He said what?

Headlines lately have made Rudy Giuliani look like just another conservative ranter. "If Democrats win we'll have another 9/11 type attack," he supposedly said at a Republican fundraiser this past week.

That quote sure doesn't gibe with my conclusion that Rudy would run an upright campaign and is extremely worthy of the presidency. But what did Rudy really say? Turns out the quotes (consolidated) in the Washington Post are quite a bit more nuanced:

"We're going to win that war (on terrorism) whether there's a Republican president or a Democratic president or any other president. The question is going to be: How long does it take and how many losses will we have along the way? And I truly believe that if we go back on defense for a period of time, we're going to ultimately have more losses and it's going to go on much longer. If one of them (Democrats) gets elected, it sounds to me like we're going on the defense. We've got a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. We're going to wave the white flag there. We're going to try to cut back on the Patriot Act. We're going to cut back on electronic surveillance. We're going to cut back on interrogation. We're going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we'll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defense."

It's just amazing how certain elements of the press try to inflame instead of educate. The Washington Post has great integrity, and got the quote right, but numerous other outlets quickly tried to stir up trouble. The Democrats in this example also are a sorry lot. Reactions to the speech ranged from indignation to disgust. Barack Obama said Rudy, "took the politics of fear to a new low."

Well Barack, let me tell you as one of your supporters...he didn't.

First of all there is a lot of truth to what Rudy said. If you go on defense against Islamic militants, we will suffer greater casualties and we will lose the war on terror. I have no doubt that several of the Democratic candidates (and many Democrats) do not fully understand the scope of the war we are in and the peril that we face. They are simply naive to think the isolationist policies they hold dear will protect us.

On the other hand, winning the war on terror requires more than brute force, aggressive interrogation tactics and a reduction in our personal freedoms. This is where I disagree with Rudy, although he has every right to say what he feels.

To win against Islamic militants takes a strong military approach - where appropriate. And ANY military action MUST go hand in hand with the following:

• A well thought out plan from the beginning to to the end including planning for what might go wrong and an attitude that acknowledges our purpose is not to spread American style democracy, but rather to help the locals live in peace in the way that best fits their culture. (i.e. lack of arrogance on our part)
• Truthful education of the American public on why the campaign is necessary and what the costs will be.
• Support from our allies.
• A robust plan for economic aid in the region.

As you can see, President Bush and the crazy neocons he fell in bed with could not pass even one item from this list when it comes to Iraq. Forget the debate on whether we're in a Vietnam-style quagmire. If only we were so lucky...

But deadlines for troop withdrawals, denials of how serious the threat is or playing politics by misquoting someone who is seriously (if a bit misguidedly) addressing the issue is no answer either.

If only...

If you watch enough sporting events you'll eventually observe a particularly frustrating form of defeat - when the team that was being beaten finally figures out what they were doing wrong and mounts a comeback - only to be denied because time has run out.

As I have said before, the tragedy of George Bush's Iraq policy was that he took a dangerous, but necessary idea (combating militant Islam in the heart of the Mideast) and wrecked it with stubbornness, arrogance and incompetence. If only we had not mislead the American people about why toppling Saddam was necessary (it had nothing to do with WMD)...if only there had been a comprehensive economic and political plan after the initial invasion - lead by talented people instead of yes men...if only we had brought in enough force to quell any ideas of an insurgency (like we did in Bosnia where the mantra of "we're going to be the biggest dog on the street" worked wonders in a situation that was initially much more bleak than Iraq)...and if only the right commander had been in place once the insurgency started.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18252538/

The link above is to an article that is striking in its forthrightness. Frankly, coming from someone the Bush administration trusts, it's downright amazing. If any man can parlay a 5% chance of success into the real thing, it's General Petraeus, and the more I read, the more I believe this man could have turned things around as late as about a year ago. I'm assuming that the Iraqis would have started making progress toward settling their differences if the environment had been calmer, but at least there would have been some chance of that. Now all we have is a Hail Mary (another sports analogy).

