Wash. Post cited Giuliani's opposition to Iraq withdrawal in asserting his "tough[ness]"
SUMMARY: A Washington Post article described Rudy Giuliani as "tough," citing among other positions his opposition to withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. But the article did not elaborate on how holding this position makes one "tough" or whether holding the opposite view makes one not "tough."
In a December 19 profile of former New York City mayor and presumptive Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, Washington Post staff writers Michael Powell and Chris Cillizza described Giuliani as "tough," citing among other positions his opposition to withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.
According to the Post article, Giuliani's "strategy" for a presidential run "will be to capitalize on his status as a tough and plain-talking hero of Sept. 11, 2001." The article continued: "He believes, say advisers, that his tough views on national security -- he supports the USA Patriot Act -- and on Iraq, where he opposes withdrawal of troops, will overshadow his liberal social views." The article failed to indicate, however, how supporting the Patriot Act and opposing troop withdrawals from Iraq -- which were clearly separated from his "liberal" social positions -- makes one "tough" on national security or Iraq.
The article continued:
Giuliani, 62, presents an unusual figure in recent political history. His coolness after the Sept. 11 attacks, and his eloquence about that loss, rendered him that rare mayor who could step onto the national political stage. He has a core of socially liberal positions -- he also supports domestic partnerships for same-sex couples, although not marriage -- but wraps it in a hide as tough as any conservative Republican.
He's a crime fighter and a tax and welfare cutter. He campaigned for George W. Bush in 2000 and staked out unyielding positions on Iraq -- he said recently that withdrawing soon from Iraq "would be a terrible mistake." He also disputed the recent findings of the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan commission of elder statesmen, that concluded that untangling the Israeli-Palestinian knot is central to achieving a broader Middle East peace.
Once again, the Post clearly separated Giuliani's "tough" positions from his "socially liberal positions," without explaining why cutting taxes and welfare, opposing troop withdrawals, and disagreeing with the Iraq Study Group qualify as having "a hide as tough as any conservative Republican."
Also, the Post cited conservative radio host Dennis Prager as an example of a Republican who "say[s] his [Giuliani's] social liberalism is of less concern." As Media Matters for America noted, Prager stoked controversy recently by claiming that Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, "should not be allowed" to "take his oath of office ... on the bible of Islam, the Koran," and comparing Ellison's choice of the Quran to a hypothetical representative's choice of "Hitler's 'Mein Kampf,' the Nazis' bible, for his oath."
As Media Matters has noted, the media have consistently equated opposition to withdrawing troops from Iraq with being "pro-military" or supportive of the troops -- setting up an implicit contrast with advocates of troop withdrawal as "weak" on defense or anti-military. Media Matters has also noted the media's apparent reluctance to look past Giuliani's reputation as "America's mayor" -- as the Post article referred to Giuliani in its first paragraph and on its website --despite the fact that Giuliani's political career, both before and after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, has been marked by numerous controversies.
or his mistress he had living with him?
They're trying to portray this clown as "tough"? What did he do post-9/11 that was so "tough", other than stand on rubble and make speeches?
Rudy Giuliani tough, what a joke . . . if he's so tough, why did his wife boot him out of Gracie Mansion and make him live with a gay couple?
why not ask her....
nah, only Bill did that!
"But the article did not elaborate on how holding this position makes one "tough" or whether holding the opposite view makes one not "tough."
Easy. He doesn't want to surrender in Iraq. Those that want to pull out of Iraq want to surrender to the enemy. That makes Giuliani tough and those that want to want to pull out of Iraq weak. It's pretty simple.
Interesting... According to you all those men leaving in that helicopter from the embassy in Vietnam and the generals who ordered them to wanted to loose the war. According to you, they should have stayed there and died rather than giving in.
(Hint: Sometimes you can want to win, and reality doesn't live up to your hopes and dreams.)
This is not "surrendering to the enemy." This is seeing a hopeless situation, for what it is, and stating so.
The Bushies lied about why they sent the troops in, and Bush himself, like a stubborn bratty child refuses to even admit what a total f***up they have made of that country.
Who is the "enemy" there?
Al-Queda? They are a tiny minority of the insurgents. Face it, the insurgents and death squads are Iraqis, Sunni and Shia who have hated each other for centuries.
