Archive for the ‘Giuliani’ Category

China “great challenge” to US: Giuliani

November 9, 2007

by Stephen Collinson

AMES, United States (AFP) – US 2008 Republican front-runner Rudolph Giuliani on Thursday warned that emerging China was a “great challenge” to the United States, and backed continued engagement with Beijing.

But the former New York mayor also called for an increase in US military strength to deter China from ever mounting a security challenge to America, and said he would push Beijing faster on introducing political freedoms.

“China is a great challenge to the United States, and maybe one of the most important challenges,” Giuliani told an audience of mainly students at Iowa State University.

“We will be the two great economies in the world. The more we make sure China’s rise is peaceful, the better it is going to help the United States,” Giuliani said in response to a question from a Chinese student.

“We should remain substantially engaged with China.”

Giuliani’s comments marked one of his first significant discussions of China policy during his campaign, and signalled he would continue the engagement strategy favored by recent US administrations if elected president.

It was also one of the few occasions that China has come up in the 2008 race other than in denunciations of alleged currency manipulation by Beijing, the threat to US jobs from the Chinese economy or defective consumer goods.

Though he pushed for continued engagement with Beijing, Giuliani, who leads national Republican polls just over 60 days before the first party nominating contest, the Iowa caucuses, said he was concerned with the lack of political freedoms in China, and with its potential security threat.

“To make sure that China doesn’t think of challenging us militarily, we should increase the size of our military,” Giuliani said.

“Our military is too small to deal with the Islamic terrorist situation, but it really is too small to deter would-be aggressors from ever thinking about challenging us.”

Other leading candidates have discussed China policy mostly in the context of festering disagreements between Washington and Beijing.

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton in August warned that the United States must deal with “currency manipulation” at a forum hosted by a major US labor union.

And she hit out at the standard of Chinese imports after a wave of consumer and food scares linked to Chinese goods.

“I don’t want to eat bad food from China or have my children having toys that are going to get them sick,” said Clinton.

But Clinton also wrote in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs journal that the Sino-US relationship would be “the most important bilateral relationship in the world in this century” and called for “cooperatitve” ties with Beijing.

Senator Barack Obama, second to Clinton in national polls branded China at the same event as a “competitor” but not necessarily an enemy.

“If they’re manipulating their currency … we take them to the mat,” he said.

Another leading Democratic candidate, John Edwards, has warned that with the US preoccupation with other global hotspots like Iraq, Iran and North Korea, China has not had enough attention from US policymakers in recent years.

Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, also a Democratic hopeful, warned China was a “strategic competitor” returning to a previous US foreign policy lexicon.

Republican candidates have been generally less concerned about China’s economic tactics, than its military buildup.

In the latest edition of Foreign Affairs journal, Senator John McCain wrote that China could bolster its claim that it is “peacefully rising” by being more transparent about its military buildup.

“When China builds new submarines, adds hundreds of new jet fighters, modernizes its arsenal of strategic ballistic missiles, and tests anti-satellite weapons, the United States legitimately must question the intent of such provocative acts,” McCain wrote.

Newt Gingrich: What’s Wrong With Our Election Process?

October 23, 2007

By Michael Lumley
The Daily Beacon (University of Tennessee)
Monday, October 22, 2007

A few months ago at a National Press Club Lunch in Washington, Newt Gingrich actually said something worth repeating. That happens so rarely now-a-days with prominent political leaders I was actually a little astonished. Essentially, Newt argued that the current electoral process is too long, too expensive and fundamentally insane.

“As the campaigns get longer,” Gingrich said, “you’re asking a person who’s going to be sworn in in January of 2009 to tell you what they’ll do in January of 2007, when they haven’t got a clue — because they don’t know what the world will be like, and you’re suggesting that they won’t learn anything through the two years of campaigning.”

Newt’s completely right of course. In 2000, Americans voted for a “compassionate conservative” who believed in limited government, cutting growth in federal spending and a restrained foreign policy. Instead they got George W. Bush.

How could America have been so deceived?

Our electoral process sucks.

Presidents are elected from a pool of candidates who are selected based on one determining factor — their ability to gather small contributions from large groups of people. How best to do this? Some have found that being mayor of a large city devastated by a major terror attack helps. Others have tried being married to very popular former presidents. Less common is an approach involving vision, principle or leadership.

But it’s not enough to start out with a really terrible pool of candidates. After the system eliminates anyone who is unable to instantly reach two to three million campaign donors, it plunges the candidates into a series of encounters that the political machine calls “debates.”

To call these spectacles debates is a bit like calling “Big Brother 4” prime-time television or calling Britney Spears an artist. I mean, sure, technically they’re debates, but in reality, its only 90 minutes of eight to 10 suits doing their damnedest not to stick their feet in their mouths.

Take this real debate question, posed to Rudy Giuliani: What are the biggest mistakes that you have ever made, and how have they changed you for a better person? You have thirty seconds.

