"You know, in the horror movie you kill the monster, and the hand re-emerges. And if you're not looking, the hand grows back and then the monster's there again."

Pakistan? I would've sworn he was talking about November '04.

"You know, in the horror movie you kill the monster, and the hand re-emerges. And if you're not looking, the hand grows back and then the monster's there again."

Rudy perfectly describes Iran-Contra thugs such as Elliot Abrams and John Negroponte.

Guiliani put the damn Bat-Signal on the roof of World Trade Center #7 where it was destroyed on 9/11. Now the monster can grow another hand or a hand can grown into a monster or whatever the hell Guiliani is talking about and Batman will only find out about it months later if he reads page 18 of the Times because CNN sure isn't going to break into their coverage of, I just checked, a commercial for Humana 1 health insurance (where I can get the duductables I want!) or wait a minute the commercials are over now, there's a Harry Potter book coming out today and people are milling around in London!

Now handy monsters or monster hands can roam the streets of America unmolested because we are unprotected people! Proving once again we're all paying way too much attention to Iraq or something.

Yeah, the previous attempts to contain these guys, from Nixon through Reagan, were like an interrupted course of antibiotics. Now we get the resistant strain.

Is it me or is Giuliani's speech writer (and perhaps he himself) making WAY too many literal and figurative TV/movie related analogies? And when Rudy starts saying things like "You know the economy is like an episode of the Flavor of Love..." I wonder if people will start to laugh, cry or run for the exits! I think maybe Rudy needs to spend a little less time in front of the TV.

Oh and for some reason Friday the 13th was the scary movie that popped into my head when I read this. I guess it was the idea that some of our worst nightmares could somehow become real and go on a killing spree...oh wait, that would be this current administration wouldn't it...

What's the big deal? Rudy's just connecting with the drooling GOP base by speaking to them in terms that they can understand:

//really cool stuff he seen on the teevee one time, where like this monster done got killed but then his hand came back and the guy went and chopped him up real good again, and then the monster was gone, 'cause that guy was a tough.//

Etc.

Remember, he has to appear stupider and crazier than the rest of the field in order to get the base to rally behind him.

Is Roo-Dee the type that will go away if ignored? I'm all for ignoring this Mafioso Wiseguy wannabe. My son registered as a Republican just to help keep Roo-Dee from the nomination.

Rudy's own party (Ron Paul) has already proven that: a) he has not read the 911 Commission report b) does not know who attacked us on 911 or c) why.

Rudy reminds me more of John C. Reilly in Talladega Nights. When Will Farrell is injured in a car wreck, Reilly asks if Ferrell will have super powers. He knows it can happen: "read a comic book" he offers in proof.

Rudy thinks he got super powers on 911 when two buildings fell on NYC. Nice try Rudy. Read a book. Start with the 911 Commission report. Then come back and try to tell me that you are the man to lead us out of the mess the current administration has lead us into.

But even as GWB lead the distraction into the Iraq debacle, wasn't Rudy right there cheerleading along and fully supporting the president? That's hardly a reason to show anything but contept now that he's running for president & somehow manages to see what many of us were saying before we sent troop one into Iraq.

Sorry, no free pass for Rudy here. He is as much to blame for "taking our eye of the ball" as anyone. And he used his "I'm the NYC hero-mayor of 9-11" celebrity construct to do it.

I understand your point but I feel that by being a part of a problem that he now attepts to raise to garner support for his campaign as disengenuous at least.

And I found what appears to be his current trend of refering to TV sets & TV shows/movies in his attepts to discuss the serious ills that our nation faces to be a little troubling. Is he talking down to us or is that how he sees & relates to these serious problems? That's were some of my cynicism comes from.

look what do you guys want. Bush gave us moral clarity; Giuliani gives us verbal clarity.

The essential point, that many seem to miss, is that if we are to prevent the monster from reappearing, then, as General Petraeus stated, "We must hold the high moral ground."

At least arguably, after 9/11, we did. This has been squandered. All the military force in the world will not get it back--and neither will the brand of high handed diplomacy favored by the neoconservatives and the present administration.

It will be very difficult to get it back, but sweeping those responsible for our present disasters from positions of influence must be a starting point.

I think this includes Guiliani.

I understand your point but I feel that by being a part of a problem that he now attempts to raise to garner support for his campaign as disengenuous at least.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, the argument you are making is different to the one I'm taking issue with. I agree that Giuliani is being disingenuous, but that does not mean that the argument he made is wrong, it just means that he is a hypocrite. Hence, as I said before criticize the man for being a hypocrite, not the argument which is dead on (at least in this case).

