And Then There's Rudy

Issues with Democrats aside, the goofball incoherence of Rudy Giuliani on the key national security issues of the day is worth noting:

Mr. King asked if Mr. Giuliani would agree that the Senate would have voted unanimously against the war if it were known that Mr. Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction.

“Yes, I guess,” he said, but he added that such a vote would say nothing about whether the war was right.

Giuliani says he thinks the war was right (obviously, he has a low opinion of Republican Senators) but that if he'd been president he would have invaded with "maybe 100,000 to 130,000 more" troops than Bush deployed even though no such volume of additional troops was available. "Of course there were mistakes," according to Giuliani, which merely proves what a great man Bush is: "Lincoln made mistakes. Roosevelt made mistakes. Eisenhower made mistakes."

One quirk of American politics is that leading presidential candidates normally go into the campaign with little if any foreign policy experience. Most, however, at least recognize this as a problem and try to study up as part of the campaign effort. Giuliani comes to us as a rare duck -- a candidate whose signature issue is national security but who doesn't know anything about national security, and therefore won't study. Result: Nonsense, combined with temperamental authoritarianism.

Comments

My impression is that all Republicans need from a candidate, on foreign policy as elsewhere, is the ability to credibly promise to kick harder. A one-size-fits-all policy diminishes the value of experience.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 15, 2007 11:46 AM

a candidate whose signature issue is national security but who doesn't know anything about national security

Sort of like Lindbergh in "The Plot Against America". Oh, no, wait -- MY is supposed to be Lindbergh. How confusing!

Posted by mattsteinglass | February 15, 2007 11:48 AM

I don't get it. Why is national security his signature issue? Because he once evicted Arafat from a concert? If its because he gave good press conferences after 9/11 (which I don't know - I didn't watch), what does that have to do with national security?

Its really amazing how unappealing two of the GOP front-runners are. Romney is looking like a giant in comparison.

Posted by Jim W | February 15, 2007 11:48 AM

all Republicans need from a candidate, on foreign policy as elsewhere, is the ability to credibly promise to kick harder.

And kicking harder is such great advice, when you're stuck in quicksand.

Posted by mattsteinglass | February 15, 2007 11:50 AM

You should mention this to Althouse at your next bloggingheads coffee klatch. Giuliani and Romney are the candidates of choice for DINOS and the "I didn't leave the dems, the dems left me!" (IDLDTDLMs) contingent.

Althouse sez Giuliani is strong on defense and his strong legal mind allows him to pick good Supreme Court justices. He's very non-partisan too, not weird, and won't sell the country to Al Qaeda.

Posted by jerry | February 15, 2007 11:56 AM

"Lincoln made mistakes. Roosevelt made mistakes. Eisenhower made mistakes."

Wait, hasn't Senator McCain already grabbed the "Lick President Bush's Ass at Every Opportunity" slot in the Republican field?

Occasionally, I'm nervous about Mr. Giuliani, since his racism and authoritarianism toot the appropriate whistles on the Right. But if he wants to run on a platform of "George W. Bush: foreign policy genius," then more power to him.

Posted by mds | February 15, 2007 11:58 AM

My impression is that all Republicans need from a candidate, on foreign policy as elsewhere, is the ability to credibly promise to kick harder.

Hey, I'm as dismissive of the cowboy Republican attitude as anyone, but I sorta wonder what kind of foreign policy credibility we Democrats are demanding from our own 2008 candidate. Sometimes it seems like we're saying that all we need is to be reasonably certain that you won't act like a Republican.

Posted by Steve | February 15, 2007 12:07 PM

The Bush-as-Lincoln bit is nausea inducing, but it will play well with the base (who already adores Giuliani despite his peccadillos the way they adored Reagan despite his peccadillos).

As for the wider message - there were insufficient boots on the ground to prosecute the war in Iraq, and even if it was always going to fail it was still a noble mission - it is going to sound a helluva lot more coherent and palatable to a majority of the electorate than Mrs. Clinton tying herself into knots over the thing.