Thirty seconds? To answer the question properly would take 30 seconds of just thinking before speaking. Of course, as all good candidates do, Giuliani simply deflected the question — playing it safe and keeping his foot well away from his mouth.

Every once and a while, however, a candidate actually tries to engage in a meaningful policy discussion instead of parroting off meaningless drivel like “I believe in the American Dream.” When this happens, they are first misunderstood and then demonized.

Take Ron Paul, who tried to explain in one Republican debate that American foreign policy might be contributing to a “blowback” effect — that is, when we kill women and children overseas, it makes their relatives angry at us and more likely to blow up buildings. The solution: Critically examine our policies to ensure that they maximize the benefit to the American people and discontinue policies that do more harm then good to our relations overseas.

But for Rudy Giuliani, Paul’s digression into substantive policy analysis was a golden opportunity. In thirty seconds, Giuliani turned the reasonable position articulated above into a message that Ron Paul blamed America for 9/11, and as mayor of New York during 9/11 (something he just won’t shut up about) he demanded an official apology from the Paul campaign.

What’s even worse is that a lot of people out there — people I thought were smart enough not to fall for this crap — loved Giuliani’s aggressive approach.

And then there’s a whole other host of issues that I don’t even have the words to discuss here. Campaign finance reform is silencing people with little or no name recognition. In the wake of the 2004 election, candidates are no longer allowed to change their minds about anything — lest the opposing factions wave flip-flops in the air at rallies or speeches. (Yes, the flip-flop has now become an appropriate substitute for intelligent and rational debate.) And when the driving issue in a campaign becomes something like “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” or a made-up story about National Guard papers, well, something is definitely wrong.

The bottom line is this: It’s time for Americans to demand real, intelligent and appropriate presidential campaigns. How do we do that? Quit voting for politicians who shovel out meaningless drivel. And for once, just once, let’s start using our brains.

— Michael Lumley is a senior in economics. He can be reached at mlumley@utk.edu.

Excellent Gingrich Speech, National Press Club, Aug. 7, 2007

Giuliani’s War

October 23, 2007

By Richard Cohen
The Washington Post
Tuesday, October 23, 2007; Page A19

I have a weakness for wars with colorful names. My favorite, mentioned twice by me this year alone, is the War of Jenkins’ Ear, which occupied Britain and Spain from 1739-41 and ended in a stalemate. This brings me to the coming war with Iran that Rudolph Giuliani has solemnly vowed he would launch should, God forbid, Iran get nuclear weapons and he become president. It will be called the War of Rudy’s Mouth.

Rudy’s mouth, as anyone in New York can tell you, is a formidable weapon that, when turned on a target, can vaporize the person, leaving just a small mound of dust and maybe a false tooth or two. An oft-cited example is the poor fellow who called the then-New York mayor’s radio show and asked why the law prohibited the keeping of ferrets as pets. “There is something deranged about you,” the mayor said.

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/22/
AR2007102201558.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Giuliani attacks Clinton in campaign ad

September 15, 2007

By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani criticized Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton in a full-page ad in Friday’s New York Times, accusing her of assailing Iraq war commander Gen. David Petraeus‘ character.

In response, a liberal anti-war group is running a $50,000 ad campaign against Giuliani in Iowa, which begins the presidential nominating process. The television ad from MoveOn.org Political Action, which will start airing next week, accuses Giuliani of a “betrayal of trust” for abandoning the Iraq Study Group.

“Rudy Giuliani has become an uncritical cheerleader for George Bush‘s war in Iraq,” …..

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070914/
ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_
war_ads;_ylt=AgvKPnEAWEc821OWuph5sres0NUE

Lingo of Failure: How to Decode Washington Political Speak

July 21, 2007

By John E. Carey
Peace and Freedom 

The discussion of the war in Iraq has created or modified its own vocabulary, especially in the halls of Congress.

Below is our attempt at an easy to use pocket dictionary to help navigate the verbology being used today.

 THIS IS AN UNFINISHED WORK!  We need your input by comment to the blog or website you are reading or by email to:
jecarey2603@cox.net 

Redeploy: (verb) To reduce troops in one area in order to move them to another area. Usually connotes moving troops from combat to the rear. See: Murtha, Okinawa, retreat, surrender on the military goal. See also: Retreat, lose, loss, failure, enemy wins, back down, allies disheartened, terrorists emboldened.

Retreat: (verb or noun) In all prior wars this was an ugly word for Americans.  Indicates failure.  We retreat (we lose and the other guy wins).  Why has this word been moved to the back of the word train?  Because it has been easy to understand and clear for hundreds of years.  See: redeploy.

Lost: (as in “the war is lost”) (noun or past tense of the verb to lose) Indicates failure or in war, an inability or unwillingness to prevail in battle. Usage: “The war in Iraq is lost and the troop surge is failing” (Senator Harry Reid, reported by AFP, April 19, 2007). See also, “We have not lost a military battle in Iraq (Senator Barak Obama, reported by AP, July 20, 2007).

