The Debatable Land

Der Burgomeister

I guess Rudy Giuliani won't be getting many Christmas cards from the fine folk at The American Conservative. Read their comprehensive anti-Rudy package here. Read my own anti-Rudy contribution to a previous issue of TAC here.

No One likes Us, We Don't Care

National Review's Andy McCarthy on a foreign policy difference between John McCain and Rudy Giuliani:

McCain is business as usual — even though there is no good reason why the quest for peace between Israel and the Palestinians should be a priority, much less that we should intensify our commitment to a settlement in the absence of Palestinian fitness for statehood. Giuliani says we can talk about it after the Palestinians grow up. That's rather a large difference, and it's far from the only one.  McCain, for example, would perpetuate the State Department way of doing things (as part of restoring our allegedly tarnished image in the world) while Giuliani argues that we need to make major changes in the State Department and Foreign Service so that they are judged by how clearly they advocate U.S. policy.

Well, I confess I have no great idea for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian problem. But resolving it would seem to be a good thing on the merits of the matter even if doing so had no other consequences or implications for American (or anyone else's) interests.

But let me simply observe that anyone who thinks the United States' image in the rest of the world has only allegedly (ie, it hasn't) been tarnished is, well, either someone who rarely speaks to foreigners or an idiot.

It may also be the case that McCain's ideas for repairing the US's image overseas would come to nothing but Giuliani seems to be of the view that foreigners will come to heel if only the United States is prepared to treat them roughly enough. This is, to put it kindly, arrant nonsense.

Furthermore, anyone who believes that these are trivial matters that can be ignored if The Right Tough Guy is in the White House comes close to automatically disqualifying themselves from being treated with any degree of seriousness on any foreign-policy-related matter in the future.

A Sign of Things to Come?

I'm not quite sure why this hasn't received more attention, but didn't Mike Huckabee just propose an alliance with Rudy Giuliani to take down Mitt Romney? Seems like it to me. Let's go to the Youtube Debate transcript:

I am Joseph. I am from Dallas, Texas, and how you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book [the King James version of the Bible]? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?

Cooper: I think we've got a question.

Mayor Giuliani?

Huckabee: Do I need to help you out, Mayor, on this one?

(Laughter)

(Applause)

Giuliani: Wait a second, you're the minister. You're going to help me out on this one.

Huckabee: I'm trying to help you out.

Giuliani: OK. The reality is, I believe it, but I don't believe it's necessarily literally true in every single respect.

Clearly, Huckabee defeating Romney in Iowa would be huge for Giuliani, boosting his chances of winning New Hampshire and, at the very least, preventing Romney from building any momentum. Equally clearly it seems that an obvious quid pro quo for this service would be for Giuliani to ask Huckabee to be his running-mate. Putting policy aside - for when did that ever matter? - they're a perfect fit. Huckabeee's charm balances Rudy's brusqueness while his southernness and religiosity compensate for giuliani's weaknesses in those areas. Equally, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, putting Huckabee on the ticket may move Arkansas into toss-up territory...

PS: You want proof of Huckabee's new exalted status? He now has his own category on this blog... Exciting times!

What is the Chief End of Man, anyway?

Kieran Healy wants to know how Newsweek can think a line can be fine and blurry:

Growing Up Giuliani: Rudy Giuliani was raised to understand that fine, blurry line between saint and sinner. The making of his moral code.

I want to know how the line between saint and sinner can be fine or blurry. Then again, Giuliani doesn't enjoy even a residual, ingrained Calvinism does he?

Giuliani and Romney: Heroic Warriors and Leaders of Men

Mitt Romney was so desperate to serve his country in the late 1960s that rather than go to Vietnam (as he so  very much wanted to) he was compelled to spend years in France as a Mormon missionary. But what about Rudy Giuliani? Glenn Greenwald has a useful reminder:

Romney's draft-avoidance isn't quite as shameful as Super Tough Guy Rudy Giuliani's, whose deferment request was denied in 1969, thus placing him at imminent risk of being drafted, when he somehow convinced the federal judge for whom he was clerking "to write to the draft board, asking them to grant him a fresh deferment and reclassification as an 'essential' civilian employee." The very idea that a first-year judicial clerk, just out law school, is "essential" for anything is absurd on its face. Yet the swaggering tough guy Rudy Giuliani used that blatant lie to ensure that someone other than himself was sent to fight in Vietnam.

