Barack Obama says “Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low” because Giuliani made the following remarks about the war on terrorism:
If any Republican is elected president  and I think obviously I would be the best at this  we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it. …
[America will ultimately win the war on terror no matter which party wins the presidency.] But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have? If we are on defense, we will have more losses and it will go on longer.
I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense. We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense. …
The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.
Obama’s response? “America is united. We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure.”
Oh, good f***ing grief.
Okay, look. As I made clear on Monday, I don’t approve of attacking politicians’ patriotism or saying they “don’t support the troops” because of honest policy disagreements. But this is different. Will someone please point me to where exactly Giuliani questioned anyone’s patriotism?
It seems to me, Giuliani is expressing an honest opinion about policy, not calling the Democrats unpatriotic or claiming they disagree with the war’s “shared purpose.” He’s talking about method, not purpose. He is simply saying that he believes Republican policies (and in particular, his policies) will keep us safer against terrorists than Democratic policies will. How is that objectionable? I mean, it might be wrong as a substantive matter, but how can the topic itself be off-limits for discussion?!?
Democrats routinely say that President Bush’s policies have “made America less safe.” Obama himself said it in the same breath that he was condemning Giuliani (”policies that have made us less secure”), and Hillary Clinton made a similar statement in her response to Rudy: “The plain truth is that this Administration has done too little to protect our ports, make our mass transit safer, and protect our cities. They have isolated us in the world and have let Al Qaeda regroup. The next President is going to be left with these problems and will have to do what it takes to make us safer.”
Whether or not these opinions are correct, they’re certainly legitimate ones, well within the realm of acceptable political discourse, right? Well, if Bush’s policies have made America unsafe, it follows logically that maintaining Bush’s policies will continue to make America unsafe. In other words, the Democrats are saying that electing a Republican will make America less safe. For the love all that is holy, HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT from a Republican arguing that electing a Democrat will make America less safe???
The Democrats have every right to argue that the Republicans have made America unsafe and vulnerable with their ineffective policies, whereas the Dems will adopt a new course that will make us safer and stronger. And the Republicans have every right to argue the contrary position. In fact, it is essential that we have precisely this argument! Both sides need to make the case to the American people, “we have the proper strategy for this war; we will keep you safe.” If we don’t have that discussion, how can the electorate possibly make an informed choice?
This reflexive tendency to play the victim card — “how dare you question our patriotism! how dare you call us weak! how dare you talk about things that involve ‘fear’!” — is one of the major things that has driven me away from the Democrats in recent years. As a rhetorical tactic, it’s dishonest and hypocritical. More importantly, it distracts us from a very, very important discussion about the future of our country and the direction of this war. It’s also a strategic disaster, because it muddies the waters and deadens the outrage when the Republicans commit real rhetorical sins, like claiming that honest statements of principled opposition to the “surge” are somehow unpatriotic or off-limits. The Democrats are the Party That Cried Wolf in this regard: they scream “patriotism!” or “politics of fear!” so often that people are less likely to pay attention when they have a real point, and thus the Republicans can actually get away with more. Obama’s reaction is Karl Rove’s wet dream. All the moreso because an awful lot of voters agree with Giuliani on this point, and the Democrats are never going to change their minds simply by saying, “How dare you think that!!!”
Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats need to wake up and realize they cannot declare their foreign policy ideas off-limits to criticism. These are legitimate questions Giuliani is driving at, and Obama & co. need to answer them, not disingenuously deflect them. If Obama thinks Giuliani is wrong to characterize the Dems’ position on Iraq as “waving the white flag,” he needs to explain why that’s wrong, and what exactly the Dems’ position is. If Obama thinks the elimination of the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance and so forth will be costless in the war on terror, he needs to explain why and how that can be the case. Or, if he acknowledges that there are costs, but he believes the benefits are worth the costs, he needs to explain that and to delineate the costs and benefits — in other words, he needs to justify his position. If Obama disagrees with Giuliani’s assertion that “the Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us,” then he needs to outline an anti-terror strategy which demonstrates that he does, in fact, understand the war’s nature and scope. Simply put, he needs to rebut the substance of Giuliani’s remarks, not simply accuse Giuliani of “playing the politics of fear” and “questioning his patriotism” when Giuliani is doing nothing of the sort.
UPDATE: It’s easy to see why the Irrational Far Left hates The New Republic with a passion only rivaled by their hatred for Joe Lieberman. TNR has writers who actually understand basic common-sense ideas like this one. Isaac Chotiner quotes Obama’s description of Bush’s “failed policies that have made us less secure” and writes:
It’s almost as if Obama is saying America would be safer without Republican policies!
Terrorism is an important issue, and politicians can and should be arguing about which/whose strategies will keep America more secure. Every time Republicans mention how much more they “get” terrorism than the Democrats, well, they may be wrong, but they are by no means out of bounds. Democrats have been saying for a good four years now that Iraq has made America less safe. This is the debate we should be having.
Exactly. And I literally don’t understand how anyone can not understand that. Well, any sane, rational, reasonably intelligent person, at least. There’s a reason I use so many question marks in my post above — I am utterly incredulous that anyone with any pretention to logical faculties could possibly think Obama is right about this.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:27:32 pm
I like Obama, too. Remarks like this make me think he might not be ready for prime time; then again, perhaps remarks like this unforunately mean he is ready for (Democratic Party) prime time . . .
April 25th, 2007 at 5:36:04 pm
It seems that a bit of momentum has been gathering for a third party candidate that offers something like:
hard on immigration
cut spending way back
hard on terror
libertarian on social issues (both abortion and guns)
At this point there is not fiscally responsible candidate, nor is there a candidate who will even approach the immigration brouhaha.
Except abortion, the above stances fit roughly what “conservative” really means. Republicans currently do not offer anything close.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:47:51 pm
If any Republican is elected president — and I think obviously I would be the best at this — we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it. …
Me Republican! Me make big war on other tribe! (beats chest triumphantly.)
[America will ultimately win the war on terror no matter which party wins the presidency.] But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have? If we are on defense, we will have more losses and it will go on longer.
Really? Staying indefinitely means…what? That there will be fewer losses?
I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense. We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense. …
The white flag on Iraq, eh? This is where Obama probably got ticked. It could be reworded, “Democrats just want America to lose.” It’s obnoxious and is questioning patriotism.
The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.
The Republicans do not understand that legitimacy in the world’s eyes will determine the level of sympathy and cooperation we get when prosecuting the War on Terror. They all want to be Jack Bauer and single-handedly shoot/punch/torture their way to victory.
Guiliani doesn’t know jack about war. Since he’s old now and did his best to avoid service when he was young, I suggest he read Clausewitz’ On War and try to figure out whether defense or offense is the stronger form of war, and whether [true] multilateralism is better than unilateralism. (Remember, Clausewitz watched Napoleon’s empire crumble under the weight of a European coalition.)
April 25th, 2007 at 5:49:09 pm
Brendan, I understand your frustration. But give it up. Stop expecting intellectual honesty or consistency from the Democrats or their willing accomplices in the media. You actually expected Obama to say something else?
April 25th, 2007 at 6:13:00 pm
Briandot writes:
“I suggest he read Clausewitz’ On War and try to figure out whether defense or offense is the stronger form of war, and whether [true] multilateralism is better than unilateralism.”
Ah yes, how refreshing. Strategizing our response to terrorism based on the writings of a Napoleonic officer. Briandot is simply BRILLIANT!
I used to think we needed to look for new approaches to counter unprecdented threats, but Briandot’s right…let’s just employ whatever strategy worked to defeat Napoleon. We should begin with more infantry squares and taller, fluffier hats.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:18:10 pm
“Waving the white flag” does NOT mean the same thing as “wanting to lose.” The “white flag” implies surrender, not agreement with the enemy. Did the Germans “want to lose” when they waved the white flag of surrender in World War II?
To say that Dems are “waving the white flag” is to say that they believe we are inevitably going to lose, or have already lost, and therefore want to give up the fight (i.e., surrender). Which, as far as I can tell, is precisely what Democrats believe. (Didn’t Harry Reid just say the “war is lost”?) So what’s the problem again with Giuliani’s statement, other than that he’s calling it like he sees it?
The rest of what you said (aside from the chest-beating thing, which I’m ignoring because it’s just stupid and pointless) is simply substantive disagreement with Giuliani’s argument, which is fine and dandy, but it doesn’t justify suggesting that the argument is somehow off-limits. The points that you’re making are the points Obama should be making, instead of whining that the big mean Republicans are criticizing the Democrats’ policies.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:19:28 pm
I am definitely on board with the “taller, fluffier hats” idea. I will vote for whichever candidate includes that as part of his strategy.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:22:03 pm
Ah yes, how refreshing. Strategizing our response to terrorism based on the writings of a Napoleonic officer. Briandot is simply BRILLIANT!
I used to think we needed to look for new approaches to counter unprecdented threats, but Briandot’s right…let’s just employ whatever strategy worked to defeat Napoleon. We should begin with more infantry squares and taller, fluffier hats
ROFLMAO!!!!
April 25th, 2007 at 6:22:27 pm
The New Republic states the obvious (well, to some anyway):
So, as far as I can tell, Obama has some sort of problem with Giuliani arguing that Republican policies will keep America safer. And what was the end of that last sentence from the Illinois senator?
It’s almost as if Obama is saying America would be safer without Republican policies!
Terrorism is an important issue, and politicians can and should be arguing about which/whose strategies will keep America more secure. Every time Republicans mention how much more they “get” terrorism than the Democrats, well, they may be wrong, but they are by no means out of bounds. Democrats have been saying for a good four years now that Iraq has made America less safe. This is the debate we should be having.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:25:36 pm
Briandot - just what is Clausewitz’ take on terrorism ?
