The Iraq-eteers (Rudy Giuliani Being Advised By John Bolton and Gen. Jack Keane)

New York Observer ^ | 4/13/07

[areafiftyone]

Nine Candidates Need to Gin Up Stances on War; Democratic Wonks Lunching With Dick Holbrooke, McCain Aide Recoils at Mitt Message; Rudy Asks Bolton

John McCain has yet to criticize any of his Republican opponents directly for their positions on Iraq. As for his staff, that’s another story.

 

Mr. McCain’s go-to Iraq expert says, for example, that he couldn’t believe his ears when Mitt Romney recently told ABC’s Good Morning America that he supports “timetables and milestones” for the Iraq government to meet, but ones that “shouldn’t be for public pronouncement.”

 

Mr. McCain “does not believe in timetables or deadlines, secret or otherwise,” said the advisor, Randy Scheunemann. “He has made it clear that setting a timetable or deadline is nothing more than setting a date certain for surrender.”

Mr. Scheunemann, a former president of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and advisor to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, sounded equally unimpressed with some recent comments from Rudy Giuliani, who told reporters last week that President Bush and the Democrats in Congress should reach a compromise over Iraq funding legislation that includes dates of withdrawal.

 

“Frankly, it does not make a lot of sense talking about negotiations in advance of the President even having a bill on his desk,” he said.

 

While primary voters in both parties have had a difficult time discerning and keeping track of the different attitudes of the candidates toward the war in Iraq, it is staff-level Iraq advisors like Mr. Scheunemann who provide the best guide to the distinctions between the various camps.

 

On the Democratic side, their Iraq point-people meet monthly at a Washington restaurant for a lunch presided over by former United Nations ambassador Richard Holbrooke. The assembled foreign-policy wonks all know each other and get along—to an extent.

 

“It’s a very collegial group,” said Antony Blinken, 44, senior advisor to Senator Joe Biden in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee office, who served as the principal advisor to President Clinton on U.S. relations with Europe and NATO. “Obviously, there are some distinctions on Iraq.”

 

The attendees of those gatherings tend to state those differences at least as plainly as the candidates do.

 

Mr. Blinken, who has helped Mr. Biden fine-tune his controversial proposal to devolve powers to autonomous Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish ethnic regions, makes a point of saying that none of the other campaigns have done as much.

 

“What’s the alternative? No one has one,” said Mr. Blinken, who argued that the Iraqi Constitution actually called for the federalist system that Mr. Biden was proposing. “It’s in the Iraqi Constitution, but he is the only one who has bothered to read it.”

 

But the Democratic front-runners have distinguished themselves in other ways.

 

The Big Three

 

John Edwards’ representative at the lunches, for example, advocates the withdrawal of as many as 50,000 combat troops from Iraq within the next three months and favors revoking the war’s authorization and funding.

 

His guru is Derek Chollet, a 36-year-old unpaid advisor and oddly prolific ghostwriter of political  autobiographies of State and ambassadors, who is a veteran of Washington think tanks.

 

Mr. Chollet recently helped found the Center for a New American Security, whose first mission has been identifying how many American troops it would take to prevent what it calls “the three no’s”: stopping Al Qaeda from gaining a foothold in Iraq, keeping a civil war from spilling across Iraq’s borders, and avoiding genocide. He has been advising Mr. Edwards since 2002, after helping write the memoirs of two former Secretaries of State, James Baker and Warren Christopher, and then the speeches and Bosnia memoir of Mr. Holbrooke, who encouraged him to advise Mr. Edwards.

 

“There was a pragmatism about him that I found attractive,” said Mr. Chollet, adding that he talked “a lot” with Mr. Edwards as the candidate developed his Iraq policy.

 

He thinks that the candidate is much more solid now on matters of foreign policy, an area seen as his weakness in the 2004 election. “Now I’m hard-pressed to think that there is any issue he could get asked about in a town hall or Meet the Press setting that could be a stumper,” he said.

 

[babaloo]

I am glad you knew that but did you think I was a guy? LOL!