Now as it happens I don't think that what a young man did nearly 40 years ago should necessarily disqualify him from the Presidency (not when there are so many other, more recent, reasons!) but it is worth remembering that poor old Bill Clinton was hammered time and time again for his draft-dodging. That being the case Messrs Romney and Giuliani can hardly complain if they receive a measure of the same treatment.

Still, even talking about Vietnam reminds one that perhaps the most persuasive part of Andrew Sullivan's argument for Barack Obama is that an Obama Presidency would finally move us all on from the Vietnam and Baby Boomer era.

Rudy Giuliani, the Terrorists' Worst Enemy?

Well, not always. From the New York Times, September 29th 1994, less than a month after the declaration of a (temporary as it proved) IRA ceasefire:

Artfully casting off his old role as official outcast, Gerry Adams, the political spokesman for the Irish Republican Army, beamed from the steps of City Hall yesterday as New York politicians vied to be at his side and hail him as honored guest and newborn statesman...

...A relatively small lunch-hour crowd of a few hundred cheered him, but the domestic political value of Mr. Adams's official turnabout was demonstrated by the throng of local politicians who crowded about Mr. Adams. They pressed him to accept three different government proclamations, the Crystal Apple award extended by Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani to ranking foreign dignitaries, and a private New York Police Department boat tour of Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty.

The tall, darkly bearded man from Belfast was officially hailed as an Irish leader to be reckoned with by Mayor Giuliani...

Mr. Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, the I.R.A.'s political arm, stepped forward happily beneath a City Hall welcoming banner as the Police Department's Emerald Society offered the bagpiped skirl of "Wrap the Green Flag Around Me, Boys."

Expressing "sad and glad appreciation," Mr. Adams thanked the city government for an "unwavering commitment" to economic-boycott pressures on Britain's Northern Irish Government in behalf of the Catholic minority. Then he addressed the British Prime Minister, John Major, as if his voice might carry out beyond the Brooklyn Bridge to London: "It is time, Mr. Major, to go -- to leave our country and to leave us in peace."

He received no shortage of sympathy from a phalanx of politicians led by City Council Speaker Peter F. Vallone, City Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi and Mayor Giuliani. The Irish group was particularly delighted to hear Mr. Giuliani talk of the North's suffering under an "outside occupation force" -- precisely the characterization resented by the North's Protestant loyalists, who worry that the British might eventually leave Northern Ireland.

Sure, there were domestic political considerations at stake and, yes, there was a - temporary - IRA ceasefire. But at the time Giuliani offered this lavish reception, the IRA had not renounced violence. On the contrary it reserved the right to return to the "armed struggle" any time they saw fit. This first ceasefire - however tough a sell it was to the Army Council - was a temporary measure, not a declaration that the war was over. And sure enough, within 18 months the bombs were going off again.

Plenty of other people were meting Adams then but there's a difference between meeting Adams knowing that realpolitk demands it and greeting him with this sort of enthusiasm - to say nothing of Giuliani's willingness to buy into the IRA's "framing" of the province's history.

Now I don't suggest that this is of enormous relevance to the current presidential campaign, nor that it should necessarily be held against Giuliani. After all, when it came to cosying up to terrorists Hizzoner is hardly the worst offender. But cosy he did and it might as well be remembered that he did so.

Rudy Giuliani's Grammar

Best* line of the Democratic debate? It's not even close. Joe Biden on Rudy Giuliani:

"He only uses three words in a sentence: A noun, a verb, and 9/11."

*By "Best" I mean, of course, "Only".

UPDATE: At The Corner K-Lo crys foul!

Maybe the 10 P.M. hour has killed what little sense of humor I've ever had, but that 9/11 sentence line was a low, crass line. And it's disturbing it got laughs. I'll believe they were nervous laughs.

No, not nervous laughs. It's funny because it's true.

