Rudy: The Man Who Doesn’t Even Understand What Is Coming Out Of His Own Mouth

Oh yes, boys and girls, you know I got a big grin on my face when I get a good opportunity to level a few shots at the “Mayor”, and I gotta tell you that we’re talking ear-to-ear today.

Not too terribly long ago, Vanity Fair published an article by Michael Wolff that made a good case that Rudy Giuliani is out of his (censored) mind. One story that stuck with me centered around the notoriety of Giuliani’s egocentricism and tendancy to take credit for just about anything and everything.

Buses crawling through New York’s labyrinthine city streets were banned from carrying an ad for New York magazine declaring the periodical, “possibly the only good thing in New York Rudy hasn’t taken credit for.” The “Mayor” was not pleased.

But the ad itself, that was just a bit of exageration, right? A little good natured hyperbole in the name of humor and increased circulation, right? Maybe not.

While Democratic candidates were standing shoulder to shoulder on a stage at South Carolina’s Citadel, Rudy was in San Francisco on the campaign trail, and blasting shots at the Democratic hopefuls when he said something I think is incredibly telling:

“At no time during these debates have (Democrats) ever uttered the words, ‘Islamic terrorist,’ ” Giuliani said. But “if they do, I’ll take credit for it.”

So, let me get this straight, if a Democrat actually mentions… what was it? Oh right, “Islamic terrorist” than Rudy’s going to take credit for it? What’s he going to do, suggest he was on the Democratic stage, shoved his hand up someone’s butt and forced them to say it? I mean come on Rudy. I know you like to think of yourself as the center of everything that breathes and rotates, but that’s just taking things a little too far.

Okay, I suppose it’s time to get serious now, though I stand by the assertion that the above is, I think, an insightful Freudian slip.

Why wouldn’t democrats mention “Islamic Terrorists” in their debates? Hmm… Well, I’ve watched a lot of these things, and one thing I can say is that, believe it or not, there aren’t a whole lot of questions about islamic terrorists. Even last night, when the questions came from every day folks like you and me, we didn’t get, like with Healthcare, an inundation of questions about them.

And since there aren’t that many questions about Islamic Terrorists, and Democrats aren’t trying to run on the “Oh my god we’re all gonna die” meme, they aren’t particularly interested in mentioning them. There are other reasons not to extoll the deadly dangers of Islamic terrorists too.

For one, I think I agree with Kerry. By going overboard and declaring war on terrorists of any kind is actually helping them out. You are giving them a soapbox and a recruiting poster that they wouldn’t have had had you just swatted them down and otherwise paid them little mind. Also, we do have to be careful with our own Islamic community. Public figures, particularly those running for office have a responsibility to the American people, including those Americans who are Muslims.

You see, you have to be careful with your rhetoric, because people have a tendancy to take it seriously. We have, in this country millions of decent hard working Arab or otherwise Muslim citizens, and yet, when you go swinging your big badass talk without a care in the world, what you are also doing is increasing a public ire against… well… Americans. Madame Malkin does the same thing with her frequent calls for racial profiling, and her manifestos that that not so sneakily call for people to keep their eyes out for dark skinned bearded men in robes.

I submit that we shouldn’t be trying to alienate our Muslim and Arab friends, but embracing them. We have a horrendous history in dealing with the nations of the Middle East, and I believe that a large part of this stems from the fact that we little understand their culture and their political sphere, and yet, without the slightest bit of context, we attempt to, time and again, inject our Western culture in their way of doing things. In this regard, our Islamic friends here at home should be treated not as outsiders or enemies, but as a valuable and valued resource, and the kind of tough talk about “Islamic Terrorists” believe it or not, actually hinders that.

Finally, there’s another reason that maybe Democratic Candidates aren’t exactly the most willing to repeat ad nauseum the term “Islamic Terrorists”. Wanna know why? Bet you do. Try this on for size. How about the idea that not all terrorists are Islamic? I know, I know it’s a crazy idea, but I swear it’s true. Ask our friends that live in the UK, and I’m pretty sure they’ll confirm that the IRA is neither Islamic, nor, brace yourself, Arabic!

