PDA

View Full Version : Rudy was kicked-off Iraq Study Group; He chose making $$$ over fixing Iraq


jAZ
06-19-2007, 01:44 PM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014692.php
(June 19, 2007 -- 02:11 PM EST // link)
How did we not learn about this sooner?

From Newsday ...

Rudolph Giuliani's membership on an elite Iraq study panel came to an abrupt end last spring after he failed to show up for a single official meeting of the group, causing the panel's top Republican to give him a stark choice: either attend the meetings or quit, several sources said.

Giuliani left the Iraq Study Group last May after just two months, walking away from a chance to make up for his lack of foreign policy credentials on the top issue in the 2008 race, the Iraq war.

He cited "previous time commitments" in a letter explaining his decision to quit, and a look at his schedule suggests why -- the sessions at times conflicted with Giuliani's lucrative speaking tour that garnered him $11.4 million in 14 months.


That's the kind of story that ends a campaign, especially one like Rudy's based on standing up to terrorism and hanging tough in Iraq. And that's probably why the campaign put out this statement, which Jonah Goldberg posted at The Corner ...

As someone considered a potential presidential candidate, the Mayor didnít want the groupís work to become a political football. That, coupled with time restraints led to his decision.

But wait. If being a presidential candidate was the issue, why'd Rudy accept the appointment in the first place? And did the possibility of running for president make him blow off all the meetings? Was he informally recusing himself? C'mon. In any case, the statement concedes that 'time restraints' (does he mean 'constraints'?) were an issue. So he's not even really denying the claim.

So Rudy's running on terrorism and Iraq. But he got booted off a congressionally-mandated blue ribbon panel because he couldn't be bothered to show up for the meetings. It conflicted with his for-a-price speaking gigs. Like I said, it's the kind of story that ends campaigns.

-- Josh Marshall

Baby Lee
06-19-2007, 01:48 PM
The fear is strong in this one.

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 01:50 PM
I found out that Rudy made millions of dollars off 9/11 two nights ago too.
Speeches and talks etc. He's got a huge ego and is an opportunist. Like most politicians. I don't care if a president makes money off of speeches in general after he's out of office. But not off of this national tragedy, then exploiting it to run for office nationally.

jAZ
06-19-2007, 01:52 PM
The fear is strong in this one.
You have to admit, that if a Dem had picked making money off 9/11 over studying the problem in Iraq... they'd be rightly crucified.

Baby Lee
06-19-2007, 02:00 PM
You have to admit, that if a Dem had picked making money off 9/11 over studying the problem in Iraq... they'd be rightly crucified.
Big Bill had, what, 350 speaking engagements a year the past few years?
Rudy says they're prior engagements. So it's plausible he took the commission before knowing the frequency and intensity of the task.
I don't mind the fact he honored his previous engagements over staying on the group, with all it's 'implications.'
It's the 'this is a campaign killer' pronouncement that spurred my 'fear' comment.

jAZ
06-19-2007, 02:14 PM
Big Bill had, what, 350 speaking engagements a year the past few years?
Rudy says they're prior engagements. So it's plausible he took the commission before knowing the frequency and intensity of the task.
I don't mind the fact he honored his previous engagements over staying on the group, with all it's 'implications.'
It's the 'this is a campaign killer' pronouncement that spurred my 'fear' comment.
For me, this goes right to the heart of Rudy's biggest negative for me. He already seems to be setting himself up to be a pawn to the NeoCons. He's also completely absent any personal insight into the problems in the middle east.

We don't need another 4 years of Bush letting the NeoCons run the country into the ground. Rudy's decided to do that it seems.

And when faced with a chance to first study very closely the war, and have a real possible impact on fixing the problem... he decided to honor his other more lucrative commitments.

He made 2 commitments and picked the more lucriative one over the learning experience on the single biggest issue facing our nation today.

It's a question of priorities. We don't need another empty vessel as President.

