Giuliani without a net

Salon’s Tim Grieve attended a Rudy Giuliani campaign event in Maryland yesterday and heard the candidate’s basic stump speech. Giuliani, apparently, was supposed to deliver a specific address, but he managed to accidentally show up without a copy of the remarks. He told the crowd that he’d have to “do it from the top of my head,” which he said is “always better and more interesting” anyway. I’m not sure if “better” is the word I’d use.

Grieve posted a fairly detailed transcript, particularly on Giuliani’s comments regarding foreign policy, but one portion stood out.

“[D]uring the Democratic debate, I couldn’t find one of them that ever mentioned the words ‘Islamic terrorist.’ None of them. In fact, at one point, one of them was asked, who are the biggest enemies of the United States? The biggest No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 enemies of the United States. Do you know [who] they listed as number one? North Korea.

“North Korea is an entity. North Korea is dangerous. I mean, I grant that, and, boy, we have to be really careful about North Korea and sometimes we do a real long foreign policy address on North Korea, which I’m happy to do. I’m writing an article for Foreign Affairs, where we describe what we would do about North Korea. But I don’t remember North Koreans coming to America and killing us….

“I don’t even remember communists or Nazis doing that. Now, they were more dangerous in other ways, no question about that, but you’ve got to be realistic if you want to lead. You have to lead from cold, hard facts, not from fantasy.”

Good idea. When it comes to foreign policy, facts are good; fantasy is bad. It’s exactly why it’s worth noting that Giuliani’s off-the-cuff remarks were completely wrong.

During the first Democratic debate, Brian Williams asked Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), “What three nations other than Iraq represent to you the biggest threat to the United States?” Biden said North Korea and Iran right off the bat, and then explained why he’s concerned about Russia’s “totalitarian direction, which would unhinge all that’s going on positively in Europe.”

In other words, Giuliani, once again, doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He apparently expected Biden to list “Islamic terrorism” as one of the three nations that represent a threat to the U.S.

Indeed, listening to Giuliani talk about foreign policy is a bit like listening to Bush talk about foreign policy, only with a different accent.

“So let me talk to you, there are 12 commitments here. Eleven of them are in no order of importance, because I can’t tell you between No. 2 and No. 12 which is the most important. They’re all important and at different times different ones are important. But I can tell you what the first most important is, for sure. The first commitment that I make is I will keep America on offense against terrorism. And now, if I may, let me tell you what that means, because that’s a statement, it’s a sentence, it’s a very complex idea. And let me see if I can make it a little bit clearer. It comes from my view of the 20th century, both the 20th century and my understanding of Islamic terrorism. […]

“[I]f there is one main issue, if there is one big issue, if there is one single issue in this campaign, and rarely are there, and there probably isn’t even in this campaign — but if I had to select one, and that’s why I made it number one, it is if I’m president of the United States, I can guarantee you we will be on offense against Islamic terrorists in order to make sure that we end this war as soon as possible and with as few casualties as possible and keep America as safe as possible.”

So, what does being “on offense” mean? It means being “on offense.” And if you see a nuclear North Korea as a major threat, you don’t want to go “on offense,” but if you connect religion to terrorism, you’ll be ready to go “on offense.”

I keep thinking Giuliani will sound less dumb as the campaign goes on and he gets more practice as a candidate. So far, that hasn’t happened.

Update: I misunderstood something from Tim’s post. He didn’t personally attend the Giuliani event, and the speech was last week, not this week. My mistake. Giuliani’s still completely wrong, though.

and sometimes we do a real long foreign policy address on North Korea, which I’m happy to do. I’m writing an article for Foreign Affairs,

Read the book! See the movie! What the hell is he talking about?!

  • I’m writing an article for Foreign Affairs, where we describe what we would do about North Korea.

    Did anybody notice how he changed “I” to “we” there? Is “he” really writing the article, or does he have someone else writing it for him so he can pad his foreign relations “cred” with someone else’s work?

    And how about instead of going “on offense” just keep us safe? One is good policy, and one is a smart response in limited, specific situations only. Anybody should be able to figure out the difference between the two. Its scary that Giuliani used that term “on offense” so many times in place of saying “safe”, almost a verbatim replacement of terms.

  • He’s just another blowhard idiot like the rest of them.

    He’s hilarious. I wonder if there is a good player on Saturday Night Live who can do a good impersonation of him.

  • North Koreans killed +25,000 Americans in a span of 3 years. Shouldn’t that count for something?

    Of course, more than 200,000 North Koreans were killed during the same period….

  • “…if I’m president of the United States, I can guarantee you we will be on offense against Islamic terrorists in order to make sure that we end this war as soon as possible and with as few casualties as possible and keep America as safe as possible.”

    Rudolf “Hess” Giuliani sure lives up to his name. He sounds like a used-car salesman on PCP or something without his script.

    I guess “keep America as safe as possible” means funneling as much American resources and as many American lives into the Cheney Protectorate of Iraq/n as possible.

    So, if America is attacked by “Islamic terrorists” before we End the U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq/n, will “Hess” concede that America was not kept “as safe as possible?” Or will he help keep the Private Corporate Cabal unlawfully occupying the Executive Branch “on offense” against our rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution?

  • Stop laughing guys, this is meant to be serious. Hell, Not even Guiliani knows what Guiliani is talking about. Being “on offense” sure sounds like inept war planning to me. Just pathetic. Republicans are so desperate that this must make for a presidential candidate. Find an enemy…any enemy…and keep warning of an attack that only he can prevent…and he’s serious. Man, did he miss the boat.

  • Re: #3: Only Hillary Clinton? I know you’ve seen the news from a few days ago that Obama raised more money from massively more donors than Hillary Clinton? There was a follow-up to that I read somewhere that said Obama has had more people donate to his campaign than to the top three GOP campaigns combined. If Obama wasn’t in the race I would vote for Clinton in a heartbeat but my money is on Obama winning the primary and general election.

    And even were Obama and Clinton to both drop out, Edwards and a lot of others are very appealing candidates. They’re just all competing in a crowded field. On the Dem side, it’s crowded with a bunch of fantastic candidates, and on the GOP side, it’s crowded with a bunch of lackluster (and downright scary) candidates.

  • Rude-boy put NYC’s Office of Emergency Management in a building that had already been attacked by terrorists. If this is what he called Going on the Offensive v. Terrorists while he was mayor I don’t want to know what he’d do as president.

    I suspect it would give a new and bloody meaning to the term “Human Shield.”

  • Perhaps Rudy is a little confused and actually thinks the “Nation of Islam” is an actual place…………….. I wonder if he could point it out on a map?

  • Did he really address the “20th Century?”
    If so, was this a historical reference, or is he unaware of what century we are currently in?
    Honestly, at this point, nothing is suprising me.
    I’m just wondering which of the Repub candidates will show up for a debate dressed in a black leather executioners outfit, complete with mask and axe. It might be Rudy, since he likes to play dress-up.

  • I was about to post a response in half-hearted defense of Il Rudi–to the effect that he’s not nearly as dumb as Bush–but then I remembered that I detest him, and that I fear his megalomania plus occasional competence actually more than I fear the Bush/Cheney blend of psychosis and comprehensive ineptitude. So never mind…

    The Onion nailed it months ago: he’s running for President of 9/11. I’ve always wondered whether he or Rove is more grateful for the attack that killed 3,000 of our people.

  • What does staying on offense mean? That we don’t defend ourselves?

    This reminds me of Bush “answering” the question “What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century, and how can we resolve conflicts between tribes and federal and state governments?”

    His answer, smirking visible in the video…

    “Tribal sovereignty means that. It’s sovereign. You’re a … you’re a … you’ve been given sovereignty and you’re viewed as a sovereign entity.”

    http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvideos/v/bushismtribal.htm

    There really should be a rule that candidates cannot use scripts. Maybe let them have a 3×5 card with bullet points, but no scripts.

    Giuliani is a fascist, and all he can do is play to the hatred of the base and smear everyone else with whatever he can think of. I sure hope America’s not dumb enough to fall for that shit again, but I am not ruling it out.

  • “Tribal sovereignty means that. It’s sovereign. You’re a … you’re a … you’ve been given sovereignty and you’re viewed as a sovereign entity.”

    I’d like to see King George try to explain American sovereignty, you know, the thing that’s he’s sold out to anational corporate ReThugs.

  • The Republicans have nobody and the Dems have only Hillary Clinton. It’s pretty simple math. -Haik

    Ah, it’s like Rove’s math. I get it. Then after Hillary we can have Jeb, then Chelsea, then which ever Bush twin is most sober at the time. Fun! I love only having a couple of families rule the nation like royalty. We should even make them a crown!

  • Aw, you left out my favorite part from Tim’s excerpts!

    Right up front, when Rudee says that things that really belong on gossip pages are important too, and an appropriate amount of time should be spent on them in a presidential campaign.

    Several such things sprang to mind right away, I can tell you that. Like how a man can forget that the second cousin he was married to for fourteen years is his second cousin. Or announcing your intention to divorce your wife to her via press conference. Or parading your adultery in public.

    Let’s please do what Rudee asked and spend an appropriate amount of time on them during this presidential campaign?

  • Comments are closed.