Giuliani: Fake National Security Expert

I've been beating this drum for a long time, but let me recommend Jonathan Chait's column on Rudy Giuliani's alleged national security expertise, which apparently consists of his ability to act like a tough guy:

f having a macho swagger and talking tough about bad guys were enough to make a good commander in chief, we wouldn't have the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history on our hands right now in Iraq. And, need I remind anybody, one of the reasons Giuliani hasn't been able to fulfill his Bin Laden execution fantasy is that Bush allowed the Al Qaeda leader to escape at Tora Bora by using Afghan proxies instead of U.S. ground troops.

As I noted in this space last week, conservative foreign policy consists increasingly of abstract notions divorced from reality. In preparing for last week's House debate over the Iraq troop surge, the Republican leadership instructed its members in a memo: "The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."

Right. Republican national security policy looks great, except when they need to discuss their actual policies, the results of such policies, the likely consequences of continuing the policies, etc. Giuliani fits perfectly into the mold.

Comments

On the brighter side, maybe he *would* send Bernie Kerik back to Baghdad and get another divorce. That's always good for a few laughs. Doesn't do much for the troops or the outcome of the war, but that's never been a consideration for these guys.

Posted by Chris | February 19, 2007 11:23 AM

If reporters, and the Democratic "consultants" were doing there job. The Republicans as the "keeping us safe" party would forever be destroyed. Republicans have a reverse Midas touch with anything they touch. Instead of everything they touch turning to gold, it all turns to shit.

Posted by This Machine Kills Fascists | February 19, 2007 11:43 AM

You should read General Odom's evisceration of Hugh Hewitt to see how difficult it is to defend the war vis-a-vis a knowledgeable and unintimidatable critic. Odom's quite humourous too.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=d7f52e21-cf46-4115-b397-ed1dc70fcdab

Posted by otto | February 19, 2007 11:59 AM

Giuliani has had "tough-guy" policy successes, of course, but they all took place in a completely one-sided environment. If the NYPD decides it's going to go completely hardcore, implementing "broken windows" policing and shooting black men on sight, the only likely consequence is at the ballot box (and it wasn't all that likely there, either). If Giuliani tried to "get tough" with, say, Al Sadr, there's a pretty good chance that wouldn't work out so well.

It's easy to be tough with people who have no realistic chance to fight back.

Posted by dj moonbat | February 19, 2007 12:03 PM

Rudy's campaign team could do a lyric's re-write on a campaign song just made for Guliani:

"Every man ought to be a macho macho man,
To live a life of freedom, machos make a stand,
Have their own life style and ideals,
Possess the strength and confidence, life's a steal,
You can best believe that he's a macho man
He's a special person in anybody's land."
...
Hey! Hey! Hey, hey, hey!
Macho, macho man
I've got to be, a macho man
Macho, macho man
I've got to be a macho! (all right)

----------------
On the other hand, Rudy's reported impotence from his prostate surgery might interfere a bit with the image-making.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | February 19, 2007 12:11 PM

I know because the wartime experience of John Kerry was an invaluable asset in his successful 2004 bid for the presidency much as Wesley Clark's bitchen Generalness was an invaluable asset in his own successful 2004 bid for the presidency.

Posted by Linus | February 19, 2007 12:11 PM

Giuliani?

The guy who built a security command center in a known terrorist target?

That's like New Orleans building a new city hall on the dry side of an Army Corps levee.

Posted by Jon H | February 19, 2007 12:21 PM

Probably the easiest thing for a leader to do is look good in a time of tragedy.

Posted by Jill | February 19, 2007 12:24 PM

Probably the easiest thing for a leader to do is look good in a time of tragedy

Tell that to Ray Nagin, Kathleen Blanco, or George W. Bush, circa September 2005.

Posted by right | February 19, 2007 12:27 PM

On the other hand, Rudy's reported impotence from his prostate surgery might interfere a bit with the image-making.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR on February 19, 2007 12:11 PM

guess he'll have to call in Bush to fuck Bin-Ladens ass

Posted by iconoclast | February 19, 2007 12:39 PM

Like the Department of Defense HQ - The Pentagon - being defenseless an hour and fifty minutes after "America is under attack."

They couldn't get a single F-16 (113th DCANG) or FA-18 (121st Marines) off the ground from Andrews AFB in 1:50. Everybody knows the pilots of those planes can scramble their jets in less than 7 minutes. But for some strange reason they just sat there.

And the GOPers won an election being "strong on defense."

Maybe we should start calling it the Defenseless Department and remind America about Secretary Rumsfailed doing... whatever... for nearly two hours on the morning of 9-11.

Strong on defense.

Yeah, right!