Baby Lee
06-19-2007, 02:19 PM
For me, this goes right to the heart of Rudy's biggest negative for me. He already seems to be setting himself up to be a pawn to the NeoCons. He's also completely absent any personal insight into the problems in the middle east.

We don't need another 4 years of Bush letting the NeoCons run the country into the ground. Rudy's decided to do that it seems.

And when faced with a chance to first study very closely the war, and have a real possible impact on fixing the problem... he decided to honor his other more lucrative commitments.

He made 2 commitments and picked the more lucriative one over the learning experience on the single biggest issue facing our nation today.

It's a question of priorities. We don't need another empty vessel as President.
He's been very wonkish, as well as detail and results oriented, in his previous endeavors, crime reduction, tackling organized crime, urban revitalization, economic growth. I'll continue to give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll take the same approach to foreign policy until he actually proves incapable.

irishjayhawk
06-19-2007, 02:21 PM
He's been very wonkish, as well as detail and results oriented, in his previous endeavors, crime reduction, tackling organized crime, urban revitalization, economic growth. I'll continue to give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll take the same approach to foreign policy until he actually proves incapable.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt when he stops referencing 9/11 and the fearmongering that goes with it.

jAZ
06-19-2007, 02:32 PM
He's been very wonkish, as well as detail and results oriented, in his previous endeavors, crime reduction, tackling organized crime, urban revitalization, economic growth. I'll continue to give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll take the same approach to foreign policy until he actually proves incapable.
That you choose to ignore this doesn't make it go away.

Were Rudy to have aligned himself with Colin Powell rather than the NeoCons, he'd be far easier to support.

Baby Lee
06-19-2007, 02:46 PM
That you choose to ignore this doesn't make it go away.

Were Rudy to have aligned himself with Colin Powell rather than the NeoCons, he'd be far easier to support.
C'mon jAZ, we're grown-ups. Don't play the 'if only, I might be able to support him' card. This is the thing you were looking for to stake your reservations and pump into a deal-breaker.

jAZ
06-19-2007, 03:08 PM
C'mon jAZ, we're grown-ups. Don't play the 'if only, I might be able to support him' card. This is the thing you were looking for to stake your reservations and pump into a deal-breaker.
You're right... that's a bit stronger than I mean.

I've said from the beginning that I'd be far more comfortable with Rudy, Romney or McCain as President than Bush. That's not the same thing as "supporting" or "voting for".

As Rudy has taken the NeoCon position on Iraq and foreign policy that he has, it's become clear that in this area he's way outa step with what I believe.

So I was trying to say that had he aligned himself with the Powell camp, rather than the Cheney camp, he'd be far less of a (how about this?) concern for me.

And as a result, were he elected president, I'd have far more confidence in the success of his Presidency.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-19-2007, 03:41 PM
C'mon jAZ, we're grown-ups. Don't play the 'if only, I might be able to support him' card. This is the thing you were looking for to stake your reservations and pump into a deal-breaker.

Couldn't a reasonable argument be made that you have done the same thing in inverse? You have an investment in Rudy as a candidate, it's clear, and you choose to disregard such information, or consistently "give him the benefit of the doubt."

That doesn't mean that you're a bad person, but just that you don't want this or other things to affect your perception of him.

Taco John
06-19-2007, 03:44 PM
Rudy has absolutely no platform on Iraq right now. I think he's waiting for September to stick his finger in the air and determine which way the wind is blowing.

Baby Lee
06-19-2007, 03:57 PM
Couldn't a reasonable argument be made that you have done the same thing in inverse? You have an investment in Rudy as a candidate, it's clear, and you choose to disregard such information, or consistently "give him the benefit of the doubt."

That doesn't mean that you're a bad person, but just that you don't want this or other things to affect your perception of him.
I think I'm pretty transparent on supporting the guy, why I'm supporting him, and why I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt herein.
But that's not the inverse of jAZ's maneuvers herein.
jAZ, I submit, sees a lot he can stomach in Giuliani, except the [R] after his name, which is the real deal breaker. So he's been playing the 'he wore a dress in a sketch' snipe and the 'he's a divorcee who hangs out with faigs' jibe, until Josh can dig up something like this for him, and he can pump it into the sine qua non of everything that's wrong with Giuliani.