Best thing to do is divide that country up into three parts, for Kurds, Shia and Sunnis.
But Bush won't do that. Because to do so would mean admitting how badly they screwed up.
Bush himself plans to "stay the course," and leave the whole mess to the next guy, the way he's done his whole life.
Yeah, you putz, it's easy to talk tough with other people's lives, isn't it? Just who would we be surrendering to? If you stick your hand into a meat grinder, then pull it out, are you surrendering to the meat grinder? If your house is on fire, and you run out, are you surrendering to the fire?
Sometimes there's a fine line between bravery and stupidity. It's easy to see which side of the line you and Puddinhead George are on.
So, I assume you've already backed up your tough talk by enlisting and volunteering to go over and help out. Or, are you like the rest of the chickenhawks?
but was denied due to a hearing problem. I told him to try again...surely if they're taking 40 somethings they'll give him a hearing aid to go with his AR-15.
some have anal cysts and some have 'other priorities', others go AWOL to avoid drug tests, they all have a problem hearing their duty when it calls.
Does anyone have a troll scorecard? I thought it was Insaneloki (some number after it) who was turned down by the military for hearing problems. I could be wrong though. It is hard to keep them straight.
Regardless of which one it is, they and their families should be the ones putting their asses on the line, to back up their tough guy patter.
You are correct...it was insaneboy. They sound so much alike it's almost as if they're getting their talking points from the same place...my guess is Limpbarf.
I've got to start writing this stuff down. All of these tough guys sound alike to me. I think you're correct, they're lifting their routines directly from the Cystman.
In fact, he has hearing problems too. Man, now I'm really confused.
To get as many Americans killed as possible in Iraq of course that doesnt include HIM so I dont see the toughness factor in getting OTHER people to take chances for HIS ideology.
"To get as many Americans killed as possible in Iraq of course that doesnt include HIM so I dont see the toughness factor in getting OTHER people to take chances for HIS ideology."
You don't know me, so don't pretend you do. I could be a veteran for all you know. For the record, I'm not going to give out any information about myself, because it doesn't matter anyway. EVERY AMERICAN HAS THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINION ON NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES. It doesn't matter whether they have served or not. You simply want to attack people personally rather than debate what they say.
"Easy. He doesn't want to surrender in Iraq. Those that want to pull out of Iraq want to surrender to the enemy. That makes Giuliani tough and those that want to want to pull out of Iraq weak. It's pretty simple."
Surrender to who? We're being fought by Iraq's own citizens; not some invading force. You and the rest of the war supporters don't get it; they don't want us in THEIR country. In this situation, we're the invaders!
The ENEMY is who flew into the WTC funded by Saudi Arabia; none of which had anything to do with Iraq. Okay, now answer me this. Why aren't we bombing the crap out of those that funded the attacks? We're fighting the wrong war in the wrong place.
You got it. Bush's long (frankly disgusting) relationship with the Saudis is the big story here. I'm sure there are troops of real journalists out there who would LOVE to rip the lid off of that one... but, doesn't work that way does it. Instead, we have to hear the inane ramblings of a guy like TD, regurgitate the talking points and then call everyone here stupid for disagreeing...
If you're really a veteran, why would you be so reluctant to admit it? Aren't you proud of your service to your country?
But that would make you one cold MF. You don't care how long these people have to stay over there as long as they're backing up your mouth with their asses.
"You don't care how long these people have to stay over there as long as they're backing up your mouth with their asses."
I never said that we should stay there indefinetely. I'm simply saying that if we got all of our troops out of Iraq immediately, we would be surrending to those who are working to destabilize the region. Iraq would be even more of a mess then it is now if we left right away, because Iran would have tons of influence in the region, and Al-Qaeda would have a safe haven in Iraq, much like they did in Afghanistan before we invaded that country. They would have control of Iraq's oil supply, and they could fund their organization much better, and they would become much stronger.
Also, I actually agree with some of the Democrats in Congress that we should concentrate more on training the Iraqi security forces than trying to prevent a civil war from happening. My point was simply that if we pulled all of our troops out right away like many of you want, we would be surrending to those that are trying to de-stabilize Iraq, and Iraq would be an even bigger mess than it is right now. I think that we need to train the Iraqi security forces as fast as possible so that we can get out of Iraq. But we can't leave until we have the security forces fully trained. To leave prematurely would be a complete disaster.