“(Remember, Clausewitz watched Napoleon’s empire crumble under the weight of a European coalition.)” - interesting - and here a lot of us are more convinced that a major factor leading to the defeat of Napoleon was Napoleon’s stupidity (stubbornness?) in throwing away a very significant part of an entire French generation of men in his Russian campaign …
Brendan - you are being rational again, and Soros and MoveOn are going to confiscate your Dem white surrender flag if you keep doing that !
April 25th, 2007 at 6:26:39 pm
P.S. To be clear, of course I understand that Democrats would not want to willingly characterize their own position as “waving the white flag on Iraq,” any more than the Republicans would want to characterize their position as “staying indefinitely.” But just because something goes against your own spin, even to the extent that you might consider it “obnoxious,” doesn’t make it beyond-the-pale in terms of political discourse. Yet that’s exactly what Obama is trying to claim when he says Giuliani is playing the politics of fear, questioning the Dems’ patriotism, etc.
Also, again to be clear, it’s entirely possible that “waving the white flag on Iraq” is the right idea. If the Dems think so, they need to own that position and explain why they feel that way. If they think their position amounts to something other than “waving the white flag,” that’s fine too, but it’s not Giuliani’s job to divine the difference. It’s the Democrats’ job to explain it! It certainly isn’t self-evident.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:27:31 pm
A-f**ing-men to the New Republic. I’m glad I’m not the only sane person who sees that.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:29:53 pm
Brendan - a significant part of the problem with the Dems’ position is that the white flag they are waving IS the flag of surrender, and not the flag of a temporary truce to negotiate a settlement acceptable to all sides involved …
April 25th, 2007 at 6:31:28 pm
While I agree with you that Obama’s response was stupid, and that Giulianni’s comments were critical more of their strategy than their patriotism, i’d love to see you apply this same level of outrage and criticism to the Republicans who routinely DO question the patriotism of anyone who doesn’t support the Bush plan for Iraq. Not saying you haven’t occasionally acknowledged it, but i’ve yet to see a lengthy post like this one calling to task, say the vice-President for accusing Harry Reid of saying what he thinks will get him the most votes (yeah cause its not like he could actually believe like the rest of the world and most of this country that Iraq is FUBAR’d) despite the constant flag waving, with us or against us, USA USA USA, stance that his own administration has taken.
I recognize that you are not obligated by any means to give equal time to both sides, be equally critical of both sides, etc. But it seems here, and in other recent instances your outrage is disproportional to the crime, and that you do, yes give the right wing and right wing supporters a pass.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:33:07 pm
Huh?
April 25th, 2007 at 6:34:43 pm
David, did you not read my post the other day? Even though it’s linked in this post?
April 25th, 2007 at 6:36:26 pm
By the way, Harry Reid did explicitly say the other day that he expects the Dems to pick up Senate seats because of the war. It isn’t beyond-the-pale to accuse the Democrats of politicizing the war if you honestly think they’re doing so (any more than it’s beyond-the-pale to accuse the Republicans of politicizing the war if you honestly think they’re doing so).
April 25th, 2007 at 6:44:03 pm
By the way, in case anyone’s wondering what Joe Mama is talking about in his first comment, when he says “I like Obama, too” … I originally had a concluding paragraph saying, among other things, “I like Obama, but [blah blah blah].” I decided to delete that paragraph (actually, I called Becky from the post office and asked her to delete it - yes, I’m that dorky, but you all knw that) because, on reflection, I decided I didn’t like it as much as the rest of the post.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:17:21 pm
Guiliani doesn’t know jack about war. Since he’s old now and did his best to avoid service when he was young, I suggest he read Clausewitz’ On War and try to figure out whether defense or offense is the stronger form of war, and whether [true] multilateralism is better than unilateralism. (Remember, Clausewitz watched Napoleon’s empire crumble under the weight of a European coalition.)
I suggest reading Capt. Ed instead:
April 25th, 2007 at 7:18:48 pm
David M., I think you made a few typos. Surely you meant to write:
Brendan, I understand your frustration. But give it up. Stop expecting intellectual honesty or consistency from politicians or their willing accomplices in the media. You actually expected Obama to say something else?
You’re a smart guy, so I find it hard to believe that you really buy into this “liberal media conspiracy” idea or that Republicans are truly more “intellectually honest” than Democrats.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:52:23 pm
Brendan-
It’s objectionable because Guiliani is saying more people will die if Democrats have the Presidency.
Please point out to me where more Americans died from terrorism under Bill Clinton than George W. Bush. If Republicans are on the offense, where the fuck were they on 9/11?
Seems to me that the track record shows that Democrats are better prepared to take on new threats than are the Republicans.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:55:34 pm
Angrier, pay attention. I’ve already eviscerated your argument.
It’s objectionable because Guiliani is saying more people will die if Democrats have the Presidency.
And the Democrats are saying more people will die if the Republicans continue to have the Presidency. Or are you suggesting that “Bush’s policies have made us less safe” means something other than what it says?
The rest of your comment is — again — a substantive disagreement with Giuliani’s opinion, which is fine. That’s what Obama should be doing: substantively disagreeing, arguing against it, not hypocritically, disingenuously whining that the whole topic of discussion (i.e., which party will keep us safer) is somehow beyond the pale of rational discourse.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:00:45 pm
P.S. My whole point is that there is NOTHING WRONG with “saying more people will die if [one party or the other] [has] the Presidency.” How else can we have an honest discussion about the parties’ respective positions on the war on terrorism, unless we acknowledge that those positions might cause more (or less) people to die?
Full stop. Read that again. And actually THINK about it.
Your position — your stated position — is that it’s “objectionable” to say that “more people will die” if a particular party is in power.
By definition, that means one of two things:
1) You believe the two parties’ policies regarding terrorism are so identical that they won’t impact the number of people who die in the war on terrorism;
OR
2) You believe that we shouldn’t discuss the relative merits of the two parties’ policies regarding terrorism.
There is no other possible explanation for your position. (If you disagree, I encourage you to offer said explanation. Please do not just offer irrelevant distractions, randomly lash out at Bush, call me a right-winger, etc., and then ignore the substance of this issue. Please either defend your position or acknowledge that it’s indefensible. Thanks.)
Bottom line, the notion that it’s inherently “objectionable” to say that “more people will die” if a particular party is in power, is completely indefensible. There is absolutely no way you can logically argue that, without taking the war on terrorism completely off the table as a political issue.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:01:56 pm
Brendan-
I’m not saying Obama isn’t overplaying this “patriotism” thing. You were asking what was objectionable and I pointed it out.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:03:07 pm
Except it’s NOT objectionable.
At all.
See above.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:05:17 pm
By the way. Guiliani’s “criticism” might be more credible if based on facts. Where are the facts that back up Guiliani? Seems to me that Bin Laden cites the U.S. leaving Beirut after the Marine barracks bombing (Reagan) and U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia (Bush 1) as motivating factors for 9/11 more than anything he has cited for Clinton or Carter.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:06:41 pm
It is objectionable because it isn’t based on FACT. Please point out how Guiliani’s comments are supported by the facts?
April 25th, 2007 at 8:06:42 pm
I’m not saying Obama isn’t overplaying this “patriotism†thing.
That’s such a cop-out. He’s not “overplaying” it. He is disingenuously, hypocritically, indefensibly inventing a NON-ISSUE. Giuliani did not attack his patriotism. AT ALL. He simply made legitimate (even if completely wrong) points about an important political issue, and Obama, instead of actually responding, is just whining about how nasty the big, mean Republicans are… even though they aren’t being nasty at all in this particular instance.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:07:18 pm
Guys…
American Idol is on…shhhhhh.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:08:57 pm
It is objectionable because it isn’t based on FACT. Please point out how Guiliani’s comments are supported by the facts?
Holy fucking shit, you are so fucking obtuse, I would honestly be screaming at you if you were sitting in front of me right now. And I’m a pretty peaceful person normally.
Giuliani’s position is based on the OPINION that eliminating the Patriot Act, getting rid of surveillance programs, withdrawing our troops from Iraq in a way that might suggest weakness to our enemies, etc., will harm us in the war on terrorism. Can those opinions be factually proven? No, because they aren’t facts, they’re opinions. Are politicians not allowed to express opinions? You are free to disagree vehemently with Rudy’s opinions, but they are legitimate opinions, not inherently irrational or ridicuous. They are CERTAINLY well within the realm of political discourse.
Take off your fucking ideological blinders and rejoin the real world, you goddamned idiot.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:11:29 pm
He is “overplaying” it. Guiliani didn’t use the words “patriotism,” but questioning someones dedication to the defense of the nation comes pretty damn close.
There are a million different ways Guiliani could have criticized the Democrats without resorting to empty Rovian rhetoric. But he did.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:13:29 pm
Brendan-
YOU rejoin the world. The world is seeing this war from Obama’s standpoint, not Guiliani’s.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:16:01 pm
“Take off your fucking ideological blinders and rejoin the real world, you goddamned idiot.”
Nice example of “political discourse.”
April 25th, 2007 at 8:16:22 pm
Giuliani did not question anyone’s “dedication to the defense of the nation.” He questioned the STRATEGY. He said the Democrats, if elected, will surrender in Iraq, get rid of the Patriot Act, get rid of the surveillance programs, etc., and generally go from an “offensive” to a “defensive” strategy. He did not, to use Obama’s phraseology, question the Democrat’s commitment to the “purpose.” He questioned their methods. He questioned their understanding of the threat. He never, ever, ever suggested they aren’t equally committed to winning the war. He just doesn’t think they’re well-equipped to do that.
He may be wrong, but if Obama thinks so, he needs to say so, and say why. He can’t just whine that no one should express such an opinion. Rudy’s opinions are no more beyond-the-pale than the Democrats’ statements that Bush is making us less safe. It’s the same damn thing. Both parties are saying the other party’s strategy is wrong.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:20:07 pm
Nice example of “political discourse.â€
Nice example of changing the subject, just like I said you would. Am I being rude and vulgar and uncouth? Yes. So what? I’m still right, and you’re still wrong. And your over-the-top obtuseness is seriously pissing me off. I make no apologies for that.
The world is seeing this war from Obama’s standpoint, not Guiliani’s.
Jesus H. Christ. I am not expressing an opinion about the substance of the issue. I AM NOT ENDORSING ANYONE’S “STANDPOINT.” I am saying that Giuliani’s standpoint — even if completely wrong — is a legitimate, valid standpoint that cannot simply be silenced because it’s “the politics of fear.”
If Giuliani is wrong — and I’m not saying he isn’t — the Democrats needs to focus on convincing the public that he wrong, not whining that he’s questioning their patriotism by criticizing their policies.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:21:43 pm
The whole point of your post was political discourse. How is that changing the subject.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:23:03 pm
Can we please return to the key point in this debate? The substantive point that you are ignoring, because there is no possible way you can defend your position, because it’s self-evidently wrong? I repeat:
Telling me that I’m being rude, or that Obama’s substantive position is right and Giuliani’s is wrong, or that the majority of the American people agrees with Obama’s substantive position, does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to refute the above.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:24:08 pm
Guiliani - Democrats are going to get us killed (political discourse)
Obama - I’m tired of Democrats being called unpatriotic (shrill)
Brendan - You’re a goddamned idiot with fucking ideological blinders (political discourse)
A&A - How is that political discourse (shrill)
I now understand how your mind works.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:25:11 pm
The whole point of your post was political discourse. How is that changing the subject.
I wasn’t saying that our political discourse is too rude or vulgar or uncouth. I was saying it’s ridiculous to remove the war on terror from our political discourse, i.e., the range of topics politicians feel at liberty to discuss. Totally difference meaning of the word “discourse.”
But congratulations on taking a term I used — “political discourse” — and applying it in a totally irrelevant context. Bully for you. Would you like a gold star? Here you go. Now, I eagerly await your defense of your actual position, if you ever bother to offer one.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:25:56 pm
I never accused anyone of being “shrill.” If you think this post was about shrillness, you completely missed the point. Again.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:27:17 pm
Brendan-
I’m asking Republicans to discuss the merits of both approaches. I’m saying, point out to me where the Democrats’ strategy failed under Clinton and where Republicans’ strategies succeeded under Bush? POINT IT OUT!
If Guiliani wants to have this discourse, fine. BACK IT UP WITH FACTS! That is what discourse is. Not throwing rhetorical grenades and then hiding behind “what I said wasn’t wrong.”
April 25th, 2007 at 8:29:09 pm
Adjectives and phrases that I used to describe Obama’s statement:
• disingenuous
• dishonest
• whiny
• hypocritical
• “a strategic disaster”
• a “reflexive tendency to play the victim card”
• “distracts us from a very, very important discussion about the future of our country and the direction of this war”
Never did I call it “shrill,” or use a synonym for “shrill.” Never did I say anything that makes it relevant for you to criticize me for being shrill (which, concededly, I am, but with good reason IMHO). So, yes, this is a distraction. I have an idea, how about you DEFEND YOUR POSITION.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:32:57 pm
1. The strategies are different. One involves the erosion of Americans’ civil rights, the other doesn’t. There is no way to assess which one will or won’t result in the death of more Americans. Period. To say that you can measure such a thing is misleading and false.
2. There is no problem with discussing the merits. Back up your argument with FACTS. Show me examples. Otherwise, stop the rhetorical bullshit.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:34:31 pm
There are no “facts” regarding a post-9/11 world without the Patriot Act, terrorist surveillance. There are no “facts” regarding what will happen after we withdraw from Iraq. There is only opinion and conjecture. There can only be opinion and conjecture.
Numerous Republicans and conservative commentators have gone into an enormous amount of detail about why they think the Democrats’ policies would be a disaster for the war on terror. Just because you reflexively reject their commentary out of hand because you are congenitally unable to step outside of your ideological bubble, doesn’t mean the commentary hasn’t occurred.
That said, am I correct in understanding that you are withdrawing your previously stated opinion that it’s “objectionable†to say that “more people will die†if a particular party is in power… and replacing it with a new opinion that it’s “objectionable†to say that “more people will die†if a particular party is in power if you don’t provide a sufficiently fleshed-out argument to back it up?
April 25th, 2007 at 8:36:04 pm
As a Democrat and supporter of Obama, I agree whole-heartedly with what Brendan has been saying it. As an objective, outside observer - it is painfully easy to see that “Angrier” is missing the point, entirely.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:38:18 pm
Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. Hold the phones. Wow. Holy crap.
Did you really just say both of these things in the same comment?
1) “There is no problem with discussing the merits. Back up your argument with FACTS.”
2) “There is no way to assess which one will or won’t result in the death of more Americans. Period. To say that you can measure such a thing is misleading and false.”
Sooo… according to you, Giuliani must back up his argument with FACTS… but, according to you, NO RELEVANT FACTS CAN POSSIBLY EXIST.
So, Giuliani, and all other politicians, are not allowed to discuss which party has a better anti-terror strategy!!!
They are, however, allowed to discuss the “liberty” side of the “security-liberty” continuum. But the “security” side is beyond the pale, because no facts can possibly exist to inform the discussion.
Brilliant!!!!
(I notice you don’t seem to mind the Democrats saying Bush has “made us less safe,” though. I guess the statement “there is no way to assess which one will or won’t result in the death of more Americans” doesn’t apply to them, only to the Republicans.)
Well, at least now I understand your position. And wow, what a steaming pile of shit it is!
I think my work here is done. Back to hockey.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:38:29 pm
• disingenuous (Obama could be sincere, yet wrong)
• dishonest (Obama could be honestly wrong)
• whiny (I’ll give you that)
• hypocritical (How? Did Obama call Guiliani unpatriotic?)
• “a strategic disaster†(Not in terms of the people Obama needs to win over)
• a “reflexive tendency to play the victim card†(That is bordering on Imus country)
• “distracts us from a very, very important discussion about the future of our country and the direction of this war†(If the discussion is “who will kill more of us” instead of “how do we resolve the problem in Iraq,” I don’t see how.)
April 25th, 2007 at 8:40:50 pm
No, Brendan. Don’t make a statement - in the first place - that you can’t back up with facts. Hope you understand that, going into law and all.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:41:52 pm
WOOHOO!! Sabres score again!!
Anyway, I already explained how all my adjectives apply; I’m not going to repeat myself. In fact, I’m going to close my computer and let my blood pressure drop. As I said, I think my work here is done. Others can take over from here, if they want. As I said, I think my work here is done.
Oh, and thanks, Interested Observer. I appreciate it.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:42:02 pm
In other words, you can argue the merits of the strategy. Don’t argue the merits of the strategy on an outcome YOU CAN’T POSSIBLY ANTICIPATE.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:43:49 pm
Joe Mama? Is that you?
April 25th, 2007 at 8:45:25 pm
I just hope Brendan feels as self-satisfied when he loses that first legal case.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:45:56 pm
Heh. Color me sorely amused at this whole exchange.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:02:41 pm
To “thebeef”:
Ah yes, how refreshing. Strategizing our response to terrorism based on the writings of a Napoleonic officer. Briandot is simply BRILLIANT!
I used to think we needed to look for new approaches to counter unprecdented threats, but Briandot’s right…let’s just employ whatever strategy worked to defeat Napoleon. We should begin with more infantry squares and taller, fluffier hats.
You woefully uneducated idiot. First, Clausewitz was Prussian, and not a Napoleonic officer. Second, I did not say “tactics”; we’re not going to line up in firing lines any more than we’re going to form phalanxes and carry pikes, marching on a field. I said “strategy”, and by that I mostly mean avoiding high level strategic mistakes, like misunderstanding the enemy and being trapped in asymmetric warfare; occupying nearly empty cities only to have the remaining population commit sabotage against your force (like Napoleon in Moscow); overcommitting the military to too large and hostile an area (whether it be the entirety of Europe, or multiple Mid East states each the size of France); realizing that it is difficult, perhaps nearly impossible, for an offensive force to permanently occupy a hostile area where the population itself is engaged (Clausewitz’ concepts of “total war” and the strength of defensive warfare); or not comprehending that “war is an extension of politics by other means” implies that there must be a clearly defined political endpoint for a campaign to be successful, and not just general mayhem continued indefinitely.
Napoleon’s march to Moscow was the best armed and most carefully planned (logistically) operation he ever carried out, before or after 1812. Yet he was denied a victory by an uncooperative Russian populace that did not surrender even when tactically defeated, and therefore denied Napoleon the political objective he needed.
To Alasdair:
Briandot - just what is Clausewitz’ take on terrorism ?
In the context of the early 19th century — his particular period — the term would only be used in reference to the 1793 Rein of Terror. His “take” on it in that sense would probably be to have the perpetrators rounded up by the local constable and shot. (A law enforcement solution, one might say.)
But I believe he would probably approach it more as guerrilla warfare (not a contemporary term, but nonetheless conceptually addressed as “a people’s war” in Book 6 of On War) enhanced by “moral forces” (sometimes modernly referred to as nonmaterial force multipliers) and overwhelming numerical superiority (the entirety of the population?). His chapter “Arming the Nation” shows that he was concerned about how to fight it. An older (worse) translation is available here.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:43:46 pm
Brendan, I don’t think you’re being entirely fair to Obama. Giuliani threw a punch in the media. You expect Obama to respond by outlining his policy? Come on, you know that doesn’t win in politics.
The reporters are sitting there waiting for Obama’s response. If his response takes ten minutes, they aren’t going to print it. They may even fall asleep. It’s not going to get printed.
Any response in the media has to be short and sweet. Unless its a phrase, it’s going to get buried (or worse).
And I literally don’t understand how anyone can not understand that. Well, any sane, rational, reasonably intelligent person, at least. There’s a reason I use so many question marks in my post above — I am utterly incredulous that anyone with any pretention to logical faculties could possibly think Obama is right about this.
Literally. Sane. Rational. Reasonablyintelligent. Utterly incredulous. Pretention. Logical faculties. Possibly.
Well, I guess you are left with two conclusions:
(1) The left lacks all those things
(2) You need to calm down and reevaluate
April 25th, 2007 at 11:17:26 pm
The reporters are sitting there waiting for Obama’s response. If his response takes ten minutes, they aren’t going to print it. They may even fall asleep. It’s not going to get printed.
Well, perhaps Obama needs to come up with a short, pithy, sound-bite-worthy response that isn’t complete bullshit. In fact, that would be an excellent idea; it’s something the Democrats deperately need. They are never going to win over a majority of voters in a presidential election unless they can overcome the widely held belief that “the Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.” Presumably, if their response to Giuliani is, “How dare you say that about us?”, then their response to the millions of voters who feel the same way will be, “How dare you think that about us?” Needless to say, that’s not a very good argument, or a very good strategy. They need an actual rebuttal. And yes, it needs to be media-friendly.
In other words, you’re right that a response to the media needs to be “short and sweet.” You’re wrong that the “short and sweet” requirement somehow justifies giving responses that completely miss the point, change the subject, and try to place the war on terror off-limits.
You need to calm down and reevaluate
Why doesn’t someone “calmly” evaluate my logical argument for why Obama’s statement is unjustifiable and wrong and logically refute it? I personally believe it is quite unassailable, but I would love to see someone actually make a decent effort. My suspicion is that any rebuttal will inevitably fall into the trap that everyone else has so far, namely of arguing why the substance of Giuliani’s position is substantively wrong, which is a separate issue from whether it’s a viewpoint that’s totally beyond the pale of political discourse. I really don’t think it’s possible to seriously defend the position that what Giuliani said is beyond the pale of political discourse, which was the whole point of Obama’s response.
Look, did I use a bit of hyperbole? Sure. When I said “any sane, rational, reasonable intelligent person,” I technically should have said “any person who is acting in accordance with sanity, rationality, and a reasonable degree of intelligence.” In other words, the conclusion to draw from my statement isn’t that “[many people on] the left lack[] all those things” entirely, but that many people on the left lose sight of sanity, rationality and intelligence with regard to this particular issue. And I think that’s completely accurate.
But I continue to await some sort of actual, legitimate attempt to prove me wrong. That is, to prove how it’s not just incorrect, but beyond-the-pale for Republicans to say that Democrats’ policies will make America less safe (but not for Democrats to say that Republicans’ policies will make America less safe, of course). Until that happens, I stand by what I’ve said (with perhaps a mild dose of regret for how heated I got… but at the same time, ugh, c’mon, Angrier deserved it).
April 25th, 2007 at 11:26:01 pm
P.S. I do find it terribly amusing that Angrier thinks I “lost” that argument. Heh. Yes, my opponent in the argument wound up advocating a pair of propositions which lead inevitably to the conclusion that the entire question of which party would do a better job securing us against terrorists — probably the single most fundamental issue to much of the electorate — is entirely off-limits and should not be debated at all… but I lost the argument. Uh-huh.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:29:08 pm
Joe Mama? Is that you?
Sorry, A&A. I can understand why you might think it was me who was giving you this rhetorical bitch slap, but the credit indeed all goes to Brendan.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:33:21 pm
Joe Mama, I could be wrong, but I think Angrier’s “Joe Mama? Is that you?” comment was directed not at me, but at “Interested Observer,” who identified him/herself to be a “a Democrat and supporter of Obama” who nevertheless agreed with me and acknowledged that Angrier “is missing the point, entirely.” Clearly, Angrier didn’t want to grapple with the possibility that someone who isn’t a right-winger (which he of course believes I am, even though I’m not, but that’s a separate issue) could fail to see the inherent brilliance of his logical argumentation (heh), so he decided to accuse you of sockpuppetry instead. Very classy, that Angrier is.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:09:51 am
So, Brendan, when is Saint Joe going to say “Enough !” and fire Harry Reid ? (grin)
April 26th, 2007 at 12:12:31 am
woefully uneducated idiot?? Sorry Briandot, but that sounds a little reactionary and desperate. I think I’m going to have to give this round to me.
thebeef: 1
briandot: 0
PS: just out of curiousity…what pissed you off more: the fact that I made fun of tall fluffy hats, or the fact that you sound absolutely ridiculous basing your anti-terrorism strategy on the writings of a napoleonic-ERA (I won’t forget that word again, geeze!)officer?
My guess is that its the hats…you own a hat like that don’t you, and it just now dawned on you why you spend your nights alone reading early 19th century military theory? yes Brian, it’s the hat. Get rid of it. It’s never too late to get a life.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:16:38 am
Angrier,
What makes you believe, for one iota of a second, that your logical reasoning skills come even close to matching Brendan Loy’s? If logical reasoning was cool, Brendan Loy would be Miles Davis. Unfortunately, it’s not cool, which is why Brendan wears fanny-packs (sorry Brendan, I never had time to make fun of the earlier fanny-pack picture you posted)
April 26th, 2007 at 1:42:46 am
I didn’t read all the comments so I may be repeating what others have said or what was actually addressed in the body of this posting but WOW IS THIS ENTRY MISTITLED.
Giuliani basically said playing defense will cost us more lives than being on offense, and what he meant was defense equals Democrats and offense equals Republicans. He’s basically fear mongering. He’s threatening the American people with more death if they exercise their constitutionally protected right to vote for whomever they please.
That isn’t “criticizing Democratic policies.” That’s fear mongering, plain and simple.
Giuliani is an idiot. He committed a lot of errors both prior to and after 9/11. His approval ratings were at an all time low in 2000. He nominated Kerik to head Homeland security, a man who may be indicted for his mob ties. Giuliani told the White House that Kerik didn’t need to be vetted. Giuliani said the air was not dangerous after 9/11– which of course was wrong. He also said that the city of New York was not burying bodies in holes– and it turned out the city DID do exactly that.
But the Irrational Far Right will continue to see Rudy Giuliani as some kind of god-like hero because he was the mayor of the city that was attacked on 9/11, in spite of all his glaring mistakes in handling the pre-attack and post-attack duties.
Another brilliant posting for this blog.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:38:06 am
Anonymous writes:
“I didn’t read all the comments so I may be repeating what others have said or what was actually addressed in the body of this posting”
Truer words were never spoken. Yes, indeed, you did simply repeat all of the other comments THAT COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT OF BRENDAN’S POST.
Think about it: Obama said that the President’s policies in Iraq are “failed policies that have made us less secure.” Putting aside the accuracy of that statement, Obama is essentially saying: the American people are less safe because of Bush’s Iraq policy.
Now, that’s Obama’s opinion and he might very well be correct. But how in the world is that any less “fear-mongering” than Giuliani saying: the American people will be less safe if we follow the Democrats’ policies?
Both Obama and Giuliania are saying the exact same thing: the other guy’s policies make us less safe.
That’s not fear mongering, that’s debating the issues!!!
You are right about one thing though: it is in fact another one of Brendan’s brilliant posts
April 26th, 2007 at 6:34:38 am
“…it just now dawned on you why you spend your nights alone reading early 19th century military theory?”
Why should I read classic studies of war? Hmmm, because my graduate subject area is military history? Because Clausewitz is required reading for future officers at the war colleges? Because it’s cited in the counterinsurgency manual written by Petraeus? I dunno, seems that there are lots of reasons to read it.
If you spent half the time actually engaging the subject as you did trying to be funny, maybe you’d contribute to the topic. We can usually count on Brendan to be both engaging and witty. You, however, don’t seem too interested in the former, and not too good at the latter.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:24:35 am
As someone who grealy enjoys both thebeef’s and Briandot’s contributions to the blog, I would just like to point out that I disagree with Briandot’s assertion that thebeef is uninterested in being engaging and unable to be witty. That’s just silly.
Anyway, I simply echo what thebeef said in response to the Anonymous comment at 1:42am:
Exactly.
The idea that Giuliani said anything beyond-the-pale is simply not a defensible, principled position. It is an emotional reaction that has no basis in logic or reality. Period.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:29:31 am
P.S. re: “not a defensible, principled position” … if you don’t believe me, just read Angrier’s comments. He tried to defend it, and wound up backing himself into the position that politicians should never debate the merits of their anti-terror strategies (except in the area of “civil rights”), because it is impossible, due to an absence of “facts,” to have anything worthwhile to say about the likelihood that each side’s security strategy will succeed (i.e., save lives). Thus it’s okay to debate the “liberty” aspect of the liberty-security continuum, but not the “security” side. Talk about a one-sided debate!!
This position — that presidential candidates should not debate their respective strategies in the war on terror — is so absurd, its idiocy speaks for itself. And yet that is precisely the position that one MUST take in order to defend the contention that Giuliani said anything beyond-the-pale here.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:59:03 am
Giuliani didn’t just “debate.” He fear mongered the issue.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:06:28 am
No. He. Didn’t.
Not unless you believe it’s “fear mongering” to say that the country will be less safe if the Democrats are elected… in which case it’s necessarily also “fear mongering” to say that the country will be less safe if the Republicans are elected (which the Democrats routinely say)… in which case it’s entirely beyond-the-pale to argue over which party’s policy will keep the country more safe… which is absurd.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:18:45 am
P.S. Another point to consider:
Terrorism is scary.
