Late Final
Late Final
Search for    
A Plan for Iran

Glenn Reynolds' suggestion for the continued fight against Islamic Jihadism supported by factions in Iran and Saudi Arabia:

Why aren't we waging unconventional warfare against them? They undoubtedly have toes we can step on in the form of business interests, overseas accounts, vacation homes, etc. Would we make more progress by targeting those sorts of things, rather than fighting their cannon fodder in the field? If I recall correctly, a shift to that strategy was what ended the Philippine insurgency a century ago.

But I'm no military expert, so there may be good reasons why we're not doing this. Or we may, in fact, be doing it and it just may be under the radar, though I kind of doubt that.

This may not be what he means, but this is what we've done, according to Richard Clarke's submitted testimony to the 9/11 Commission:

The Clinton Administration responded to Iraqi terrorism against the US in 1993 with a military retaliation and against Iranian terrorism against the US in 1996 at Khobar Towers with a covert action. Both US responses were accompanied by warning that further anti-US terrorism would result in greater retaliation. Neither Iraq nor Iran engaged in anti-US terrorism subsequently. (Iraqis did, of course, later engage in anti-US terrorism in 2003-4.)

No one has ever reported what that "covert action" was. But Louis Freeh was unimpressed.

By Ed Moltzen  ·  30 July 2006
LINK  ·   Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)
0

Why The National Review Is Wrong On Giuliani

Kate O'Beirne writes the current cover story in National Review, calling into question whether Rudy Giuliani really has a chance to lock down the Republican nomination for President:

In the political-leadership sweepstakes, Giuliani is A-number-one, top of the list, king of the hill. But Sinatra's catchy claim is turned on its head in the presidential sweepstakes: When it comes to winning over GOP primary voters, if you can make it in New York, you can't make it anywhere.

The full magazine piece is not available online. But NRO sees fit to put on its cover a photo of Giuliani in drag from a New York press dinner from a few years back, in an image that will neatly tie together his "problem" for conservatives: He's pro-choice, pro-gay rights, is twice-divorced and, yes, he once dressed like a woman.

Hold that thought, we'll come back to it.

Flashback to 1980.
reagan_bonzo.jpg

Ronald Reagan had posed with a chimpanzee. As an actor, he even appeared on the silver screen in his underwear. He used to be a Democrat - heck, he was a labor activist. And he had gone through a divorce. In 1980, there were still questions about whether or not Republicans and the country in general would trust a divorced leader. "If he can't commit to a wife, how can he commit to running the country?" Believe it or not, that was a question that swirled around then.

But two events put those questions on the far back burner: the Iran hostage crisis, and the advent of 20-percent interest rates.

Republicans loved that Reagan was a hawk on defense, and they loved that he wanted to slash taxes. Divorce? Bonzo? Trifles. We needed someone to stand up to the Soviets and the Ayatollah.

A few years after he was elected president, when Reagan's own son danced on national television in his underwear, and Reagan and his wife issued very supportive statements, it wound up being no big deal. He was The Gipper. Not even Barry Goldwater had snarky remarks.

Back to present day.

Backers of Republicans like George Allen or Mitt Romney are going to bring out the full arsenal on Giuliani. That means attacking the former New York City mayor on everything from the gay marriage issue to his one-time endorsement of Mario Cuomo. It won't work. We're a country at war - just as we were in 1980, during the Cold War and the Iran crisis. The Bush tax cuts haven't yet been made permanent.

If Giuliani fails or succeeds will depend largely on two questions: First, will he even run for president? And, second, can he run a competent campaign if he does?

He's a hawk on defense, and he's conservative on taxes. He's not perfect but he's a proven leader. And it didn't take 9/11 to prove it, as anyone who visited New York City during the David Dinkins' administration (2,000 murders a year) and later during Giuliani's (lowest N.Y.C. crime rate in generations) can attest.

So the Allen- and Romney-backers can throw up any issue they want at Giuliani through the 2008 campaign. Those issues, though, will just wind up on a long list of red herrings (and chimpanzees) from the past.

By Ed Moltzen  ·  22 July 2006
LINK  ·   Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)
0

Spitzer-Suozzi: It's On

The Tom Suozzi for Governor campaign just sent out this note to supporters:

Early next week Tom Suozzi is going to submit enough petition signatures to earn him a spot on the primary election ballot for Governor of New York. Our campaign to Fix Albany has officially begun!

That is unless frontrunner Eliot Spitzer decides to challenge Suozzi's petition signatures or try other legal machinations to keep him off the ballot. But that may be a story for another day.

Suozzi, who has gotten nothing but bad news from pollsters and even some political allies, got a welcome boost from Newsday today when the paper said Spitzer should cave in and give Suozzi more than the one debate that has been scheduled between them:

People who live north and west of the Tappan Zee bridge face extraordinary - and for this state, unique - economic problems. The more prosperous suburbs east and north of the city have their own issues that deserve airing. Let's hear Spitzer and Suozzi - one on one - all over the state.

The Democratic playbook in the 2006 New York governor's race calls for Spitzer to simply bury Suozzi and march to a coronation in Albany. It's slowly getting harder and harder for Spitzer to pull that off.

By Ed Moltzen  ·   6 July 2006
LINK  ·   Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)
0