[M. Thatcher]

Your "anatomy" ignores how previously embraced-by-FR conservatives were treated here once they endorsed Giuliani - a phenomenon that Giuliani supporters like myself enjoy parodying. See: Steve Forbes. As to the Observer piece, see:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/13/thinkfast-april-13-2007/

"Rudy Giuliani’s (R) current foreign policy advisers include retired Gen. Jack Keane, the architect of President Bush’s Iraq escalation policy, and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton."

[areafiftyone]

Alll righty then. Have fun. I’ll go on some other posts. Have a good day.

[areafiftyone]

You know I typed it so fast I didn’t even see what I was typing until it was already posted. LOL!

[CharlesWayneCT]

The anti-rudy poster in item 20 did NOT call Bolton a Liberal. He said Bolton must have been paid to be an advisor, and laughing all the way to the bank.

That suggests that the poster thought Bolton was too smart to be really in Rudy’s camp, but was happy to take Rudy’s money.

The part about Bolton being a liberal was a QUOTE from a pro-Rudy supporter (M. Thatcher) which the anti-rudy poster was responding to.

[babaloo]

TGIF no?

[areafiftyone]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/13/thinkfast-april-13-2007/ "Rudy Giuliani’s (R) current foreign policy advisers include retired Gen. Jack Keane, the architect of President Bush’s Iraq escalation policy, and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton."

Actually if you really want to know, that is where I first saw this and it was also posted in Patrick Ruffini. I followed the link to The NY Observer.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

*smacks forehead*

Note to self: maximize windows.

[areafiftyone]

LOL! What a Friday!

[marron]

For all their differences, the Iraq experts on the Democratic side are a veritable supper club compared with the Republican campaigns.

It’s not that the Republicans disagree on principle—they all disdain the advocacy of troop withdrawals by Democrats as tantamount to a calamitous defeat for America—but rather that only one of them, Mr. McCain, seems to be offering any substantive alternative to White House policy at all.

This is incoherent. What does he mean "the Iraq experts on the Democratic side are a veritable supper club" compared to the Republicans? That would imply that the Dems are in basic agreement, and the Repubs aren't, but then he goes on to complain that in effect the Repubs are in almost perfect agreement with the president on Iraq. So which is it?

The Dems can't come to an agreement on what to do in Iraq, but they want the White House. The Repubs are essentially right where they've always been on the issue. Wage it, and win it. Don't back out until the work is done. On that, every one of the Repub candidates is on the same page.

[KATIE-O]

“.....yes, I’m on a civility kick. The Imus thing’s got me started. It’s time to call people out for incivility, to try to get our political and public discourse back on the straight and narrow. I’m tired of sitting idly by while people on cell phones use the f-word in public and expect us to enjoy it, or people calling other peop
le liars simply because they don’t like the politics.....”

Sorry, but I have been very civil in all my debate’s on this forum, and have not attacked any poster here, as has been done to me. However, I call ‘em as I see ‘em and when a man says he’s a life long hunter and his assistant says he’s only hunted “varmits” in his youth, that is a “prevarication” commonly called a lie. As a public figure, if he lies he should be called on it. And I wonder if you would be as zealous about the smears and lies told about Rudy Giuliani? I doubt it.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I should have made that clear in my post, I believe that several people were misled by the title.

I had trouble believing it, which is why I read the source article and found the actual quote.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I never know who is what around here. I’m always grasping at pronouns to use!!!

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Candor7 is quoting post #5 by M. Thatcher (which was in sarcasm).

[areafiftyone]

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR POSTING THAT!

[M. Thatcher]

I had trouble believing it

I'm interested in your answer to this: Why?

[CharlesWayneCT]

There. That article actually uses the term “advisors”.

I know what you are parodying. It’s bad enough when people do it, without the other side doing it in abstentia.