Americans (or at least 52% of them - maybe more) don't in most cases want to hear that their wars are mistakes - even if they are mistakes. Reaganism happened in part because Americans did not want to hear that Vienam had been a mistake, and you can count me as skeptical they'll want to hear the Iraq War was a mistake.

But the anti-war base of the Democratic Party is already forcing Mrs. Clinton to get down on her knees and suck them off over her vote for the war. The anti-choice base of the Republican Party is not forcing Giuliani to do the same over abortion (which was always going to be his weak spot if he was kicked around by the Christian right in the primaries).

It looks to me like the Democrats will be at a real disadvantage in the 2008 contest for the White House, even if they pick up further seats in Congress.

Posted by Linus | February 15, 2007 12:11 PM

And if Giuliani is elected president Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves. The fault will lie with New York liberals for giving the douchebag a second term and with the anti-war base for not understanding that America elects hawks to stop failed wars, not doves or wafflers.

Posted by Linus | February 15, 2007 12:14 PM

Reaganism happened in part because Americans did not want to hear that Vienam had been a mistake, and you can count me as skeptical they'll want to hear the Iraq War was a mistake.

Most Americans, according to repeatedly confirmed polling data, already do think the Iraq War was a mistake. In Reagan-era America, which was my formative political experience, people explicitly DID want to consider the Vietnam War a "mistake". A "mistake" is something out of character, something you can learn from and not repeat. What they didn't want to hear was that the Vietnam War was characteristic of the exercise of American power abroad, and that America in general was having a malign influence on the rest of the world and killing a lot of people for bad reasons. They wanted to hear that America was basically good, had made one big mistake, but wouldn't repeat it, and that we were back to being the good guys again.

The real problem with the Iraq War is that it makes it considerably harder to advance that vision than it was after Vietnam. The '60s and the anti-war movement produced a new narrative of American wide-eyed innocence. The opposition to the Iraq War has largely produced a narrative of American ironic exasperation - Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Tom Tomorrow. The whole thing has a finger-quote remake quality that makes it hard to do anything with.

Posted by mattsteinglass | February 15, 2007 12:20 PM

America elects hawks to stop failed wars, not doves or wafflers.

The first step, however, is for the hawk to make it clear he does not intend to continue the failed policies or escalate the war. Americans elected the moderate Eisenhower in 1952 when the Korean War was stalemated, not a maximalist hawk like MacArthur. They elected Nixon in 1968 on the slogan of "peace with honor," and again in 1972 after he had already brought most of the troops home.

Unless they change their tune dramatically, Iraq is going to be a liability for Giuliani and McCain, not an asset. Furthermore, unlike in 1952 the incumbent is a Republican, and unlike 1968 the only Democratic candidate taking a radical McGovern-style stance on US military policy is Kucinich, who has effectively zero hope of winning the nomination.

Frankly, I'm more than a little tired of these facile historical analogies and defeatist rhetoric from Democrats. A new day has dawned in American politics. Try to keep up.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 15, 2007 12:44 PM

But the anti-war base of the Democratic Party is already forcing Mrs. Clinton to get down on her knees and suck them off over her vote for the war. The anti-choice base of the Republican Party is not forcing Giuliani to do the same over abortion

Well in that case he must really love the cock, because he's sucking anyway.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | February 15, 2007 12:51 PM

I think it's worth being concerned that the media makes it easy for Republicans to twist "Iraq was a mistake" into "Democrats were for the war before they were against it (and they turned against it because they hate the military)." It will probably profit Democratic candidates more to point out that supposed Republican credibility on defense largely consists of Republicans being willing to put U.S. forces into combat willy-nilly without taking the time to think things through, that the last 4 years have proven that this approach undermines American credibility in the world (as well as gets a lot of people killed), and that Republicans should have to pay a price, rather than getting a pass, for that.

Democratic candidates should make it a priority to get the media to ask people like Rudy, why should Americans think that the GOP has a better record of defense, in light of Bush?

