Roger L. Simon: Giuliani talks the talk

He's not in a position to walk the walk yet, but Rudy Giuliani is talking the talk on the War on Terror better than anyone running for President at the moment:

"Suppose Hillary Clinton and John Edwards' new position was their position back then, that it was a mistake to take him out," Giuliani said, referring to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "Wouldn't we be dealing with Saddam Hussein becoming nuclear right now? If Iran was becoming nuclear what would he be doing? Sitting there letting his arch enemy gain nuclear power over him? Or would we now be dealing with two countries seeking to become nuclear powers."

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Roger:
R.G makes an excellent point. I am convinced more then ever that he is the only Republican that stands a chance against the Clinton juggernaut. Hillary will be Nixon without the hostile press that Nixon had, therefore she will reign unchecked. I think she is a Euro-Socialist by instinct. I am afraid that the yahoo brigades of social cons in their zeal for ideological purity may sabotage him.

Which candidate is the least politically correct? This is perhaps the most important question. There is no reason to overcomplicate matters.

"Which candidate is the least politically correct? This is perhaps the most important question. There is no reason to overcomplicate matters."

Ron Paul's followers are politically correct! They subconsciously, if not even consciously, perceive the dark skin Palestinians as victims of white skinned Israeli oppression. Paul's intense adherents are historical illiterates who look at the world in a very simplistic manner. Also, these fools are actually leftists who seem to possess a modest appreciation of capitalist economics. When push comes to shove, however, they have far more in common with the Daily Kos crowd than with typical Republicans.

Honestly, I think all the major Republican candidates "get it," with regard to Iraq and the Long War, and I could comfortably vote for any of them on this issue alone (and, conversely, not a one of the Democrats). But Rudy, I think, states is most clearly, and I don't have any doubt that he'd act decisively when needed. Thus, he's my choice.

I was shocked to see how ill prepared Obama is.
A mishmash of liberal platitudes, not quick on his feet, falling back on short concepts without any depth of analysis or ability to wing it. Perhaps the most ill prepared candidate I have seen in a long time.

Hillary is offensive but good; she rattles off long responses which she has committed to memory; her comment about "35 years of helping people and working for America" is hilarious. No one challenges her, they treat her like a queen.

Dodd, full piss and vinegar, looks tired and Biden's hair gives him away and his arrogance sinks him. Richardson is heft and weight, eats far too many burgers, presidential weight but not timber and Dennis. . . a cartoon menace.

Edwards is silky smooth but has been on stage too long to satisfy the American voter and panders shamelessly to the left.

The great enemy is not Iran or the terrorist ... but "Bush and Cheney," always pronounced as a duo as if on one of those dance programs, never "the president."

Rudi, if nominated, will bring rational debate and a charismatic presence to a scrum of bombast and arrogance and pretension.

He's not in a position to walk the talk yet, but Rudy Giuliani is talking the walk on the War on Terror better than anyone running for President at the moment

October 30, 2007: Giuliani talks the talk

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post