Today on Blogcritics
Home » Giuliani Disqualifies Himself As Presidential Hopeful

Giuliani Disqualifies Himself As Presidential Hopeful

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The recent exchange between Republican presidential hopefuls Rudy Giuliani of New York and Ron Paul of Texas ought to serve as a metaphor for what's wrong with the political process in this nation. The two were addressing the attacks of 9/11 — the elephant that has lumbered around America for nearly six years while leaders have long sought to ignore it.

The simple discourse revealed enormous complexities.

Paul: "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East."

An angry Giuliani responded that as someone who lived through the attack of September 11 — “that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq — I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. … I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."

Paul shot back that if we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. “They come and they attack us because we're over there."

The audience erupted in applause and cheers for Giuliani . Paul was drowned out.

The entire scenario is a metaphor for the rampant ignorance and apathy that exists, not only at some of the highest levels of government leadership, but also consumes large swaths of the American landscape where ill-informed constituents cheer on their equally ignorant candidates with zeal.

Giuliani  was wrong. Dead wrong.

The very fact that he didn't know the U.S. had been bombing Iraq every year for over a decade prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 is a clear statement that says he’s unfit for the Oval Office. America doesn't need or deserve a president who hasn't a clue what has occurred before his tenure that brought about the crisis situations he will inherit. Add to that the performance he gave in requesting a retraction from Paul and you've got yourself yet another politician better suited for Hollywood than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Paul, on the other hand, is a brave, albeit cooked, politician. He has no chance of progressing despite the growing interest of the American people in the issues surrounding the 9/11 cover-up.

Even as the dog and pony show travels the nation and placates to the vastly varied voters across the fruited plains, the field has already narrowed, the main players chosen, and the groomed and polished finalists are already preparing to take center stage in January 2008.

This political process is a done deal. Clinton will be the nominee for the Democrats. Obama will toss his constituency behind her (ensuring a role in her Cabinet). The Republicans will offer up a sacrificial lamb. It truly doesn't matter who it is, whether it be McCain, Romney or Giuliani … the elephants will roam outside of the White House following the turnover of power (barring another conveniently timed "terrorist attack" that establishes a need for Bush to remain in office until he can provide safety for us all).

If the Republicans have any sense at all, they will help Giuliani figure out that he has more important duties at home "spending more time with his family." His goose is cooked. Any intelligent opposition on the Democrat side of the aisle immediately cut and stored clips of Giuliani 's open admission that he hasn't a clue about the history of U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, thus rendering him incompetent as a presidential candidate.

Of course, that never stopped Dubya, but Giuliani's dad isn't the former head of the CIA and didn't spend 12 years in the White House at the pinnacle of political policy-making. Dubya's dad did. And the controversial orchestration of Dubya's assension to the Oval Office will play forever in the annals of history.

For Giuliani, his legacy will be the role he played as Mayor of New York, especially during the turbulent time in the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11. Nothing more.

Some may argue that Giuliani's response to Paul was in regard to the rationale for the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers. Unfortunately, Giuliani failed to address the key issue behind Paul's statement. That is, the U.S. government cannot initiate and maintain aggressive policies that render death and destruction in foreign places without expectation of some sort of retribution. Thus, we cannot blame the victim of U.S. aggression for fighting back, unless we are willing to cast ourselves as hypocrites, since we believe in fighting back when someone initiates a fight.

The key to Paul's premise is that the U.S. ought not be conducting its business around the world as a bully. We ought not be overthrowing governments, undermining governments, and causing death and destruction in the wake of "U.S. foreign policies." Any candidate who stands in opposition to that premise ought to be disqualified from any leadership position.

Giuliani's premise is based upon the lie posed by the government tas an explanation for 9/11. That lie, to this day, continues to claim the U.S. was attacked by presumably unknown terrorists for unknown reasons … unprovoked.

