I keep seeing more and more hysterics about Giuliani. Finally I was temporarily persuaded by "Rudy Giuliani's messianic paranoia" that Rudy was far worse than Hillary, but hesitated before clicking it to my friends.
So I googled "Giuliani" along with in turn "Ahmedinajad", "Saudi Arabia" then "Chavez", and saw more of a hypocrite than a demon. I learned so much that I tried the exercise with the other candidates as well, but had to substitute, "Venezuela" for "Chavez" and "Iran" for "Ahmedinajad" to get comments by Hukelbee, and add "Hugo" to "Chavez" to avoid getting "Linda Chavez". How oppressive or competent Giuliani would be as President, relates to how oppressive he was or wasn't as mayor. As far as his foreign policy, the Internet shows Giuliani connected to Citgo and Chavez, and also to Saudi Arabia. If it's Hillary vs Giuliani, Hillary might claim Giuliani is a hypocrite on terror, because of his prior relationship with Citgo, Chavez, and Saudi Arabia, with Hillary unintendedly creating intense tension with the Saudis.
This goggling exercise leads me to conclude that McCain is the biggest and broadest hawk. Next Hillary, Romney and Giuliani with the other candidates significantly less likely to head toward Armageddon and/or US bankruptcy.
My glib conclusion is that Hillary vs Ruby would be like the same person running against themselves, and likewise Obama vs Hukelbee would be also like very similar people running against each other. The unstated debate is not whether or not to fight a war against terror. But just how broadly the enemy was defined. Those who think basically only bin Laden himself should be arrested and tried in a civil court by his peers, don't hold such a trial in absentia, similar to the war-crimes tribunal against President Bush.
This to me is a tragic mistake. Instead of just claiming Bush is fighting terror all wrong, let's just stand up to terror the right way. See ramblingsfromthehornetsnest.blogspot.com
Anyway the following is a quote by Hukelbee that sounds very similar to a quote by Obama, which I the moment I can't relocate. It states:
"The administration has quite properly said that it will not take the military option for Iran off the table. Neither would I. But if we don't put some other options on the table, eventually the military option becomes the only viable one. Right now, we're proceeding down only one track with Iran: armed confrontation. Nothing would make Osama bin Laden happier. He would welcome war between the United States and Iran, his two biggest enemies. I'd try to do anything that would avoid brightening bin Laden's day... The difference in America's mission is that al Qaeda must be destroyed as a movement, while Iran just has to be contained as a nation."
I found a related link in Nation thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=252282.
I have a novel idea, since the real debate is how broadly or how narrowly to define the war against terror. How about limiting the term enemy to the Muslim who defines jihad the most broadly and the American who likewise defines the term enemy as broadly as possible. Bin Laden, Jerry Falwell who is now dead, Rick Santorum and Daniel Pipes, are looking forward and trying to create an all out war between what in their mind is a all out war between "good and evil", stopping them from doing so is what the rest of us should get together to do.
