Rudy the Neo-Con

From the Rudy '08 campaign:

Rudy Giuliani Announces Foreign Policy Team Members

Charles Hill to serve as Chief Foreign Policy Advisor; Norman Podhoretz joins as a Senior Foreign Policy Advisor

That'd be this Norman Podhoretz.

Print version of "The Case for Bombing Iran" here.

Comments

de stijl | July 10, 2007, 12:48pm | #

Maybe Rudy's thinking like statistically ignorant baseball fans of a hitter in a slump - he's due!

TrickyVic | July 10, 2007, 12:48pm | #

I think I read some of this guys articles in the New York Post. This guy was kissing Bush's ass the whole way if I remember correctly.

crimethink | July 10, 2007, 12:51pm | #

Rudy the Neo-Con

Uh, was there ever any doubt?

MP | July 10, 2007, 12:51pm | #

Oh c'mon now. Podheretz is clearly a libertarian. Just ask Eric D.

joe | July 10, 2007, 12:52pm | #

Not just a neo-con. An unchastended neo-con, who continues to see Iraq as a great success that should be emulated elsewhere.

There are quite a few chastened neo-cons. But, apparently, Rudy isn't among them.

crimethink | July 10, 2007, 12:52pm | #

In other words, appointing this fool to a position in his would-be administration doesn't do anything to change my estimation of Rudy's candidacy.

crimethink | July 10, 2007, 12:53pm | #

MP, we don't know if he's pro-choice on abortion, so we can't make that determination.

Cesar | July 10, 2007, 12:53pm | #

Rudy has to be an an uber-hawk's hawk. Its the only thing he has going for him with the Republican base. Take out foreign policy, and hes a Republican Lite.

FinFangFoom | July 10, 2007, 12:54pm | #

Podhoretz comes across as a version of someone's belligerent uncle who wants to avenge every slight to the US. He isn't much smarter, but his vocabulary and tone make it seem that way.

Cesar | July 10, 2007, 12:57pm | #

Anybody that opens a foreign policy article with this--

Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what Sept 11, 2001, did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is generally known as the Cold War was actually World War III, and that this one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World War II.

Is not worth listening to. My brain turns off after reading "World War IV".

Bhh | July 10, 2007, 1:15pm | #

Jesus those guys just won't go down. We need a neocon blacklist like they had for commies in the 50s. Any association with PNAC, you can't get near power and you can't get work.

Still, I would like to know their secret for being constantly wrong, all the time, about everything, and turning turds into gold.

rho | July 10, 2007, 1:20pm | #

Is there someplace we can place bets on who's next after Iran?

You'd think the Norks would be next, but I've got a good feeling about Qatar. Al Jazeera, you know. Clearly troublemakers.

Louisa | July 10, 2007, 1:22pm | #

David Weigel,

Doesn't your hand ever get tired?

Ed | July 10, 2007, 1:24pm | #

Iranian soveriegnty notwithstanding, I thought comparing Ahmenedijad (sp) to Hitler was very telling. Never thought I'd start buying into the whole "zionist" screed, but I imagine also in Podheretz' filing cabinet (some dustier than others):

1) The Case for Bombing Pakistan
2) The Case for Bombing Saudi Arabia
3) The Case for Bombing Indonesia

crimethink | July 10, 2007, 1:25pm | #

Cesar,

It sounds like Podhoertz took his getting-to-the-point lessons from Ron Paul. :-(

TLB | July 10, 2007, 1:33pm | #

Not-so-great minds do indeed think alike:

matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/the_pod_people.php

I assume both sites are on the same time zone, meaning that MattY ("the sky's so blue!") is probably just a faster typist than Weigel.

me | July 10, 2007, 1:41pm | #

cesar,

Continue to bury your head in the sand. The words WW IV too scary for you? Thank god we do not need to rely on wimps like you to defend America.

Doug | July 10, 2007, 1:41pm | #

My apologies in advance for the mental image, but I can hear Eric Dondero orgasming all the way from here.

Randi | July 10, 2007, 1:43pm | #

"Is not worth listening to. My brain turns off after reading "World War IV"."

Enjoy your bliss!

joe | July 10, 2007, 1:49pm | #

Yes, clearly it is the bravest of the brave who think we are facing a threat comparable to that posed by the Axis circa 1941. Anybody who finds this hyperventilating to be an overwrought overstatement of the threat is unmanly.

I think we can add a couple more to Orwell's list:

Living in fear equals bravery.
Lack of fear equals wimpishness.

You stay under your bed, me, while the real men go about their lives.

Steve | July 10, 2007, 2:03pm | #

"The words WW IV too scary for you?"

I can only speak for myself, but Podhoretz's talk of WWIV reminds me of an old sociology professor of mine who lamented that some scientists were ruining the "culture" of the !Kung (a modern, stone-age people) by introducing trade (offering them medicines and clothing in exchange for their stories).

Both are abstract problems that exist only in the mind of detached academics with nothing better to think about.