Of course most Americans will not recall the fact that the U.S. government put the word on the street that SAME DAY, that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks. The next morning front pages of USA Today and The Washington Post both pushed headlines that screamed Osama on the very same page with the headlines reflecting the attack and photos of the twin towers ablaze. It’s amazing how quickly U.S. intelligence was aware that Osama was the culprit. Even more amazing is the fact that not one media outlet has ever challenged the government's immediate assertion that Osama was behind the attacks of 9/11 — an accusation made on the same day the attacks occurred.

Paul's premise was to provide a rationale for such an attack based upon acceptance of the same lie posed by the government as the reason planes were flown into the towers. But at least he knew the history of U.S. aggression in Iraq. Unfortunately, Paul isn't questioning the executive branch's continued claim of Al-Qaida as the mastermind behind what we saw that day. But I would expect Giuliani to lead the charge in finding out the truth since three buildings fell on his turf.

Indeed, if Giuliani had any credibility at all, he would have led the charge into questioning the government in regard to numerous issues being brought to the mainstream by a wide variety of credible groups and scholars. Instead, Giuliani has yet to even investigate how a third tower fell at free-fall speed in the exact same manner as the twin towers … yet never sustained enough damage from fire or debris to warrant such a collapse and didn't have the benefit of a plane to assist in its destruction.

Giuliani has failed on many levels as a leader pertaining to the events of 9/11. The four widows from New Jersey spent nearly two years of their lives pushing for an investigation. Because of their efforts — not Giuliani's or any other political leader — the bogus 9/11 Commission was finally formed. Meanwhile, Giuliani was glad-hugging and dripping tears of fake compassion. Perhaps we ought to elect those ladies. They have shown leadership and a determination to get at the truth, which is relatively unknown in Washington political circles. Surely, they would do better than Giuliani.

We don't need another fake leader in the Oval Office. As it is, we will get another Clinton, which, after her 8 years, will total 36 years of just two families ruling the roost. And America's foreign policy will never waver throughout her presidency, as it never wavered throughout her husband's. The Bush-Clinton Middle East plan has done exactly what Jimmy Carter declared America would do in January 1980:

"An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault upon the vital interests of the United States — and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

When Carter mentioned "outside" force, he hoped America would turn its attention to the Soviet Union. But the reality of the invasion of Iran (8 months later) by a U.S.-assisted Iraq and the subsequent invasion of Iraq a decade later, with pronouncements by each president of the necessity to protect America's "vital economic interests" in that region, provides us clarity to understand the true motives of the United States at that time and every four years since.

From the time Bush (41) lied to get us into a war in the Middle East and an invasion of Iraq in 1991, to the time Bush (43) lied to get us into yet another ground invasion of Iraq in 2003 within the same war, Clinton held down the fort in the Oval Office with continued air bombing of Iraq throughout his presidency. Such was the case in Yugoslavia as well.

There is no reason to believe that with the Clintons back in the White House anything would change in America's policy in Iraq. Already permanent bases are being built. The Taj Mahal of embassies is now being constructed in Baghdad at an initial cost of nearly $600 million. Expect that cost to spiral out of control.

Already, the British have committed to both Iraq and Afghanistan through 2012. They won't be alone. We are a team, and their tiny force is nothing without our huge military might. If they have openly declared a commitment for at least another five years, surely Americans must know we have also made such a commitment.

With the Clintons back in the saddle again, it will be business as usual for the Bush-Clinton clan. Perhaps after 36 years we might find other candidates suitable for leadership. or maybe by that time Paul's warning of American aggression creating a backlash will have prophetic consequences.

The time is right for the American public to clean out its political closet and rid itself of the terrorists within who callously sacrifice our sons and daughters serving in the military to advance their clandestine goals. It is time we stopped watching what they wear and listening to the eloquent speeches they give — and began to examine closely what they do and the decisions they make.

America doesn't exist in a vacuum. And the decisions made by our leaders have far-reaching ramifications. We would do well as a people to elect leaders who can be trusted to act according to the will of the people — who do not ignore or stonewall the people while acting in accordance with special interests that place the safety and freedoms of the people at risk.