Posted by BS Detector | February 19, 2007 1:29 PM

No more! We need someone to lead us properly and solve the issues that really matter to us. If President Bush or any other president really wants to protect our country from future terrorists, he or she should combat global poverty which is at the root of the problem. We don’t need to be in a war that benefits the businesses of Americans. We need to be helping the rest of the world in order to help ourselves which would really benefit the economy. We could actually be doing businesses with the past “poor” countries of this world.

Posted by marie2 | February 19, 2007 1:32 PM

I'm beginning to think the source of this crap is that conservatives seem to have learned the wrong lesson from Reagan.

Everyone seems to believe that the Image of Reagan posturing was itself the cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union. But people fail to recognize all the internal problems that already doomed the Soviet Union and the fact that Reagan was able to make compromises that, at the time, people like George Will thought were selling us down the river.

Now, people take this false lesson and just keep applying it. How do you solve a tough problem? Act tough!

Posted by bdelloid | February 19, 2007 1:42 PM

Two thoughts -- one, the "toughness" these clowns exhibit is so much posturing. Real toughness involves standing up where there might be real consequences physically or some extreme social cost to you personally. For a genuine example of this look at Martin Luther King, Jr., the Freedom Riders, etc. There is nothing brave about going on with Timmy or Chris or Wolf and engaging in a little chest pounding. No one's going to kick your ass afterward.

Second, physical courage alone is a morally neutral virtue. Although as a society we are quite enamored of courageous feats, it's worth pointing out that members of the German and Japanese armies frequently exhibited great courage in World War II. So do some Al Quada members. But they do so while advancing the cause of evil. Thus, their courage was or is a detriment to mankind.

Someone who is truly tough in an admirable way is willing to put his or her body/social standing on the line in the cause of justice. Please refresh my recollection as to the last time a Republican did that.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | February 19, 2007 1:45 PM

Someone who is truly tough in an admirable way is willing to put his or her body/social standing on the line in the cause of justice. Please refresh my recollection as to the last time a Republican did that.

Jim Jeffords, who did it by leaving the Republican party.

Posted by Avedon | February 19, 2007 1:54 PM

So, basically, you're saying that what Rudy, McCain, and Bush have in common is that they're great trash-talkers who can't win a game?

Jeez, Republicans are morons. Why are you gonna bet our future on a bunch of trash-talkers who can't shoot straight?

Posted by anonymous | February 19, 2007 1:56 PM

Avedon,

You're right -- in the normally useless as tits on a bull category of Republican "moderates" (yes Arlen Spector I'm looking at you), Jeffords actually took an admirable stance.

I should probably give Chuck Hagel a little bit of a nod here as well, although it's not like his stance on the war seems to have cost him anything.

The faux machismo of the right wingers is a particular bugaboo of mine. It fills me with immature notions of heading up to Capitol Hill on some random day and kicking the snot out of one of these jackasses. Hardly elevates the discourse I guess.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | February 19, 2007 2:24 PM

I like what the local radio show said: Rudy's leadership on 9/11 consisted of walking briskly and pointing at things.

Posted by PseudoNoise | February 19, 2007 2:30 PM

f having a macho swagger and talking tough about bad guys were enough to make a good commander in chief, we wouldn't have the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history on our hands right now in Iraq.

Chait seems to be unable to distinguish between "necessary" and "sufficient".

And, need I remind anybody, one of the reasons Giuliani hasn't been able to fulfill his Bin Laden execution fantasy is that Bush allowed the Al Qaeda leader to escape at Tora Bora by using Afghan proxies instead of U.S. ground troops.

One would have to be a complete idiot to believe this.

Posted by Al | February 19, 2007 2:37 PM

So, Al, your point is:

1) Macho swagger and talking tough are indeed *necessary* to good foreign policy, yet you are willing to concede they are not sufficient for it.

2) Bush did not put in enough U.S. troops to surround and pursue Bin Laden at Tora Bora, while at the same time he was transferring troops to the Iraq buildup. Anyone who notices this fact is an idiot.

You're slipping, man, slipping! You don't want Matt to go searching for another troll, do you?

Posted by MQ | February 19, 2007 2:43 PM

I'd like to see the War Criminals come to justice.

Which candidate for the Democratic nomination for President has indicated a likelihood to prosecute the War Criminals?

I'll tell you. This one! Watch it and then tell me why nobody else will even dare to entertain such thoughts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwClwUjnzkM

Silence all around on this issue, huh?

Posted by BS Detector | February 19, 2007 2:45 PM

You're slipping, man, slipping! You don't want Matt to go searching for another troll, do you?

Matt's such a hot property on the internets these days, the trolls come looking for him. Al had better improve his game if he hopes to stay irritatingly irrelevant.

Posted by dj moonbat | February 19, 2007 2:59 PM

I've said elsewhere, I don't understand how the story of Ahmed Chalabi doesn't automatically, and unanimously, disqualify the idiot GOP from calling itself the national security party.

I mean, run that by me again? You schemed literally for years, to take over Iraq, it was the centerpiece of your foreign policy program, and the man at the center of this decade-long planning turns out, according to YOURSELVES, to be a spy for a hostile power?!?!?

P.S. Thanks Otto, for the Odom piece. Very good. Eviscerated is right.

Posted by fourmorewars | February 19, 2007 3:54 PM

1) Macho swagger and talking tough are indeed *necessary* to good foreign policy, yet you are willing to concede they are not sufficient for it.

I take "macho swagger and talking tough" as lefty-speak for saying that you actually want to win. Yes, I think saying you want to win is a necessary precondition for winning.

2) Bush did not put in enough U.S. troops to surround and pursue Bin Laden at Tora Bora, while at the same time he was transferring troops to the Iraq buildup. Anyone who notices this fact is an idiot.

Anyone who thinks that putting more troops in Afghanistan would have allowed us to capture bin Laden at Tora Bora is an idiot. Since it would have taken a long, long time to put more troops in Afghanistan (since we can't just teleport troops, along with all the support needed to maintain the troops, there), that strategy would actually have been much LESS likely to capture bin Laden.

Posted by Al | February 19, 2007 4:27 PM

I assume that republicans have represented the craven population of humanity for the past 25 years and we just weren't quite as aware of just how craven they are until more recently. There is a downside to modern technology - along with vastly more communication across a much wider community comes the indisputible knowledge that much of opur brethren (such as our republican cultists) are complete A-holes.
.

Posted by Craven republicans | February 19, 2007 4:33 PM

Dracula could balance the ticket by adding Richard Simmons as his VP. In his hot pants- he could be the attack dog allowing Drac to remain above the fray.

Posted by Trevor | February 19, 2007 4:47 PM

Giuliani is a dictator coddler. In 1982 when he was #3 at DOJ, he spent a day with Baby Doc Duvalier and proclaimed that there is no oppression in Haiti.

Posted by Randy Paul | February 19, 2007 5:54 PM

Giuliani the tough guy? Being a New Yorker who lived under the Giuliani reign first when he was the Manhattan DA then when he was the mayor, I can tell you that Giuliani is an authoritarian, mercurial, choleric, vindictive, petty, vainglorious, and so secretive that he makes Cheney look transparent. Giuliani does not tolerate dissent -- he'll punish the dissenters --; Giuliani thinks he is infallible -- he'll never admit a mistake; Giuliani does not tolerate competition: he fired Bratton after Bratton made the front page of Time Magazine as the guy who was responsible for bringing crime down in NYC. Giuliani is so high on power that he is clinically psychotic.

Posted by Devil's Advocate | February 19, 2007 7:31 PM

Wasn't he supposed to be dying of cancer a few years ago? What happened with that- they couldn't nail the coffin shut? Are we sure he's even alive? Abe Vigoda looks better.

Posted by Trevor | February 19, 2007 8:27 PM

From above:

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=d7f52e21-cf46-4115-b397-ed1dc70fcdab

WO: And following…let me ask you. Are you enthusiastic enough to put on a uniform and go?

HH: No. I’m a civilian.

WO: Okay, but we can recruit you.

HH: I’m 51, General.

WO: And I don’t see all these war hawks that want to…none of them have been in a war, and they don’t want to go.
-------------------------------------------------

Anyone know what Hewitt said and did when he was 41, 31, 21?

Posted by bleat my little rovian vomit bleat | February 19, 2007 8:47 PM

I like this one:

HH: Now General, you are a distinguished and long-serving member of the American military, in the Military Hall of Fame, you’re a Lt. General. I actually served alongside of you in the Reagan administration when you were running NSA. So I mean no disrespect by this next question.

WO: Yeah, you’re obviously going to call me a son of a bitch or something.

Posted by otto | February 19, 2007 9:04 PM

Would it kill Chait or Yglesias to think about this for a second?

Giuliani's foreign policy credentials are based on being the mayor of New York City, which inherently gives one more executive experience in diplomacy, assessment of threats, dealing with overlapping security agencies and the federal bureaucracy than nearly anyone in the world. In addition to that, Giuliani was remarkably prescient in setting up NYC's disaster response mechanisms and the like.

This "Giuliani has no credentials outside of 9/11" is a profoundly bad talking point to hang on him, because it's clearly untrue and easily disproved, and holding on to it like a dog with a slipper just discredits the many, many other talking points that show why the man probably wouldn't be a good president.

