Would Rudy Giuliani Bomb Iran?

Norm Podhoretz thinks the United States ought to launch a preventive military strike on Iran. He's also one of Rudy Giuliani's official national security advisers. He also, apparently, thinks Rudy agrees with him about the need to launch a preventing military strike on Iran but "hasn't asked him directly, because he doesn't want to damage Giuliani's candidacy with the inevitable controversy that an affirmative answer might arouse."

As Sam Boyd points out, you'd really think one of the journalists covering the Giuliani campaign would want to dig into this a bit. Does Giuliani agree with Podhoretz? If not, why not? Does he think Podhoretz gives bad advice? And if Podhoretz's advice is bad, what's he doing advising the campaign?

Comments

"hasn't asked him directly, because he doesn't want to damage Giuliani's candidacy with the inevitable controversy that an affirmative answer might arouse."

Yet another stirring endorsement of democracy from such defenders of Western values as Norman Podhoretz.

The stupid masses cannot be trusted to know that their political leaders may desire to launch their nation into a new war, so we will keep this hidden from them until it be such time that it's too late, and then we can give the stupid masses the war which we know they need but which -- in the same way we might give our beloved dog a necessary yet bad-tasting pill wrapped in cheese -- must be disguised in order to be accepted.

Posted by El Cid | August 14, 2007 8:27 AM

No serious person would question Giuliani about attacking Iran--after all, if the public knew Giuliani wanted to attack Iran, they might not support him, and that would hinder the attack on Iran.

Posted by rea | August 14, 2007 8:32 AM

Wait, wait. Did somebody say we were getting cheese?

Posted by MikeJ | August 14, 2007 8:39 AM

... you'd really think one of the journalists covering the Giuliani campaign would want to dig into this a bit.

Sounds like a job for Max Blumenthal, wingnut confronter extraordinaire.
.

Posted by Curt M | August 14, 2007 9:35 AM

Rudy should also be asked if he agrees with Podhoretz that the Iraq WMDs really existed, but are now hidden in Syria,... and whether this means we should now invade Syria. Seriously.

Posted by MattF | August 14, 2007 9:47 AM

The freaking Team B/Committee on the Present Danger folks like Wolfowitz and Podhoretz greatly inflated the Soviet threat throughout the 70s and 80s. It was one reason why we were so unprepared for its eventual fall...these idiots convinced most policymakers that the USSR was here to stay for many, many years to come. These are also the same jerks who inflated the Iraq WMD threat. I can understand why Rudy listens to them...they're singing his tune. But why does anybody else? I don't care how many PhD's you have hanging on your wall..when you are as wrong as often and consistently as these folks, you're an idiot.

There is not one candidate in the mix more dangerous than Rudy. The man will escalate our war efforts to the millionth degree to stroke his ego and prove to himself - and perhaps only himself - that he's the real tough guy he pretends to be. My fear is that people still seem to be falling for the 9/11 hero/he's not that conservative BS. As a liberal, I don't give a hoot that he's pro-choice, doesn't really care about religion and has gay friends. Who cares?...abortion is never going to be made illegal and the country is becoming more gay-friendly year after year. What scares me is some ego-maniac like Rudy in the role of "commander guy". I'd rather a bible thumper like Brownback or Huckabee...they'd be much less likely to commit, after Iraq, what would be the greatest foreign policy disaster in our country's history - launching a pre-emptive attack/invasion against Iran.

As for digging into anything that would cause the President of 9/11 myth to crumble to the ground, don't expect the MSM to lift a finger in that regard. Because to question and criticize Rudy's bona fides as the Great Terror Warrior is to question the threat from terrorism itself...and that's just plain un-American...and anti-troop...and pro-terrorist. Our great established media piss in their pants whenever some goofball on the right accuses them of treason for, you know, reporting the truth. That's not going to change anytime soon.

Posted by OGLiberal | August 14, 2007 9:50 AM

>Would Rudy Giuliani Bomb Iran?

Mr. Yglesias,
Yes.

This has been another edition of easy answers to rhetorical questions.

Posted by bartkid | August 14, 2007 9:58 AM

"you'd really think one of the journalists covering the Giuliani campaign would want to dig into this a bit."

Oh, Matt. Why would any journalist want to waste their time doing that, when there are front-page articles about Huckabee's fine, fine sense of humor to be written? And audio slide-shows for the Web? Adam Nagourney's awesome talent has better uses than minor details like war with Iran.

Jeez!

Posted by pdp | August 14, 2007 10:02 AM

If not, why not? Does he think Podhoretz gives bad advice? And if Podhoretz's advice is bad, what's he doing advising the campaign?

So... once an andvisor gives a single piece of advice you disagree with you have to fire her, right? Remind me never to advise the Yglesias campaign.

Posted by soro | August 14, 2007 11:13 AM

The problem with Podhoretz's advice - and Bill Kristol's, and Ken Pollack's, and Paul Wolfowitz's, etc, etc, - is that it's consistently wrong. And not only that...it's often dangerously wrong.

Posted by OGLiberal | August 14, 2007 11:56 AM

So... once an advisor gives a single piece of advice you disagree with you have to fire her, right?

Well, jeez, it's not like the decision whether to go to war is important or anything, right? I mean, let's not get bogged down in disagreements about details, right?

[rea exits, muttering darkly about friggin' idiots . . .]

Posted by rea | August 14, 2007 12:14 PM

rea,

Since you called me an idiot, I'll assume that you think candidate advisors should be fired if they disagree with their employer on important issues, like wars and stuff. But in that case, they're not advisors (since they're not allowed to try to change the candidate's opinion)--they're ornaments.