Mission creep: (noun and verb) The activity of expanding upon the existing military mission gradually.  Also used by some Democrats to describe people in support of the mission.  Example: “The General is a mission creep.”

Pillow fight: (noun) A derisive term being used by so called “talking heads” to describe the U.S. Senate’s all night Iraq debate.

Pillow talk: (noun leading to a verb) The discussion, usually between partners, that occurs in the bedroom. Usually means one person is attempting to have sex with another. In the case of the current U.S. Congress, the term refers to Senator Reid’s “all nighter” where each party was trying to screw the other. See “all nighter.”

All nighter: (noun) Term used by adolescents who have failed to do their coursework and homework usually in school. An effort to cram a semester or more into one night: often to no avail. See Harry Reid.

Surge: (noun and verb) A temporary increase in troop levels modulated by political restriction.  Not an attack but better than a retreat.

Support: (verb) As in “support the troops.” An often used and misused sign of patriotic zeal by Democrat Party member who really would do anything to downsize the Army. When used by Democrats, the word “support” seldomly means a plus-up in the budget.  Often used by Democrats in an attempt to bolster backing from the military, and potential red-state voters.

In reality, most Democrats only “support” the troops when they are a) deployed on U.N.-sponsored peacekeeping missions in Haiti, Bosnia, or New Orleans; or b) when a Democrat President is in office, and he needs to rattle the saber to divert attention from domestic problems.

Undercutting: (verb or noun) Usually refers to a disruption of normal structural support such as sawing off one leg of a stool. Am action leading to instability and uneasiness on the part of users of the structure. In Washington currently, refers to efforts to deny U.S. troops proper funding or support. See: treason.

Election season: (noun) That time when politicians can be trusted even less than “normal.” See all self anointed candidates for president (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Romney, Giuliani, McCain and a host of others).

Troop morale: (noun)  This word apparently does not appear in any Democrat dictionary.  It means, as any football coach can tell you, if you pull together as a team you have a chance to actually “win.” In April the Senate Majority Leader told our troop, the American people and our enemies that the war was “lost.”  Good luck, coach: you don’t get it.

Best interest of the United States: I am sorry but this term is no longer in vogue in the Congress (or anywhere else).

White Flag: (noun) Made famous by the French in WWII, the White Flag denoted surrender to the enemy so that the enemy would cease any operations against the unit displaying the white flag realizing that they had given up the fight without winning.  The White Flag Party now denotes the Democrats in Washington for the same reasons.
(Contributed to Peace and Freedom by Tom Boley)

[The work above is posted as an unfinished work.  Those that wish to contribute should email jecarey2603@cox.net  ]

COUNTERPOINT

Maybe the Rhetoric is too Harsh: The Phoney Debate

THE SENATE Democratic leadership spent the past week trying to prove that Congress is deeply divided over Iraq, with Democrats pressing and Republicans resisting a change of course. In fact that’s far from the truth. A large majority of senators from both parties favor a shift in the U.S. mission that would involve substantially reducing the number of American forces over the next year or so and rededicating those remaining to training the Iraqi army, protecting Iraq’s borders and fighting al-Qaeda. President Bush and his senior aides and generals also support this broad strategy, which was formulated by the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission. Mr. Bush recently said that “it’s a position I’d like to see us in.”

The emerging consensus is driven by several inescapable facts. First, the Iraqi political reconciliation on which the current U.S. military surge is counting is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Second, the Pentagon cannot sustain the current level of forces in Iraq beyond next spring without rupturing current deployment practices and placing new demands on the already stretched Army and Marine Corps. Finally, a complete pullout from Iraq would invite genocide, regional war and a catastrophic setback to U.S. national security.

The decision of Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to deny rather than nourish a bipartisan agreement is, of course, irresponsible. But so was Mr. Reid’s answer when he was asked by the Los Angeles Times how the United States should manage the explosion of violence that the U.S. intelligence community agrees would follow a rapid pullout. “That’s a hypothetical. I’m not going to get into it,” the paper quoted the Democratic leader as saying.

For now Mr. Reid’s cynical politicking and willful blindness to the stakes in Iraq don’t matter so much. The result of his maneuvering was to postpone congressional debate until September, when Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, will report on results of the surge — in other words, just the outcome the White House was hoping for. But then, as now, the country will desperately need a strategy for Iraq that can count on broad bipartisan support, one aimed at carrying the U.S. mission through the end of the Bush administration and beyond. There are serious issues still to resolve, such as whether a drawdown should begin this fall or next year, how closely it should be tied to Iraqi progress, how fast it can proceed and how the remaining forces should be deployed.

There’s no guarantee that Mr. Bush can agree with Congress on those points or that he will make the effort to do so. But a Democratic strategy of trying to use Iraq as a polarizing campaign issue and as a club against moderate Republicans who are up for reelection will certainly have the effect of making consensus impossible — and deepening the trouble for Iraq and for American security.