Kind of like if your brother is dating a girl you don't like, but you bide your time, then one day she belches in mixed company and it's "that's crass, that shows a true lack of manners, I'm truly and deeply offended, makes you wonder what kind of companion she'd really make long term, . . . blah, blah, blah. . . "

jAZ
06-19-2007, 04:18 PM
So he's been playing the 'he wore a dress in a sketch' snipe and the 'he's a divorcee who hangs out with faigs' jibe,
You are so full of sh!t. I made a somewhat self-depricating joke about him marrying his cousin and explicitly asked why people try to push the "in a dress" video. I see no point to it myself. I have no idea what the "hangs out with faigs" reference even points to... I surely haven't said a thing about it.

So basically, you are lying.

recxjake
06-19-2007, 04:19 PM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0607/Rudy_pushes_back_against_Newsday_ISG_story.html

Baby Lee
06-19-2007, 04:26 PM
You are so full of sh!t. I made a somewhat self-depricating joke about him marrying his cousin and explicitly asked why people try to push the "in a dress" video. I see no point to it myself. I have no idea what the "hangs out with faigs" reference even points to... I surely haven't said a thing about it.

So basically, you are lying.
Sorry if I missed that you weren't participating in that incessant deluge, seriously.
I note that your indignation is silent on the dynamic I was hypothesizing, though. :p

On the faig tip;
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/rnc/9728/

HolmeZz
06-19-2007, 06:59 PM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0607/Rudy_pushes_back_against_Newsday_ISG_story.html

Jake isn't intelligent enough to form his own opinion, but he does have a link!

Adept Havelock
06-19-2007, 07:07 PM
Jake isn't intelligent enough to form his own opinion, but he does have a link!


Is it the missing one from the museum thread?

jAZ
06-19-2007, 08:59 PM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0607/Rudy_pushes_back_against_Newsday_ISG_story.html
NeoCon Iraq War Hawk Jonah Goldberg from the National Review Online says:

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Rudy's Explanation [Jonah Goldberg]

Greg Sargent makes a pretty strong case Giuliani's case for blowing off the ISG is pretty weak.

06/19 07:20 PM

Here's the case he references...

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jun/19/rudys_justification_for_leaving_iraq_study_group_shown_to_be_bogus

Rudy's Justification For Blowing Off Iraq Study Group Shown To Be Bogus
By Greg Sargent | bio

The Giuliani campaign today is pushing back on the big story today reporting that he was kicked off the Iraq Study Group because he blew off ISG meetings despite having time to make high-priced speeches.

The Rudy camp's claim? He was seen as a "potential Presidential candidate" and didn't want this fact to turn his work for the ISG into a "political football."

But a quick and dirty bit of research shows that the Rudy campaign's pushback here is entirely bogus. Details after the jump.

***

As you know, Newsday reported today that Giuliani was bumped from the ISG after blowing off its meetings. The paper further suggested that a key reason for missing them was that he was busy making money giving high-priced speeches.

The Rudy camp is disputing the story, sending the following response to the Politico's Jonathan Martin:

"Once again, the paper wrote a story with little regard to the facts. The facts are these -- as someone considered a potential presidential candidate, the Mayor didnít want the groupís work to become a political football. That, coupled with time constraints, led to his decision."

Jonah Goldberg obtained a similar response from the Rudy camp and posted it over at The Corner.

The argument here is that Rudy backed out of his commitment to the ISG because he knew people were thinking of him as a potential Presidential candidate, something that (he allegedly thought) could potentially politicize his role on the panel. How selfless!

But even a cursory bit of research completely debunks the Rudy camp's pushback here.

Rudy's role with the ISG was announced in March of 2006. This was presumably done with Rudy's consent. That means that Rudy was willing to serve on the ISG in March of 2006, right? Right.