Powered by

About Mike Green

  • Joe Mellon

    “Paul, on the other hand, is a brave, albeit cooked, politician. He has no chance of progressing despite the growing interest of the American people…”

    I whole-heartedly disagree. The message of Ron Paul is awakening and transforming our vast open field of sleeping couch potatoes into proud armies of cardboard-carrying, bumper-stickered, banner-waving activists. It’s easy to think that politics-as-usual will carry on, but when was the last time we (the people, not the moneyed corporations) actually had a candidate worth backing? The liberty message is out and our numbers are growing. Faster than you think.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Mike, you wrote this like a man writing an epitaph. If I didn’t know better, I’d believe you.

    Ignorance and stupidity does not disqualify anyone from high office in America. Giuliani has a tiger by the tail it is the tiger of resentment in the American people. The question is, “can he ride it?” I frankly do not think he will get the chance. Events, events he has no understanding of, are moving, and he will have no chance to run for office.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Mr Green just dropped a complete load of utterly dishonest nonsense here. “The two were addressing the attacks of 9/11 — the elephant that has lumbered around America for nearly six years while leaders have long sought to ignore it.” That’s just a dumb thing to say. There’s been little else but that on the national agenda since 2001. And how dumb is it to act like you think Giuliani wasn’t aware of the aftermath of the first Gulf War?

    But then Mr Green drops trou and pulls out his wee-wee of tinfoil hat idiocy “Instead, Guiliani has yet to even investigate how a third tower fell at free-fall speed in the exact same manner as the twin towers … yet never sustained enough damage from fire or debris to warrant such a collapse and didn’t have the benefit of a plane to assist in its destruction.”

    But he needs to get his conspiracies straight, at least. Was 9/11 an inside job, as he clearly implies or was blowback from justifiably angry Muslims as Dr Paul posits?

    Also, that Dr Paul is getting a lot of his support now from such evil minded and irrational people as this author is definitely not an argument in his favor.

  • methuselah

    True, Giuliani cooked himself with this stupid act of idiocy, trying to grandstand to the audience. But it only means the hapless dems will have a harder time finding who to imitate palely to become Republican Lite in ’08.

    Is Ross Perot still available?

  • Danielle Reed

    “Also, that Dr Paul is getting a lot of his support now from such evil minded and irrational people as this author is definitely not an argument in his favor.”

    For someone who is bound and determined to vote for Clinton in ’08 you sure sound like a Neo-Con with such assertions. I truly like how the word “evil” is being boasted into intelligent(?) debate. I support Dr. Paul and I am not a conspiracy theorist nor irrational and I served my country during the Iraq War. It is time we realize that every action has a reaction and those reactions don’t always when it is convenient for us.

    Most people that realize what the last few decades of Bush-Clinton-Bush, and potentially another Clinton, have done for our country are angry and yes that may include the 911 Truthers but don’t generalize an entire support for a candidate as such, to do so is careless and seemingly uninformed.

    It’s time to buck politics as usual and none of these “front-runners”, which I use loosely since they are front-ran by special interests attempting to seed the election field with their wo”man”, and it’s time the American people voice what WE want not Newscorp or any other Neo-Connist agenda be it liberal or conservative in roots.

  • Lumpy

    Strange article here especially the title, since anyone who saw the debate would realize that the paul-giuliani exchange spelled the end of paul’s hopes as a mainstream candidate and made giuliani look great.

  • Peter Mc

    You assert that Guliani did not know that the US was bombing Iraq each and every year for ten years. Guliani said “that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq — I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. … I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.”
    Sorry, how does Guliani’s statemnt imply that he did not know we were bombing them? He is just stating that there is no connection between 9/11 and the Iraqi bombings.
    I guess if you can’t argue against what someone says, while even quoting him, HA HA, the next best thing is to make something up so you can argue against it.