KNOW what will happen WHEN we leave Iraq. Its pure speculation. Iran already has a lot of influence in Iraq. Al Queda doesnt and its far from clear they ever will. Iraq was a fairly secular country. Women had influence. There are women doctors women college professors. Iraq was NEVER afghanistan. Its only because it fits the little story you have made up in your head that you see things this way. While possibel i dont see it as likely. I dont think al Quedas message is one that the Iraqi people will respond to. Bush is already destablizing the region, our invasion has let THAT monster out of the box. We ARE going to leave. Even IF what you say were true then it will just happen on THAT day. As long as we are occupying the country training the Iraqis will not work. It is the holy grail of occupations everywhere to train the locals to take over security for the occupation. It hasent successfully been pulled off since the British in India. IF it could work the Israelis would have pulled it off in the occupied territories years ago. Its a pipedream. The only way it CAN work is if we leave and train them or at least tell them we are leaving and train them. Until the insurrgents will take the training and weapons and use them against us, like is happening now.
He insults those who want to withdraw from the madness in Iraq by saying they want to "surrender" (i.e. they're cowards), yet he cries like a baby when we point out the stupidity of his rhetoric. Mommie, those mean old libruls are calling me names! Waaaaaaa!
You should know by now that you can't be for this war unless you enlist.
Just like everyone on this site contributes a little something extra in their tax returns, otherwise they can't be for tax increases.
And they don't use motorized transporation, otherwise they can't be for the environment.
And they don't own property or invest, otherwise they can't talk about the evils of capitalism.
And they don't shop at any business that is, or deals with, a multinational corporation, or that is non-union, otherwise they can't support economic fairness.
And they work every weekend and free weekday hour in a soup kitchen, instead of posting to this website, otherwise they have no right to speak for the poor.
And they keep their cars and houses (or tents) unlocked at all times, otherwise they could have no position on illegal immigration and abuse by the state.
And on, and on, and on...
Thank you. Your examples of 'reducing the discussion to absolutes '- right or wrong - type of arguments is typical (in my experience) of the hard-lined rightwing mentality that passes by this site to 'show them liberals!'. Good work.
"So, I assume you've already backed up your tough talk by enlisting and volunteering to go over and help out. Or, are you like the rest of the chickenhawks?"
"Regardless of which one it is, they and their families should be the ones putting their asses on the line, to back up their tough guy patter"
"To get as many Americans killed as possible in Iraq of course that doesnt include HIM so I dont see the toughness factor in getting OTHER people to take chances for HIS ideology."
Oh, yeah, I see that liberals would NEVER stoop to such a mentality.
Good Lord (or Allah, or Shiva, or Mother Earth...), can you not see the double standard here???
As for mindless rhetoric, Nerzog, you just can't beat "Up yours, too..." Whoo, boy, that's good stuff, there.
Why don't you take a look at what led to those (albeit inflamed/inflamatory) retorts, huh? Please.
Truth Detector said:
"Easy. He (Giuliani) doesn't want to surrender in Iraq. Those that want to pull out of Iraq want to surrender to the enemy. That makes Giuliani tough and those that want to want to pull out of Iraq weak. It's pretty simple."
Please explain how Truth Detector's status or non-status as a veteran makes Giuliani more or less tough, and/or how it makes those who what to pull of Iraq more or less weak, or more or less desirous of surrendering to the enemy.
I could care less... However, he and others have raised the notion of their alleged 'service' or 'deferment' as a way to bolster their purported patriotism.
His continued use of the phrase 'surrender to the enemy', similarly, implies that if you don't support his inane thought process you (one) is somehow a traitor or terrorist sympathizer, etc. Come on. You're his buddy. That's clear. But, read what he writes. Cheap ploys that are meant to disrupt rather than discuss.
However THAT comment is what brought on MY comment that he wants to get as many Americans killed as possible. The point being that if HE is going to mischaracterize the issue I guess I may as well do the same. That in fact is the point I was making.