The Republicans didn’t make terrorism scary. It’s not their fault terrorism is scary. It’s just the reality. Terrorism is inherently scary. Therefore, any time we candidly discuss the war on terror, it’s going to have the potential to cause “fear.” That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk candidly about it — or, more to the point, about the various proposed strategies for defeating it.
Should candidates deliberately cause unnecessary fear, above and beyond what’s necessary to make their point? No, of course not. If Giuliani had said, “If the Democrats are re-elected, there WILL be another 9/11, probably ten more 9/11s, and half of you in this room will probably die,” then yeah, THAT would be fear-mongering.
But Giuliani didn’t do that. His statement was a straightforward assertion of the commonly held viewpoint that Democrats’ proposed policies (eliminating the Patriot Act, ending various surveillance programs, surrendering in Iraq because “the war is lost,” etc.) would be disastrous, and suggest that they do not adequately understand the stakes/nature of the war on terror. Again, you certainly don’t have to agree with Giuliani on any of that, but you do have to acknowledge (if you’re being honest/rational/reasonable) that he has the right to say it; it’s not a facialy absurd, beyond-the-pale “fear-mongering” statement that questions the Democrats’ patriotism. It’s simply a harsh, but legitimate (even if wrong), critique of the Democrats’ policies.
Again, Giuliani might be wrong, as a substantive matter… but if you think Giuliani is substantively wrong, you need to actually rebut the substance of what he said, instead of simply saying “how dare he make that statement!”
April 26th, 2007 at 8:21:57 am
P.P.S. I feel like I’m repeating myself endlessly here. How about this. How about nobody else simply assert that I’m wrong. Assertion isn’t enough. If you think I’m wrong, MAKE AN ARGUMENT that refutes my logical analysis.
(Hint: I’m not wrong.)
April 26th, 2007 at 9:08:12 am
Yes. he. did.
Read the transcript of the speech.
He clearly connects Democrats with “playing defense” on terrorism. He connects “playing defense” with costing more lives.
It’s as simple as that. He said other things, too. But he clearly made the above connection.
Ergo he is claiming that Democrats are going to cost the USA more lives.
Read his whole speech again.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:11:56 am
he is claiming that Democrats are going to cost the USA more lives.
Yes. And that’s perfectly fine, for all the reasons I’ve already stated a thousand times. Jesus Christ, pay attention.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:18:04 am
The Democrats say the Republican strategy is too focused on “offense,” and thus will cost the USA more lives.
The Republicans say the Democratic strategy is too focused on “defense,” and thus will cost the USA more lives.
These. Are. Both. Legitimate. Positions.
Neither is “fear-mongering.” Neither questions anyone’s patriotism. Neither suggests that the other party doesn’t have the same “shared purpose” (i.e., winning the war on terror). Both focus on strategy, not purpose. Both presuppose that the other side wants to win the war, but simply has the wrong plan for doing so.
It is just un-fucking-believable and that we’re on comment #74 and you still somehow think that it disproves my argument to say that Giuliani “is claiming that Democrats are going to cost the USA more lives.” Of course he is! I’ve never denied that! In fact, I’ve already explicitly acknowledged it numerous times, and explained numerous times why it’s not beyond-the-pale for him to say that! It’s perfectly reasonable, indeed necessary for politicians to candidly discuss which party’s strategy they believe will “cost the USA more lives.” What more do you want me to say? Good grief! You people just don’t listen!
Here’s what I want you to say: tell me why I’m wrong that it’s an inherent, necessary aspect of the crucial national debate over the merits of the parties’ respective terrorism strategies to discuss whose strategy is likely to be more successful in preventing terrorist attacks (and thus, saving lives, as opposed to “costing” them).
April 26th, 2007 at 9:32:41 am
This thread got me thinking of what Bill Whittle said back in 2004:
April 26th, 2007 at 9:42:11 am
[Continuing my response to Anonymous @ 9:08:12 AM.]
I mean, my God. It is completely irrational to claim what you’ve claimed. You just said Giuliani is out of bounds because:
How can that possibly be out-of-bounds?? How can you believe that it is off-limits to say such a thing?? Are you an idiot??
How are we, as voters, supposed to make an informed choice about which party to support, if we aren’t allowed to discuss whether each party’s strategy in the terror war is too “defensive,” or “offensive,” or whatever? Or whether a “defense” or “offensive” strategy is more likely to succeed (i.e., cost fewer lives)?
We’re talking about the BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE at the core of the terror debate: whose strategy is better?
And a CRUCIAL PART of that fundamental debate (not the whole thing, but a huge part) is: whose strategy will prevent more attacks? whose strategy will cost fewer lives?
I want to have that debate. You don’t.
You want Giuliani and other Republicans to unilaterally disarm (rhetorically speaking) and say nothing that might suggest their more “offensive” strategy is better than the Democrats’ more “defensive” strategy. But of course, it’s perfectly okay for Andrew Sullivan to write this:
When Sullivan says the current Republican administration has, through its “almost pathological reliance on violence” and focus on “physical force alone,” been “partly responsible for the enemy’s success” and thus “made the United States far weaker than it was seven years ago,” wouldn’t you agree that he’s criticizing Bush for an overly offensive strategy? And wouldn’t you agree that he’s saying America is less safe because of that overly offensive strategy?
So WHAT THE HELL IS THE DIFFERENCE between one side saying “our party has the right strategy to keep you safe, the other party’s strategy is wrong and will make you less safe,” and the other side saying “no, our party has the right strategy to keep you safe, it’s their strategy that’s wrong and will make you less safe”?
I think Sullivan makes some good points, by the way. I’m not saying Giuliani’s right and Sullivan’s wrong. I’m just saying it’s wrong to suggest that either of them should shut up and stop “fear-mongering.” They both have legitimate arguments that need to be heard.
Ugh. I am just incredulous, and incredibly frustrated, at the total lack of reading comprehension (not to mention logic) in the responses to my comments here. Y’all are making this too easy. Please, someone, anyone, try to make an actual argument!
April 26th, 2007 at 11:25:46 am
A couple of things Brendan.
1) In one of your comments you said that “it is widely believed that Democrats do not understand the terrorist threat” or something to that effect. Why is that a widely held belief?? In fact go look at all the polls that ask the American people which party would better handle terrorism as an issue and tell me which party comes out on top. It is only a widely held belief among Fox News viewers and people who hang on Joe Lieberman’s every word. The American people have made clear who they trust more on the war and stupid Beltway journalists keep claiming “widely held beliefs”. They’re wrong!!
2) Giuliani said in his statement, “Republicans will try and stop terrorist attacks.” Inherently this contention means that Democrats will not try and stop terrorist attacks and they will just let people die. That seems to be beyond the pale for me, but maybe you feel its a policy argument. I do not. I don’t remember Obama or any D saying that George Bush didn’t care if people died in a terrorist attack, yet Giuliani says that Obama won’t even try to stop one. I don’t remember Obama saying he won’t stop attacks, so how can that be a policy that Giuliani is attacking?
April 26th, 2007 at 11:46:37 am
I don’t remember Obama or any D saying that George Bush didn’t care if people died in a terrorist attack, yet Giuliani says that Obama won’t even try to stop one.
Leading up to the 2004 election, then candidate Howard Dean (in)famously raised the issue of whether Bush was warned about 9/11 by the Saudis, which inherently presupposes that Bush did not try and stop the terrorist attack and just let people die.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:49:42 am
With regard to point 1: look, whatever. I said “widely held,” I didn’t say “held by a majority.” And regardless, this isn’t important to my point. Polls, especially the one in November 2004, have consistently shown that when it comes to presidential elections, a substantial portion of the public doesn’t entirely trust Democrats on this issue. They may not trust the Republicans anymore, either, but they still don’t trust the Democrats… and Rudy Giuliani isn’t George W. Bush, so it may not be enough that the current crop of Republicans has lost the public’s trust as well. But even if you’re right, whatever, that’s a side issue, it doesn’t disprove my point that there’s nothing wrong with Giuliani’s remarks.
With regard to point 2: Finally, an argument! :)
Okay, I can see how you might plausibly interpret — at least at first blush — that particular quote from Giuliani as implying that “Democrats will not try and stop terrorist attacks.” However, I disagree, and I think a more detailed analysis bears out my position (if you don’t go into it assuming the worst about Giuliani). In the context of his whole speech, as well as common sense, I think it’s clear that he was not implying Democrats “will not try” to stop attacks, just that he feels they will be less effective in their efforts because they will eliminate many of the tools (like the Patriot Act, terrorist surveillance, etc.) that Giuliani belives are essential to success.
Here is the whole quote you’re referring to:
First off, it’s pretty obvious Rudy was stumbling over his words a bit. That’s not exactly an eloquent sentence, is it? Given the overall structure of the sentence, and the fact that it was being delivered off-the-cuff (I believe), I think you’re reading way too much into Rudy’s exact word choice in saying that “we will…try to stop them.” You claim that phrase “inherently” means he was saying that Democrats won’t also “try.” I’d say that’s a major stretch. I think the far more plausible reading of what Giuliani was saying is that Republicans will do a better job of anticipating the terrorists’ moves and successfully stopping them… but then he fudged and said “try and stop them” because he obviously didn’t want to make a concrete promise that Republicans will always be successful in stopping them (which he cannot honestly do, nor can anyone).