Also, folks who survived the Oklahoma City Bombings may remind you that the terrorist that did that little act, Timothy McVeigh, was… um… a former Roman Catholic, who despite later in life claiming to be agnostic still professed a belief in God, not Allah.

So, I’m sorry Rudy, but not everyone is you, they don’t see evil brown skinned men around every corner ready to blow something up, but then again, not everyone was the mayor of a city where he failed to follow the advice of his advisors thereby impeding the initial response to the greatest terrorist attack on our soil, nor are they trying to campaign on the coat tails of a president who was so out of touch with terrorism prior to, and actually still out of touch now after, the terrorist attacks of September 11th.

I can say this much to. Not everyone is trying to milk that tragedy for pure political gain either.

So what else did Rudy say in San Francisco?

Well, you got this beautiful nugget that SFG itself debunks, saving me some time:

Specifically mentioning Clinton of New York, Edwards of North Carolina and
Obama of Illinois, Giuliani charged that they “want to raise your taxes 20 to 30
percent, and it could be more” — a claim that is not supported by public
campaign statements from any of the Democratic top candidates.

“Tax reductions stimulate an essentially private economy. Why Democrats don’t get this, I don’t understand. … They attack President Bush for lowering taxes twice and for taking us to war.”

Um, I think why Democrats don’t get this is because it’s not been done before. It’s like an unwritten rule. If you’re going to go to war, you don’t cut taxes, it’s that simple. In fact, and this is vital, if you want to really encourage and trust in the patriotism of the American people, and you think you are truly in a just war, than there should be no problem not asking us to take tax cuts, but asking us to make sacrifices. We did it in World War II. That’s one of the many reasons why that generation was dubbed the Greatest Generation. Soldiers in the field were being supported by the citizens back here at home through mutual sacrifice.

Plus, it doesn’t really make fiscal sense, now does it? It costs money to wage war. You have to pay out money in equipment–equipment that requires constant replacement and repairs–as well as civilian support contracters, increased military salaries (yup people get more money for being in battle zones, and this part of their pay is not taxed), etc. In the movie I reviewed, No End In Sight, the projected estimated cost of the war in Iraq will end up being about 1.86 TRILLION dollars. With a T. Where do you think that money comes from? Corporate donations? Oh, wait, no, the corporations like Haliburtan and Kellog Brown and Root are where the money’s GOING, not coming from.

So, is it really wise for Rudy to claim that Democrats don’t understand the economy when he doesn’t seem to grasp the follies of lowering taxes for the rich in a time of war? Further, yes, we have seen some growth in the stock market, but here are some other things to chew on. The stock market is not necessarily the only health indicator of the nation’s economy. Some may like to look at the defecit… You know, the defecit that didn’t exist under Clinton’s watch, and was back then called a surplus.

Another good indicator is the gap between the rich and the middle and lower classes, which has widened significantly since since Bush has taken office, and I’m guessing that little trend is going to continue along if you take office.

I’m just saying.

Back to terrorism, “in order to lead, you have to face reality. No matter how much wishing you do, no matter how much you put your head in the sand, (terrorism) is not going to go away.”

But then, “the country is really going in the right direction … it’s just lacking leadership.”

Or, let me shorten it here for you to make the point, “in order to lead, you have to face reality… the country is really going in the right direction.”

Even in Rudy’s own professed field of expertise, this is wrong. We are not going in the right direction, in fact it has been judiciously studied and reported upon that the last thing we should have done in the War on Terror was invade Iraq, and once that decision was made, the very text book definition of how to invade Iraq and NOT reduce but increase terrorism is pretty much exactly what this administration did.

Prior to going into Iraq, there was no al Qaeda there. Hussein was an infadel, and Osama bin Laden( hey, where is he nowadays, anyway?) would be a threat to Hussein’s secular government. We KNOW this now. Fast foward a few years into the war and now there is an al Qaeda in Iraq (all be it not the official seal of approval OBL al Qaeda) along with a plethora of other terrorist organizations and radical fundamentalist militias ravaging the country.

You know, I could do this all day, but other news is going on just as we speak, and I think I’ve hemoraged enough IQ points trying to understand the “Mayor” as it is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook