<p>I guess that would be refreshing to some. Most of the rest of us are regularly listening to the opinions of honorable men and women.</p>
<p>A good analysis from Dick Morris:
I’ve thought for a long time that folks who say that Giuliani can’t get the Republican primary nod are out of the loop. <a href=“IT’S NOW A RUDY ROMP”>IT’S NOW A RUDY ROMP;
<p>This is the story that Rudy will be telling when he runs, and it is a very compelling one: <a href=“http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_rudy_giuliani.html[/url]”>http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_rudy_giuliani.html</a></p>
<p>I also think that InterestedDad may be right that a little shock 'n awe is on the way. I always pay attention to Michael Barone:
It’s about time.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/turning_toward_iran.html[/url]”>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/turning_toward_iran.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dick Morris is just shopping for a horse to ride after this two years of pimping Condoleeza Rice came up empty.</p>
<p>Morris, of all people, should know that Hilliary Clinton’s people are going hang posters on every tree lining the Republican primary trail (and videos on every YouTube site) of Guilliani’s past abortion stance statements.</p>
<p>Frankly, after watching Rudy’s most recent speeches in New Hampshire, I don’t even think he wants to run.</p>
<p>Yeah, “shock and awe” worked out so well the last time Bush tried it. (I prefer the Democratic version in November, myself.) As for a Pax Americana, we did not win the Cold War just so that we could take the place of the Soviet Union. I prefer to work with allies rather than vassals. Not that we’re even having much luck with that in Iraq, making terrible & inept choices every time, choices rooted in arrogance and a profound misunderstanding of the political terrain.</p>
<p>“Morris, of all people, should know that Hilliary Clinton’s people are going hang posters on every tree lining the Republican primary trail (and videos on every YouTube site) of Guilliani’s past abortion stance statements.”</p>
<p>There’s much juicier stuff than that, like New York Post frontpages of Rudi and his sexual escapades. McCain has already hired the Swift Boat ad agency, and is licking his chops.</p>
<p>“The critics ignore the fact that Iran has been making war against us for 27 years.”</p>
<p>Brave new world…who has been making war on whom, up to and including the use of chemical weapons and the death of 500,000 people under its auspices?</p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>
<p>
Well, he talked about it, but didn’t actually try it…too bad, and a big mistake not to speak the only language they understand. The Pax Romana worked because the Romans understood the necessity of shock and awe. Pax Americana will work just fine as long as we speak the lingua franca–shock and awe. I think that’s what’s coming…if not, we should just leave.</p>
<p>Yeah, well, meanwhile the liars and cheaters and deceivers in the White House are doing their usual song-and-dance. In May 2003, they said all but 30,000 U.S. troops would be out of there at the end of 2003. Then, when that didn’t happen, they said the troop drawdown would begin with the appointment of a Provisional (puppet) Government. Well, that didn’t happen, but then they said after the successful and wonderful democratic elections (which of course wouldn’t bring pro-Iranian Shia politicians to power), we’d leave soon after. Now, they are saying, if all goes well (?!?!:eek:?!?), maybe in 2010. (and there are Dems saying pretty much the same thing.)</p>
<p>Why don’t they just tell the truth and say they have no intention of leaving?</p>
<p>Well, we had a Pax Americana as far as Iraq was concerned in 2002. It was stable and it was no threat to us. If Pax Americana implies an American empire (as opposed to a global charity), those are the only two things we ought to care about.</p>
<p>
If it was so stable and such a non-threat, why did the Senate under the Clinton administration vote unanimously for the Iraqi Freedom act calling for regime change (they to this day have not had such a resolution for N. Korea or Iran)? Why did Al Gore in 2002 call for a “final reckoning” with Iraq?</p>
<p>The Senate called for regime change in Iraq because Saddam was an evil dictator, and the Senate passes ineffectual legislation condemning all kinds of bad things all the time. It doesn’t mean that the bad things are threats to the fabric of America. That’s charity, not empire-building.</p>
<p>I can’t get inside Gore’s head, but my money says that he said that (1) to look tough and (2) because he thought that looking tough would help his misbegotten party. There was a big war bandwagon going on in 2002, and many people of all political stripes were jumping on it for all kinds of reasons, ranging from being honestly misled by their faith in the administration (Chuck Hagel) to cynically calculating that they’d get punished for not jumping on it (Hillary Clinton).</p>
<p>Say what you will about dictatorships, they’re remarkably stable while the dictator (and often his appointed successor) are alive.</p>
<p>“If it was so stable and such a non-threat, why did the Senate under the Clinton administration vote unanimously for the Iraqi Freedom act calling for regime change.”</p>
<p>Because the Clinton Administration had been so stung by the European charges of genocide and the murder of children, and so constrained into changing its behavior (that’s how Oil for Food got started) that it felt like it needed to justify itself. When your Secretary of State goes on international tv and says the killing of half a million children is “worth it”, you’ve got to get your ducks in a row. Genocidal governments do that.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11541[/url]”>http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11541</a>
</p>
<p>My prediction? This administration will give him what he wants.</p>
<p>I can’t believe that Republican Senators can enjoy these headlines:</p>
<p>Republicans Stall Debate On Troop Increase </p>
<hr>
<p>After the beating they took in November and with 21 of them up for re-election in 2008, I can’t imagine why the Senate Republicans want to keep carrying George Bush’s water.</p>
<p>Why not? Better than having to vote to support the Prez.</p>
<p>Oh, but I savor the turnabout, with Democrats serving up vote after vote that split the GOP caucus and place a number of Republicans between a rock and a hard spot in terms of voting record vs. upcoming elections. What goes around comes around, with compound interest. Even the ones that talk a good game fall into place when the votes are needed. This last November was only Act I. Unlike the Republicans the past six years, however, I am not enjoying the damage the U.S. is sustaining in accruing partisan gain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No kidding. And, with every vote comes a new AP headline, “Republicans block debate on Iraq policy”.</p>
<p>That’s more damaging than a Swift Boat attack.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…certainly would be; if such boat was piloted by the indomitable Lt. John (‘live to fight another day’) Kerry…reporting for (political) duty.</p>
<p>At least Kerry, whatever his shortcomings, DID go to Vietnam and face actual combat. Maybe he was a hero, maybe he wasn’t. But he certainly put his life on the line for his country far more than did the Daddy’s boy we call “president” these days. That snivveling coward couldn’t even behave himself in an honorable manner in the Texas National Guard. It continues to amaze me how some Republicans continue to mock and denigrate Kerry, while ignoring the fact that their macho, swaggering, war-mongering president never spent a minute in the combat zone. And don’t forget that this same “president” turned his slime machine on John McCain a few years back, and tried to make him look like an immoral, unfaithful slob. … I’m not a big political fan of McCain’s, but I at least try to respect his war record. It’s beneath contempt that some of you still insist on attacking Kerry.</p>
<p>Easier to attack Kerry (or to trot out Clinton and Monica) than to look at the facts on the ground.</p>
<p>We have a devastating civil war going on in Iraq, with as many as 100-150 people being blown up every day (and a handful of US troops, but we’re so numb to it, there’s not much reporting of those facts…just a few more troops…).</p>
<p>We have anew budget that is so insane I don’t know how even the “fiscally conservative” Republicans can support it. Howz about spending money on anything BUT defense, or war? Nah. Good thing Cheney’s Halliburton stock has risen in value over 3000%. He is sitting fat and happy! Let’s keep that war machine well oiled!!!</p>