Wonky Wednesday: Rudy Skipped Out On the Iraq Study Group
Last week Rudy Giuliani put forward his twelve top priorities without mentioning Iraq. As for the country’s most urgent foreign policy problem, here’s a remarkable comment from a man who would presume to lead this country:
“Iraq may get better; Iraq may get worse. We may be successful in Iraq; we may not be. I don’t know the answer to that. That’s in the hands of other people.”
How is that Giuliani could fail to have an opinion on how to deal with the number one issue in this election? As Newsday reported yesterday, he didn’t feel like doing do his homework:
WASHINGTON — Rudolph Giuliani’s membership on an elite Iraq study panel came to an abrupt end last spring after he failed to show up for a single official meeting of the group, causing the panel’s top Republican to give him a stark choice: either attend the meetings or quit, several sources said.
Giuliani left the Iraq Study Group last May after just two months, walking away from a chance to make up for his lack of foreign policy credentials on the top issue in the 2008 race, the Iraq war.
He cited “previous time commitments” in a letter explaining his decision to quit, and a look at his schedule suggests why — the sessions at times conflicted with Giuliani’s lucrative speaking tour that garnered him $11.4 million in 14 months.
So when Giuliani said that Iraq is “in the hands of other people,” he didn’t mention that he was asked to serve with those people in tackling this enormously important task, and couldn’t be bothered to show up.
Had he done his homework (or his duty to his country), Rudy Giuliani might have actually arrived at a useful opinion on what to do about Iraq. Instead he expects voters to be so impressed with his jutting jaw and tough guy persona that we won’t notice that he isn’t telling us how he would fix the mess in Iraq.
I heard the Rudy spin earlier tonight.
Get this…
He says he quit becasue he knew that any contribution he made would be viewed as the statements of someone running for President and not a concerned citizen.
I saw that a well. As it turns out, Giuliani had already said publicly that he was pondering a run for president when he first accepted the appointment.
Also, he was at speeches that were in conflict with the study group meeting dates. The speeches garnered several hundred thousand in fees. God bless capitalism. Plus, what exactly did a BS “study group” achieve anyway? “Dudes, were getting our asses kicked over there!”
Q: What do you do when you have no candidates with any redeeming qualities worth talking about?
A: Talk about ours.
Old news.
“First, the makeup of the Study Group is interesting. First, there are no generals on the commission, though they consulted with many. I wonder if they asked Schwartzkopf or Colin Powell and they declined. I think it is also important to note that (with the departure of Rudy Giuliani) there are no 2008 contenders in the Group, as well as there not being anyone who is usually identified as a neocon (no one from the Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/Cheney cadre).”
-December 2006
http://www.jokerstotheright.com/2006/12/iraq-study-group-report-thoughts.html
No redeeming qualities? Dave, you can do better than that.
Hows this for redeeming qualities: Joe Biden has put forward a detailed proposal for dealing with the mess in Iraq. You may not agree with his plan, but at least he has the gumption to address the subject head on.
Maybe he’s one of the “other people” Giuliani meant he said “That [Iraq] is in the hands of other people.”
You also may have noticed that polls consistently show that Democrats are happier with the candidates they have to choose from than are Republicans.
You also may have noticed that polls consistently show that Democrats are happier with the candidates they have to choose from than are Republicans.
That’s true for either one of two reasons:
1. Democrats smell blood, and think they have a good shot of winning with a good chunk of their candidates.
2. They settle for less.
2. They settle for less.
To settle for less than George Bush you’d have to elect a garden gnome.
“Old News” = What a F’ing cop-out! Age of information does not make it irrelevant.
Ok, let’s apply that thinking to another issue:
“Hey, aren’t the twin towers still destroyed and the master mind, OBL, is still free?”
“No worries, mate; that’s OLD NEWS!”
Wow! That was easy! Now if I just explain it away with “OLD NEWS”, it’ll just disappear and never rear it’s ugly, old head again.
It’s sooo wonderful being part of the GOP, all you have to do is explain it away and you’ll never have to worry your pretty, little mind!
Fucking weak….
This “Old News” is just another reason NOT to vote for Rudy, for it clearly shows where his passions lie, power and money. He blew off an excellent & patriotic opportunity to help his country, but instead he chose to focus on obtaining money to acquire power.
To settle for less than George Bush you’d have to elect a garden gnome.
See also: Al Gore, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis
“Old News” = What a F’ing cop-out! Age of information does not make it irrelevant.
I never said it wasn’t relevant. I’m just surprised it took 6 months for other people to figure this out.
It was an obvious political move by Rudy, to make him not tied to the ISG. This way, he could formulate an Iraq policy independent of the Group. Obviously, he has not done a good job with either formulating or communicating that policy (one or the other, or perhaps both).
I don’t see it as a reason not to vote for him, as shouldn’t Sens. Biden, McCain, Clinton, Obama, et al. be serving their country in the job they were hired to do, rather than run for president? Weak, indeed.
Q: What do you do when you have no candidates with any redeeming qualities worth talking about?
A: Talk about ours.
*
Dave Burris’ America = what? debate? discuss? consider? research?
politics by rote?
There are no less than 5 debates going on at FSP right now.
Nancy, being exposed as a fraud hasn’t been good for your attitude or your accuracy. But hey – there’s nowhere to go but up for you now! Buck up, little camper!
Yes, I’m sure that FSP is debating great topics like “Which of the Democratic Candidates loves Al Qaeda the most?” 😉
Ryan – nice caveat.
Too bad you didn’t articulate what you meant the first time, but I’ll assume you mean what you said the 2nd time around.
The problem with Rudy is that he keeps on saying that only he, or another GOPer, can keep us safe. In other words, vote Democrat and die. He had the opportunity to put is words to action but decided it was not WORTH his time, simple as that.
Since most, if not all, elected presidents held an office of some kind at the time when they ran for POTUS, your argument about the Dem candidates is indeed weak, actually it’s moronic. Rudy wasn’t an official candidate when the ISG was convening; he was offering business and security advice to our supposed, mortal enemy, Hugo Chavez. As I said before, he chose money over country.
Pride might have been a small factor for Rudy too. I’m sure he would’ve had to explain to Baker, et al, why he chose to place the anti-terrorism and emergency response center in the most identifiable terrorist target in NYC!
Rudy – Brilliant indeed!
It isn’t just Dems I pointed out, I mentioned McCain, as he’s a Republican Senator running for president. I guess I forgot about Brownback.
I wasn’t defending Rudy for doing what he did, I wasn’t attacking people running for president who hold office necessarily, I just don’t think much difference holds because they all seem to be, in your words, “obtaining money to acquire power.” A definition for fundraising if I’ve ever heard one.
Yes, I’m sure that FSP is debating great topics like “Which of the Democratic Candidates loves Al Qaeda the most?”
Actually, the debates are: the popularity of Congress, the DNREC Pollution Control Strategies, immigration, the Newark tax cuts, the deficit and taxes.
Translation of the debated subject topics at FSP:
ORINGINAL LANGUAGE: Actually, the debates are: the popularity of Congress, the DNREC Pollution Control Strategies, immigration, the Newark tax cuts, the deficit and taxes.
IN ENGLISH
1) who do you like the most at school? Didn’t you hate what Nancy P. wore yesterday?
2) pollution is icky, yes or no?
3) where did all these little brown people come from?
4) Newark is in what State?
5) accounting stuff that no one understands, so we all get a B+ just for posting.
Just another reason to take the money out of elections.
Dis: YOU ROCK!