As it turns out, Rudy himself was openly telling reporters that he was a potential candidate for President many months earlier than this.

From the Associated Press in October of 2005:

Giuliani says he will consider 2008 presidential run

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) ó Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Sunday he will contemplate next year whether to run for president in 2008.

"I will be considering it next year," Giuliani said during a visit to Denmark.

So very clearly, Rudy himself was saying that he was a "potential Presidential candidate" five months before agreeing to join the ISG. He even openly stated that he'd be actively considering a run during the same year -- 2006 -- that the ISG would be doing its work. So why did Rudy join it in the first place?

His campaign is now saying that he backed out of his ISG commitment because the fact that he was seen as a potential candidate could politicize his work for the panel -- even though that didn't stop him from signing up in the first place.

This is just total bull, pure and simple. No polite way to describe it.

Meanwhile, the only remaining piece of his pushback -- that "time constraints" prevented his participation -- actually suggests confirmation of the story. So Rudy's got nothing left here.

jAZ
06-19-2007, 09:09 PM
Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to get kicked off the ISG - this highest profile effort outside the Whitehouse to study the problem in Iraq and offer a consensus solution to the problem - for refusing to actually show up?

Why The Eff would anyone respect his commitment to solving the problem with that sort of behavior?

And then to give such an easily debunked BS explanation??? Wow.

:shake:

Taco John
06-19-2007, 09:21 PM
The same people who have been wrong about Iraq the whole time are the same people who will pardon Rudy for not doing *his* homework on the situation. They're not in this thing for the solution. They're in it because it's become a religion to them. It's a matter of faith, and Rudy is the new "prophet."

jAZ
06-19-2007, 09:25 PM
Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to get kicked off the ISG - this highest profile effort outside the Whitehouse to study the problem in Iraq and offer a consensus solution to the problem - for refusing to actually show up?
Actually, As I think about it... I wonder if it wasn't so much a $$ decision as it was a political decision.

He couldn't run for President on a pro-Bush, pro-Iraq War platform if he was part of a commission who recommended strategic redeployments, draw-downs, and diplomacy over war.

My guess is that he signed up for politics... to help bolster his foreign policy bonifieds...

And then sensed what the commission was likely to learn/conclude... and because it didn't fit with his 9/11-Hawkish campaign strategy, he bailed.

But you can't admit that today, so they have decided to spin it as best they can and are willing to take the hit on the "he chose $$ over public service" thinking it's better than screwing his whole campaign before it got started or admitting to any of this.

jAZ
06-19-2007, 09:26 PM
The same people who have been wrong about Iraq the whole time are the same people who will pardon Rudy for not doing *his* homework on the situation. They're not in this thing for the solution. They're in it because it's become a religion to them. It's a matter of faith, and Rudy is the new "prophet."
At least, that's what he's hoping.

Pitt Gorilla
06-19-2007, 09:32 PM
jAZ, I submit, sees a lot he can stomach in Giuliani, except the [R] after his name, which is the real deal breaker. Does he say similar "bad" things about Paul?

Taco John
06-19-2007, 09:34 PM
At least, that's what he's hoping.



Hoping nothing. He's got absolutely zero platform on Iraq, and is still the top Republican candidate. If that doesn't tell you that these people aren't interested in an actual solution for Iraq, then what will?

It's not going to be all smooth sailing though. He's eventually going to have to break in one way or the other is September when the party splits in half in order to save their own throats. It's going to be every Republican for himself come that time and Rudy is going to have to guage public sentiment in order to come up with an opinion on Iraq.

patteeu
06-19-2007, 10:36 PM
[jAZ quoting an article]

Rudy's Justification For Blowing Off Iraq Study Group Shown To Be Bogus
By Greg Sargent | bio

Shown to be bogus? I don't see why Rudy couldn't accept a position on the commission and then upon further reflection decide that it wasn't such a good idea, but more importantly, I don't see why this whole situation, regardless of his reasons for removing himself from the commission, is any big deal whatsoever. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single Iraq study panel member that I'd want to be the next President (or even a member of the next cabinet) anyway.

