Gothamist: Giuliani Makes Long Awaited NYC-Iraq Analogy

BrianVan

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:07:52 -0500

S.D., my hypothesis is based on the fact that Giuliani was the mayor of NYC and that his experience with security operations is probably much better than that of Bush (former Texas governor) or Obama (Illinois U.S. Senator). It's possible that Obama may very well end up to be a better expert on national security and terrorist prevention, but right now, based on a quick look at either's experience, I'd say that the former two-term mayor of NYC would have much more experience dealing with operational security in a hands-on and high pressure environment than a U.S. Senator. And really, that has nothing to do with 9/11. (remember, those planes came from outside of NYC, and NYC is not in the business of guarding our airspace) As with the radios and Kerik and all that shit - well, if we're still making graft a political issue in this country, that's a surprise to me. Actually, let me take that back - it just seems like that issue applies quite selectively! Halliburton is OK, Bernard Kerik was not! I mean, there are people alive who don't remember ever having a president who *didn't* hand out sweetheart deals to his cronies in plain sight! (Clinton, if you'll remember, was dodging impropriety charges for his entire presidency. Obviously, it was all irrelevant and unimportant because those issues seemingly went away when he left the white house!)

S.D.

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:51:07 -0500

BrianVan, well put, but a few counter points: "A Giuliani administration would likely run this country better than a Barack Obama administration would." That's a matter of opinion. I've had two friends pulled over because they were Black and driving an expensive car during his Administration. One was an IBM Exec and a community leader, the other was a computer programmer with a taste for Mercedes Benz. Amusingly, both Conservative Republicans. I have no idea what sort of President Barack Obama would be, but GW Bush sure set the Bar low. "Giuliani would likely take prudent actions in preventing major anti-terrorist actions." Ok, I'll bite: Based on what experience? Doling out contract for radios that don't work as desired? He dealt with 9/11 as best he could, but that, IMO, doesn't give him experience in planning or prevention. Hal2814, Love the "Bald" theory. I don't think any Mayor of NYC has gone on to a higher office in over 100 years. Anyone know for sure?

reality spites

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:31:29 -0500

Like they are not witholding supplies now? Please, they had electricity before. I call you out on your BS.

don't hold your breath

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:27:26 -0500

absurdly priced healthcare And one of these days a Democratic politician will explain how they are going to control the cost of healthcare. They controlled Congress for 40 years, had Bill Clinton for two terms, and have been blathering on about it since W came to office. After a while you have to wonder if they have even the slightest idea of where to start. They campaign on the issue and like every other politician they don't do anything. No wonder if took a fuck-up like Iraq to get the Dems back in "control" of Congress. If we see healthcare reform in our lifetime it will be a miracle.

Hal2814

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:45:07 -0500

Rudy's bald. Since the U.S. entered the age of televsion, we've only voted one baldy to the presidency, Dwight Eisenhower, a bona fide war hero from WW2. Rudy ain't Ike. We light our presidents with hair. And without a lisp--or bad teeth--ike Rudy.

BrianVan

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:19:39 -0500

Hey, I could have told you way in advance that if Saddam were removed from power and the ethnic tribes were allowed to fight with one another, that anything less than 1,000,000 total civilian deaths would be miraculous. But, you know, both our current administration and Congress are completely inept, and we're lucky to be able to waste all that money on destroyed cities, fossil fuels, processed corn, $30,000 hammers, space shuttles to nowhere and absurdly priced healthcare and not have our society completely collapse. But Giuliani and the 9/11 whores are correct in three ways: 1. A Giuliani administration would likely run this country better than a Barack Obama administration would. Not by a wide margin, but enough of one. And Giuliani would probably be tons better than Brownback, Vealsack, Assfuck or whoever else is running. ("Randy Vilsack" would be a great porn name, btw) 2. Giuliani would likely take prudent actions in preventing major anti-terrorist actions. It is indeed correct that we can probably suck in a few more Cat 5 hurricanes but a stray nuke smuggled into NYC would be too costly for our society. (And Giuliani would be a major improvement over Bush in this regard) 3. Giuliani would likely do quite well in winning people over with his "broken windows" approach, as that sort of thing sells quite well here in America. Anything you can do to reduce petty crime and clean up blight will be a winner with liberal voters, and therefore he can probably win enough centrist converts to swing an election his way. That said, I expect Giuliani to fuck up in a big way, most likely with some huge Kerik-sized skeleton in the closet, but also possibly by not having enough mojo in the primaries to be the most popular Conservative candidate. I expect him not to last in the race through late 2007 or early 2008. Note that I didn't mention Hillary. Hillary is not her husband, and that's a bad thing. But if you think Hillary is not for real, let me tell you, playa hatas will be taking hot lead to the chest. Hillary is the one bringing a gun to a sword fight, to twist the analogy. Obama had to announce his candidacy this far in advance to try to get past her, not anyone else. The other Dems are facing long odds against her in the fight for party fund raising, they're a little behind in the polls in general, and they certainly don't have her political experience. The Republicans, meanwhile, have to count on the fact that they'd have to at least beat someone of her stature and talent to keep the White House in '08. With the way things are going for the GOP, they simply cannot lose that election.

reality bites

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:59:21 -0500

Friggin Iraq was like beverly hills with all their benzs and bmz's. Maybe if you a Baath Party elite that hadn't been taken out back and executed. The rest of the country was stifled under sanctions and Hussein withholding the humanitarian shipments that were allowed. He would withhold medical supplies to control the population as well as exploit their suffering in the court of world public opinion. Not defending the invasion but I am calling you out on your BS.