The Indefensible in Support of the Unspeakable

Rudy Giuliani in Iowa:

Asked at a community meeting here whether he considered waterboarding torture, Mr. Giuliani said: “It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it.”

I think what that means is that if the Iranians were to waterboard a captured US pilot it would be torture but if the Americans were to waterboard a captured Iranian intelligence officer it would not. Such is the moral clarity of our times.

An American, er, Werewolf in London...

I've a piece in the new edition of The American Conservative looking at Rudy Giuliani's trip to London last month - a trip designed to make Rudy seem like an international statesman who can claim, however implausibly, to be the heir to Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher. Hmmm indeed.

It was an audacious gambit that a co-operative press corps was only too happy to buy. “His foreign policy pronouncements were certainly Thatcheresque,” gushed the Washington Post’s Dan Balz. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough was even more enthusiastic, suggesting, “the picture of Rudy Giuliani, America’s Mayor, in front of 10 Downing Street, sends a signal to Republican voters that this guy is ready for primetime.”

If only this were true. A more rigorous analysis of Giuliani’s London trip—one that looks at what the candidate actually said, rather than at how he was perceived—reveals a different reality: one characterized by confusion, intellectual incoherence, and a misreading of history so terrible one is tempted to conclude it must have been deliberate.

Whole thing here.

You're so vain, I bet you think this world is about you...

I'll have more to say on Rudy Giuliani's trip to London in due course, but first this:

Rudy Giuliani was on the trans-Atlantic campaign trail Wednesday, schmoozing with conservative idol Margaret Thatcher and bragging about his international credentials.

"I'm probably one of the four or five best known Americans in the world,"

If nothing else, Rudy's egomania ought to be sufficient to disqualify him from the Presidency.

For what it's worth I'd be amazed if Giuliani were named by many people around the world if they were asked to list five Americans. Even Rudy conceded that Bill and Hillary Clinton would beat him. So too, I suspect, would George W Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Then you'd be looking at people such as Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Britney Spears, Madonna etc etc. Giuliani? Not so much.

Tattoos would be cheaper...

Hmmm. Just how would this work, Rudy?

EVERY foreigner in America, including British visitors, would be required to carry an ID card bearing photograph and fingerprints under plans drawn up by Rudolph Giuliani, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.

Giuliani is hoping to cement his status as the Republican favourite by promising to enforce immigration and border controls, drawing on expertise in combating crime from his time as mayor of New York. He announced last week that all foreigners, including holiday-makers, would be obliged to carry a “tamper-proof” biometric card, which could be issued at ports of entry.

“If you don’t have that card, you get thrown out of the country,” Giuliani said. He intends to call it a Safe card (for secure authorised foreign entry).

One might dismiss this as pointless grandstanding were this daft proposal coming from any other candidate. But there is the grisly prospect that Giuliani actually means this...

Of course, foreigners are already photographed and have their fingerprints taken upon arrival in the US, so it's not clear to me exactly what the point of this "Safe" card would be, beyond being seen to be seeming to do something "tough" on security matters. In other words, it's an extension of the approach to airline security: appearances matter more than realistic appraisals of risk.

Bring me your huddled, undocumented masses...

On the other hand, via K-Lo at the Corner, Giuliani did have some redeeming features:

America is an immigrant nation with a long and proud tradition of inclusion and diversity. This tradition has helped our country to grow into the world's leading economic power. Forward-looking and enlightened Americans joined together to stop the "Know-Nothings" of the mid-nineteenth century. This allowed for an incredible expansion in the twentieth century. Now, we must do the same and stand up to today's isolationist movement to ensure that America's next century is as prosperous as the last.

And:

"Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens," Giuliani said in 1994. "If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city."

So here's the quandary for iron-spined conservatives: can you deal with Rudy selling out at home (all those Mexicans!) if he promises to kiss-ass everywhere else (all those enemies!)? Verily, this is the sort of dilemma that fried brains when Mexico played Iran in the World Cup last year...

