Well, I guess they figure that since we blamed Iraq for 9/11 and attacked them (even though the Iraqis had nothing to do with it), we might as well attack the Iranians for 9/11 (even though the Iranians had nothing to do with it). Above all let us not research the Saudi connection to 9/11 because most of the hijackers were Saudi.

Go figure.

Tom

Given the history of the last five years that could be the single most frightening statement I have ever heard from a serious Presidential candidate.

global citizen

Further, most of its people are Shiites, whereas Al Qaeda is an organization of Sunnis.

“They have a similar objective,” he replied, “in their anger at the modern world.”

The fact that Bush and the Republicans have been blaming Iraq for September 11 and now when a conclusive Pentagon report is released showing that Iraq had nothing to do with it, Rudy announces that Iran was behind 9/11 reminds me of Orwell’s novel 1984 where Oceana keeps saying “Eurasia is the enemy. Eurasia has always been the enemy” then suddenly announces that Eurasia is their ally and “Eastasia is the enemy. Eastasia has always been the enemy.” Very Orwellian.

Greg, it's absurd that the media cedes Rudy the expertise on anything having to do with what it would take to run the White House. I've said this before, the media has conveniently forgotten that fact that on September 10, 2001 Rudy Giuliani had poll numbers that rivaled the current occupant of the White House.

The media also does not like to discuss that the reason he looked so heroic wandering around downtown Manhattan is that he had no place to go -- his emergenct response center was destroyed because he moved it into the world's biggest terroris target. He did this after ignoring the advice of every competent security person who looked at the issue. The media also gives him a pass on his insane attempt to alter the New York City Charter and appoint himself mayor beyond his term, even though he was legally barred from continuing in office. (I hope this doesn't give Carl Rove any ideas). And, let's not discuss his abuses of office while he was US Attorney.

Why does it seem like the MSM is afraid of him?

I cannot imagine how disheartening it would be to be a Republican right now looking at the choices available. But they're probably more upset about Rudy's free-abortions-for-everyone-oh-wait-maybe-not! stance than any stupid thing he has to say about those darn Arabs.

Why is the MSM "afraid" of Rudy? In my opinion they aren't. In my opinion the MSM, like the majority of Americans, is primarily obsesssed with money - the pursuit of it, the accumulation of it, the worship of it.

The MSM and most Americans live in fear that a Democratic administration will take over before they get their full share of the $$$ to be accumulated, and it doesn't matter that they are near bankrupt at the moment. They expect to reap their share any day now.

Everyone "knows", of course, that if a Democratic administration returns to power they will cut off the easy road to riches. They will reestablish the principle of taxing those best able to pay taxes more than they tax those less able to pay. They will reemphasize using the resources of government to lift the poverty stricken out of poverty, to strengthen the middle class, and to curb the predatory practices of corporations. Plus, worst of all, they will tilt slightly towards socialism. All of that makes it that much more difficult for Americans to join the Warren Buffet's of the nation, their rightful place in our society.

So, just about any male, white Republican who doesn't practice public nudity, engage in sex with children, and profess not to believe in God, will receive the majority of our votes over just about any Democratic candidate.

Hoppy in Sacramento

.

Time for Roo-dee to take an excursion through Eyerack, y'know, like Johnnie the Forgetful did. That way, he'll no longer have to rely on the expert advice of Bernie the Baghdad Bad-Ass because, by getting dust on his loafers, he'll gain so much street cred on the subject with the bouncing ball chasing puppies of the MSM.

Hell, maybe he can even get close enough to see Eyeran - y'know, so he can become an ex-spurt on all them Purrshuns.

.

Hard to say which way it will go since Rudy's not really a conservative. Which will mean that Fox and Fox Lite (CNN) won't have a clear candidate to paint rosy and they'll be reduced to merely sliming the Democratic front-runner. I'm hopeful that the Republicans will remain without a clear choice right up until the primaries, at which point it will finally dawn on them that they have no candidate at all.

If the Republicans hope to put another bullet-headed, lying, corrupt, partisan son-of-a-bitch in the White House, they need to get on the stick--pronto.

My take exactly, as I said this morning. Rudy also promised to continue Bush's Iraq policy in that same article. It's as though he trying to convince conservatives that he is one of them by being delibrately obtuse.

Rudy says we need to kill the terrorists because they hate us. I just love the way Republicans frame the situation so that their war without end is inevitable. They tell us that the terrorists hate us because they "hate our freedoms". So no point in trying to win them over or change their minds, right? Because we sure the hell aren't going to give up our freedoms. So we have a stalemate, and until we've killed every last one of them there will be no peace in the world.

Makes complete sense if you're a complete idiot. Makes complete sense unless you consider the fact that our freedoms are the very last reason the terrorists hate us. The fact is, the reasons they hate us are mostly things that could be solved through diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. But diplomacy and humanitarian aid are NOT part of the Republican game plan these days. Endless war is the Republican game plan. Which is why the Democrats need to stop promoting that line. Democrats must stop talking about defeating terrorism in terms of war. The War On Terror®© is a stupid approach the Republicans came up with. Democrats should have nothing to do with it.

IMHO...

Dem candidates should not utter a single peep about the cast of clowns on the other side.

Dem candidates SHOULD provide clear descriptions of the positions on critical issues.

Dem candidates, when given the chance face-to-face, SHOULD confront those in the MSM that are little more than White House stenographers.