Who made up the rule book that says the 'liberals' need to be nice? Or, even fair? I was talking about TD's ability to see things in 'black and white'... well, not even that. He's a cheerleader who, with every post, makes numerous inflammatory comments, is regularly insulting and has little (if no) interest in actually having a discussion. But, you can take his side. All the merrier.
"Who made up the rule book that says the 'liberals' need to be nice? Or, even fair?"
No one, especially not on a left-wing forum. Your side has the right to be as hypocritical as you wish. The best part is when you accuse the right-wingers of doing the same.
TD (and others) make bogus, inflammatory remarks and people chop 'em down. That's hypocritical. Should everyone roll out the red carpet. Pay attention... there are a number of very conservative posters who play nice and get nice in return. TD ain' one of 'em. Not yet anyway.
...that was full of typos. Got a little fired up there.
But to say:
"TD (and others) make bogus, inflammatory remarks and people chop 'em down. That's hypocritical. "
The WHOLE ISSUE in this thread is whether Giuliani is "tough". That's it. Read MMFA's post again.
So, to agree with this, which is what TD is doing, is bogus and inflammatory? And to disagree makes one a careful deliberator of the issue? THAT's hypocritical.
...but, honestly, this beef with TD extends well beyond this particular MMFA piece. He's hearing it from the regulars b/c he asks for it... not merely because he's disagreeing with the 'liberal' point of view, but b/c he regularly makes unfounded, irrational, as well as insulting statements. That's all.
My comments are only insulting to you because you can't handle the truth. I simply come here and debate the issues, and you have to call me names and attack me personally, because you can't debate me on the issues. If you're insulted by my conservative view points, then that's your problem.
If it kicked down your door, sat at your table and ate your cornflakes. YOUR baseless assertions, mischacterizations gross errors of fact and insults do NOT constitute the truth just because you see it that way in your fantasy world of pure delusion, Notice there is as much facts, evidence, and insight in this post as in yours.
There you go again...
I think it's pretty obvious...he equates withdrawing troops to "surrendering to the enemy", a common tactic by Bush's cheerleaders to make it yet another black and white issue that labels everyone not on Bush's side as weak, cut and runners, terrorist sympathizers, etc.
Manichaean black/white thinking and you MAY someday get it. Agreeing in itself doesnt make him inflammatory, mischaracterizing the issue by conflating those who disagree with him as wanting to surrender makes him inflamatory and what he said bogus.
Is NOT being hypocritical. Now if I were to criticise HIM for being rude when I am regularly rude THAT would be hypocrisy but I dont do that. I just give him what he serves up. A good example of hypocrisy would be TD calling ME out for mischaracterizing the issue with MY statement right after HE mischaracterized the issue in HIS. Is this too complicated for you?
Let's add in each of our comments the deaths Thousands of innocent Iraqis, whose deaths have been provoked by the resistance resulting from a foreign occupation.
...I meant to say 'inane absolutes'. Just want to be absolutely clear.
No, the point is this; if Truth Defector wants to come on here and puke up Rush Limbaugh talking points, then he can't expect us to treat his mindless rhetoric as if it were reasoned debate.
I've come to believe that he (and the rest of these clowns) do think that what they spew is meaningful. I used to believe it was just a ploy... rigid/dogged babble to throw people off a reasoned discourse. There's some of that too. But, I get the feeling...no matter how illogical or inane... they believe it! True believers.
But, I digress...
Please explain how Truth Detector's status or non-status as a veteran directly supports or refutes any of the points he raised re the war in Iraq.
TD is the one who equated ones position on whether we should remain in Iraq to whether someone is "Tough". We pointed out that TD is implying that since he thinks we should stay in Iraq, he thinks he's a tough guy. We think otherwise. There is more to being tough than just blind support for failed policies.
Truth Defector can't even tell us why pulling out of Iraq is the same as "surrendering", or to whom we would be "surrendering". If you and he can give us something besides bullsh*t you memorized from Rush Limbaugh, then we can have a meaningful dialogue. Until then, we'll respond to your talking points with the contempt they deserve.