I like real threads with real conversations. I think it’s great that Rudy is discussing Iraq with Bolton and Keane. I don’t think the word “advising” is necessarily appropriate because it implies being an “advisor”. But we can discuss the article better if the supporters don’t trash Bolton as if he is being attacked by detractors, which in this case he was not.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Which just shows that some other people were misleading before you were. Did they forget to excerpt the 3rd page as well? :-)

[CharlesWayneCT]

I don’t have to be, there are plenty of pro-rudy people around to defend him. Although when someone makes an error like in this thread missing the last page, even though they are anti-rudy I still correct them. And I do defend Rudy from time to time, from false attacks.

Romney has been hunting more than just “varmits as a child”. That was my point, while “life-long” may have better been phrased as “my whole life”, he has a history of hunting that spans his entire life.

Not that I care about who is hunting, only that they have a rational opinion on the 2nd amendment. And I think using hunting as a proxy for that was a silly thing to do, and I would be happy to fault Romney for that. Just that he didn’t lie. His campaign staffer however DID issue an incorrect statement (I won’t call that a lie because he didn’t have the facts right, he wasn’t TRYING to get it wrong).

I wouldn’t say that Rudy’s wife lied either. Some might, given that she allowed the false claim that she had been married twice to go uncorrected until someone asked her directly about it. But she never LIED about it.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Because I have great respect for John Bolton, and would be surprised to see him attach himself to Rudy Giuliani.

I was also surprised, and had trouble believing, that Steve Forbes was supporting Rudy. So my feelings on the matter are not indicators of their possibility.

Heck, just about every time I see a Freeper I know supporting Rudy, I have trouble believing it. You should see the note I first sent to Corin Stormhands ;-)

But I pretty much verify everything anyway. I like to read the articles, and if they are opinions (like the thinker thing) based on other articles, I like to go to those articles to make sure the author didn’t misunderstand something. Verify, then Verify again.

I’ve mostly been having fun in this thread, because I liked the picture the Observer used. :-)

[M. Thatcher]

There. That article actually uses the term “advisors”. I know what you are parodying. It’s bad enough when people do it, without the other side doing it in abstentia. I like real threads with real conversations. I think it’s great that Rudy is discussing Iraq with Bolton and Keane. I don’t think the word “advising” is necessarily appropriate because it implies being an “advisor”. But we can discuss the article better if the supporters don’t trash Bolton as if he is being attacked by detractors, which in this case he was not.

I'm glad you "like real threads with real conversations." That's what this is. The record here is ripe for parodying, and it's all fair game. Part of the enjoyment, as it were.

I have seen countless negative Giuliani threads in which anti-Rudy folks post pre-emptive comments such as, "Wait til they Rutards get here, they'll claim this is just what Reagan would have done" and so forth.

Goes both ways.

And believe me, if Bolton were to actually sign on with Giuliani (which wouldn't surprise me), he will be attacked here mercilessly. I am anticipating that, and taking some of the sting out of it by doing it myself, in fun. I get a kick out of the predictible knee-jerkism.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I’m expecting Bolton to end up with Thompson at some point. While I was surprised and dissappointed with Steve, I understood it because Steve was not a social conservative, he was a fiscal conservative, and Rudy was willing to sign on to his ideas on taxes and Rudy, while not god-like as some claim, would be a good man from the fiscal perspective.

[areafiftyone]

I’m expecting Bolton to end up with Thompson at some point.

For some reason I don't think so. I think Rudy kicking Arafat out of NY and giving the Saudi Prince back his money would put Bolton more in Rudy's court. He was also the son of a Fireman. BUT on Thompson's side Botlton was on Student's for Goldwater Campaign and Thompson did say he was a Goldwater Republican at one time.

[Peach]

John Bolton is a good “get”! And it will drive the libs mad.

[dforest]

If you read down from the first post, you will see there was no get.

[Peach]

Where? I’m not going to read all the posts; I already know what most of them will say.

[neocon1984]

“If you read down from the first post, you will see there was no get.”

If you read down from the first post, you will get a headache. Where did I put the Excedrin?

[Peach]

Thompson said he was a Goldwater Republican? Uh oh.

[areafiftyone]

Yes! In an interview in 1994.