New Yorker In DC

Perhaps this will help to explain why I think I disagree with you that it is somehow a different argument and is rather part & parcel of the overall argument.

Suppose there were a hypothetical arson who had spent years going around town lighting fires of various size and lethality. Now imagine that arson where to take those years of hands-on fire expertise and they decided to run for the newly opening position as the Chief of the local fire department. And to help ensure he was selected as the new Chief he traveled around talking about fire safety.

Are you telling me that we should actually sit back and say to ourselves - well sure this guy's a firebug but he makes some very valid points regarding fires and fire safety!? Are you suggesting the people should only ridicule him when he talks about himself personally lighting fires but NOT at his audacity at talking about fire safety at all? How can you possibly separate the two? Why would you want to, are they not intimately related to one another in regards to this hypothetical individual?

I agree that there are many issues of dire import that need to be considered and dealt with in our nations immediate future. And I will also agree that the issue of our nation's security (which has been all but utterly destroyed by Bush and this broken administration) needs to be effectively dealt with. And Rudy deserves what role in this? My how prescient of him to point out shortcomings that he himself aided in generating. (insert golf-clap here). I'm sorry, he does not deserve a place at the table. There are plenty of very capable people out here that have been making these same points for years (and still are). The difference was that they were not Republican Presidential candidates so they were howled down or ignored. I refuse to give Rudy any credit whatsoever for raising this point but rather demand he be skewered for his role IN it. The audacity... By allowing Rudy to lead the coverstion you ignore his damning role and worse provide him with some form of twisted credibility that he will most assuredly use to his advantage. And this is not to be allowed.

You do not applaud the virtue of a liar for saying lying is bad.

Remember those British Marines that the EEEEEVVUUUUHHHHL Iranians had seized in what the media assured us repeatedly was "Iraqi waters"...

Well, I've got some yellowcake to go with that.

Reuters: British map in Iran crisis 'inaccurate'

“The Government was fortunate that it was not in Iran's interests to contest the accuracy of the map.”

Reuters

High IQ has always been a potent disqualifier, from Walter Mondale's vapid putdown of Gary Hart with a Wendy's slogan to complaints Adlai Stevenson used multi-syllable words when campaigning against Bubblehead.

Ah, yes, Bubblehead.

I guess that would be the Bubblehead who was responsible for the largest, most complex military assault in the history of the human race, correct?

You are referring to the Bubblehead whose warning about the peril of the military-industrial complex has come to full fruition with the current White House kleptocracy, right?

And correct me if I am wrong, but I believe your Bubblehead was the one who conceived and oversaw the commencement of construction of the Interstate Highway system, n'est-ce pas?

Bubblehead, as you so cleverly refer to him, was arguably a more liberal Republican president than Teddy Roosevelt, and probably the most liberal since Lincoln.

That would be Mister Bubblehead to you, Mr. Hallinan.

And by the way, if I were you, based on the quality of your offerings on this blog, and if I were looking for someone to address as "Bubblehead," I might find success with a glance the nearest mirror.

Ah, yes, Bubblehead.

I guess that would be the Bubblehead who was responsible for the largest, most complex military assault in the history of the human race, correct?

I specifically stated "bubblehead" was the appellation given Eisenhower by reporters waiting for a pres conference.

Like it, do you?

Do you think it possible that Eisenhower had a bit of help with his conduct of WWII or is it your opinion he accomplished the feat single-handedly?

You are referring to the Bubblehead whose warning about the peril of the military-industrial complex has come to full fruition with the current White House kleptocracy, right?

That is something like Reagan looking around the decay in a ghetto and announcing somebody ought to do something about it.

Eisenhower was not absent - most of the time - when the military-industrial complex was growing. Admittedly he did spend an extraordinary amount of time on the golf course.

And correct me if I am wrong, but I believe your Bubblehead was the one who conceived and oversaw the commencement of construction of the Interstate Highway system, n'est-ce pas?

Indeed and a very good thing it was.

Bubblehead, as you so cleverly refer to him, was arguably a more liberal Republican president than Teddy Roosevelt

The technical term for that fantastic notion is horse hockey.

Teddy Roosevelt actually did something about the behemoths that controlled the economy and was disowned by the Republicans as a result. His third party run has been credited with electing a Democratic president. Roosevelt could be considered the father of Progressivism. Actual Progressives count Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party as one of their own.

Read history much do you?

Best, Terry