Supporting this site and others like MMFA will provide the best bang for the buck to expose the ball-chasing puppies in the MSM for the lazy, biased, sorry excuses for journalists that they are.

"Iraq, Iran, Ukrasia, I speak very very fluent Spanish".

-- Stevie Wonder

News for Rudy:

U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush's own government say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States.

Foreign-born jihadists are present in Iraq, but they're believed to number only between 4 percent and 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgent fighters - 1,200 to 3,000 terrorists - according to the Defense Intelligence Agency and a recent study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a center-right research center.

Dissent Protects Democracy

That's OK Rudy, I can't tell you Republicans apart either. You all seem like a bunch of ignorant, reactionary, bigoted, misogynistic, homophobic, warmongering, hypocritical, corrupt, incompetent, Bible-thumping, fascist assholes to me.

The Democrats aren't winning until they are actually in office, and fighting off the lies and attacks like Bill clinton had to.

You must have been whispering in Dukakis' ear, hrebendorf, the night he told the nation in 1988 he would do nothing against the hypothetical murderer of his wife. Democratic candidates who say they will not defeat terrorists with every resource at hand--political, economic, spying, and, for damn sure, military--will, like Dukakis, soon be teaching college students instead of governing from the White House and Capitol Hill.

Where do people like you live: in an ivory ivy tower in Cambridge with other philosopher kings who know nothing of real world politics?

Emet18,

I hear where you are coming from, and you are right that Dems need to not be "soft on terror," but I think you are missing hrebendorf's point. He is not saying don't respond to specific acts of terror with force. Most progressives supported the invasion of Afganistan. I know I did.

I believe he is arguing that it is a mistake to frame the problem of terorism as the "War on Terror." Framing it in this way creates a presumption of militarism and plays into the easily manipulated patriotic impulses of the public.

Extremist Islamic fundamentalist grows out political repression, economic deprivation, and resentment of US bullying in the Middle East. For the most part, these problems can be better addressed through projecting "soft power" and diplomacy.

Think of what a Marshall Plan for the Middle East could do for our image. Think about how much resentment would be eased if genuine progress could be made between Isreal and the Palestinians. In particular, think about the change in image that would occur if "President Obama," with his Muslim background and caramel skin, were to tour the Middle East (this is one of the reasons he is my first choice). Unfortunately, Bush has fanned the flames of Islamic resentment into a raging conflagration and it is going to be very difficult to put out the fire.

This doesn't mean that we don't have to be on alert, nor that there may not be other situations that will require military response or perhaps preemptive action if there is a truly imminent threat. But, Dems need to stop playing ball on the Repubs field; no more "War on Terror."

"Most progressives supported the invasion of Afganistan. I know I did."

Progressives need to rethink why Bush went into Afghanistan. Read "The Empire of Bases" chapter in Chalmers Johnson's The Sorrows of Empire. Michael Moore's and Gore Vidal's thesis that wanting pipelines for Unocal was a major reason we wanted to go into Afghanistan has a lot of evidence to back it up.

Tom

Excuse me while I retreat to my hot tub, with a nice chilled chardonnay, a Vivaldi CD, and dream of where to drive the Volvo today. Rove pays well, you see.

Hoppy in Sacramento

And better, it seems to me, to go after the Republican candidates than spend so much energy clobbering other Democrats with criticisms that will be gleefully picked up by Republicans against the eventual nominee in the general election.

cscs:

draftedin68 has a good point. Rather than go after Rudy now, maybe we should just hope that he becomes the Republican nominee. After the primary locks the Republicans into their candidate, that's the time to go after Rudy, or whoever it may be. (They all have profound weaknesses.)

As far as foreign policy things go, I do think we as Dems are sometimes too prone to lecturing in boring and stentorian tones, which gets us nowhere with the electorate. Taking a hint from emet, I hope the Dems will try pure, simple propaganda techniques this time. Wouldn't it be great to have a candidate who would just simply laugh at the sort of foreign policy nonsense that Rudy's been spouting. "Rudy doesn't even know the difference between a Sunni and a Shite. Hahahaha," followed by a reminder that that's just the same sort of thing that got us into Iraq ought to work quite effectively.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

"Extremist Islamic fundamentalist grows out political repression, economic deprivation, and resentment of US bullying in the Middle East. For the most part, these problems can be better addressed through projecting "soft power" and diplomacy"

Even this broad characterization underscores by obfuscation the real issue that Arabs in the ME have with America. The central and core issue is America's foreign policy with regard to Israel. That is the driving force of the Islamic fundamentalist that smoldered over 40 years and burst onto the global scene as terrorism beginning with the RFK assasination. It is an extreme response due to a lack of response on the part of America with regard to our ME policy when it comes to Israel. That is the core issue and until it is acknowledged and there is change America will remain a target and continue to lose the GWOT.

"Extremist Islamic fundamentalist grows out political repression, economic deprivation, and resentment of US bullying in the Middle East..."

Is that why we've had extremist Christian fundamentalism dominating government in the U.S.?

Even this broad characterization underscores by obfuscation the real issue that Arabs in the ME have with America. The central and core issue is America's foreign policy with regard to Israel.

Them Joos are always to blame.

Probably to blame for the Sunnis and Shiites massacring each other too.

Always good to know who is to blame for everything.

Dick Nixon was right again.

Best, Terry