  • MBD

    “Sorry, how does Guliani’s statemnt imply that he did not know we were bombing them? He is just stating that there is no connection between 9/11 and the Iraqi bombings.”

    How does Giuliani justify not knowing that “the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback”? (Ron Paul’s retort)

    Does Giuliani know what “blowback” is?

    If he doesn’t, he should be the one to leave the debates.

  • http://www.impeachspace.com/profile/amikegreen2 Mike Green

    Thanks for all the responses. I appreciate you all taking the time to read my writing and provide feedback. Some of it is difficult to digest, I will admit. But I am grateful to be scrutinized by those who do it well, even if it means some will determine I am evil.

    May I say that while I am disheartened by the audience’s reaction to Paul’s premise, I do admire leaders who are brave enough to disregard the political fallout and operate on principles.

    Unfortunately, I do not believe the American people, however much some may like Paul and others Guiliani, are a great factor in determining whether either will rise to the level of party nominee. I believe that decision is already made, as some imply, by special interests. The debates, I fear, are merely dog and pony shows to make a pretense of a semblance of democracy.

    Paul is a worthy leader with whom I am impressed to some degree. As a representative of the people, he is one of very few who has tried to adequately represent the will of the people.

    Regarding Paul’s position on 9/11:

    I wrote extensively about the U.S. historical involvement in the Middle East in my book, which is filled with sources to support my positions and statements, many of which I quote directly from a wide variety of sources.

    I have no doubt that the U.S. is engaged in covert and overt activities it initiated that stem from its original “investment” in the Middle East through the overthrow of Iran. I do believe those activities bring about retribution throgh various resources available to the Muslim Brotherhood.

    I do not believe 9/11 was a day filled with acts committed by those to whom the blame has been assigned. Our government has funded Middle Eastern covert ops groups (Iraqi National Congress and Iraqi National Accord and various splinter groups) for many years.

    Our government has played both sides against the middle and a number of other covert propaganda games. It has backed virtually every group it today calls an enemy. And it has abandoned even the Kurds in their time of desperate need.

    The immoral and indecent decisions made by our government are often so treacherous, that a journey back through the history of U.S. foreign policy reveals a monstrocity one would fail to recognize as the United States government.

    Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Feb. 1, 2007) that he envisions a plausible scenario whereupon the U.S. government would stage a terrorist attack either on Iraqi or American soil in an effort to galvanize support for a war against Iran, upon which the blame will be laid for the attack.

    One does not have to take a leap of any sort to step from the scenario the former national security advisor laid out against Iran to see the very same scenario could have, and likely was conducted in order to move against Iraq.

    Osama bin Laden’s name is plastered on the front page of USA Today and the Washington Post (as well as many other newspapers) on September 12m 2001 as the culprit behind the attacks.

    Take a look at the archives of newseum.com and see for yourself. On the very day the tragedy of the twin towers was featured on virtually every front page in this country and around the globe, Osama bin Laden is targeted.

    As a journalist, I am acquainted with deadlines. And it appears to me that journalists were so eager to run a companion story with the 9/11 coverage they very well may have become stooges for propaganists promoting the name of bin Laden on the same day of the attacks.

    There are so many questions regarding 9/11 and its aftermath that for someone like Guiliani — who failed miserably to ask ANY relevant questions from that day to this one — to assert that “blowback” is a theory he has never heard of says to me such a man ought never have even been Mayor, much less considered for president.

    And the addition i provide regarding WTC7 is part and parcel of the problem I have with Guiliani. He never asked any questions about the very building that would house him and a number of high level officials and highly calssified operations of the city leadership. I find that not only significantly flawed judgment, it causes me to believe he is complicit in some manner.

    There were common sense things Guiliani just did not do on that day or any day since that day!

    There’s no need for me to get into those things in this forum at this time. I am certain the brilliant minds that lurk in these forums could think of a number of things each of you would have done as mayor. And while we can all attribute the shock factor to negate certain criticisms, there is no excuse for 4 widows from New Jersey to lead the way toward forcing a reluctant executive branch to open an investigation nearly 2 years later.