Posted by Dave | February 15, 2007 12:58 PM

It will be interesting to see the tack (it will have to be America's Cup like) on Iraq policy as they head into the general - unless it is Brownback, who seems like the only one on the Republican side with actual integrity.

It would be nice to see Pat Buchanon enter the race as well - he has won in New Hampshire before.

Posted by theCoach | February 15, 2007 1:11 PM

"Most Americans, according to repeatedly confirmed polling data, already do think the Iraq War was a mistake."

And polls from some of the same outfits suggested Democrats would win seats in Congress in 2002, and the White House in 2004. There are polls to believe, polls to half-believe, and polls to disbelieve. Learning to understand American politics means in part learning which are which.

"They elected Nixon in 1968 on the slogan of "peace with honor," and again in 1972 after he had already brought most of the troops home."

Nixon went to China. Save Scoop Jackson, Democrats could not. Likewise, Democrats could gut welfare for poor black people and Republicans could not. Somewhere there's a lesson here.

"Americans elected the moderate Eisenhower in 1952 when the Korean War was stalemated, not a maximalist hawk like MacArthur."

I reiterate my last point and add an additional one. Sometimes biography does matter. It did in Ike's case. It did not in John Kerry's case.

Posted by Linus | February 15, 2007 1:15 PM

Re: "But the anti-war base of the Democratic Party is already forcing Mrs. Clinton to get down on her knees and suck them off over her vote for the war."

More comments like these, please. I'm starting to get aroused.

Posted by Jim W | February 15, 2007 1:27 PM

Sure, biography matters. And so do the statements the candidate makes.

Like I said, for a "hawk" to win the next election, he will have to do what Eisenhower and Nixon did, which is to make it clear that they will try to bring the war to an end. Their hawkish reputations would then provide political cover for a shift toward less-hawkish policies.

Since none of the major GOP candidates seem willing to take that tack, the historical analogy is inoperative. Voters may prefer in an ideal universe to vote for a hawk to end an unpopular war, but they have indicated a clear opposition to escalating the war. By overwhelming margins. This bears no resemblance whatsoever to the "too close to call" polls before recent elections.

Furthermore, times change and electorates do occasionally learn lessons. You don't see much pro-Empire sentiment in the UK these days, you know.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 15, 2007 1:28 PM

But the anti-war base of the Democratic Party is already forcing Mrs. Clinton to get down on her knees and suck them off over her vote for the war.

Just a side comment - I don't disagree with the idea here, but don't you think the sentence is a bit misogynistic? I mean, is it really appreciably different than Paul Bernard's. I don't really care, but since we were just discussing the whole topic...

Posted by Al | February 15, 2007 1:38 PM

Man, shouldn't there be a mandatory course in elementary logic before we permit somebody to run for president? Consider the following syllogism:

Lincoln was a great president.
Lincoln mad mistakes.
George W. Bush made mistakes.
Therefore George W. Bush is a great president.

Do you have to be Aristotle or something to spot the fallacy here?

Posted by rea | February 15, 2007 1:40 PM

Nixon went to China. Save Scoop Jackson, Democrats could not.

What, you mean you went to an alternate universe where the only thing at issue in '68 was the Vietnam war--no Civil Rights Movement, no Southern Strategy, no drug-using hippies, no free love, no disruption of campuses, etc.--and that's how it played out? Worth knowing. Now tell us who is most likely to win the NBA Championship this year.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 15, 2007 1:42 PM

Oh for the love...

This guy is still comparing Bush to historic figures of the past? I remember him and others doing this during the Republican convention in 2004. If memory serves me correctly, I believe I heard him compared to Lincoln, TR, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Churchill. I wouldn't be surprised if they worked in a comparison to Jesus, too.

Now, I've always thought that his 9/11 halo would wear off if and when be became a candidate again, reinserting himself into the politician's mold. And when that happens, he'll be exposed for the fraud he appears to be. Any bets on when this will occur?

Posted by Brian | February 15, 2007 1:53 PM

"but I sorta wonder what kind of foreign policy credibility we Democrats are demanding from our own 2008 candidate."