Posted by guy | February 19, 2007 10:43 PM

*****General Odom.

Great referral. Putting that runny-nosed cocksucker and all his beetweed arguments where they belong. There's this whole school of pissant preppy, P.J. O'Rourke dweebettes that Hewitt belongs to. They all love Israel, cheerleading, and wine spritzers. A little itty-bitty spider makes 'em piss in their pants (the same with 80's hasbeen P.J.- another dink who just needs a good ass-kicking to straighten him out)

Posted by Trevor | February 19, 2007 10:44 PM

The Odom interview is hilarious. He should have thrown a copy of de Tocqueville at Hewitt's head.

To expand on the Giuliani point a bit: Giuliani has more practical experience with port security, intelligence services, and dealing with the protection of strategic national assets than any postwar president save Eisenhower. He's not a foreign policy guru, but by the standards of presidents he very much is. The thing to do, if you don't like him, is not to inanely claim that he doesn't have unusual experience, but that he has insane views and that his exercise of power has proved him unfit and Nixonian.

Posted by guy | February 19, 2007 10:55 PM

By that standard- Ray Nagin should be Emperor. Intelligence Services? He was a hack prosecutor-Bullwinkle the Moose had more on the ball. Strategic national assets? What-like the WTC? Kaboom! Up in smoke. Nixon went to China. Where'd Dracula go to ? Reno?

Posted by Trevor | February 19, 2007 11:28 PM

In New York City the Mayor's Office and the NYPD routinely deal— and this predates 9/11 by a long ass time— with the CIA, NSA, State, the UN, and foreign intelligence services on threats to places like Wall Street, the Hudson Tunnel, foreign embassies, visiting dignitaries, the Empire State Building, etc. It's hands-on executive experience that senators, governors of shitty states

The point isn't that this confers magical powers on Giuliani (Wes Clark has far more experience and I don't want him to be elected either), but that claiming he doesn't have an unusual amount of practical security experience for a serious presidential candidate is absolutely ridiculous and a seriously inane point to keep harping on, because it's completely untrue.

The point to harp on is that despite this experience, he doesn't demonstrate any particular analytical wisdom when it comes to dealing with worldly affairs.

Posted by guy | February 19, 2007 11:37 PM

*should say governors of shitty states and other such people don't have, and it clearly distinguishes him from someone like McCain or Obama or Romney.

Posted by guy | February 19, 2007 11:38 PM

One last point and I will stop harping. The Giuliani national security talking points aren't going to be about 9/11, they're going to be about shit like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_landmark_bomb_plot

"I had practical experience with dismantling Al Qaeda cells 8 years before 9/11, etc."

People need to be ready to respond to this, because the thrust of the man's campaign narrative is not going to be that he is the heroic leader of 9/11, but that America has been at war with Islamic fascism since the Munich Olympics and that Giuliani was in the trenches fighting it for many, many years before most Americans had ever heard of Osama.

I'm amazed that a New Yorker like Yglesias would be unaware of this.

Posted by guy | February 19, 2007 11:48 PM

When and if Dracula gets any traction coming out of the gate- this is where we'll see if McCain can keep it together. To have this mook coming on like a Ike with a hairnet is just gonna set his teeth on fire. And, then, if that happens- who's the fallback candidate? Huckabee? Mitt? Can you see someone from Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Arizona...voting for this pasta fazul? I just don't see it.

Posted by Trevor | February 20, 2007 2:57 AM

In addition to that, Giuliani was remarkably prescient in setting up NYC's disaster response mechanisms and the like.

Yes. Putting his emergency disaster command center on the ground floor of a building that had already been bombed once--ordinary minds just don't think like that. It takes a truly special kind of man.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | February 20, 2007 2:04 PM

Giuliani got schooled on an interview by Larry King, if he can't handle that he is in for a long campaign. Nor has he given up five minutes that could be spent selling his name to study any of the issues.

Posted by AJ | February 20, 2007 2:32 PM

"The point to harp on is that despite this experience, he doesn't demonstrate any particular analytical wisdom when it comes to dealing with worldly affairs."

It's really an issue of "toMAYto" versus "toMAHto." To say that he has national security experience because he's dealt with federal agencies even if he did it incompetently or not particularly competently is to obscure the fact that this experience doesn't necessarily mean much. Bush had a lot of experience as a businessman before he ran for president, but that doesn't make him a good one. Yet when you say he has "experience," the idea is that you respect him because he did a good job. In other words, it's hard to distinguish between good and bad experience when you are trying to convey a message, and thus, people tend to say that he has no experience.

Posted by Brian | March 1, 2007 10:20 PM