Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Giuliani on Hamas, Fatah and Islamic terrorism

One of the things that mystifies some of the conservative `gate keepers', pundits and commentators about ex-Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani is his continued front runner status, especially among people who would normally disagree with his positions on some social issues.

The answer's simple, really. Mayor Giuliani, perhaps because he experienced Islamic terrorism first hand is, aside from Duncan Hunter, the only candidate from either party so far who appears to have a clue of the actual nature of the existential war we're in, and whom our enemies are.

Mayor Giuliani created a great deal of heat today by simply stating the obvious in a speech in New Hampshire...that we are headed for another for another major terrorist attack here in the US, that it is much less likely to succeed if we stay on offense rather than retreating on defense and that the Democrats now running lack a basic understanding of the war we're in.

“If any Republican is elected president —- and I think obviously I would be the best at this —- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said.

Giuliani, feels that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.

“But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?” Giuliani said. “If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer.”

I've said the exact same thing on this site many times.

“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”

He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”

“This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!” Giuliani said . “Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”

Needless to say,the sound of screeching peahens you hear came from Barack Obama, Karen Finley of the DNC and others..but the truth does that sometimes.

Giuliani said terrorists “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.”

Giuliani continued: “The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.” He said Americans would fight for “freedom for women, the freedom of elections, freedom of religion and the freedom of our economy.”

Addressing the terrorists directly, Giuliani said: “We are not giving that up, and you are not going to take it from us!”

Unlike the present occupant of the White House, Rudy Giuliani also seems to understand that Islamic jihad is Islamic jihad, even if it comes from say, the Saudis or the Palestinians.

At a fundraiser in New Jersey on March 27th, Giuliani unequivocally stated that he doesn't care whether the Palestinian Authority is run by Hamas, Fatah, or a combination of the two.

"Hamas or Abbas, It Makes No Difference" the Mayor said.

"The ball is in their court, and we just have to show patience and not push any peace process until they do what they have to do."

What they have to do, he said, is, at the very minimum, to recognize Israel’s right to exist and to renounce terrorism. Then, he said, Israel and the US should sit back and see if they mean it.

"They don’t just have to say the words. Anyone can say the words. They have to show that they are ending terrorism; they have to show that they are doing what they have to do to end terrorism. I’m a strong proponent of the philosophy that we can trust, but we have to verify," he said. "If all that happens, then it will lead naturally to a peace process, but we have to wait patiently until they are ready to make it happen. And no one should make any concessions to the Palestinians until they take those steps."

The mayor also had a few things to say about Oslo. He called the concessions Israel was forced to make as part of the Oslo process before the Palestinians fulfilled any of their requirements, "mistakes."

"The US pushed Israel to make concessions, and it didn’t matter that the Palestinians did nothing to live up to their end of the bargain. This was wrong and we should never do it again,"
he said.

Giuliani, of course, is the man who had Yasir Arafat thrown out of Lincoln Center and refused millions of dollars of Saudi money after 9/11 from Prince Alaweed when the Saudis insisted on linking the donation to a demonization of Israel.

"I like the approach taken by Ronald Reagan, that we will gain peace only through strength. If we show weakness in Iraq, it will affect our ability to handle Iran, and that would be dangerous," he said.

"The US must make it clear that, under no circumstances, will Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Going to war with Iran would be terrible. The only thing that would be worse would be allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons," he said.

Giuliani also doesn't think much of the idea of the US containing a nuclear-armed Iran in a Cold War time stalemate. The Islamofascists, he said, "are a different kind of enemy."

"The communists in the Soviet Union and China were terrible, but didn’t make plans to come here to kill us. They didn’t send suicide bombers," he said.

Mayor Giuliani, unlike most of the candidates out there is at least saying some of the right things and showing that he understands that we no longer have the option of retreating.

What's more, he has a track record of accomplishing what he sets out to do even in unpromising circumstances.It's how he put the mafia in jail as US attorney and how he brought new York City back to life when everyone said it was impossible.

While a number of people might consider Giuliani's positions on some issues `too liberal', they might want to think about the fact that it we get the war wrong, things like abortion and gay rights won't matter. And that the last time our Republic was facing this type of danger, it took another New Yorker from the middle of the spectrum to unite a divided country, do what needed to be done, shake it out of a funk of isolationism and lead us to victory.

Let's say I'm cautiously optimistic, and that, as Winston Churchill once said, this may be the end of the beginning.


Anonymous said...

If the Republicans chose Giuliani I will vote for him, only because the defeatism of the Democrats is Geopolitically disgusting (whether you even ever agreed with the decision to go to war), but McCain is by far, by virtue of his stance on abortion, a superior candidate, in line with conservative values and with his personal life "more intact". I cannot begin to rationalize, metaphysically or otherwise, the incremental self-destruction of humanity for "convenience sake", that is abortion.

Anonymous said...

"While a number of people might consider Giuliani's positions on some issues `too liberal', they might want to think about the fact that it we get the war wrong, things like abortion and gay rights won't matter."

We can't jetison all our principles and values for a "war" that may continue for an eternity. While terrorist threats may be the greatest issue of our day, and some sacrifices are necessary, if we are too willing to cede our most precious liberties, then the terrorists will have won.

Freedom Fighter said...

Juan, I understand your feelings and respect them. Again, it's important to look at the bigger picture, I think.

Anonymous, it's obvious that you think the "war" is a mere law enforcement problem. I couldn't disagree with you more.

I also don't consider gay marriage and abortion on demand part of our `precious liberties' as much a legally dubious interpretations of the Constitution's equal protection provision, but you're entitled.

I remind you that the Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact, and I suggest you examine how FDR efficiently and effectively secured the country from internal security threats during WWII.

Bush ain't even in the same ballpark.