted to deny our troops the support necessary to carry out their new mission. Democratic leaders smiled and cheered as the last votes were counted. What were they celebrating? Defeat? Surrender? In Iraq, only our enemies were cheering." It's worth contrasting that with Giuliani's position:

But in discussing the deployment of more troops, Mr.Giuliani has been alone in saying that such a strategy may not succeed, potentially providing him cover should the situation in Iraq deteriorate further. And he has put the strategy in a broader context that plays down the importance of Iraq. Terrorists "are going to continue to be at war with us, no matter what the outcome in Iraq," Mr. Giuliani said recently in New Hampshire. The night before, he said that "there are no sure things, "and that if the United States fails in Iraq, "we have to be ready for that, too." In California a few days later, speaking of "the danger of focusing on Iraq too much," he said that complete success there would not win the fight against terrorism, and that failure there would not lose it.

Giuliani has a hawkish image which does not seem to be entirely deserved.

ME: Well, nothing Giuliani said is necessarily objectionable on the merits, but I take your point: he is providing himself more wiggle room than McCain. Romney is basically striking the same tone as Giuliani, by the way.

[Fierce Allegiance]

I hate it when that happens.

[Alberta's Child]

Actually, no.

The whole point of this is that he doesn't have a position at all.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

But Ultra I was off searching for a more solid quote than what is in the article.

So did I. I couldn't find anything. Hopefully someone else can. I want to make sure.

But he's correct that the War on Terror will not be completely won or lost in Iraq.

I agree, but I don't like his implication that the consequences of failure will be less-than-disastrous.

[oceanview]

whether its “disastrous” or not depends on what strategy emerges if the current one doesn’t pan out.

recall that we entered into this “surge” phase because the strategy before it - wasn’t working. yet people here are jumping all over Rudy because he’s suggesting that this phase might not work out. well, the previous strategy didn’t work out, and the one before that one didn’t work either.

[aligncare]

Al-Qaeda is the largest part of a worldwide network of organizations, whose goal it is to destroy America and it's allies. Does anyone doubt this correct assertion from Mr. Giuliani:

...he said that complete success there (referring to Iraq) would not win the fight against terrorism...

I suspect there will be many more fronts across the globe in this cultural struggle before this Islamic crusade is defeated...God help us.

[FreeReign]

He appears to be taking your position.

Actually, no. The whole point of this is that he doesn't have a position at all.

Actually no. Rudy is taking the position that we can win the WOT without defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq.

And that so happens to be your position as you described it to me on another thread.

As I said above, Rudy appears to be taking your position on this.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

It’s just irritating though; he’s been touted as the ‘strong against terrorism’ candidate, but he’s apparently prepared for failure in Iraq should it come to that.

Not to say that the current Administration has no back-up plans, but come on; you don’t come out in public and say it.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

I don’t doubt his assertion, but he seems to be suggesting that a loss in Iraq would not be as big a deal as it would be in reality.

[Alberta's Child]

Rudy Giuliani has no plan to fight any kind of “war on terror.” This issue is nothing more than a campaign prop for him.

[Howlin]

I’m trying to get into Freeper rehab right now, sir.

[George W. Bush]

Strangely enough, the so-called national-security neo-con contingent here at FR, having lost their false god Rumsfeld and recognizing the approaching end of Bush as their security blanket, now have seized upon Giuliani as their Great White Neo-con Hope.

In the meantime, McCrazy actually holds consistently (for once) the strongest and most hawkish views on Iraq and is greeted with almost universal FReeper derision. Unreliable on other issues he may be but he is certainly the most committed to winning in Iraq and pursuing the Bush strategy for victory there. He gets no credit for it here. Not that I like him. But credit where it's due.

I've concluded the Juliebots most fear a surprise attack by Terrorist Squeegeemen and Islamofascist Public Urinators.

The leftwing mayor is barely more hawkish in reality than Hitlery. And he's being awfully cagey about actually delivering a solid foreign policy speech in public. In fact, he's extremely secretive and controlling in any major policy speech.

[freeperfromnj]

I've predicted for some time that Rudy will turn on the Iraq War before this is over. He's starting that movement now.

It will be a big disappointment if he does. The WOT is the main reason I am considering voting for him. I'm not happy with the other candidates. I saw Duncan Hunter on TV for the first time tonight and despite his stance on the issues, as far as personality goes, he doesn't have a chance. I keep hoping that some young, dynamic Republican conservative is going ride in and save the day.

[Norman Bates]

McCain is in his element when it comes to the GWOT. Rudy can't hold a candle to him. McCain has been totally consistent on his plan for seeing the surge through and has by far the best foreign policy credentials of any presidential candidate since at least Vice President George Bush. Perhaps that's why I favor him.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Yeah, one of your rudy buddies is a mod. Two of them, actually, i know who they are.

You're blaming them for your childish behavior?

[Fierce Allegiance]

Did I say that? No, so stop being an ignorant prig. If you want, you can read my post history from tonight where I took fulla ccountability. Besides, you probably don’t even know what it was about.

Be gone now. Go read your liberal talking points. Rudy is a liberal scumbag, and those who support him are liberal scumbag trolls.

[ChessExpert]

There is as much Lowry as Giuliani here. But it may be Rudy's fault for not making a major speech on the war on terror and posting it on the Internet.

Romney is basically striking the same tone as Giuliani, by the way.

I don’t think so.

I think McCain and Romney both gave excellent speeches. I actually prefer Romney’s, but they were both excellent. Romney posted his speech at his website. That is simply smart in my opinion. I think it is a good read. It has content. I think it gives a glimpse into Romney’s values, personality, and style:

http://www.mittromney.com/News/Speeches/Remarks_George_Bush_Library_Center

[BigSkyFreeper]

It was a legitimate question. There’s no need to stroke out.

[Fierce Allegiance]

No it wasn’t. Don’t be stupid, although i know it comes naturally for you.

[Torie]

Anybody who thinks the surge is sure to work, and we don’t need a plan B, and if Iraq does not turn turn out well, the war on terror should be terminated, because we “lost,” raise your hand.

[Torie]

You made up the headline. How creative of you. Alas the story did not live up to the headline.