"to yield to the power, control, or possession of another upon compulsion or demand"
"to give up completely or agree to forgo; esp. in favor of another"
"the action of yielding one's person or giving up the possession of something esp. into the power of another"
syn. relinquish
Leaving Iraq could meet one or more of these definitions.
Quag·mire
Pronunciation: 'kwag-"mI(-&)r, 'kwäg- Function: noun 1 : soft miry land that shakes or yields under the foot 2 : a difficult, precarious, or entrapping position : PREDICAMENT
No-win
Pronunciation: 'nO-'win, -"win Function: adjective : not likely to give victory, success, or satisfaction : that cannot be won
Blun·der
Function: verb Inflected Form(s): blun·dered; blun·der·ing Etymology: Middle English blundren, probably of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse blunda to shut one's eyes, doze, Norwegian dialect blundra intransitive verb 1 : to move unsteadily or confusedly 2 : to make a mistake through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness transitive verb 1 : to utter stupidly, confusedly, or thoughtlessly 2 : to make a stupid, careless, or thoughtless mistake in
You're my hero.
How does us being in a predicament, even if true, mean that we're not surrendering if we pull out? Or how does this being a blunder , even if true, make us leaving not a surrender? It doesn't. But once again, your hero tries to change the subject.
Whom are we surrendering to? Take your pick - surrounding countries that want to control the region, insurgents who want to further chaos (and use it to control the region), the hard-line Islamist government that could step in and control the country/region - all of these are the "enemy" of US interests in the region.
Now, if you want to contend that these aren't real enemies, but rather peace-loving people just waiting for us to leave so that they can get back to making the world a better place and living in harmony with other nations and peoples like they were before the US rudely interrupted, fine. That's what makes you liberals.
But, even if you disagree with my definition of enemy, and I know you will, it is fair to contend that one who agrees and is seeking to prevent surrender to such an enemy would be taking a "tough" stance.
Gotta go, before you change the subject yet again...
in the head with a hammer. In fact one definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Fact is this was a war based on lies and greed. It was the wrong target at the wrong time with the wrong 'deciders'. Staying the course and/or surging is the insane choice.
Add to that the fact that OBL has WON at least 3 times so far. He got the base out of Saudi Arabia, he got America to fear him more then anything else (at least 30% of it) and he has a great training ground provided by the half TRILLION dollar's wasted there so far.
But it looks like folks like you 'and' TD want to waste more lives money and good will to continue this insane adventure of boy-george. BTW and is in quotes above since it is in doubt if you are more then one person posting under both names.
There can be no formal surrender. Since it is a civil war, by leaving, we would be allowing the natives to settle their own disputes, respecting the sovereignty of the country we invaded. Since we had no business going in there to begin with, leaving is just cutting our losses and refusing to pay for George Bush's stupidity with any more blood or money.
Surrender is just an inflammatory rhetorical device, kind of like "Christofascist".
And you had to go and change the subject YET AGAIN.
I don't remember Truth Detector (a completely different person from me, 0sum) mentioning anything about "formal surrender". Not only that, but "surrender" has a real, recognized meaning, unlike "Christofacsist". But, feel free to dismiss arguments you don't like as inflammatory rhetoric devices. It's your forum.
What happens after we "cut our losses"? Do we let our new buddies in Iran and Syria deal with the place? Is that in our national interest? Regardless of how we got into Iraq, the question is what do we do that is best for the US (not the UN). But instead of dealing with the here and now, your side wants to rehash, thinking that somehow the whole story of Iraq will discourage the electorate from ever voting Republican again. Sorry, won't work.
So, anyway, my sole beef was that MMFA posted an article stating that Giuliani was "tough". Your side made a bunch of posts disagreeing. One person, Truth Detector, dares to agree, and you immediately challenge his military status, as if that has any relevance. Weak.
Your "hero" Truth Detector claimed that it was being tough to stay as the situation deteriorates. We don't think that's being tough, we think that's being stupid.
It would not be if there was any way to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. At this point the chances of that are at or near absolute zero.
Since we can't win them over, we've got to defeat them militarily. To do that would require a force at least as large as we had in Vietnam or in the First Gulf War. With fewer that thirty percent of the people supporting the administration, appearing tough, is not in our best interests. It is idiotic. We don't have the man power to win a complete military victory. The only way that this would be possible is to reinstate the draft. There is no support for a return to the draft. There is little support for the current policy in Iraq. There is much support for withdrawal.