In fact, Giuliani’s own phraseology — saying that the Democrats will go “on the defense” — contradicts you. Suggesting they will go “on the defense” means, by definition, that they will still be defending against something (namely, terrorism). The debate is over whether we should “remain on offense” or go “on the defense,” but in either case, we’re still trying to stop terrorism. The question is simply whether the best defense is a good offense. But his own words tacitly acknowledge that both sides still intend to fight. He’s not claiming the Democrats will surrender to terrorism (the “wave the white flag” comment is limited to Iraq specifically), he’s just saying they want to go on the defense, and he thinks that’s a bad idea.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:31:15 pm
I don’t believe this is an off-the-cuff remark and I believe it was exactly the point he was trying to convey. This is what Republicans do post-9/11. They say that people will die under Democrats and that Republicans will make them safe. The biggest problem is he doesn’t articulate why it is the D’s will play defense, or to use your language, why that is the D’s policy. When has Obama said that is strategy on terrorism is to play defense? Hillary?? Edwards?? Obama’s strategy is to hasten a withdrawal from Iraq in an effort to strengthen our position in other phases since he, and the clear majority of Americans, don’t believe our greatest fight is in Iraq, it’s against al-Qaeda type terrorists who can attack us at home.
And when Giuliani talks about waving the white flag in Iraq, he is most certainly talking about the war on terrorism b/c he constantly says that is where the war on terrorism is taking place. He constantly references Iraq as the front line of the war on terror. He cannot then say that he doesn’t think D’s want to surrender to terrorists if he thinks the front line is in Iraq.
My basic problem is that Giuliani isn’t referencing specific Democratic policies and then explaining why they will make us less safe. He uses false accusations to do so and it is not honest. He says D’s will play defense b/c they don’t like the Patriot Act. False, D’s don’t like the Patriot Act b/c it gave away many vital civil liberties, thus surrendering our way of life to terrorists. He says D’s want to wave the white flag of surrender in Iraq. False, (most) D’s believe that there is no military solution in Iraq (as does Gen Petraeus) and that our continued presence does nothing but encourage more terrorism and put a strain on our terrorist fighting capabilities in other places (Obama says this all the time, so there is a policy argument). He says D
’s don’t want electronic surveillance. False, D’s don’t want WARRANTLESS electronic surveillance. We already had FISA and I have yet to hear one argument that even attempts to explain why it was not sufficient.
If Giuliani was attacking D’s policies, he would have honestly addressed D’s criticisms of the president’s policies and then explained why they were wrong and why they would lead to a greater threat of terrorism or even more death. That I could live with. Here he just lists things that D’s disagree with and dishonestly infers that if you disagree with those things you do not want to go on offense against terrorists or actively disrupt their plans. That is fearmongering. Explain why the Patriot Act is necessary, even if we have to give up some civil liberties, to the fight against terrorism and that is a policy argument. I see no policy plan in Giuliani’s speech, unless you consider unending war in Iraq a policy.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:35:06 pm
And I will most certainly continue to assume the worst about Giuliani. This is a man who was living in the mayor’s mansion with his mistress before he had even been divorced. This is a man who claims that family is so important, yet runs for president and asks for family privacy even though he has a son that can’t stand him. If he cared so much about family, he wouldn’t be running in the first place. I don’t believe that Giuliani has earned the right for me to assume anything about him but the worst.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:12:44 pm
That’s an interesting position on Rudy’s comments. It made me think about why I got angry when I read what he said. It’s not so much that what he said was out of bounds (save for the “how many casualties?” part - that is straight up fear-mongering) as much as the fact that I flat out disagree with his assertion that the Republicans are somehow better on terror. Also, he’s quick to generalize the Dems when the different candidates may have vastly different ideas of how to proceed.
I’ve lost a lot of respect for the man in recent years, but like you said, (most of) what he said wasn’t out of bounds. It was just lame.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:17:18 pm
Wow. Look at Brendan kick ass, take names, and drop F-bombs. *sniff* . . . I’m so proud of you . . .
Brendan, your 11:49 AM comment, and in fact this entire thread, is rendered moot by this point Giuliani made:
For you people who are reading-challenged, this is a direct refutation of any and all “HE’S QUESTIONING OUR PATRIOTINESS!!!1″ arguments: he’s saying that a “defensive” strategy is still enough to win the war against terrorism, but it isn’t the fastest way.
Let’s try this another way: for 60 years now, there’s been a scholarly argument on whether or not the deployment of atomic bombs on Japan during World War II was warranted. One side claims they weren’t necessary; the other side believes that the alternative, an amphibious invasion, would have made the war far longer and far costlier for both America and Japan.
Now let’s suppose you believe the former, that the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary. I believe the latter. Does saying that the war would have been longer and costlier if we hadn’t used nukes question your patriotism? Am I saying that you didn’t really want the U.S. to win the war? Of course not.
Believe me, I’d love it if the Democrats were being unpatriotic. It would make the debate so much easier. But they’re not. I’d appreciate it if we could have an honest, open debate about this and a lot of other topics. But, evidently, we can’t.
That’s just an objective analysis, by the way. If you want my opinion, Obama’s reaction is a de facto admission that Rudy nailed it with his distillation of where the two parties stand on this issue. This is the Democrats’ weak point, and they have no defense for it. If they had, this would be a fine time to bring it up.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:45:39 pm
Indeed, when you don’t have facts or logic on your side, simply pound the table and cry foul.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:34:55 pm
Well Mike, wouldn’t it be nice if he accurately critiqued the D’s ideas??? Show me one place in his speech where he ACCURATELY portrayed a policy idea set forth by a D and then countered on WHY that was DEFENSIVE. Defensive is code word to you right wing nutjobs as surrender, which is ridiculous. He’s entitled to his opinions, but not his own facts as a New Yorker much (much, much, much, much) greater than Rudy Giuliani once said. Obama has not said he will go on the defense and not one of his positions is defensive. He wants to withdraw our resources from the clusterf*@k in Iraq to address more important areas in this fight. If you call extricating ourselves from the one great weakness in our fight against al-Qaeda type terrorists in order to strengthen our fight against real terrorists defensive, then I guess you’re entitled to your own fantasy land.
And also, isn’t the original drafting of the Patriot Act the most defensive way to fight terrorism you could come up with? Fight the people who are fighting against our view of freedom by giving up on our view of freedom??? What kind of logic is that? I guess the same kind that believes attacking a nation that was hated by the enemy that attacked us is a good way to fight the enemy that actually attacked us.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:09:14 pm
If you call extricating ourselves from the one great weakness in our fight against al-Qaeda type terrorists in order to strengthen our fight against real terrorists defensive, then I guess you’re entitled to your own fantasy land.
Well, if this report is accurate, you are the one living in fantasy land, cjs.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:14:02 pm
It appears that the “al Qaeda type terrorists” see Iraq as ground zero in the larger terror war, even if we don’t.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:23:37 pm
Good to see Joe Mama takes his marching orders from the Taliban’s high command. If we leave Iraq and start redoubling our efforts on their bases of operation in the Afghan mountains, then what will the terrorists do in Iraq??? Join in the Sunni v. Shia fight already going on?? It’s ground zero because they have US soldiers patrolling a civil war that are incredibly easy targets for them!! What is going on now in Iraq is not what our military does and there is NO military solution to the problem!!! Why don’t you address just one of my points on why Giuliani is a dishonest fearmonger due to his lies on D’s position in regard to fighting terror?
April 26th, 2007 at 4:38:21 pm
“P.P.S. I feel like I’m repeating myself endlessly here. How about this. How about nobody else simply assert that I’m wrong. Assertion isn’t enough. If you think I’m wrong, MAKE AN ARGUMENT that refutes my logical analysis.”
This attitude explains why people who used to disagree with Brendan - like Mouse and Jazz - don’t bother coming here anymore. Brendan only wants folks like Joe Mama who suck his balls and agree with everything he says.
You may think you are right, but you aren’t. You may think I was contradicting myself, but I wasn’t. If you can’t see that, you may not be as good as you think you are.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:46:13 pm
. . . and we’ve officially hit bottom.
Asking people to make an argument instead of empty-headed (and in your case contradictory) assertions isn’t looking for someone to “suck your balls,” as a study hall punk might put it, it’s a request for rational discourse. Don’t feel bad . . . it’s not for everybody.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:17:41 pm
I think the larger point that can be drawn from this conversation is that Joe Lieberman sucks.
April 26th, 2007 at 6:31:53 pm
You know, normally, this is the point in a debate where I step back, take a deep breath, apologize for being overly forceful and shrill in my previous argumentation, and find a logical point or two that I can concede.
Alas, here, there is absolutely nothing for me to concede. I’ve taken a deep breath, thought it over, and guess what? I’m still completely right.
To dispense with the irrelevancies first: it’s absurd to claim that I don’t tolerate dissent, that I only want people around who agree me (or “suck my balls”). Just absolutely, facially absurd. Any fair-minded who reads this blog regularly knows that. The only people who ever accuse me of “not tolerating dissent” are people who have been called on the carpet for totally illogical arguments, which is precisely what’s happened here, Angrier. Bottom line, the problem isn’t me, it’s you. So, I don’t have anything else to say about that point; my track record speaks for itself.
The reason I don’t do too well tolerating your dissent in particular, Angrier, is because you are an ignorant, irrational boob when it comes to political debates like this. You have proven time and time again that you are completely unable to think outside your ideological box. You are also incapable of responding adequately when people thoroughly dismantle your logic and expose it in all its flawed glory. You consistently change the subject when that happens. And of course, I wouldn’t expect you to recognize any of that. But it heartens me to see that neutral observers, and even some of those who are on your side ideologically, can indeed see it. Those people are actually using their brains, which is always nice. Turning one’s brain to the “off” position when the debate turns to an issue that you feel passionately about is all too common, but it’s an unfortunate habit that should be avoided.
Now, to cjs’s comments.
