Rudy: I was unable to work bipartisanly with Iraq Study Group.

[Hart2008]

"I thought it would work, but then after a month or two I realized the idea that I was possibly going to run for president would be inconsistent with that," Giuliani said during a campaign stop in Iowa.

Giuliani said the main reason he quit was that it "didn't seem that I would really be able to keep the thing focused on a bipartisan, nonpolitical resolution."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070620/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_iraq_group

Really, partisanship should end at the nation's borders.

What does this say about Rudy's ability to lead the nation?

:eyes:

[monktonman]

1. He couldnt do it for the good of the country

In other words he couldnt see what was in it for him
so he quit like a little bitch.

This is what makes him way qualified to be our next republican president.
Politics before policy dont ya know.

[jobycom]

2. Sounds like a college freshman's excuse for dropping speech class.

His gravitas stuns me.

[Richard Steele]

3. How does he know? He never showed up for a single meeting.

A REAL candidate might consider being part of an important
group like that to be a PLUS on his resumé.

[Faygo Kid]

4. I don't want "bipartisanship," which means do what Bush says.

Screw "bipartisanship." It has been a disaster for this nation under this "president." We will never, ever see this monolithic crew of 30 percent break ranks. That 30 percent includes one hell of a lot of money and powerful people. I and the other 70 percent are sick of this shit, and what the HELL is Hillary doing parroting Bill O'Reilly and the jerkoff Right in blaming the Iraqis for our lack of "success" in Iraq? We need to toughen up and now, my friends.

[Hart2008]

11. "bipartisan" does not mean "do what Bush wants".

The problem is that progressives, and the Democratic party in particular, have lacked, or have been unable to articulate, a sound foreign policy that ordinary Americans are comfortable. For this reason, they get caught voting for the IWR and funding legislation because they have nothing to offer in place of muscle-flexing foreign policy:

"The current debate on financing military operations in Iraq, as well as the Memorial Day just past, stimulated yet again my 30-year search for a national security policy that liberal and progressive Americans can endorse.
...
Absent a new understanding of security and identification with achieving it, Democratic progressives will continue to be seen as anti-military and therefore anti-security. Consequently, when the nation feels itself to be endangered, it will always turn to conservative leaders. This cycle must be broken."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/what-it-means-to-be-secur_b_49455.html

Shortly after posting this, Hart put together a bi-partisan group to formulate a new foreign policy that all Americans can agree, The American Security Project:

"Letter from The Honorable Gary Hart

The American Security Project has been created to develop a national security vision and strategy for the twenty-first century, building on America’s strengths, restoring its international leadership, and seeking solutions to the new realities of the 21st century before they become crises.

American national security policy is adrift. In the five years since the attacks of 9/11, the United States has toppled autocratic regimes, cast-aside collective security alliances, put its military into the field, expanded its covert battle against terrorists, and simultaneously lost its moral standing in much of the world. While American activism has not always met with approval in the international community, there once was a time when American action made us stronger. Today, however, anti-Americanism is fueled by actions that are seen as diversions from America’s historic path, accepted standards of international behavior, and common sense.

The issue at hand is the appropriate purpose and use of American power. Where the United States has needed strategy, we have been offered tactics. There has been little development of grand strategic thought since the end of the Cold War.

The so-called “war on terror” has dominated every discussion of national security since September 11, 2001. But the war-paradigm—while convenient for political mobilization—is dangerously imprecise and counterproductive in the fight against extremists. The American Security Project seeks to clarify the nature of the struggle the United States faces against violent-extremists in order to produce more effective policies and strategies to meet the threat."

http://www.americansecurityproject.org/about


Hart is again working with former New Hampshire Senator Warren Rudman, whom he co-chaired the Hart-Rudman commission which presciently predicted the terrorist attacks on 9-11.

American foreign policy should be bi-partisan, not "my way or the highway".

Partisanship should end at the water's edge.

[Faygo Kid]

12. Yes, partisanship should end at the water's edge. And the world you have lived on recently. . .?

I am a great admirer of Gary Hart's, and your interpretation is not the message I have gotten from him. If I am mistaken, I withdraw that support. You seem eminently ready to accept the neocon movement of the water's edge. Say what? Keep enjoying your dreams, but the American people are way ahead of trusting this Administration with crap like "Partisanship should end at the water's edge" (tell that to Cheney and Rove). Lead, follow, or get out of the way - the American people have spoken, and this war must end.

[Hart2008]

13. No, I like Hart reject the neocons, but we must put forth a policy to replace theirs.

We must do more than just say what we are against.

Yes, the occupation, (it isn't really a war anymore) must end.

But you missed the point.

Progressives need to have a policy we can articulate on defense that makes non-progressives comfortable with our candidates. People need to feel secure, and we need to make sure they feel secure with us.

FDR said "All we have to fear, is fear itself."

The neocons gave us fear itself and Dem's cowered in the corners of the Congress.

In large part, it is because, they, along with the country, didn't have a policy to apply when considering the IWR and the continued occupation. They were afraid of the political ramifications of voting "no" to the IWR.

If there is a policy, then it is possible to have a rational discussion of how any military action fits into the national policy. Otherwise, we get where we are now with the "supporting the troops" crap.

[babylonsister]

5. What a crock! Here's a man who got 'famous' for 9/11 but can't

drum up enough enthusiam to fight terror? He was too busy collecting his speaking fees to give a rat's ass.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Rudy is unable to work with ANYONE and...

must control the agenda and destroy anyone who disagrees with him. He proved that as US Attorney and then big time as Mayor.

I would assume that someone on the committee made it clear to him that it would not be HIS committee and that he would have to shut up and let people who knew what they were talking about run the show.

A lot of us thought the real reason Rudy bailed on his Senate run had nothing to do with his prostate cancer or fundraising, but that he could not possibly abide being only one of a hundred-- and a junior one at that.

[Catch22Dem]

7. Saying he couldn't be bipartisan and non-political???

Jesusfuckingchrist!

[BlueStater]

8. And yet we're supposed to depend on this clown with to fight a war?

Hopefully, we won't see much more of Rudy once his presidential campaign collapses.

[snowbear]

9. Sounds like he flipped through a "Rollodex of Excuses" and came up with some LAME ones...

.
.
.



...."Oh shit, why do they keep asking me all this crap?"

[madrchsod]

10. is he the best they have?or is that thompson?

[alfredo]

14. We need to hold onto this. Like bush, rudy will only be president

for those who voted for him. The rest of us will be sucking hind teat.

So he couldn't put his party's fortunes aside to work for the good of the American people.

[AndreaCG]

15. Only a moran would buy that load of crap

And some of THEM wouldn't even!

[Hart2008]

16. Stephen Hess: "Leaving that study group was not exactly an act of courage."

"Stephen Hess, who has served as an adviser to presidents from both parties, said quitting the group is likely to pose a political problem for Giuliani. "Leaving that study group was not exactly an act of courage," said Hess, particularly because the group's recommendations ultimately diverged from Bush's stick-it-out approach, which Giuliani has embraced.

When the group's report came out last December, Giuliani offered a different reason why he quit, saying he didn't think it was right for an active presidential candidate to take part in such an "apolitical" panel. Giuliani also took pains at the time to distance himself from some of the group's findings.

At some point, Baker spoke to Giuliani to find out if he intended to continue his involvement with the group. "He basically said, if people can't make the meetings, we've got to find people who can," Panetta recalled.

Asked if he knew what Giuliani was doing instead of attending the meetings, Panetta joked, "I'm sure making a hell of a lot of money.""

http://www.newsday.com/search/ny-usrudy0619,0,799883.story