It's hard for a lot of candidates to claim credibility and/or expertise in this area, which is one reason why it's so infuriating to see Giuliani claim this as his signature issue and get away with it when there's a clear dearth of evidence to back up his claim. Yet, a reasonable starting point, at least in my mind, is someone who appears to have an active mind and not be an extremist. After that, I would imagine, a lot of it is luck.

Posted by Brian | February 15, 2007 1:57 PM

"Like I said, for a "hawk" to win the next election, he will have to do what Eisenhower and Nixon did, which is to make it clear that they will try to bring the war to an end. Their hawkish reputations would then provide political cover for a shift toward less-hawkish policies.

Since none of the major GOP candidates seem willing to take that tack, the historical analogy is inoperative."

Do you know they won't? As you note, it's easier for a Republican than a Democrat to convince the electorate he is both for ending the war and still thinks it was an honorable cause. If someone can explain to me how Mrs. Clinton does that I'll be interested to hear that.

"Just a side comment - I don't disagree with the idea here, but don't you think the sentence is a bit misogynistic?"

It's probably true that I am guilty of unconscious sexism here, but it isn't my unconscious sexism that should worry Mrs. Clinton. It's the sexism (as well as nationalism) of white male Independents in Florida and Ohio that should worry her.

For the record, I don't at all object to the idea of a woman being president. I do however object to the idea that she'd be any more liberal or anti-war in practice than her male counterparts.

And of course it case it isn't obvious the functional difference between what I said and what Mr. Bernard said is that I did not vaguely threaten Mrs. Clinton with sexual violence but suggested that was she prostrating herself to a constituency that was liable to harm her chances of winning the presidency in 2008. That's not an incidental difference.

"What, you mean you went to an alternate universe where the only thing at issue in '68 was the Vietnam war--no Civil Rights Movement, no Southern Strategy, no drug-using hippies, no free love, no disruption of campuses, etc.--and that's how it played out?"

Sure, all that mattered, but it doesn't undercut my point.

Posted by Linus | February 15, 2007 2:23 PM

Sure, all that mattered, but it doesn't undercut my point

Which was what, that you can see the future?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 15, 2007 2:31 PM

Mr Guilliani's main supporters reside in the New York area. There is a need in this area to be in the pro-Israel-only camp, which is to say, pro-war.

At odds are the interests and desires of this camp versus those of the rest of the country. Whereas everyone else in the world wants and needs piece and stability in the mid-east, the Pro-Israel camp needs to maintain mischief, hegemony and war to continue floating the idea of occupying land for the promised people. An idea which is now a days so preposterous that you need a world full of other mischief to help keep it floating in the dark. Otherwise, when the world is at piece, this idea will bob out of the depths of reason like a sore thumb.

Of course, people like Guilliani needs to nurish and nurture this atmosphere if he is to draw the $2,000 a plate fund raisers they will help his campaign with.

Meanwhile our children will continue to disappear in Baghdad.

Posted by Andrew Marcony | February 15, 2007 2:36 PM

"Which was what, that you can see the future?"

There's a subtext - probably unknowable - to everything I have said on this thread. That subtext is that the anti-war movement in this country has trusted and nagged their elected representatives - Democrats mostly - to do the hard work of stopping the war in Iraq for them. Sadly, but not unpredictably, elected representatives care about getting and staying elected more than anything else, and the truly passionate anti-war voters are perhaps a third of the American electorate.

This doesn't mean though that that passionate third of the electorate can't force dramatic changes to policy. But it may well take much more dramatic means to achieve those aims.

Only about a third of colonists supported the American Revolution (according to John Adams), and while I don't think it will take a violent rebellion to put America on a different course it may take far more radical, non-violent means to achieve that end. The anti-war movement may need to present a far more coprehensive and different response to the threat of Islamist terrorism than the Washington elites - energy independence, perhaps, coupled with a unilateral military disengagement from not only Iraq but the entire region - and be willing to shut down both the government and the economy (a la the Orange Revolution in Ukraine) in the service of that end.

