Four years ago, just before allied forces liberated Iraq from the rule of
international outlaw Saddam Hussein, James Taranot delivered a pro-Iraq speech
to the Fabiani Society. In it, he employed an analogy we thought would
resonate with our New York audience:
The idea that finishing the Gulf War detracts from the terror war
reminds me of the arguments we used to hear against quality-of-life
policing. The objection went something like this: "Why would you
want cops to waste their time on "minor crimes" like panhandling,
or subway fare-beating, or public urination? The police ought to
be out catching murderers."
After the Giuliani years here in New York, it'd be hard to find
anyone who doesn't acknowledge that public order prevents crime,
and that public disorder, by creating an atmosphere of lawlessness
and anarchy, encourages serious crime. This principle is no less
applicable on the "Arab street" than on the streets of New York.
Terrorism does not occur in a vacuum; it is a product of the
tyranny, misrule and fanaticism that prevail in much of the
Arab and Muslim worlds. Saddam Hussein's continued defiance of
the U.N.'s demands and its failure to do anything about it make
a mockery of international law. What lesson can terrorists take
from this but that this is a world without authority, a world
in which the civilized nations will not act to protect themselves
from those who would murder the innocent in the name of jihad?
Now Rudy Giuliani is running for president, and he is drawing a similar
analogy. He has been arguing with the lovely and talented John Edwards, who,
in a play for the votes of his party's extreme left, has denied that there is
such a thing as a global war on terror. ABC News quotes Giuliani's dissection
of the liberal mindset Edwards represents (we've deleted a comma and added the
words in brackets to make Giuliani's meaning clearer):
"We are not in a war where the root cause of this war is poverty.
Bin Laden comes from one of the richest families in the world,"
Giuliani added. "Mohamed Atta, who was the guy principally
responsible for 9/11 was based in Germany and he was well educated.
I don't think he was exactly drinking dirty water. And the reality
is, is that [Democrats] are coming at it from their liberal mindset
of what must cause crime and [the assumption that] they are not
wrong about that. But terrorism is not caused by poverty. The
Islamic terrorist movement, the root cause of it has to do with
ideology and a perversion of religion, an idea that they are
intolerant of the way we live. And to be a leader, if you lack
clarity it is very very dangerous."
Liberal blogger Greg Sargent tries but fails to be dismissive, describing
Giuliani's argument as "absurd and simplistic" and as evidence that "he has,
well, no idea what the heck he's talking about." But, he concedes, "it's an
argument all the same. We'll be hearing a lot of it. And if Dems don't rebut
it, no one will."
So what is Sargent's rebuttal? He doesn't have one:
How should Dems handle it? We're [i.e., Sargent is] the first
to admit that we're not terribly qualified to address this (we're
hoping to do some reporting on the question going forward). But
we're not sure whether the responses we've seen thus far--not
the terrorism speeches, the responses--will cut it in the long
run. Sure, it's cool that Edwards is making the point that Rudy
equals more of Bush's disastrously awful policies. And perhaps
Rudy can be counted on to reveal his inner buffoon and blow
himself [sic!] in some way or another.
But should Dems really bank on that? Isn't more called for here,
response-wise? Or is this sufficient for now? That's a question
for all of you. Thoughts?
The first reply in the comment thread, from "CT Voter," pretty much sets the
tone:
Issue a broadside that starts attacking this. Mention Bernie
Kerik, repeatedly. Mention that Rudy chose to house emergency
operations in a building that had already been attacked in a
terrorist attack. Don't be afraid to mention 9/11. Rudy's going
to. Attack his perceived strengths. Wonder out loud to the
media why no one is really taking a critical look at Rudy's
claims. Highlight the fact that heroic NYFD firefighters think
Rudy's crap. Get down and dirty and start rolling around in the
muck.
Hell, pay [former Enron adviser] Paul Krugman to write about it.
It's perfectly legitimate for Giuliani's opponents to call him to account for
his missteps, and to raise questions about his character and competence. But
note that "CT Voter" has not a word to say in response to Giuliani's argument.
If the only answer to it is to change the subject, that proves it's a powerful
one.
.
|