Besides, according to BEP, people can't act against their financial self-interest anyway so he didn't really have much choice. :p

patteeu
06-19-2007, 10:41 PM
It's not going to be all smooth sailing though. He's eventually going to have to break in one way or the other is September when the party splits in half in order to save their own throats. It's going to be every Republican for himself come that time and Rudy is going to have to guage public sentiment in order to come up with an opinion on Iraq.

I bet democrats are thanking their lucky stars that the US is having such a hard time in Iraq that this very well could be the case. Hurray for catastrophe! Three cheers for failure!!!

Baby Lee
06-20-2007, 08:11 AM
Does he say similar "bad" things about Paul?
Why would he? He's not scared Paul could be President.

Taco John
06-20-2007, 09:09 AM
I bet democrats are thanking their lucky stars that the US is having such a hard time in Iraq that this very well could be the case. Hurray for catastrophe! Three cheers for failure!!!



I think it's the MeatGrinderists who are happy right now. There's a war, and plenty of good men and women to throw away for a hopeless cause that doesn't make a difference to the people back home.

You must be tickled.

|Zach|
06-20-2007, 09:22 AM
I bet democrats are thanking their lucky stars that the US is having such a hard time in Iraq that this very well could be the case. Hurray for catastrophe! Three cheers for failure!!!
Insulting. I thought you were above this post.

Baby Lee
06-20-2007, 09:35 AM
Insulting. I thought you were above this post.
No such aspirations of TJ, eh? :p

patteeu
06-20-2007, 11:27 AM
I think it's the MeatGrinderists who are happy right now. There's a war, and plenty of good men and women to throw away for a hopeless cause that doesn't make a difference to the people back home.

You must be tickled.

:LOL:

patteeu
06-20-2007, 11:28 AM
Insulting. I thought you were above this post.

I take pride in being able to constantly amaze you with the new depths I can reach. :p

But I make no apologies here. I'm not the one who positioned myself so that I could only benefit if America was perceived to fail. I suppose I should have been more clear that I was talking about democrat politicians, but somehow I doubt that you'd be much less insulted by that.

Phobia
06-20-2007, 11:36 AM
I don't see what the big deal is. Dude bowed out of an upaid gig for paid gigs. So what. Yeah, it was an important panel but was his presence so critical that the panel was trashed after he left? Probably not. I'm not a big Rudy fan and likely won't vote for the guy but I don't see how this choice is a deal-breaker.

jAZ
06-20-2007, 11:39 AM
But I make no apologies here. I'm not the one who positioned myself so that I could only benefit if America was perceived to fail.
I guess you wouldn't blame someone for pointing out that you've "positioned (your)self" as the guy who benefits from growing number of slaughtered shredded flesh of our soldiers and the piling up of dead bodies of the innocent women and children all over the world who are vicitms of terrorist attacks.

The more terrorism in the world, the more endless the fight in Iraq... the better off you are.

patteeu <3 slaughtered baby guts
patteeu <3 dead Americans

You can't blame anyone for that conclusion.

patteeu
06-20-2007, 11:41 AM
I guess you wouldn't blame someone for pointing out that you've "positioned (your)self" as the guy who benefits from growing number of slaughtered shredded flesh of our soldiers and the piling up of dead bodies of the innocent women and children all over the world who are vicitms of terrorist attacks.

The more terrorism in the world, the more endless the fight in Iraq... the better off you are.

patteeu <3 slaughtered baby guts
patteeu <3 dead Americans

You can't blame anyone for that conclusion.

I don't follow your "logic" here.

jAZ
06-20-2007, 01:12 PM
I don't follow your "logic" here.
Of course you don't. That's the point.

patteeu
06-20-2007, 03:38 PM
Of course you don't. That's the point.

I see by this response that you must now realize that your post wasn't based on logic. If it were, I'm sure you wouldn't have hesitated to walk me through it. Maybe next time.

jAZ
06-20-2007, 03:46 PM
I see by this response that you must now realize that your post wasn't based on logic. If it were, I'm sure you wouldn't have hesitated to walk me through it. Maybe next time.
Sorry if that seemed like calculus to you.