I don’t believe this is an off-the-cuff remark and I believe it was exactly the point he was trying to convey. This is what Republicans do post-9/11. They say that people will die under Democrats and that Republicans will make them safe.
Yes. I’ve already acknowledged numerous times that they do this, and I’ve explained why it’s totally unobjectionable (even if one disagrees with it, which is fine). Democrats do the same thing: they say people will die under Republicans and that Democrats make them safe. Again, this is the debate we should be having. Nothing wrong with it.
The biggest problem is he doesn’t articulate why it is the D’s will play defense, or to use your language, why that is the D’s policy.
He cited several examples in his speech, particularly the Patriot Act and the terrorist surveillance program, as well as the withdrawal from Iraq. You don’t have to agree with him that these examples prove his point, but you can’t say he didn’t cite examples. If you’re complaining that he didn’t elaborate more, well, as someone on your side of this debate pointed out earlier, a political speech is not a position paper. If his speech contained ZERO substance, that would be different. But to say “he cites examples, but doesn’t explain them in more detail” is a bit silly. There is plenty of literature out there that goes into a great deal of detail about why Republicans/conservatives believe that the various Dem strategies Giuliani briefly mentioned would be disastrous. Just because Giuliani didn’t cite it in a single speech doesn’t mean there’s no substance to back up his words.
When has Obama said that [h]is strategy on terrorism is to play defense? Hillary?? Edwards??
When has Bush said that his strategy on terrorism is “an almost pathological reliance on violence” or “physical force alone,” as Andrew Sullivan said? Or that his strategy on Iraq is “unending war,” as you said? Of course Bush wouldn’t characterize his strategy that way, and of course Obama wouldn’t characterize his strategy as “playing defense.” But political candidates are not required to adopt their opponents’ chosen rhetorical spin. They’re allowed to characterize their opponents’ strategies in different terms than their opponents would. Giuliani believes that the Democrats’ strategies — repealing domestic measures like the Patriot Act and anti-terror surveillance, withdrawing from Iraq, etc. — amount to “playing defense.” He may be wrong, but he’s entitled to that opinion. It’s not facially ridiculous.
Obama’s strategy is to hasten a withdrawal from Iraq in an effort to strengthen our position in other phases since he, and the clear majority of Americans, don’t believe our greatest fight is in Iraq, it’s against al-Qaeda type terrorists who can attack us at home.
That’s your characterization of Obama’s strategy, and that’s fine, you’re entitled to it. Just like Giuliani is entitled to his. Giuliani woudl say that Obama’s strategy on Iraq, however well-intentioned, will in fact result in the terrorists seeing America as weak and vulnerable, and that it will also result in Iraq becoming a terrorist haven. Again, you may be right and Giuliani may be wrong, but he’s entitled to his opinion, and to express it. It isn’t beyond the pale for him to say such things. It certainly isn’t questioning anyone’s patriotism for him to say such things.
And when Giuliani talks about waving the white flag in Iraq, he is most certainly talking about the war on terrorism b/c he constantly says that is where the war on terrorism is taking place. He constantly references Iraq as the front line of the war on terror. He cannot then say that he doesn’t think D’s want to surrender to terrorists if he thinks the front line is in Iraq.
Nice try, but no. The debate we were having, the one you’re referencing, was whether Giuliani was saying that the Dems surrender to the terrorists in the sense that they “won’t try” to stop terror attacks domestically. Giuliani is indeed saying that the Dems want to surrender to the terrorists in Iraq, but that doesn’t mean he’s saying they won’t try to stop terror attacks. He is saying they have adopted a faulty strategy in regards to Iraq, incorrectly believing that surrender there is the best option with regard to the terror war generally. He’s — again — not criticizing their commitment to the terror war generally, and certainly not their commitment to stopping terrorist attacks in this country. He’s simply criticizing their strategic choice to advocate withdrawl from Iraq. Nothing wrong with that. And certainly not the same thing as saying they want to wave the white flag for the whole terror war.
My basic problem is that Giuliani isn’t referencing specific Democratic policies and then explaining why they will make us less safe.
See above; a political speech is not a position paper. But he does reference several policies, and the audience that he’s speaking to is already well aware of the arguments about why they will make us less safe. Just because you’re not aware of them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. That said, obviously during the course of an entire campaign, I would expect him to explain his positions and his critiques in more detail. But during the course of one speech? C’mon.
He uses false accusations to do so and it is not honest.
As I explain below, he’s not being “dishonest,” he’s just saying things you disagree with. To wit:
He says D’s will play defense b/c they don’t like the Patriot Act. False, D’s don’t like the Patriot Act b/c it gave away many vital civil liberties, thus surrendering our way of life to terrorists.
That’s YOUR opinion. Giuliani has a DIFFERENT one. You believe the Patirot Act is an overreaching assault on civil liberties; he believes it’s an essential tool against terrorists. Simple difference of opinion. You don’t get to tell him he can’t express his opinion just because you disagree with it (any more than he gets to do the reverse).
He says D’s want to wave the white flag of surrender in Iraq. False, (most) D’s believe that there is no military solution in Iraq (as does Gen Petraeus) and that our continued presence does nothing but encourage more terrorism and put a strain on our terrorist fighting capabilities in other places (Obama says this all the time, so there is a policy argument).
Again, this is an issue of how a position is characterized. The Democratic leader in the Senate is on record as saying “the war is lost,” and the Dems are calling for a withdrawal of troops ahead of the timetable that Petraeus and the military leadership wants. Of course the Dems aren’t going to call that “surrender,” but it isn’t facially unreasonable for the Republicans to do so. Last time I checked, “surrender” is admitting you lost and giving up. That may not be the correct characterization of the Dems’ position, but again, it isn’t a facially unreasonable one.
He says D’s don’t want electronic surveillance. False, D’s don’t want WARRANTLESS electronic surveillance. We already had FISA and I have yet to hear one argument that even attempts to explain why it was not sufficient.
Actually, he said Dems will “cut back on…electronic surveillance,” not that they “don’t want” it at all. Big difference.
If Giuliani was attacking D’s policies, he would have honestly addressed D’s criticisms of the president’s policies and then explained why they were wrong and why they would lead to a greater threat of terrorism or even more death. That I could live with. Here he just lists things that D’s disagree with and dishonestly infers that if you disagree with those things you do not want to go on offense against terrorists or actively disrupt their plans. That is fearmongering.
First of all, the word you’re looking for is “implies,” not “infers.” Secondly, he doesn’t say anything about whether the Dems “want to go on offense,” he is expressing his own opinion about whether their policies amount of “offense” or “defense.” Again, politicians are not required to accept their opponents’ characterizations of their policies. As for saying the Dems “do not want to…actively disrupt their plans,” we’ve already been over that. No way is Giuliani saying that. Ridiculous.
Explain why the Patriot Act is necessary, even if we have to give up some civil liberties, to the fight against terrorism and that is a policy argument.
Again, the arguments about the Patriot Act have already been made, and in a full-fledged campaign, I have no doubt Giuliani will make them in more detail. But we’re talking about a single speech here. It’s completely reasonable for him to, as you say, “list things that D’s disagree with” that he, and millions of other Americans, believe are crucial to the anti-terror effort. He needn’t re-explain an argument that’s been made a hundred times every single time he talks about it, any more than Obama needs to re-explain precisely why Bush’s policies have “made us less safe” every single time he says it.
I see no policy plan in Giuliani’s speech, unless you consider unending war in Iraq a policy.
Here you betray yourself, lapsing into substantive debates when the question is whether the speech is beyond-the-pale, not just whether it’s wrong. Also, “unending war in Iraq”? That’s just as much an unfriendly characterization of Giuliani’s position as “waving the white flag” or “going on defense” is an unfriendly characterization of the Dems’ position. But I guess it’s okay when you do it.
And I will most certainly continue to assume the worst about Giuliani. This is a man who was living in the mayor’s mansion with his mistress before he had even been divorced. This is a man who claims that family is so important, yet runs for president and asks for family privacy even though he has a son that can’t stand him. If he cared so much about family, he wouldn’t be running in the first place. I don’t believe that Giuliani has earned the right for me to assume anything about him but the worst.
Here, finally, we get to the point. Because of your personal distaste for Giuliani, you are willing to ignore logic and reason, and accuse him of saying things he didn’t say, implying things he didn’t imply, etc. Good for you, but don’t expect neutral, objective, fair-minded observers to take you seriously.
Finally, in resopnse to John P’s comment, I disagree that “the ‘how many casualties’ part - that is straight up fear-mongering.” Why? Why is it “fear-mongering” to talk candidly about the fact that if we don’t pursue a successful strategy against terrorism, people will die? Why should the Republicans pussy-foot around that undeniable reality? Democrats certainly don’t pussy-foot around the arguments that Bush’s failed policy in Iraq has cost thousands of lives, and, they fear, will cost many more if the same policies are allowed to continue. Is that “fear-mongering,” or is that honest debate that acknowledges the stakes of this issue?
That said, I appreciate the rest of what John P. said. His reaction is totally understandable to me: an initial burst of anger, which makes sense given that the Republicans do sometimes say things that are beyond-the-pale in this area, followed by a rational re-evaluation which results in the conclusion that “what he said wasn’t out of bounds. It was just lame.” That’s exactly how people on the left should be reacting: substantively disagreeing with Giuliani, but not condemning him for “fearmongering” or “questioning people’s patriotism” when he’s doing nothing of the sort.
