Which one is it?


Will writes from Washington, D.C. (well, Arlington, Virginia). You can reach him at willblogcorrespondence at gmail dot com.

Related Post Roulette

9 Responses

  1. greginak says:

    I think it is only fair that we consider the possibility that Rudy is not just interested in silly rhetorical flourishes, but that he may actually be a very stupid man.Report

  2. North says:

    Agreed Will. By my reading Obama’s moves on this issue amount (in substantive policy terms) to speaking softly but keeping our big stick. Not a bad position to take to my eyes.Report

  3. Jaybird says:

    I think that Giuliani represents part of Bush’s legacy.

    In 2006, the Republican Party was in shambles. The Hawks and the Socons and the Fiscons all hated each other and the various nominees represented that.

    You had Mike Huckabee as Bush III. Socially Conservative, Fiscally Compassionate, sure whatever on the Hawk issue. Fiscal Conservatives *HATED* him. He, of course, won in Iowa.

    You had Mitt Romney as the Governor of Massachusetts who was back to being Socially Conservative after being Socially Moderate, Fiscally Conservative after being Fiscally Moderate, and Hawkishly Conservative after being Hawkishly Moderate. Everybody hated him for being lukewarm.

    Giuliani was The Only Person Who Could Beat Hillary. Socially Liberal (see! We like gay marriage too! And abortion!), Fiscally Conservative! Tough on Crime! Hawkish as Hell! 9/11!!! America’s Mayor! The social conservatives would vote for Hillary before they’d vote for an adulterer who supports abortion.

    (And, of course, Ron Paul. Fiscally Conservative. Socially Conservative. And Hawkishly Paleoconservative… which, of course, meant that we should read the newsletters, and do you really want to vote for a racist, and he’s a gold bug, and he’s a truther, and so on and so forth.)

    Giuliani is a historical artifact from being a guy who happened to be in office at the time of a huge attack on US soil and who, in the weeks that followed, did not screw up spectacularly and who was presumably going to fight against Hillary Clinton (but that battle had to be called off for various and sundry reasons) and who benefited from the enormous vacuum left by Dubya’s cratered Compassionate Conservativism.

    Hillary is no longer a threat and 9/11 is more likely to make people think about Iraq than Afghanistan, let alone New York. Giuliani has nothing interesting to say anymore.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

      @Jaybird, got the timing wrong, sorry, was suspected of being able to beat Hillary *BEFORE* 9/11 but wasn’t able to demonstrate that one way or t’other. It was 9/11 and Hillary’s certain nomination in 2008 as the Democratic Standard Bearer that brought that never-happened-but-what-woulda fight back into the public eye.Report

    • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird says:

      Giuliani is a historical artifact from being a guy who happened to be in office at the time of a huge attack on US soil and who, in the weeks that followed, did not screw up spectacularly

      He’d gotten the spectacular screwing up (the placement of the emergency command center in a location that had already been a target once) out of the way early.Report

      • Barry in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        @Mike Schilling, and in addition (IIRC), he diverted some anti-terrorist funding for bettern inter-department communication equipment to other purposes. This meant that the police and fire dept couldn’t talk to each other easily, which slowed the evacuation of emergency people, which got a bunch of them killed. However, those bodies were mingled with the rest, so it was all good for Rudy.Report

  4. Scott says:

    I disagree. The difference between ambiguity and certainty in knowing what type of attack on the US would trigger a nuclear repose could be the very thing that leads a power to attack us.Report

  5. In theory, Scott has a fair point: why eliminate the ambiguity if ambiguity might add to the deterrent effect of the arsenal? But that isn’t a real problem here. Scott refers to “a power,” but the only powers that are both capable of and interested in attacking the U.S., our forces or our allies with these or any other weapons are already excluded. Nuclear-weapons states are automatically excluded, and non-NPT states are likewise excluded. Signatories that are not in compliance are excluded. Look at the list of NPT signatories, almost all of which are in compliance with the treaty, and find me one state that could and would launch such an attack. Are we living in dread of impending Indonesian aggression? Do we need the threat of nuclear retaliation to deter the Canadians from launching a sneak attack on Detroit? I don’t think so.Report