Comment by Rudy Giuliani - 4.25.2007.1
The Presidential candidates for the Democratic Party are in a rage. I know no surprise. What might be the reason this time? Comments from a Republican Presidential candidate. To be specific Mr. Rudy Giuliani. The comment that has caused this rage is reported as follows, “if a Democrat is elected, ‘it sounds to me like we're going on defense. We're going to wave the white flag there.’ But, he said, if a Republican wins, ‘we will remain on offense’ trying to anticipate what the terrorists are going to do and ‘trying to stop them before they do it."
So far all the Democratic hopefuls have defended themselves and claimed that this is a false comment, that it is an attempt to inspire fear and capitalize on a tragedy. I find that interesting since I cannot see how it is wrong. Every Republican candidate has said the same thing as Mr. Giuliani to some degree. Many Democratic lawmakers have also said this. So I must ask, how is fighting a war in a manner similar to a wrestling or boxing match a winning strategy? How is fighting on an exact and unyielding timetable, that does not consider the ramifications from the aftermath of suddenly abandoning a fight (or call it troop withdrawal if that feels better), increase the safety of Americans at home? I have yet to hear an answer on how that will happen. I have yet to hear how retreating (defined as: an act or process of withdrawing especially from what is difficult, dangerous, or disagreeable) makes us safer as a nation. If a Democrat can answer that direct question I may change my opinion, but to date not one has.
To be fair, no Republican has an answer on how long troops will be needed in Iraq, or how much money will be required to stabilize that nation. Not a single guess, though I believe it will take 5-10 years if the current pace is maintained. I can’t even guess at the cost, maybe 3x what has been spent to date. It’s not cheap, but then again “freedom is not free.”
I have to say that I’m not surprised. The current name-calling was apparent since before the mid-term elections. Some may recall when I mentioned, “What exactly is the Democratic platform on Iraq. No longer can the statement “we need a change” be the answer. The fact is we need a detailed description of what that change is. And it will be the Democratic Party that must be held accountable for what they define as needed change.”
To date we have been given an answer, though it is hardly detailed. The answer is leave Iraq as quickly as possible. But Democrats will not accept accountability for this decision. Rather than defunding the war which would pass, if it were the voice of the people to end the war without winning as they say it is, they are delaying providing fund. They are pushing forward bills that are known to be vetoed by the Commander-and-Chief and blaming the President for delays. This is while stating on national news (which has been shown world-wide to friends and enemies of this nation alike) “I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.” While in any war there are days of large losses, it does not mean that the war is lost. There are numerous examples of this in every war including both theatres of WWI and WWII.
But if Majority leader Senator Reid is correct, how do we stop Al Quida and other groups or nations that oppose the American way of life from gathering strength and attacking our nation again? While winning the war may not be popular it does hold the foresight that may protect the nation from some major attacks. What protects the nation if we run away? Where is the foresight that will keep Americans safe in their homes and jobs? It’s not enough to make a half-step; we must know what the next part to their plan is. Only then can we, the citizens, then make a choice on what is the direction the nation should take. That is non-partisan, and in the best interest of the nation. Anything less is just politicking and will cost lives, I believe.
It’s not a Republican view to continue to fight, nor Democratic to retreat. They are views to secure the ability of America to maintain its security. But the former looks to the future, the latter just the present. If we chose a President that can only see the trees and not the forest then I fear what may happen as our children become young adults and inherit our unfinished gaffes.
This is what I think, what do you think?