Posted by soro | August 14, 2007 12:20 PM

"There is not one candidate in the mix more dangerous than Rudy. The man will escalate our war efforts to the millionth degree to stroke his ego and prove to himself - and perhaps only himself - that he's the real tough guy he pretends to be."

To quote Reagan on Giuliani: "I think he's crazy." The best part is that's the only thing Reagan said about Giuliani in his entire diaries.

Posted by Reality Man | August 14, 2007 2:08 PM

Soro, take a chill pill.

Advisers don't have to have the ability to change the candidate's opinion on something. Candidates hire advisers to give them the information they need to formulate an opinion or to speak about an opinion they mutually hold. Once they have an opinion, they aren't expected to hire someone to argue with them about it. If they don't have an opinion, they aren't expected to argue with their advisers about it either. They might raise issues with the adviser's facts or opinion, and they might end up disagreeing with their adviser on an issue - in which case, depending on how often that happens, they might well fire the adviser.

Your suggestion that Matt was suggesting that Giuliana fire an adviser over one opinion - not matter HOW stupid - is ridiculous. Clearly, an opinion of such seriousness, if the candidate is opposed to it, should indeed lead to a question as to why the candidate has this particular adviser.

In any event, your comment is irrelevant. Because Matt's question is really rhetorical. Clearly, Giuliani wouldn't have hired Podheretz in the first place if he didn't agree with the bulk of the clown's ideas. And while he hasn't admitted to wanting to attack Iran IMMEDIATELY, there's little doubt, given his statements on the issue, that he agrees with Podheretz.

Here's a quote from the debate:

"Asked about the possibility of using such weapons during a CNN debate, Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and one of the top contenders according to polls, responded, "I think it could be done with conventional weapons, but you can't rule out anything and you shouldn't take any option off the table."

[Note: No, it can't be done with conventional OR nuclear weapons - short of bombing Iran "into the Stone Age." Which means starting a war.]

"Part of the premise of talking to Iran has to be that they have to know very clearly that it is unacceptable to the United States that they have nuclear power," he added.

[Note: He says "nuclear power", not even nuclear weapons. This is the Israeli position, plain and simple.]

Giuliani slammed the Islamic Republic as "a nuclear threat, not just because they can deliver a nuclear warhead with missiles; they're a nuclear threat because they are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and they can hand nuclear materials to terrorists."

Note: He alleges that Iran "can deliver a nuclear warhead with missiles" - which is obviously untrue at this point and for the foreseeable future.

Not to mention that any nation state handing nuclear weapons to terrorists is a hypothetical which is incredibly unlikely - except by misadventure or outright theft (which is not "handing.")

So why question the notion that Giuliani agrees with Podheretz that Iran should be attacked?

I say you simply didn't have the nerve to bring up your real objection - you didn't like Matt tying the idiot Podheretz to Giuliani because you favor Giuliani - and most likely Podheretz's solution to Iran.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 14, 2007 10:03 PM

Abortion, legal or not, is still the murder of an unborn baby and those who commit this murder are guilty of murder.

Posted by Rev Spitz | August 15, 2007 1:06 AM

I say you simply didn't have the nerve to bring up your real objection - you didn't like Matt tying the idiot Podheretz to Giuliani because you favor Giuliani - and most likely Podheretz's solution to Iran.

Nope, I'm more of an Obama man myself. I think Podheretz and Giuliani are idiots. I just felt like exploring the role of advisors. Pretty cool of you to assume that I'm arguing in bad faith.

You make a good point about advisors mainly being there to provide information rather than argue. I suppose the best case scenario is that Giuliani has read Doris Kerns Goodwin's book about Lincoln's cabinet ("Team of Rivals") and decided to hire some people with opposing views. Yeah, okay, there's no chance in hell that this is what Giuliani is doing.

Posted by soro | August 15, 2007 8:48 AM

I think it's generally admirable for a politician to listen to and participate in vigorous debates among his advisers, soro.

But obviously that isn't what's happening here. Norman Podhoretz is deliberately stifling debate on an issue within the campaign based on an assumption about the candidate's unarticulated inclinations. He's also, apparently, discussing this weird little strategy of his with reporters . . . on the record. That strikes me as pretty abysmal conduct for a presidential adviser.

Also, I don't think the sort of open shop you're advocating is inconsistent with the idea that a candidate can be judged by the broad ideological profiles of his closest advisers. You wouldn't expect Obama to keep Norman Podheretz on staff just so that they could constantly disagree about everything, right?

Posted by southpaw | August 16, 2007 7:49 AM

No no, not Syria, not nearly enough ohl. But wait -- say 'cheese'! There's a photographer around here somewhere....

Posted by Bob Tyson | August 16, 2007 2:50 PM

Well, may I just point out that there are people living in Iran, including myself and millions of cute little innocent children. Speaking of people Americans don't want to bomb, there are also sweet cute innocent little AMERICAN children here. Can we all just concentrate on making sure the big shots settle their differences without destroying us?
As for Rudy, lots of us New Yorkers were heroes on and after 9/11, but I really don't think most of those of us who were closest to the tragedy would put Rudy high on that list. It's painful how our tragedy has been twisted by opportunists like him. Why isn't Rudy acting like the mayor of Hiroshima, pledging his life to protect civilians in cities everywhere in the world from mass death and destruction?

Posted by Ruth | August 19, 2007 10:43 AM