Rudy's Comic Dissembling About Dems And Terror
This is par for the course, perhaps, but you really have to check out the latest exercise in dishonest hilarity from Rudy Giuliani about the Dem presidential candidates and terrorism. It's very, very special.
Take a look at these comments Rudy has now made about last night's debate in a statement released moments ago:
“Last night, the leading Democratic candidates once again failed to even utter the words 'Islamic terrorism' at their fourth debate...“The terrorists are at war with us -- whether or not Democrats in Washington and on the campaign trail choose to acknowledge it -- and we must stay on offense to prevail.”
Rudy is beginning to make this line about Dems and "Islamic terrorism" a staple on the stump, so it's worth a moment's attention.
Rudy says here that because the Dems didn't mention "Islamic terrorism" last night, this shows that they don't acknowledge that there's a War On Terror going on.
It's really hard to imagine a grown-up candidate for the post powerful position in the world doing something this buffoonish and childish, but Rudy really appears to be trying to slip this one past people by saying that none of the Dems literally uttered the two words "Islamic" and "terrorism" next to each other. Because the Dems did in fact talk about terrorism last night.
From the debate, here's Obama bringing up the War On Terror all by himself:
COOPER: Senator Obama, how do we pull out now?OBAMA: Look, I opposed this war from the start. Because I anticipated that we would be creating the kind of sectarian violence that we've seen and that it would distract us from the war on terror.
And here's Hillary:
CLINTON: ...We've got to figure out what we're doing in Iraq, where our troops are stretched thin, and Afghanistan, where we're losing the fight to al Qaeda and bin Laden.
But the Dems didn't literally mention the two words "Islamic" and "terrorism" next to each other, Rudy says.
Incidentally, both Hillary and Obama are on record saying they believe in the War On Terror construct, so the second half of Rudy's statement is a plain old falsehood. What's more, the Dems, of course, didn't even set the topics last night -- viewer questions did -- making Rudy's latest little hit even more juvenile and silly. Really, you just can't make this stuff up.
This man is running for President and is the leading contender for the GOP nomination, ladies and gentlemen. Just thought I'd mention that.
Comments (15)
marcNYC wrote on July 24, 2007 11:36 AM:Greg, I take some issue with your headline. (Though the rest of the article is pretty much dead-on). Rudy's actions are anything buy comic. This is just another example of the "Big Lie" approach to propaganda that the Decider and his cadre of followers have been practicing on the American Public since September 11, 2001. It would be a serious mistake to laugh this kind of dissembling as "comic". His target audience will believe it if they hear it often enough.
I'd also wonder if it's the right approach to think of him as "buffoonish and childish". Rudy is a mean, nasty, self-promoting climber. He will steamroll those who dismiss him as a clown. The last "buffoon" we tried to laugh off has been sitting in the White House for the last eight years. Let's not repeat the same mistake.
Greg Sargent wrote on July 24, 2007 11:43 AM:well, I think I agree with you. No question -- the guy's ability to dissemble so effortlessly is a dangerous thing. I just think that this particular lie is so childish and juvenile that it bears this sort of treatment. More broadly, I agree with you that this shouldn't be the approach to him in general...
this, I think, should be the more general approach:
Brook Dataski wrote on July 24, 2007 11:53 AM:in a larger sense we are losing the ideological war -- principally because we're not even fighting it. A US President shouldn't stoop to a media shouting match with a nut like Ahmedenijad, but neither can you continue to dismiss the words he speaks, because his intent is to mobilize the Islamic world.
For example, when he continues to suggest his nation is being bullied over their nuclear program, the intent is to gain sympathy in the 3rd World. The reality is the int'l community has publicly stated they will not oppose nuclear energy in Iran and offered the country an incentive package worth billions -- if they give up enrichment.
We need a President that will openly challenge the Islamic world to change and not be afraid to engage some of the tyrants running nations in that region in the arena of ideas. This is the broader issue the next President must understand. Bush never will.