It's worth remembering that Podhoretz was one of the "crazies in the basement," as Reagan was fond of calling him and his friend, Richard Perle. It's also worth remembering that he thought Reagan's lack of abject Bellicosity towards the Soviet Union was losing the cold war, and said so as recently as 1986.

Randolph Carter | July 10, 2007, 2:03pm | #

"me" is a comment terrorist. He attacks without warning, then runs away without responding to any questions. Nobody expects me.

Wait, he's more like the Spanish Inquisition.

tros | July 10, 2007, 2:07pm | #

Me is the retard fascist troll of the thread. Everyone point and laugh at the troll. Ha ha ha. What a perfect example of the idiocy dragging this great country through the latrine of history.

I would suggest that everyone kick him in the face, but he probably likes it.

Pro Libertate | July 10, 2007, 2:08pm | #

Just to clarify, the next war involving a large number of nations will be World War III. Not IV, V, VI, or a number to be named later.

How soon we forget what a real world war is.

Anyway, the Cold War was WW 2.1. The terrorist stuff isn't even remotely a world war.

CFisher | July 10, 2007, 2:22pm | #

I think that the White House and the neocons belong to the Hitler of the Month club.

Davebo | July 10, 2007, 2:30pm | #

Looks like Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. What should we do?


Let's start by invading and occupying two of it's neighbors. That should convince them they needn't worry about self defense.


Dang, that didn't work. How can we convince them to give up their weapons?

Bomb em...

Pro Libertate | July 10, 2007, 2:43pm | #

Our casus belli for invading Iran is simple. We just state in our declaration of war that we only recently realized that Iran had violated international law by taking our embassy hostage. Yes, it's a rather delayed reaction, but we've been busy with other things over the last quarter century.

Cesar | July 10, 2007, 2:59pm | #

Continue to bury your head in the sand. The words WW IV too scary for you?

No, they are just ridiculous. World War III hasn't happened because Im sitting here typing this, not six feet underground or foraging for food in radioactive rubble.

Thank god we do not need to rely on wimps like you to defend America.

Defend America? No, people like you want to defend anything but America. You want to defend Israel. You want to defend Iraq. You want to police the entire Middle East, at the expense of American blood and treasure. No thanks. I don't take my advice from foreign nations that don't have our best interests at heart, and neither should you.



Lets compare

Nazi Germany--First class army, first class air force, first class navy, some of the best technological minds in the world and a good industrial base.

Soviet Union--a continent-sized superpower with hundred of millions of people, a vast industrial base, the largest army in the world, and enough missiles to blow up the world 100 times over.

Iran--third world, impoverished oil-dependent theocracy with backwards 1960s-era military technology and about as much political cohesion as a bucket of scorpions.

Question--which one these is not that scary?

XaabaZu | July 10, 2007, 3:09pm | #

I don't know, man, a bucket of scorpions sounds really scary!

TrickyVic | July 10, 2007, 3:22pm | #

"""Anyway, the Cold War was WW 2.1. The terrorist stuff isn't even remotely a world war."""

Agreed.

T | July 10, 2007, 3:23pm | #

Are the scorpions radioactive? 'Cause that would be really scary.

Brandybuck | July 10, 2007, 3:29pm | #

Have the scorpions been deep fried? With a little butter, it sounds yummy. Much better than the Brots and Borscht of WWII and WWII.I

Hugh Akston | July 10, 2007, 3:42pm | #

Just in case Guliani's insincere mugging at the Republican debates wasn't convincing enough, this should put the final nail in his campaign.

Max | July 10, 2007, 3:46pm | #

It's worth remembering that Podhoretz was one of the "crazies in the basement," as Reagan was fond of calling him and his friend, Richard Perle.

It's a fine line between evil fanatical idealogue and crazy. Perle, I think, is just on the side of fanatical, while Podhoretz has crossed into the crazy zone, along with the likes of Laurie Myrolie.

Pro Libertate | July 10, 2007, 3:48pm | #

Aw, man, the Iranians are holding the Scorpions hostage? That sucks. Will the Germans take action? What of Klaus Meine?

VM | July 10, 2007, 4:02pm | #

ProGLib - we asked them, but they said nothing...
hier are the details...

Cesar - "me" is simply upset that he couldn't curl up with his penis-shaped pillow last night...

joe | July 10, 2007, 4:10pm | #

The scorpions are enriched, fine, but are they highly enriched?

Charles | July 10, 2007, 5:49pm | #

I like John Derbyshire's take on the whole WWIV thing:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjY1YzM0ZGIwNDcwN2E1M2M2ZWI1M2ZhNWEzYTQzY2M=

David | July 11, 2007, 12:12pm | #

Is this guy totally clueless?
The BIG LIE that is constantly used is that Iran is rushing to build nuclear weapons, but there is no evidence about this. Under the NPT, Iran has a right to enrich uranium, but the constant lie is that they're doing that to build nuclear weapons.

Look this up online: Iran proposes peace with U.S. in 2003.
Iran proposed normal relations with U.S. and to recognize Israel AND put their nuclear program on the table. All they wanted was to get rid of sanctions and to be respected.