Admittedly it is hard to imagine a presidency that could be more disastrous for the world than Bush/Cheney. But Rudy Giuliani leads all other Republicans by significant margins. And in polling of possible general election match-ups he is well within striking distance.
To put some context on just how extreme Giuliani actually is..he just appointed Daniel Pipes -- a racist extremist nut just as far out in his extremism as David Duke is in his particular brand of fanaticism.
some links:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2003/05/we_420_01.htmlFrom Harpers: Pipes Joins Up With Giuliani by Ken Silverstein
link:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90001048"I think it’s fair to say that Pipes is even further out ideologically than Norman Podhoretz, another Giuliani adviser. Readers unfamiliar with Pipes can check out his profile at Wikipedia."
------------
This Article from Huffington Post by Stephen Schlesinger
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-schlesinger/giuliani-worse-than-bush_b_61412.html"The Republican presidential front runner, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, has just written his foreign policy credo for Foreign Affairs magazine. It is a truly unnerving pronouncement -- even worse than Bush-ism. Not unexpectedly, Mr. Giuliani backs all of the most brazen features of the Bush administration's global agenda. But he tosses in several deeply scary initiatives of his own that George W. never touched."
"He promises to pursue Bush's strategy in Iraq relentlessly to "eliminate the export of terror," and warns that, as in Vietnam, any withdrawal would be a sign of weakness and "an invitation for more war." He does not conceive of, admit to, or even mention the possibility of a region-wide political settlement which even now the Bush Administration is apparently contemplating. In addition, he would "press ahead" with an anti-ballistic missile system -- regardless of its outsized costs or ineffectiveness. And he would, as he says, "pursue the gains made by the USA Patriot Act and not unrealistically limit electronic surveillance or legal interrogation." Sounds a lot like an embrace of unrestricted presidential power and possibly torture.
For Israel, he now opposes the "creation of another state" in Palestine -- a repudiation of Bush's own stance. On Iran, "should all else fail," he would destroy that nation's nuclear infrastructure -- a mini-Cheney on steroids. More broadly, though, he would ratchet up our public diplomacy, expand the old Cold War radio stations, ditto with Internet networks, and insist that our US ambassadors "clearly advocate for US policies" -- a kind of in-your-face proselytizing of the sort the former mayor practiced so fervently when he ran New York City.
But Mr. Giuliani's most peculiar innovations are with the United Nations and NATO. Predictably, he is anti-UN -- as he was as mayor of NYC. But he goes further and argues that the UN has "proved irrelevant to the resolution of almost every major dispute of the last fifty years." This is a breathtaking display of incomprehension. Just a reminder: the UN stopped the invasion of South Korea; settled the Suez crisis of 1956; assisted in the ending of the Cuban missile crisis of 1963; ousted Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991. It brought peace to conflicts in Guatemala, Angola, Mozambique, El Salvador, Cambodia and helps keep the peace in Cyprus. More recently, it aided Haiti in holding an election and ending violence, pushed the Syrians out of Lebanon, enforced a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon and presently supports a dozen or so other peacekeeping missions.
Now we come to the ex-mayor's most bizarre suggestion -- that NATO be encouraged to act "globally," be reconfigured to confront "significant threats to the international system," and "we should open the organization's membership to any state" -- though it is a European-based body. Is Mr. Giuliani thus proposing that NATO replace the UN as the world's arbiter? And why not? Since the US dominates NATO, this would give Washington a direct means to extend its security purvey over the entire planet. This is a vision consistent with the authoritarian instincts with which Mr. Giuliani governed NYC. Still his retro-policies appear to be out of kilter with the times. He will have a lot of explaining to the American electorate about his foreign policy weltanschauung. It should be an illuminating exercise that may actually remind voters of why the only elected post he has ever risen to is mayor."
-------------
A Giuliani presidency would actually be more dangerous than the Bush/Cheney debacle; much more dangerous. What is scary is that many Americans mistakenly believe that Giuliani is a moderate because of his position on some social issues. But make no mistake about it -- a transition from Bush/Cheney to Giuliani would be a transition from out of the frying pan and into the fire. A Giuliani presidency would mean a dark and sinister future for those who strive for peace.
And it could happen ...just check a cross section of polls..he is leading all other Republicans by significant margins..and his chance of winning if nominated cannot be dismissed:
Republican Primary Polls:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htmGeneral Election Polls:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htmIt would not be an exaggeration at all to say that electing Giuliani would be like electing David Duke with better p.r. cosmetics.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