But some people are unable to differentiate between “things I really, really disagree with on a substantive level very, very strongly” and “things that are completely beyond-the-pale of honest discourse and should never be said.” And that’s what’s really going on here, as the frequent invocation of substantive disagreement with the Giuliani position — as if that proves something about the matter at hand — shows. You guys disagree so strongly with Giuliani’s position, you can’t understand how any rational person could possibly agree with him, and that’s why you really think it’s beyond the pale: because you think it’s too wrong to be worth saying. The thing is, though, there is actually a very real, live, honest debate going on here, and just because you have a strong opinion doesn’t mean you can unilaterally shut down the debate by telling the other side they have no business saying what they believe.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:40:39 pm
“Here, finally, we get to the point. Because of your personal distaste for Giuliani, you are willing to ignore logic and reason, and accuse him of saying things he didn’t say, implying things he didn’t imply, etc. Good for you, but don’t expect neutral, objective, fair-minded observers to take you seriously.”
The pompousness of this passage can not be overstated. Brendan, you can make your arguments without being so damn condescending. The smarminess just seeps off the screen when you read it. Yes, I do not like Giuliani for many, many reasons. I added that addendum afterward independently of my response to you because I truly feel this is a man who deserves little to no respect due to his personal life. Pretty much the same way I feel about Bill Clinton, but I still feel that Giuliani’s personal life is 1000 times worse. (Which presents the irony in his place atop the Republican polls for a party that flogged Willy’s personal transgresstions) Did I ignore logic and reason or accuse him of saying things he didn’t say?? I don’t think so, but you’re entitled to your opinion. I interpret his comments as a sign to all people that Dems don’t want to fight terrorists period. Could my interpretation be wrong??? Sure, but I’m not going to use condescension to make my point.
I could do a full length response to your response(this could go on for a while), but I don’t have the time. I will make this final point. When Dems say Bush’s decisions make us less safe, they point out how Iraq diverts our attention against al-Qaeda and other groups that mean us harm and are far more capable of that goal than Saddam Hussein. In fact, Obama says this in damn near every speech he makes. They do not imply that he doesn’t care about fighting terrorists or protecting Americans from al-Qaeda or that he doesn’t think al-Qaeda is a real threat. Republicans say that anything the D’s do in opposition to Bush’s policies is because they don’t take the terrorist threat seriously. Giuliani’s entire speech pretty much says this, especially with the comment of “pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.” That statement basically says that D’s don’t even want to fight terrorists b/c that was the pre-9/11 thinking. As you’ve been saying the whole time Brendan, the Dems have a different view of how to attack al-Qaeda, yet this entire speech basically says they won’t fight at all, they’ll just “be defensive”. To me that “be defensive” crap is codeword for cower and appease and I feel its dishonest. That is how I interpret the speech. I think all of the Dems take the terrorist threat seriously(of course I could be wrong), and I also think the R’s do as well. I can just live without the constant implication that Dems do not think it’s a big deal, which is the way I read this speech, not having heard it. I’m sure you disagree and that is fine.
I wish you good luck this summer Brendan and maybe I will run into you at the Colorado bar exam. I hope if we are able to speak that our possible exchange in person will differ from the final passage that I cited earlier. I know you’ve written about a lot of people you really hated before and I didn’t reflexively dismiss your opinion on the subject. Just because I don’t like Giuliani, doesn’t mean anything I say is ridiculous.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:03:28 pm
The thing is, though, there is actually a very real, live, honest debate going on here, and just because you have a strong opinion doesn’t mean you can unilaterally shut down the debate by telling the other side they have no business saying what they believe.
The problem is, that’s been the only successful rhetorical strategy the lib Dems have had for years, so it’s not going to be easy for junior partisans on this site to give up the only way they know how to respond to real substantive debate.
Beyond that, I like where mike marchand is coming from, and I’ve otherwise been amused at various personalities’ attempts to assail Brendan’s virtually unassailable analysis here. Sometimes, Brendan, when you are as obviously right as you are in this post, ’tis better to just shout down the punks who argue with you for being dumbasses and then ignore them. Really — a hundred-comment thread debating so obvious a point isn’t worth it.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:31:20 am
cjs, remember what I said earlier about how “there is absolutely nothing for me to concede”? Well, it was inevitable: now there is. :) You’re right, I shouldn’t have impugned your motives so directly and overconfidently. Obviously, I don’t know what’s going on in your head, or why you think what you do. I’m not going to back off from my belief that your interpretation of Giuliani’s words is just wrong, but in that paragraph you quoted, I should have expressed myself in less absolute/arrogant terms, perhaps along the lines of, “Your disaste for Giuliani may help explain why you’re clinging to a viewpoint that isn’t borne out by an objective reading of what he said,” or something like that. The key word being “may,” because of course I don’t know. So, I apologize for going too far there.
I wish you good luck this summer too. :)
April 27th, 2007 at 1:25:01 am
“Alas, here, there is absolutely nothing for me to concede.”
The length of your pointless diatribe after this statement would argue the contrary. Apparently someone hit a nerve when they were “sucking your balls.”
Sorry, Brendan. You are still a child. You are just like a five year-old who says, “I’m right and you are wrong,” even though your arguments don’t hold water to begin with.
You had - and have - a false premise. Admit it.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:37:22 am
Angrier, how does my lengthy, point-by-point refutation of cjs’s comment indicate that I was “conceding” anything? That makes no sense at all.
As for the rest of your comment, give me a fucking break. Any objective observer can see that it’s your arguments that don’t hold water; that it’s you who has a false premise; that it’s you who is acting like a child here. I totally eviscerated you in this comment-thread. But I won’t ask you to “admit it,” because I know you won’t.
And now, I am officially done talking to you about this, because I don’t want us to become like David and Joe Mama, pointlessly insulting each other over and over and over again on the same thread. You think I’m an idiot; I think you’re an idiot. End of story, no point repeating ourselves. People reading this thread can judge for themselves.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:39:54 am
I never said you were an idiot.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:46:16 am
To remind you, this is what I said about Guiliani’s remarks…
1) “There is no problem with discussing the merits. Back up your argument with FACTS.â€
Guiliani’s argument was that more Americans would die if Democrats were in power instead of Republicans. Yet, Guiliani presented no facts to back up this claim. And, the facts that exist - Clinton’s record (the most recent) and Bush’s record (the most recent) - would tend to contradict that argument in the first place.
2) “There is no way to assess which one will or won’t result in the death of more Americans. Period. To say that you can measure such a thing is misleading and false.â€
That said, no one can predict what will happen in the future. So, it would be wrong - for either a Democrat or a Republican - to make such a claim.
Hence, Guiliani’s original claim is objectionable because - 1) There is no past record to back up his claim and 2) there is no way for him to predict the future.
I was not contradicting myself. To say otherwise would be ignorant or misleading.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:47:11 am
Nor, might I add, would you know if I “think” you are an idiot.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:47:51 am
Oh, cut the crap. If you met a 25-year-old law student who is “still a child” and “just like a five year-old,” wouldn’t you consider that person an “idiot”? Just because you didn’t use the word “idiot” doesn’t mean you weren’t calling me an idiot. My point is, we’re both insulting each other, and there’s no point in continuing it.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:50:25 am
Anyway, Andrew is right, this discussion has long outlived its natural life. I’ve made my point, about 800,000 times. I’ve also refuted your points, about 800,000 times. You haven’t bothered to respond to my refutations, you just assert that I’m wrong (and a “child”) and then repeat yourself. At least cjs made a decent argument. But you? Blah. Whatever. I am so done with this.
Really. :)
April 27th, 2007 at 1:52:16 am
So what you are saying is Obama is wrong for thinking Guiliani was calling Democrats unpatriotic, when Guiliani never said that, yet you are correct for assuming I meant you were an idiot, when I never said it?
April 27th, 2007 at 1:54:26 am
“800,000 times”
Hyperbole won’t work in a court of law.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:55:30 am
Brendan-
I have refuted your arguments. Your response was wrong. I know you think you are right, but you aren’t.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:59:46 am
By the way. This is the same Andrew who called your mom a liberal New York socialite, correct? How accurate was that?
April 27th, 2007 at 3:38:04 am
Hyperbole won’t work in a court of law.
Holy crap! When did the comments section of this blog become a court of law?!? I totally forgot to wear my judges robes today, if you had freakin told me this before hand i would have brought my gavel too!
April 27th, 2007 at 8:02:03 am
David-
I was referring to Brendan’s chosen profession.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:28:48 am
Dude, you got owned. Quit changing the subject to personal irrelevancies and just move on.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:35:13 pm
You gotta hand it to someone who regularly uses phrase such as “sucking his balls” lecturing on hyperbole, or insulting someone for being “just like a five year-old who says, ‘I’m right and you are wrong’” just before responding with “I know you think you are right, but you aren’t.”
Priceless.
On a slightly more enlightening note, John McWhorter has an excellent blog post on The Economist’s website talking about Obama and what his Presidency would mean (Hat tip: Instapundit):
April 27th, 2007 at 2:05:38 pm
I was referring to Brendan’s chosen profession.
OMG!?!? NO WAY!!! Seriously?? Holy crap how did i miss that!
In case you didn’t gather from my previous post, there is HEAVY sarcasm involved here.
But seriouly, your point was what? That because Brendan wants a career in law, everywhere he goes and everything he does he should act like he’s in a courtroom? Do you realize how stupid that is? Ok obviously not because if you did you wouldn’t have said it in the first place. This is an internet blog, and beyond that its the COMMENTS section of an internet blog. As i’ve said before in othe discussions when people bring up things like spelling to debate someone, this isn’t a doctoral thesis. I don’t know about you but i don’t put even a fraction of the same effort posting an opinion here as I would say a proposal at work. Among the many many stupid things you have said towards the end of this thread, the idea that because Brendan used hyperbole in a blog comment he is somehow going to behave in the exact same fashion at work is laughable at best. I mean come on, do you go get drunk at a bar and then go to work and get plastered to? Do you yell at your boss the same way you do umpires at a baseball game? It may shock you to discover it but people tailor their behavior to different situations.