It's time for the supporters to step up. It's time for them to have that talk with their children. If it's that important that we squander another generation because our leaders refuse to admit their mistake. Let theirs be the first to be sacrificed.
Since it is THEIR country in the first place and we never said we were going to ANNEX it. Giving THEM,THEIR country back isnt even in the same neighborhood with surrender. Its ending the aggression.
To whom are we "surrendering"?
Unless you think Iraq is OURS to ';give up completely or agree to forgo; esp. in favor of another...or give up the possession of. Its not. We dont OWN Iraq, we will eventually leave. We are masters in someone ELSES house. Unless we plan on making Iraq into South Texas then it is THEIR country and giving it back is NOT surrender.
I like that "Excrementides". Clever, and it raises the level of discussion.
ME saying he wants to get as many Americans killed as possible in Iraq is NOT wanting to debate the issues but YOU saying that he doesnt want to surrender in Iraq is WHAT? They are both the same thing gross mischaracterizations of the issue. THAT was the point I was making. IF you want to discuss the issues then do so and stop mischaracerizing the issue. OR keep doing so and I will come back doing the same its all the same to me.
No I dont know you, I am not going for long walks with you we arent going to do lunch. So I will respond to what you POST. I will do so in the same tone YOU post in. I couldnt possibly care less whether you like it or not. If YOU have the RIGHT to the opinion that mischaracterizes the issue then so do I. Get over yourself.
So, who is the enemy again? Muslims? Terrorists? Bad guys? Just like with the definition of 'victory' your comments are hollow...
and the "ones who hate our freedom." And there are those who "wish us harm"...can't leave them out, and what about all those that aren't "with us"? They've got it coming too.
Let's add them up (...carry the 2, hmm, add this and this, plus Pakistan, minus 0.1% of Saudis...) and we end up with roughly 3 billion enemies. Bush was right, this is going to be a long war.
Which one is it? That's what Media Matters is saying.
These two right-wing cheerleaders from the Post are only interested in one thing: Make Rudy(cakes) look good! Further the narrative.
surrendering to if we leave Iraq?
Maybe you know something I don't know, but surrender usually involves an official opposition group, some resource, land, or principle that is relinquished, as well as concessions to the victor.
Please explain, as I hear this from right wing pussies constantly, that not being suckered into the Iraq scam is "surrendering".
Who is surrendering, who are they surrendering to, and what will be the conditions of this surrender?
how many posts there were responding to Vicarious Victory Boy. I'm as redundant as he is confused.
Rudy missed his chance to be "tough". Walking around after the attacks wasn't tough. Him standing up to the administration and to the EPA would have shown how tough he was. He chose to parrot the administration's claim that the air was fit to breath in lower Manhattan after the towers collapsed. That was the make or break point for "America's Mayor". He failed miserably. He showed everyone that he was just another toady to Bush and the NeoCons.
He should be ashamed of himself.
this is same rudy giuliani,when he was mayor of new york city,refuse to give police officers and fireman a decent living wage,two years of zeros,there was a saying,for rudy,zeros for heros.
diplomatic toughness, something necessary but not part of the GOP culture.
...is that the GOP (potential) candidates get SO much free campaigning done for them by the MSM. Amazing.
Tough here isn't referring to his position, it's referring to his hide. His hide is acting as an impenetrable barrier of conservative republican-ness which covers a more "socially liberal" interior.
This is like when Keith Olbermann went on a tirade a bit ago (dont' get me wrong, KO is one of my favorite anchors around these days). Bush mentioned that Osama Bin Laden planned a media propaganda campaign and KO got very passionate about how this meant Bush was putting down the more liberal arm of the media.
In both cases, I think the assumption made is plausible, but it was hardly intentional on the author's side. Granted, I don't know what Powell, Cilliza, or Bush meant. However, neither does anyone else. The context provides that the interpretation in question was BARELY implied at best.
of how the right-wing media machine spins a narrative to favor the Republican Party.
These Cons would never suggest that his strong support of the war could be a potential political liability, oh no, it's all "Mr. Rawhide" stuff.