    It wasn’t the mayor of New York that found 100 questions and anamolies. It was a handful of ladies who were devastated at the loss of their husbands. meanwhile, Guiliani did nothing to lead the way as these women trudged along daily, being told they were spitting on their husbands’ graves.

    They showed leadership. Guiliani showed cowardice and complicit silence. To this day he can’t tell us why he allowed all the evidence at the scene of thos ebuildings to be carted off. He can’t tell us why fighters didn’t intercept those places. He can’t tell us why two buildings fell into their own footprints and disintegrated on the way down, covering a large portion of his city with dust. He can’t tell us why the EPA opened the way for folks to go back in that area when it was unsafe. Guiliani can tell me anything …

    And if one were to simply go to the site of the Family Steering Committee that helped to establish numerous questions for the 9/11 Commission, one would find tons of questions … none of which Guiliani could answer or even ask.

    To this day, Guiliani maintains the facade of a leader. I see him as a stooge, acting on behalf of unseen and unknown interests. He is not fit to take out my garbage without proper instructions and supervision.

    When Senators Wyden, Rockefeller and Bond drafted legislation to force the CIA to reveal information held in its own investigation of 9/11 events, did Guiliani offer to assist in getting the CIA to cooperate? Did he use his bully pulpit to call for a full disclosure? An independent investigation? Anything at all?

    For that matter where is Hillary as a signatory on the legislation drafted a couple of weeks ago? Oh, wait. She’s part of the problem. Why would she ever call for the government to answer to the people? She doesn’t.

    Guiliani had more time than he deserved to do the right thing. He did not. He turned his back on the people of this nation and those directly impacted by the staged attacks of 9/11.

    At best he is an ignorant self-centered man without a clue.

    At worst he is complicit in a diabolical scheme that fits perfectly the plausible scenario laid before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Brzezinski, as a means by which to push this nation into another invasion of Iraq.

    I would surely like to hear the mayor of Washington DC explain why he has never seen a single piece of the massive passenger airliner that presumably exploded into the side of the Pentagon and then apparently disintegrated into tiny pieces … much like two of the tallest buildings on this continent. Perhaps the reason is simply because no plane hit the Pentagon.

    It would be nice to find out why there are so many media in D.C. but not one photographer got photos of any plane wreckage on the grounds of the Pentagon that would show as wreckage of a large passenger plane. One would think there would have been dozens of photographers there. Were they all in NYC getting shots of debris?

    For those who cast me as the crazed lunatic, I ask that you simply step out of your comfortable shoes (if possible) and try on the shoes of an investigator who isn’t ready to swallow the potion poured over this nation by a government that had so much to gain from 9/11.

    Use those magnificent brains to blaze a path of logic through the illogical scenario posed by our government. Check out what it said. Check out each premise as though you thought it were lying. Seek to find the holes and you will see them. Ask the relevant questions and you will find no answer forthcoming.

    Then ask why would our government continue to hide the truth from its people?

    I already have an aswer. I would be interested in hearing yours.

  • MBD

    “Strange article here especially the title, since anyone who saw the debate would realize that the paul-giuliani exchange spelled the end of paul’s hopes as a mainstream candidate and made giuliani look great.”

    Only in the land of Alice could this occur.

    If it is true, it spells the end of America’s hopes for a return to the Constitution.

    Oh what the hell, it’s only words on a piece of paper.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Peter, Giuliani shares the standard position of the administration that the no-fly zone, sanctions and the occasional bombing of strategic targets with minimal civilian casualties are NOT the same as actually attacking a country. Certainly most world leaders and generic do-gooder NGOs concurred with that position throughout the Bush-Clinton-Bush era.

    Of course, people living in Iraq may have viewed it somewhat differently.