My escalade

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:38:30 -0500

Follow the money. The first things the mil did was to secure the oil fields. Kick everyone out, wait till haliburton and KBR to bring in their contractors to get it going again. Only now in addition to the contractors you have mercenaries. Blackwater and their British equivilents. Lets add those deaths into the mix. This had nothing to do with freedom. Or, Rebuilding. Nothing needed to be rebuilt before, why now. Friggin Iraq was like beverly hills with all their benzs and bmz's. they had infrastructure till now.

S.D.

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:29:05 -0500

"I don't think Jen is old enough to appreciate pre-Giuliani NYC." Well I am. It wasn't the hell that St. Giuliani makes it out to be. Since pre-Giuliani New York in no way compares to the current situation in Iraq, his statement has no weight. BrianVan, Iraq was Humpty Dumpty on a wall. Instead of doing it right, we went in with no planning of the consequences and at least 34,000 dead Iraqi civilians this past year alone. It's broken and we did it. Bet that 9/11 whore doesn't mention that.

BrianVan

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:51:22 -0500

Anyone see Hillary Clinton's Iraq vote statements in Iowa? Classic Bill Clinton doublespeak. Well, John Kerry made us all nostalgic for Bill Clinton, so I have to say this isn't a bad thing. Dude, way to put NYC's crime on the same level of what's going on in Iraq! I'll agree with the sentiment that this is absurd. The Gothamist staff consists of mostly people who wouldn't freely travel in the South Bronx at night, so I would take this statement with a grain of salt as most of you are. Is Giuliani correct in his overall view of the situation? If he applies the broken windows theory to Iraq, can we turn it around over there? Ummm, yes and no. What we can do is eliminate preventable petty crime in Iraq. We cannot, however, eliminate ethnic war and sponsored genocide. I mean, if we find a way to actually do that, let me know and I'll get behind it in Iraq. Forgive my skepticism, I lived through Bosnia, Rwanda, now Iraq and Darfur, and I have to say, we as a global society have no fucking clue how to prevent that sort of shit from happening, except to throw ourselves in the middle of it and make it worse. Our legacy in Iraq will be this: the major ethnic groups in Iraq all want to blow each other to smithereens, and blow up anyone else who they can throw a bomb at, and slit anyone's throat who gets in their way, in the name of Allah. No one over there is asking anyone for help in putting a 5-minute timeout on the insurgents while they broker a peace deal. No, they really want to kill one another, and they don't want to be stopped. And by removing Saddam from power, we have given them the freedom! to bomb the shit out of one another. Our complex moral math computes that we've actually made the situation worse, but you know what? We've made it better. We've given them free will again. If we value that so highly, we'll get out of the way and let them do all the wonderful things that they want to do over there. Who knows, maybe they'll suddenly turn around and develop the world's next great peaceful society, a model for all future countries. Or maybe they'll just be all fucking dead in a year. Really, that's not our problem. We already won, we got our way. Leave the morals to the Peace Corps. That's how the French view things, and that's working great for them right about now. We should try it.

anyone but Hillary

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:07:30 -0500

Anyone see Hillary Clinton's Iraq vote statements in Iowa? Classic Bill Clinton doublespeak. Someone once said that when George W. Bush speaks you argue about what he said. When Bill Clinton speaks you argue about what he meant. Well, Hillary learned from the master. Her statement essentially went something like this: I voted for the use of force in Iraq only if we had allies. I was misled. And if I knew then what I know now I wouldn't have voted for it. Huh? No apology for the vote? No "I was wrong"? Really gonna win over those John Edwards supporters that way.

anomalous

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:02:45 -0500

Only an idiot would make this statement. Was it really necessary to start off your comment with a vicious personal attack? Could you not have said what you wanted to say in a more civilized manner?

Tim Watley

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:48:58 -0500

Dude, way to put NYC's crime on the same level of what's going on in Iraq! I don't think Jen is old enough to appreciate pre-Giuliani NYC. Apropos, given that Jen wasn't around in pre-Giuliani nor in Iraq, this statement has no weight. Giuliani for Prez....

Mike Nifong

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 11:22:31 -0500

Dude, way to put NYC's crime on the same level of what's going on in Iraq! Only an idiot would make this statement. The point is still that Rudy can turn chaotic, corrupt and violent area into safe decent area. Before Rudy took office (when hard core left wing dems were in charge), 57% of new yorkers said they would move out of nyc if it were possible. This was a high-tax, high-crime corrupt shithole before Rudy and unfortunately, it will be again once dems take control back in 2009.