But I see little evidence the movement understands this, or is willing to really put its collective ass on the line in the service of such goals.

Posted by Linus | February 15, 2007 2:54 PM

So of course Marty and his chorus of followers on the Spine are all over a Rudy/Lieberman ticket.

I guess there is some sort of socially liberal, authoritarian, certifiably insane on foriegn policy, sort of fiscally conservative block of voters. Though I suspect 90% of them work for TNR or the mainstream Washington press corp.

Posted by Eric | February 15, 2007 3:44 PM

"I guess there is some sort of socially liberal, authoritarian, certifiably insane on foriegn policy, sort of fiscally conservative block of voters."

Apparently that's 50% of the electorate (as opposed to 48% who would vote for Hillary Clinton) according to the latest Gallup poll (which also found that Hillary beats McCain, Obama ties with McCain, and Rudy beats Obama by a bunch of points). The poll doesn't of course include anything about Lieberman but that's more or less beside the point because Giuliani would never pick a demented fruitcake like Lieberman to be his running mate. Giuliani appeals to the very people who voted for Lieberman in Connecticut and to a much greater extent.There are plenty of demented fruitcakes in the GOP who would make far more compelling running mates than Lieberman.

As to what the kind of people who write for TNR actually think (as opposed to what they say) is anyone's guess. Most of them are clearly just middlebrow hacks for elite Washington who have no other discernible talent than telling us their "opinions" about politics (which you'll note isn't quite the same thing as journalism). I'm not so sure about Peretz (I always wonder how much money his rag gets a year from AIPAC types though). It is amusing watching Sully forced to confront the fact that in theory Giuliani is his ideal candidate and have to choose between shilling for the SOB and telling us the truth, which is that secretly he cares more about civil liberties than invading other countries for fun and profit.

Posted by Linus | February 15, 2007 4:06 PM

Start spreading the news.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 15, 2007 4:33 PM

One can see why HRC 'finesse' of her war vote is bound to fail.

The 'preemptive war' raison d'etre for Iraq, had nothing to do with WMD's, their presence or not. Al Qaeda caused plenty of mayhem on 9/11 eventhough their 'host' country, the Taliban, didn't have any WMD. Saddam 'hosted' terrorists too, and viewed such activity as an ordinary tool of statecraft just like the Taliban, case closed.

Also, the only WMD that really is a WMD is a nuke, biological and chemical weapons not being anymore lethal than a truck bomb in Times Square or a guy with a machine gun and a lot of ammo in a crowded shopping mall.

The whole WMD arguement was as to whether Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions or not, which if one was alive in 2003, was the only casus belli many people were willing to accept, though it seems that the only people on the planet that think this way are American and British lefties and then only selectively. That chemical and biological weapons were 'WMD' even if they aren't really WMD, was because the UN resolution said so, and only because the resolutions said so. That's the only reason, repeat only reason, why they mattered at all.

If this distinction isn't recognized by a plugged in and smarter than the average Democrat like Mr. Yglesias, HRC's war vote straddle has no hope of working on some Kos Kid.

Posted by j mct | February 15, 2007 4:53 PM

j mct:

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I feel certain that you think you've made a point. It would be great if you could indicate it.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 15, 2007 4:57 PM

I did make a point, I did explain it, and you just illustrated it.

Posted by j mct | February 15, 2007 5:05 PM

Fantastic. You're work is done.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 15, 2007 5:34 PM

Thank you, Matthew, for this post. It slays me when people like Andrew Sullivan and other conservatives hype Rudy Guiliani for having "foreign policy" experience.

Sorry. The guy has NONE. He was Mayor on 9/11, not President.

Posted by Wayne | February 15, 2007 6:51 PM

From Ike to Dracula- that's a steep drop. On another level- it would serve McCain right if he lost out to this blatta. As stupid and ill-informrd as G.W, is- for all his pretensions...isn't the Manchurian Candidate worse?

Posted by Trevor | February 15, 2007 11:09 PM