Have Limbaugh & Hannity "gone British"??? Why do Limbaugh and Hannity love Britains more than Americans??? Why did Limbaugh spend his whole show siding with some Lord Fuuckington (or some name like that) bashing Americans who want to address Global Warming??? Why did Sean Hannity's guest host devote his whole show to a British guest today, bashing Americans??? Why did Hannity's guest host and some British guy says Americans have a surrender mentality and don't fight for their way of life???
WHY DO LIMBAUGH AND HANNITY SIDE WITH BRITISH WHACKO'S AGAINST THE AMERICAN PUBLIC???
BECAUSE AMERICANS HATE LIMBAUGH AND HANNITY, SO THEY HAVE TO GO OUT OF OUR COUNTRY FOR GUESTS WHO SIDE WITH THEM!!! THAT'S WHY!!!
Winston Churchil's grandson earlier and allowing this puffed up brit insinuate the americans can't cut and run, ressurecting a rovian talking point.
ON NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES. It doesn't matter whether they served or not." - The Truth Defecator
Sooo . . . I'm guessing you agreed that Clinton had the right to express his opinion, despite the fact he never served, either - right?
"Those that want to pull out of Iraq want to surrender to the enemy. That makes Giuliani tough and those that want to pull out of Iraq weak. Its pretty simple." - The Truth misDirector
REALLY . . . Rep. John Murtha wants to pull out of Iraq, do you think he's "weak?" Before you answer, keep in mind he's a retired Marine Col. with 37 years service - I'd like to see you call him, or any other former marine "weak" to his face . . . better yet, there was a recent poll that had a majority of troops in Iraq saying they wished to return and were no longer sure of their mission - I'd love for you to call them "weak" . . . no, what I'd REALLY like is for you to go over there and say so personally . . .
The media locks onto a script and then they go stupid. Rudi is tough, Gore is a fibber, kerry is a flip flopper, Bush is likable, etc, etc.
The media is big on themes, themes sell stories - they are not presenting news or informed opinon as much as selling stories. Simply put the -Rudi is Tough- story sells.
Conservatives have been extraordinarily good at selling stories to the media. An example is "Cut and Run" sold and "Lie and Die" just did not set the right narrative tone.
I don't know if this story in the post is mis-information or just stupid. Whats sad though is that stupid sells.
Okay, we stay in Iraq as long as it takes to clean up George Bush's mess. BUT...we have to reverse the tax cuts to the wealthy so that we can PAY for it. We also have to revive the draft so that we can spread the sacrifice upward in the economic foodchain, and subsequently provide enough troops to stabilize George's disaster...AND...most importantly...we impeach Bush and Cheney for getting us into this quagmire, then try them for war crimes.
Any takers?
" "The consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival...It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is a state of war should exist. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. "
George Orwell, 1984.
Only in America can WE hear that a stance taken in total defiance of the public WILL and against career Generals admonitions to boot........ induces a front-runner potential karma for the highest office in the land embellished in self-serving platitudes of being a tough guy with a heart.
My, my, Giuliani, former 911 Hero, America's most admired Mayor, Newsweek pictorial praise, former relentless prosecutor,.....AND now presents himself as a possible GOP Presidential candidate. Mind you, it was Rudy who took control of the destruction of physical evidence borne of a crime WHICH resulted in the untimely deaths of some 3000 fellow Americans. Thus, he was instrumental in partaking of an action plan which obviates the first rule of criminal and procedural investigative actions........... As a prosecutorial lawyer............. He should have known better .
But it gets better, He allowed thousands of first-responders to wallow in the toxic soup of an asbestos-ridden and a chemically saturated site of destruction AFTER getting assurances from EPA Administrator, Christie Whitman THAT all was well in the 'Big Apple'. Now, We have it on record from New York Medical Authorities that these same responders are now reeling from the residual effects of their selfless service with a 'Witches Brew of symptoms for life in addition to untimely and premature deaths.
But Rudy sees the bigger picture. Barely was the smoldering ruins of the Twin Towers abated and HE establishes his own consulting firm, designed to provide 'INTEL" on security to foreign governments et al.
A true exploiter of tragedy for his own gain!!!!!!!!!!!!!