Eric Stepp wrote on July 24, 2007 11:56 AM:This is a pretty typical Republican retort. Take something someone said, redefine it, then make it seem the Democrat didn't address it.
Just look at what Althouse is doing with "scream" versus "shout".
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
Seems to me Rudy has turned to overt racism as his main campaign theme. Why is Islamic terrorism more special than all terrorism, like nationalist terrorism, economic-based terrorism, or all the other brands that exist? Giuliani has apparently decided to forgo his "maverick" image and hew strictly to the Bush propaganda line.
The Dems in the debate took a much broader and useful view in addressing terrorism generally. What Giuliani is really slamming here is the Dems' failure to join him in promoting the "clash of civilizations" that is the last desperate resort of the dying GOP nativist ideology.
markg8 wrote on July 24, 2007 12:55 PM:Bad argument Dave. You're not going to get anywhere arguing Al Qaeda isn't a threat.
mrgavel wrote on July 24, 2007 1:20 PM:If I was running against the Political Transvestite aka Rudy, I would use the fact that he lied to two wives to gratify his own desires. If he is willing to lie to them, what's to stop him from lying to the rest of us?
Mrgavel
Of course al Qaeda's a threat. It would probably be less of one had Bush not let bin Laden evaporate into Pakistan.
More to the point: We know of a large number of all-American, non-Islamic threats. Tim McVeigh was a threat, one who graduated from an American high school the same year I did. The kid at Virginia Tech was a threat. The kid uncovered by Max Blumenthal (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/diary-of-a-christian-terr_b_49167.html) IS a threat. Terrorists spring from all ethnicities and walks of life, so what is it about Islamic (most often Arab) terrorists that makes them so much worse than the non-Islamic ones?
DaveW wrote on July 24, 2007 1:35 PM:That's kind of the point, Mark. Talk about al Qaida and do something about it instead of venting about "Islamic terrorism" as if that's the only kind of terrorism there is, as well as conceding that Qaida's real purpose is about religion as opposed to power and the self-interest of its leaders.
I believe "Islamic terrorism" is racist/fundy code for not-white, not Christian civilization. It is counterproductive rhetoric if the real goal is fighting terrorism. As the Iraq Report noted, "hearts and minds" has to be a prime component of that struggle -- not something you accomplish by a broad slur on a whole culture.
It may be that Giuliani meant "Islamist terrorism", which would be a somewhat more realistic and strategic formulation. His word choice provides yet more evidence that a Giuliani presidency would be a faithful sequel to the current disaster in the White House.
ohiomeister wrote on July 24, 2007 3:09 PM:I have watched all of the GOP debates closely, and Rudy Giuliani has failed to deny that he is a transvestite prostitute.
The American people should be shocked and outraged!
markg8 wrote on July 24, 2007 5:15 PM:I agree Bush has wasted 5 years on Iraq and consequently is losing the war in Afghanistan too. But you're splitting pretty fine hairs when you talk about Islamic vs. Islamist terrorists don't you think? Most Americans aren't going to understand what you're talking about. Frankly you're being no clearer than Guiliani and leaving yourself open to attacks to being weak on Al Qaeda.
There's nothing racist about it, 15 of the 19 9/11
hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and all were Arabs. That's just a fact.
Terrorists spring from all ethnicities and walks of life, so what is it about Islamic (most often Arab) terrorists that makes them so much worse than the non-Islamic ones?
9/11 of course. What makes you think they aren't?
Were McVeigh and the kid from Va Tech members of a large terrorist organization that made repeated attacks against the US and it's citizens over the years? You're making a real stretch trying to compare them to Al Qaeda Thrackazog and your argument doesn't hold up.
Isn't that the same argument they made against Bill Clinton? And won't they make the flipside argument against Hillary?
ohiomeister wrote on July 24, 2007 6:04 PM:What's the flipside argument? That the American people will lie to Hillary, but she'll stay with them through thick and thin, good times and bad?!
markg8 wrote on July 24, 2007 7:28 PM:No that anybody can lie to Hillary, even those big scarwy foreign leaders she won't talk to because she's afraid of being used.