    But here’s the point you’re REALLY missing. Paul’s the one who’s factually out on a limb, because he suggested that Al Qaeda attacked us because we were giving Iraq a hard time, when the truth is that Al Qaeda hated the secular government of Iraq, and certainly wasn’t acting on their behalf. Paul is effectively buying the Bush administration misrepresentation of a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

    In reality Al Qaeda attacked us was mostly because we’re pro-Israel and we’re the biggest target in their general jihad against all western civilization.

    Dave

  • MBD

    What Ron Paul actually said…

    “I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, “I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.”

    “They have already now since that time and have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.”

    “I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.”

    “They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if we were — if other foreign countries were doing that to us?”

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    MBD, Iran ALSO doesn’t back Al Qaeda. Our support for the Shah has little or nothing to do with why al Qaeda attacked us. Most al Qaeda members come from countries we have done more to support than to oppress.

    The thinking here is simplistic and inherently flawed. They oppose us for much more complex reasons than our support of one regime or opposition to another.

    As I’ve said before, the US has come to symbolize the heart of the enemy which they have to have in order to build a new Caliphate. Without an external threat to drive people into fear and unity the jihadists have nothing.

    But you’re right that attacking them directly in the middle east is probably playing into their hands to a certain extent, as it gives them a legitimacy they might not have otherwise.

    Dave

  • Danielle Reed

    Dave-

    Iran was used as a blowback example not to show some sort of connection between Iran and Iraq or al Qaeda. It demonstrates when the government becomes entangled in politics in another country it will continue to be a problem. In Iran’s case BP was the reason we got involved, nice to see not much has changed eh? Oil is still the black gold of our country. We further inflamed Iran by continuing to aid, train, and supply Iraq with weapons and technology. We didn’t seem to mind then they were gassing the Kurds as long as we could keep them on Iran…

    Paul never attributed Iran to al Qaeda but there is a key element regarding Afghanistan which we propped up and armed against the Soviets and then dropped like a bad habit as soon as the Soviet Empire crumbled. We put soldiers into Saudi Arabia, a place where most of the 911 attackers originated from and we have constantly kept our involvement in the region ever since.

    The U.S. has come to symbolize greed, greed for oil no more no less. We aided Britain in the 50’s to support an agenda to keep BP’s wells running in Iran and we continue to fight selective “crusades” in its name and it’s unfortunate. Like most anything you can FIND a reason to hate someone no matter how minor or petty but the problem is our engagement in Empire Building spells nothing but bad news and it’s time that is realized before we take on Iran in which case you can expect Russia and China will turn on us.

  • MBD

    “MBD, Iran ALSO doesn’t back Al Qaeda.”

    Very good.

    You show that you understand a little bit about Iran and al Qaeda.

    Unfortunately, you couldn’t grasp the fact that Ron Paul had about 30 seconds to present the concept of blowback and our involvement in the Middle East since the end of WWII.

    “Most al Qaeda members come from countries we have done more to support than to oppress”

    This statement is laughable.

    Our support has been for the governments that spawned al Qaeda. Most who attacked us were Saudis who objected to our troops which their government allowed in their country.

    Why is it that only the inhabitants of countries that we interfere in want to harm us?

    That shouldn’t be too hard even for a ten-year old to figure out.

  • tim

    I agree with Ron Paul. There are people who are determined to spread lies about him and twist what he says. My question is this: If you have the opportunity to put a man in office who is clearly the most honest of all the candidates, and has the best grasp of what is going on in this country, why wouldn’t you vote for him? You are only hurting yourself and hurting your children. The choices made today effect not just tomorrow or next week but effect us for years to come. Why continue making the same bad choices over and over again? People say that Ron Paul is telling the truth because he has to make a splash since he is a “second tier” candidate. The TRUTH is that he is telling the TRUTH because he BELIEVES it. And I believe in him. Because if I don’t, then I give in to letting this country evolve into something our founding father’s would be ashamed of.

  • Michael Davis

    The more I read ’bout Ron Paul, the more I like him. The rest of the candidates have already proven themselves not worthy of my vote (except maybe Mike Gravel).