Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Best case yet to support Giuliani, but still not good enough

Moonbat newspaper columnist Linda S Heard makes the best case for voting for Rudolph Giuliani that I've seen to date:

But here's the problem. Whereas post 9-11 Giuliani was generally considered a competent, nice-guy keen to roll up his sleeves in order to put his city to rights, in recent months the mask has come off. In short, Giuliani is no benign patriotic do-gooder. He's a hawkish, sabre-rattling, pro-Israel, nationalistic neocon.

A clue to Giuliani's leanings emerged during the visit of Prince Al Walid Bin Talal to Ground Zero in October 2001. Bearing a $10 million donation for disaster relief, the Saudi prince suggested the US reexamine its Middle East policies and adopt a balanced stance towards Palestinian aspirations. Giuliani's response was to hand back the cheque.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards has joked President Giuliani would be like President Bush on steroids. Unfortunately, this is no joke.

Giuliani makes no bones about the fact he would use military force to set-back Iran's nuclear programme. In September, he promised to use America's military might to prevent Iran pursuing its nuclear ambitions should he be elected president.

His senior foreign policy adviser Norman Podhoretz has spelled out this message, advising that Iran be bombed with cruise missiles and bunker busters. "None of the alternatives to military action - negotiations, sanctions, provoking an internal insurrection - can possibly work," he told The Daily Telegraph.

Giuliani is talking tough when it comes to Pakistan, too. He recently urged the president to be more aggressive in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden within Pakistan even if such a move would result in alienating the Pakistani government.

On Iraq, Giuliani has been consistently gung ho. He supported the war from the outset, backed the so-called surge and believes American troops should stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

And if my worst fears are realised and Giuliani moves into the White House there will be no Palestinian state for the foreseeable future either. He has declared in no uncertain terms his antipathy towards a two-state solution because a Palestinian entity would "support terrorism" and threaten US security.

Worth recalling

It's also worth recalling that in 1995, he banned the former Palestinian president Yasser Arafat from attending events held in New York to celebrate the UN's 50th anniversary and ordered his removal from a concert held at the Lincoln Centre. It's not surprising that a panel of eight Israeli experts assembled by the daily Ha'aretz determined Giuliani is the best presidential candidate for Israel.

A recent article on the front page of the New York Times titled "Mid-east hawks help to develop Giuliani's policy" enlightens us as to the former mayor's new best friends. "Mr Giuliani is consulting with, among others, a particularly hawkish group of advisers and neoconservative thinkers," the article reads.

His team, says the article, includes "Norman Podhoretz, a prominent neoconservative who advocates bombing Iran as soon as it is logically possible; Daniel Pipes, the director of the Middle East Forum, who has called for profiling Muslims at airports and scrutinising American Muslims in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps; and Michael Rubin who has written in favour of revoking the United States' ban on assassination".

Giuliani recently took the Democrats to task for avoiding use of the term "Islamic terrorism" during four debates; an omission he describes as taking political correctness to extremes.

A Giuliani presidential tenure would also be extremely bad news for Americans who value the few civil liberties they have left. He strongly backs the controversial Patriot Act; is an advocate for wire-tapping and domestic spying, and isn't sure whether "water-boarding" or sleep deprivation should be considered as "torture".

He has also promised to appoint "strict constructionist" judges to the Supreme Court to allay the fears of conservative Republicans and the religious right that he is pro-abortion.

In the first place I wouldn't let Giuliani's promise to appoint "strict constructionist" judges worry me if I were a worshiper at the abortion death-cult's blood soaked alter. Giuliani has gone out of his way to make clear that he considers support for Roe v Wade to be fully in line with what he considers to be a "strict constructionist".

Other than that she makes a good, in unintentional, case for supporting Giuliani. Notice especially how, in her mind at least, any sign of support for Israel is seen as disqualifying. Why is it that the left has become so antisemitic when the majority of Jews in the US are left liberals?

In the end she does not persuade me to support Giuliani for two reasons. One is that any of the other Republican candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul, who has zero chance of winning the nomination and so is a non-factor) would be just as supportive of Israel and just as willing to use any and all means to keep Iran from going nuclear.

The second reason I will never support Giuliani comes toward the end of Ms. Heard's screed:

Giuliani is also grabbing a large chunk of the evangelical vote despite his penchant for divorcing his wives for girlfriends.
Of course there are more reasons for Christians to oppose Giuliani besides his personal immorality. But in the end its like the old joke about the man and woman who strike up a conversation in a bar:

Man: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?
Woman: [Thinks it over for a moment] Yes, I would sleep with you for a million dollars.
Man: Would you sleep with me for fifty dollars?
Woman: No! What do you think I am anyway?
Man: We have already established what you are. Now we are just haggling over the price.

Compromising, playing the give a little to get a little game, is essential to politics. However if someone or some group proves willing to trade away their most sacred beliefs and principles then how will that person or group ever again merit respect or be taken seriously?

When feminists continued to support Bill Clinton even after it became undeniable that he was a serial sexual predator, even being credibly accused of rape, they demonstrated just how cheaply their support could be bought by the Democrat Party and guaranteed that other than the attempt to appoint pro-abortion Supreme Court judges and a few token cabinet appointments that they can expect nothing from the Democrats in return for that support.

If Evangelical Christians sell out their principles to support Rudolph Giuliani the movement will prove once and for all that it is nothing but the Republican Pary's bitch and it will be treated that way.