[areafiftyone]

No he didn’t endorse him he’s just advising him on Iraq and foreign policy.

[Peach]

I didn’t say he endorsed him. I said it’s a good get. As in getting Bolton to give one advice. He couldn’t have anyone better to give advice on Iraq, imo.

[dforest]

Nope, the title, at least the part in parenthesis, was not in the article, and it failed to mention it was an excerpt.

The poster of the article asked the mods to remove it because it was misleading and was proved to be.

See, even you were mislead to a conclusion that is not there.

[dforest]

It’s in the cabinet next to the stove.

LOL

[Peach]

My conclusion was that John Bolton was advising Rudy about Iraq. Which is exactly what the headline says. Isn’t Bolton advising Rudy?

[dforest]

No, his advisors are talking to individuals like Bolton, but it does not say he is an advisor.

[Peach]

So Rudy’s advisors are talking to Bolton. Is Rudy talking directly to Bolton?

[Peach]

I’m assuming that none of the Democratic candidates are talking to Bolton to get his advice, btw.

bbl

[babaloo]

The nits are being picked here today, Peach.

[dforest]

Thats probably very true. It is good his campaign is talking to Bolton and others. But the part of the article missing, does not say he has jumped on the Rudy campaign.

Other candidates talk to the same people about Iraq.

[neocon1984]

“It’s in the cabinet next to the stove.”

Good! That’s also where I keep the single malt. 5:00 pm better hurry up.

[dforest]

Have a couple, enjoy Friday night. Maybe some WWF will come on, although it isn’t as tough as it can be around here!

Now, don’t think I watch that stuff. Hulk is the only one I know of.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I didn’t even know you were female until a little while ago. THAT explains Rudy’s appeal no doubt. Us bald guys are just chick magnets.

[A Longer Name]

Correct on all accounts except that I am a SHE!!! LOL!

I noticed that a high proportion of Rudy supporters on FR are women. Is this an important observation? I don't know.

[Peach]

Oh yeah. Big time.

I was on a thread a week or so ago where a freeper posed a question that maybe Rudy was a pedophile or something equally asinine. When I dared to note that FR had jumped the shark, a Rudy hater jumped all over my post (ignoring the ridiculous post) all of which sort of proved my point.

[dforest]

Oh man, you are a baldie? As long as you are not a comb over baldie, your okay.

LOL

[neocon1984]

When I was a kid, (mid 1960’s)it was Dick the Bruiser and his partner Crusher Kowalski. They claimed to work out by running along the RR tracks with beer kegs on each shoulder (and they looked like they could do it). The way they talked made Hulk Hogan sound like a John Edwards.

Ah the good old days when pro wrestling was real and Walter Cronkite was the man America trusted most.

[dforest]

Oh geesh, Are you telling me Edwards is a girlie man?

Whatever happened to those bruiser type guys?

I remember my Dad talking about Dick the Bruiser, must be because my dad’s name was Dick. Dad wanting to look tough! Not a good name to have these days, unless you want to be known as one!

[wagglebee]

It looks like the Rudy Rooters have adopted the standard liberal method of reporting facts (as taught by Dan Ratherbiased and company):

JUST MAKE UP WHATEVER FACTS YOU WANT

[neocon1984]

“I remember my Dad talking about Dick the Bruiser”

Good Lord! I am getting old. Your Dad must be a Midwesterner near my age. I don’t think Dick the Bruiser was well known outside this area.

Dick played guard for the Packers until a knee injury forced him to retire. He was about 5’11’ and 290 - a fire plug with a beer barrel chest. He was the sort of guy that the feminists caricature as a Neanderthal. He would have dealt with a feminazi by pinching her butt and saying in his gravelly voice, “Hey Honey! See something you like here?”

I suspect he would have spent a good deal of time in court if he were born 40 years later.

[dforest]

I don’t know if he is near your age or if Dick the Bruiser was a Midwest legend.

Dad is from Indiana, and Mom from Illinois.

Dick the Bruiser was what we knew as tough.

You are right about the trouble he would be in now.

How funny and interesting.