AT A SPEECH in Manchester on Tuesday night, Rudy Giuliani reportedly said that if a Democrat is elected President, Americans should prepare for another 9/11. Democrats went nuts. But Giuliani did not say that.
The man who was mayor of New York City on 9/11 said only this: Republican Presidential candidates advocate staying on the offensive in the War on Terror, while Democratic Presidential candidates seem to advocate going back on the defensive. That being the case, Giuliani said, America would be safer if a Republican were elected President.
Sen. Barack Obama responded that Giuliani “has taken the politics of fear to a new low.” Balderdash. On the same day Giuliani spoke, Obama delivered a foreign policy address in which he asserted that his plan for thwarting terrorists would make America safer. Unless he is prepared to say that every Republican candidate would make America equally as safe as he would, then his gripe against Giuliani is nothing but hollow rhetoric.
Giuliani said that Republicans have better ideas for defeating terrorists. Democrats say every day that they have better ideas for defeating terrorists. Neither Republicans nor Democrats would be very good partisans if they did not believe these assertions. Are such claims out of bounds? Of course not!
America is at war. The most important issue in this campaign is how the war against Islamic extremists will be conducted. If neither side is allowed to say that its plans are better, how are we supposed to debate the issue? Let’s allow the candidates to have it out and see who really does have the best plan to protect America from the terrorist threat.
Rudy’s speech says what his plans are for the Global War on Terror.
Tell Flap what Hillary or Barack plan to do?
The Democrat Presidential debate in South Carolina clarified their positions?
Yes, they agreed there is a “War on Terror.”
For clarification of Rudy’s position here is Hizzoner on Sean Hannnity’s radio program yesterday:
Technorati Tags: RudyGiuliani