Obama and the One-Sided Debate

by Mike on April 25, 2007

in Election 2008,Politics,War on Terror

Failing to read beyond the headlines of recent news stories, Barrack Obama criticized Rudy Giuliani for his remarks that America would face another 9-11 if a Democrat won the White House. According to the empty suit,

Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics,” Obama said in a statement. “America’s mayor should know that when it comes to 9-11 and fighting terrorists, America is united. We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure.”

There are three problems with this overreaction. First, Giuliani did not say that electing a Democrat would lead to another 9-11. Obama would know that if he had actually read the article underneath the misleading headline in the Politico story which generated the controversy. What Giuliani said was that our nation would return to a “pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.” He then cited Democrat opposition to post September 11 measures such as the Iraq War and wiretapping as evidence for his claim. Giuliani did not say what the headline said he did.

The second problem with Obama’s overreaction is his aversion to debate. Democrats repeatedly squawk about the need for a frank discussion about national security issues. Implicit in these calls for discussion is an exchange of viewpoints, including the potential consequences of opposing points of view. Democrats like Obama oppose the war in Iraq and other aspects of the War on Terror. Assuming their opposition is honest, they take the positions they do because they think their policies will create a more secure America while their opponents’ policies would make America less secure. Conversely, Republicans like Giuliani take the positions they do because they think their policies will create a more secure America while their opponents’ policies would make America less secure. That’s the debate. If it’s acceptable for Democrats to make their arguments, then it’s acceptable for Republicans to make theirs.

The third problem is that Obama didn’t tell the truth. Giuliani never questioned his patriotism.

Today’s national security debate centers around which policies are most effective in preserving national security. In that debate, people presumably take a position because they see the alternatives as less effective. In this case, Obama wants to have his cake and eat it too. Democrats can call for a discussion and criticize Republicans. Republicans can’t talk back though.

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

Ryan April 25, 2007 at 6:39 pm

Projection is really evident in the Dems’ response. They get super defensive about patriotism and whether or not they can protect the nation against terrorists. If Barry really wanted to transcend Rudy’s misleading remarks he’d ignore it or offer a real solution, laughing Rudy, making Rudy seem like fringe “there you go again” candidate. But he didn’t. Barry’s fear was exposed and his lack of solutions was evident.


Noonan April 26, 2007 at 3:11 pm

While I’m certainly no Giuliani fan, and I’m not sure even now what his position on Iraq is, it is clear that the Democrats have no political will against the war on terror. He is right that they would take ACLU kool-aid of a pre-9/11 defense mentality.

While the criticism of the Democrats is well-deserved, Giuliani is definitely not the man to lead us in the war on terror. He’s got no foreign policy experience, the Dems have some valid criticisms of his not preparing first responders with the equipment they demanded after the 1st WTC attack, and he did quit the 9/11 commission. Besides his impassioned, “we must defeat the terrorists and the Dems don’t get it” speech, he has steered clear of the third rail of Republican politics – the Iraq war.


Ryan April 26, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Well, I think Giuliani’s position on the War on Terror is pretty clear, going back at least to his 2004 convention speech. Also, Denkins was mayor back in 1993 and absolutely no one thought of terrorism as an act of war back then, we were still stuck in that whole “criminal act” mindset. Actually, I think this aspect of Giuliani’s positions is the most unambiguous and the one I’m most comfortable with on the War on Terror in general. I agree with your point about him dodging Iraq though. On domestic social issues I have a problem with his pro-choice, pro-civil union, anti-second amendment dribble.

Barry O’Bama’s point and the Dem’s persistent squawking about their blatant insecurities over obviously being the party who’s “weak on Terror” continues even now. I wish Romney would shoot back something simliar to what Giuliani said and get all the Dems in another tizzy. How are McCain and Giuliani actually the ones who are inspiring their rage lately? Ha! Politics is a spectator sport sometimes!


Noonan May 1, 2007 at 3:25 pm

True that Denkins was mayor, but it was during the whole of Rudy’s tenure that the 1st responder equipment was not provided.


Mike May 1, 2007 at 4:22 pm

The people making that claim are leaders of the IAFF, one of the most heavily Democratic unions in the country. They have been repudiated by a number of their own members for their baseless attacks. Thug union bosses are not exactly credible sources.


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: