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.