April 13, 2007

First Bernie, Now Bolton?

Who's advising whom (among the Presidential field) on Iraq policy? Jason Horowitz has some of the goods over at the NYO. And don't miss this snippet:

Mr. Giuliani has criticized some aspects of the American performance in Iraq, but has basically supported the President’s plan without addressing its specific shortcomings. Asked about his day-to-day Iraq advisor, his campaign would only say that he speaks with many individuals, including retired Gen. Jack Keane and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.

Oh my...Rudy had already lost me on foreign policy when I saw a piece he co-wrote with Newt Gingrich in the WSJ a while back comparing Iraq War strategy to his welfare reform/crime-fighting initiatives in New York. Baghdad ain't Bed-Sty, Mr. Mayor, I thought then. Seeing that his campaign thinks it a confidence-builder to note that Bolton is advising him on Iraq policy isn't exactly heartening either...With McCain hail-marying on the Iraq Surge, and Romney's, shall we say, confusing diversity of views on social issues (not to mention Mormon baggage), it's no wonder B actors are thinking of throwing themselves into the Republican presidential field. Speaking of Thompson, the hilariously titled "Pirates of Tehran" blog-post was enough to set off the poseur alarms pretty mightily, eh?

Posted by Gregory at April 13, 2007 03:06 AM
Comments

Yeah, I think Republicans need a break from ruling. I think they are a better party in the minority holding the Democrats' feet to the fire rather than ruling themselves. I knew back in 2000 that Bush wouldn't be a good leader, but seriously, these past six years have been utterly horrible.

Posted by: Dan at April 13, 2007 02:36 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

It was already obvious that the Republican talent pool is, on a humid day, about a molecule deep. But these clowns who've decided to run seem to be competing to make their party even more of a laughingstock. For that I'm actually somewhat grateful to them, in a perverse way.

Posted by: sglover at April 13, 2007 04:07 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Word, to both the previous posts (Dan and sglover). If Giuliani, Mitt, McCain and Fred Thompson are the best they can do, maybe they should just forfeit (as the Dems should have done in 2004; not that Kerry wouldn't have been a better president, but look at what he would have had to deal with, better to let George flail around in his own mess than waste millions of dollars trying to fight the RNC spinmeisters).

And yeah, Bush's underwhelming qualifications were pretty clear to me from the get-go, it's amusing to see how surprised everyone is now that he's turned out to be such a doofus. His most important qualifications are (in this order):
1) His last name is Bush 2) He's been married for 20-some years and has never been divorced 3) He pimps Jesus without hesitation. If George hadn't spent the last 7 years ruining the family name, the RNC would be running Jeb now for 2008.

Posted by: LL at April 13, 2007 11:24 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

And yeah, Bush's underwhelming qualifications were pretty clear to me from the get-go, it's amusing to see how surprised everyone is now that he's turned out to be such a doofus. His most important qualifications are (in this order):
1) His last name is Bush 2) He's been married for 20-some years and has never been divorced 3) He pimps Jesus without hesitation. If George hadn't spent the last 7 years ruining the family name, the RNC would be running Jeb now for 2008.

Yeah, but Republican apparatchiks assured us plebes he'd be surrounded by wise elder statesmen like Rumsfeld and Cheney -- the punchline to a sick and bitter joke, today.....

Posted by: sglover at April 14, 2007 05:35 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Baghdad ain't Bed-Sty, Mr. Mayor....

Of course, but ironically I thought it was supposed to be a major propaganda point for the GOP that Democrats thought fighting terrorism was a mere "police action," whereas only the Repubs realized the magnitude of the Global War on Terror.

In reality I think that fighting terrorism doesn't fall neatly in either category. We've certainly seen some of the dangers of applying the war metaphor haphazardly. But I just thought that Giuliani contrast was notable.

Posted by: Philip the Equal Opportunity Cynic at April 14, 2007 06:19 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
"Always-Worth Reading"
--Andrew Sullivan
Recent Entries
Search
English Language Media
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Columnists
Think Tanks
Law & Finance
Security
Books
The City
Archives
Syndicate this site:
XML RSS

Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by:
www.vikeny.com

vikeny.com

Powered by