As far as the candidates for President, even my candidate fails woefully at understanding the repercussions of the current Iraq situation. Pulling out our troops without a plan is as bad as going in without a plan - and I haven't seen any kind of thoughtful plan from Barack Obama or any other troop pullout candidate. The President's defenders seem as clueless now as they did back when this whole mess started. When Harry Reid says the war is lost and the Republicans immediately attack him for deserting the troops and being a "defeatocrat", you can see nothing's changed on the conservative side either.

Only one man with any influence seems to get it. General Petraeus has to battle Sunni insurgents, Shiite death squads, Al Quaeda, troop exhaustion and a woefully inexperienced and partly corrupt Iraqi government. Despite all this, I think some very small steps have been made over the past two months in Iraq.

The question is...is there any time left on the clock?

The most important issue is...

Sometimes I'm glad I'm 42 years old.

On days when I am stiff and sore, can't swing the golf club the way I want to and have memory lapses I'm not so glad. But when I think of what the world is like now and what the world is going to be like in 40 years, I realize that I have had the privilege to live a good part of my life before too much went wrong...before things got totally out of control.

Many people have seen the movie "An Inconvenient Truth." Many of those who saw it walked away saying they would try to do the little things in their life that might make a difference when it comes to global warming. I know I did. Some people, however, came out with a more pessimistic viewpoint - that it's already too late to do anything. If you read the article through the link below (the video is even more stark), you can understand why they feel that way.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18039460/.

It may indeed be too late to stop nearly catastrophic change. But there's still a difference between nearly catastrophic change and catastrophic change.

Despite the immediacy of the war in Iraq, there is no greater issue facing this country (and the world) than global warming. Every day that goes by without starting the extremely painful measures that will curb greenhouse gas emissions is a day that brings us closer to our own self-caused destruction. I can't make it any clearer than that.

Every time a presidential candidate asks for questions from the press or the audience, the first question should be:

"What measures are you prepared to take to limit the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere and how are you going to convince the American people and the world that these painful measures are absolutely essential?"

It's probably already too late for the polar bears and seals mentioned in the article above. But the answer to that question will determine whether it's also too late for us.

Hate vs. Hope

No matter how good a writer you are, words inevitably pale in comparison to one electrifying (if deeply disturbing) visual moment. Several times in my posts I have sought to describe the sickness in our country that is exemplified by those in the media who seek to inflame issues for political gain. I have said Bill O'Reilly is the worst offender alive at this game. For those who doubt me, here's a clip that I would like you to watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZB7dKJk5c

It makes no difference where you stand on the immigration debate. It makes no difference if you are liberal or conservative. It makes no difference if you are Republican or Democrat. The only thing worth taking from this video (and it's everything) is that Bill O'Reilly is filled with hate. Watch his face and you will see it's not a face of someone passionately arguing a point - it's a face of hatred. End of story.

But in the news, there is also hope. A few days ago figures were released on how the major candidates are doing raising money. Some are doing better than others, but the big story to me was not that Barack Obama raised a staggering $25million in the first quarter - essentially tied with Hillary Clinton for first in the fundraising game. The big story was that he had nearly twice as many donors - many of whom gave small amounts of money. In other words, he got those who rarely contribute to give money.

In the coming months, the electricity of the ever-growing crowds listening to Obama's speeches will become startling. Those who said relying on students for support is foolish - because they never vote - will be proven wrong. Those who think they can write off those who had given up on politics will rue the day they did so.

Get ready for hope to vanquish hate.

Second thoughts

It's always dangerous to think you know someone that you have never met, let alone spent any time with. It's fine to blog your opinions out there on the Internet, but deep down, I know that I will most likely never meet any of the people I am writing about. And because of this I know that it's possible that I may not capture the absolute truest picture of who they are.

But sometimes the material available is so strong that you just sense it must be true. Such is the case with the interview Jonathan Alter of Newsweek did with Elizabeth Edwards (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889146/site/newsweek/). There's nothing I can write that would do justice to this woman. All I can say is, read the interview, and then ask yourself how would you handle the same situation? Deep down ask yourself what your attitude would be like and how strong you would be.

Elizabeth Edwards is not running for President. But she decided to spend her life with John Edwards. She sees something in him that is good, true and worth loving or she wouldn't have married him and stuck by his side as she has done. And that's enough to make me reconsider what kind of man Edwards is.