There isn’t a great deal of difference policy wise?
Except for, maybe, a minor and almost irrelevant detail such as a WAR where defeat would have catastrophic consequences for America's vital interests and safety?
If we are going to have a liberal in the White House, I would rather have a liberal that will not declare defeat in the Iraq War to appease the Left but, instead, will fight like a bulldog to win the war .
Rudy wants desperately to win the war.
Hillary wants to wage the war in whatever manner scores her political brownie points with her left-wing base.
February 18, 2007 ...... Hillary Clinton urges troop withdrawal to begin in 90 days
Today, the Surge has transformed the war and victory is there for the taking as long as the Americans of this decade have more guts than they have stupidity. Imagine the guaranteed defeat that would have occurred if the U.S. had commenced to bug out in May 2007 like Hillary proposed.
The strategic stakes in the Persian Gulf (70% of the World's known oil reserves and wealth militarily controlled by Islamist fanatics on the verge of developing nuclear weapons who think Mutally Assured Destruction is a good thing as long as they take America with them in a nuclear holocaust) are much to high and too many brave American men and women have given their lives to protect America's vital interests in the Persian Gulf to have us throw it all away because we are having a tantrum about Rudy not being "conservative enough".
Having a tantrum and voting for Ross Perot because George Bush, the Elder was not perfect enough for some of us is what put Bill Clinton in the White House in 1992 with only 43% on the popular vote.
"If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." ......... Winston Churchill
If Rudy is running against Hillary or Obama in November 2008, I will be voting for Rudy.