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 04:33 PM
I don't see what the big deal is. Dude bowed out of an upaid gig for paid gigs. So what. Yeah, it was an important panel but was his presence so critical that the panel was trashed after he left? Probably not. I'm not a big Rudy fan and likely won't vote for the guy but I don't see how this choice is a deal-breaker.

In case you missed the memo this is another in the long line of "Beat up the biggest perceived threat" thread. It's all the rage if you're a liberal blogger.

jAZ
06-20-2007, 04:42 PM
In case you missed the memo this is another in the long line of "Beat up the biggest perceived threat" thread. It's all the rage if you're a liberal blogger.
Wouldn't you say it was a pretty big deal if a leading contender for President refused to address (or in this case, even study) the single biggest issue facing our nation?

Seriously, Rudy refuses to take a position on Iraq. He refuses specifics.

I didn't realize how right TJ was about this until TMP did a little digging.

<embed src="http://www.veracifier.com/embed/player" width="425" height="340" allowScriptAccess="always" FlashVars="video_file=http://www.veracifier.com/embed/play/TPM_20070620" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed>

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 06:42 PM
Wouldn't you say it was a pretty big deal if a leading contender for President refused to address (or in this case, even study) the single biggest issue facing our nation?



Actually no. I don't necessarily think being part of the Iraq Study Group as a make/break deal maker when running for president.

He'll eventually have to come to a position but from a political point of view it's a shrewd tactic seeing Obama and Clinton have pretty much already surrendered.

patteeu
06-20-2007, 06:47 PM
Wouldn't you say it was a pretty big deal if a leading contender for President refused to address (or in this case, even study) the single biggest issue facing our nation?

Seriously, Rudy refuses to take a position on Iraq. He refuses specifics.

I didn't realize how right TJ was about this until TMP did a little digging.

How could you possibly realize it without TMP doing your thinking for you? Has Josh reminded you to change your kid's diaper today yet?

But more interestingly, it's good to see you getting on this case early this time around seeing as how you failed to level even the most modest criticism of John Kerry for failing to have a position on the "single biggest issue facing our nation" throughout the entire 2004 race.

Baby Lee
06-20-2007, 06:48 PM
Wouldn't you say it was a pretty big deal if a leading contender for President refused to address (or in this case, even study) the single biggest issue facing our nation?
My take is that he's approaching this like an attorney, not pronouncing his assessment until he's in possession of sufficient facts.
So far as I know, he's not granted clearance to the highest level of classified info. He's not granted carte blanche access to generals and troops and foreign experts, etc. And perhaps most importantly, he can't do a thing about it for a year and a half.

I know, I know, spinmeister here. But this is a serious reaction, given my reluctance when I encounter folks with their ever reliable "hey, you're an attorney, my brother has this xxxx, so what's his prospects?"

What some see as a reluctance to put his views out there, I see as sober knowledge that he's not in a position to give anything other than a rhetorical, hypothetical solution to a problem that depends on facts and details, facts and details he's not completely privvy to, and which may change radically before he is in a position to enact his 'solution.'

Inclumsy shorthand, he's wary of being 'Nifonged' on this issue. ;)

Baby Lee
06-20-2007, 06:50 PM
How could you possibly realize it without TMP doing your thinking for you? Has Josh reminded you to change your kid's diaper today yet?

But more interestingly, it's good to see you getting on this case early this time around seeing as how you failed to level even the most modest criticism of John Kerry for failing to have a position on the "single biggest issue facing our nation" throughout the entire 2004 race.
He had a position, he just couldn't tell us about it yet.

patteeu
06-20-2007, 07:19 PM
He had a position, he just couldn't tell us about it yet.

Well, since he served in Vietnam, chasing down bad guys at great risk to himself and saving his boatmates on a regular basis, that probably should have been good enough. LMAO