The Giuliani Doctrine

PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH, STRENGTH THROUGH JOY, JOY THROUGH WAR

Apparently policing the world really is like cleaning up Gotham:

"In this decade, for the first time in human history, half of the world's population will live in cities. I know from personal experience that when security is reliably established in a troubled part of a city, normal life rapidly reestablishes itself: shops open, people move back in, children start playing ball on the sidewalks again, and soon a decent and law-abiding community returns to life. The same is true in world affairs. Disorder in the world's bad neighborhoods tends to spread. Tolerating bad behavior breeds more bad behavior. But concerted action to uphold international standards will help peoples, economies, and states to thrive. Civil society can triumph over chaos if it is backed by determined action."

The logic of this, clearly, is that the US can expect to be paying for many more military adventures. Rudy can't see a mole without wanting to whack it. That might work on a city scale, but it's absurd to think that clearing hookers and pan handlers out of Times Square is somehow a blueprint for foreign policy.

Then there's this:

"We must preserve the gains made by the U.S.A. Patriot Act and not unrealistically limit electronic surveillance or legal interrogation."

What that means, of course, is more torture.

UPDATE: James Joyner - no hippie he - says Giuliani is "dangerously stupid" and has lots of other good things to say. Also nice round-up of reactions.

UPDATE 2: Dan Drezner finds this to be an "unbelievably unserious essay" - ie, it's mad as a bag of spanners. Woohoo!

In case you're wondering, my childhood pony did help me prepare for 9/11...

Ah, Rudy, is there any limit to your shamelessness? Apparently not.

In Iowa, the great ham has this to say:

After about 10 minutes of prepared remarks, Giuliani began taking questions.  Asked about increasing federal support for HIV medications, Giuliani discussed what he considers appropriate federal responsibility in health care. "I don't want to promise you the federal government will take over the role," he said, drawing applause and shouts of "all right."  Then, in some interesting twists, he turned the HIV question into a 9/11 answer:

"My general experience has been that the federal government works best when it helps and assists and encourages and sets guidelines… on a state-by-state, locality-by-locality basis. It's no different from the way I look at homeland security. Maybe having been mayor of the city, I know that your first defense against terrorist attack is that local police station, or that local firehouse."

Emphasis added by me of course.

[Via Reason]

Giuliani waves the bloody shirt of 9/11?

Glenn Reynolds suggests that the New York City firefighters' attack on Rudy Giuliani are proof of, well, something:

Between this and the silly stuff about Fred Thompson, Democrats are looking more nervous about 2008 than you'd expect.

Sure. Right. Would Professor Reynolds argue that Republican attacks on, say, Hillary Clinton demonstrated "nervousness" or would they be a commonsense warning of horrors to come should America be so foolish as to elect her President?

As for the merits of the IAFF's case against Giuliani, well, you can probably argue it both ways. Whether Giuliani could have done more for the FDNY isn't really the point. But there is something exploitative and unseemly about Giuliani's apparent belief that 9/11 and its memory is enough to gain him the nomination.

Consider this account of a recent Giuliani speech in Delaware:

Rudy Giuliani was just six seconds into his speech when he played his campaign trump card: the memory of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I'll tell you the reason I wear this flag," the former New York City mayor told supporters at a recent rally here, pointing to the American flag pin on his lapel. "Before September 11, I only wore this flag rarely. But I started wearing it right after September 11. I wear it every day now. Each time I wear it, it reminds me of September 11."

That's good to know. No argument with that is there? The subtext is obvious, isn't it? Anyone who argues with or questions Giuliani's record or judgment is, implicitly, questioning his heroism and his patriotism. How can you dare do that? Wrapping the campaign in the memory of 9/11 is supposed to render Giuliani bullet-proof.

But that's not actually good enough, is it? It's far form clear, either, just how Giuliani's deservedly-hailed conduct in the days immediately after the atrocity automatically grants him insight into national security matters and foreign policy wisdom. We're supposed to take that on trust because he was there and a leader and you weren't. Well, that's not enough either. Giuliani's performance in the aftermath was remarkable. But we might also pause to remember that he also tried to persuade New Yorkers that it would be a good idea for matters to be arranged so that he could have a third term in office. That speaks to a certain something in his character too - something that should give one pause before granting him immunity from questioning even as he waves the bloody shirt of 9/11.