An Acceptable Level of Terrorism
____________________________________________________
Remarks by Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in Conference Call Today
ARLINGTON, VA - Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani delivered the following remarks in a Bush-Cheney '04 conference call today:
_____________________________________________________
"For some time, and including when I spoke at the Republican Convention, I’ve wondered exactly what John Kerry’s approach would be to terrorism and I’ve wondered whether he had the conviction, the determination, and the focus, and the correct worldview to conduct a successful war against terrorism.
And his quotations in the New York Times yesterday make it clear that he lacks that kind of committed view of the world. In fact, his comments are kind of extraordinary, particularly since he thinks we used to before September 11 live in a relatively safe world.
He says we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.
_________________________________________________
"I’m wondering exactly when Senator Kerry thought they were just a nuisance. Maybe when they attacked the USS Cole? Or when they attacked the World Trade Center in 1993? Or when they slaughtered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972? Or killed Leon Klinghoffer by throwing him overboard? Or the innumerable number of terrorist acts that they committed in the 70s, the 80s and the 90s, leading up to September 11?
__________________________________________________
"This is so different from the President’s view and my own, which is in those days, when we were fooling ourselves about the danger of terrorism, we were actually in the greatest danger. When you don’t confront correctly and view realistically the danger that you face, that’s when you’re at the greatest risk. When you at least realize the danger and you begin to confront it, then you begin to become safer. And for him to say that in the good old days – I’m assuming he means the 90s and the 80s and the 70s -- they were just a nuisance, this really begins to explain a lot of his inconsistent positions on how to deal with it because he’s not defining it correctly.
"As a former law enforcement person, he says ‘I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it.’
This is not illegal gambling; this isn’t prostitution. Having been a former law enforcement person for a lot longer than John Kerry ever was, I don’t understand his confusion.
Even when he says ‘organized crime to a level where it isn’t not on the rise,'
it was not the goal of the Justice Department to just reduce organized crime. It was the goal of the Justice Department to eliminate organized crime. Was there some acceptable level of organized crime: two families, instead of five, or they can control one union but not the other?
The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening.
How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we’re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we’ll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry’s thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.
"It is consistent with his views on Vietnam: that we should have left and abandoned Vietnam.
It is consistent with his view of Nicaragua and the Sandinistas.
It is consistent with his view of opposing Ronald Reagan at every step of the way in the arms buildup that was necessary to destroy communism.
It is consistent with his view of not supporting the Persian Gulf War, which was another extraordinary step. Whatever John Kerry’s global test is, the Persian Gulf War certainly would pass anyone’s global test.
____________________________________________
If it were up to John Kerry, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he’d still be controlling Kuwait.
____________________________________________
"Finally, what he did after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, where I guess at that point terrorism was still just a nuisance. He must have thought that because that’s why he proposed seriously reducing our intelligence budget, when you would think someone who was really sensitive to the problem of terrorism would have done just the opposite.
I think that rather than being some aberrational comment,
it is the core of the John Kerry philosophy:
that terrorism is no different than domestic law enforcement problems,
and that the best we’re ever going to be able to do is reduce it,
so why not follow the more European approach
of compromising with it
the way Europeans did in the 70s and the 80s and the 90s?
"This is so totally different than what I think was the major advance that President Bush made – significant advance that he made in the Bush Doctrine on September 20, 2001, when he said we’re going to face up to terrorism and we’re going to do everything we can to defeat it, completely. There’s no reason why we have to tolerate global terrorism, just like there’s no reason to tolerate organized crime.
"So I think this is a seminal issue, this is one that explains or ties together a lot of things that we’ve talked about. Even this notion that the Kerry campaign was so upset that the Vice President and others were saying that he doesn’t understand the threat of terrorism; that he thinks it’s just a law enforcement action.
It turns out the Vice President was right. He does and maybe this is a difference, maybe this is an honest difference that we really should debate straight out.
He thinks that the threat is not as great as at least the President does, and I do, and the Vice President does."
_______________________________________
Remarks by Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in Conference Call Today
ARLINGTON, VA - Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani delivered the following remarks in a Bush-Cheney '04 conference call today:
_____________________________________________________
"For some time, and including when I spoke at the Republican Convention, I’ve wondered exactly what John Kerry’s approach would be to terrorism and I’ve wondered whether he had the conviction, the determination, and the focus, and the correct worldview to conduct a successful war against terrorism.
And his quotations in the New York Times yesterday make it clear that he lacks that kind of committed view of the world. In fact, his comments are kind of extraordinary, particularly since he thinks we used to before September 11 live in a relatively safe world.
He says we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.
_________________________________________________
"I’m wondering exactly when Senator Kerry thought they were just a nuisance. Maybe when they attacked the USS Cole? Or when they attacked the World Trade Center in 1993? Or when they slaughtered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972? Or killed Leon Klinghoffer by throwing him overboard? Or the innumerable number of terrorist acts that they committed in the 70s, the 80s and the 90s, leading up to September 11?
__________________________________________________
"This is so different from the President’s view and my own, which is in those days, when we were fooling ourselves about the danger of terrorism, we were actually in the greatest danger. When you don’t confront correctly and view realistically the danger that you face, that’s when you’re at the greatest risk. When you at least realize the danger and you begin to confront it, then you begin to become safer. And for him to say that in the good old days – I’m assuming he means the 90s and the 80s and the 70s -- they were just a nuisance, this really begins to explain a lot of his inconsistent positions on how to deal with it because he’s not defining it correctly.
"As a former law enforcement person, he says ‘I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it.’
This is not illegal gambling; this isn’t prostitution. Having been a former law enforcement person for a lot longer than John Kerry ever was, I don’t understand his confusion.
Even when he says ‘organized crime to a level where it isn’t not on the rise,'
it was not the goal of the Justice Department to just reduce organized crime. It was the goal of the Justice Department to eliminate organized crime. Was there some acceptable level of organized crime: two families, instead of five, or they can control one union but not the other?
The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening.
How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we’re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we’ll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry’s thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.
"It is consistent with his views on Vietnam: that we should have left and abandoned Vietnam.
It is consistent with his view of Nicaragua and the Sandinistas.
It is consistent with his view of opposing Ronald Reagan at every step of the way in the arms buildup that was necessary to destroy communism.
It is consistent with his view of not supporting the Persian Gulf War, which was another extraordinary step. Whatever John Kerry’s global test is, the Persian Gulf War certainly would pass anyone’s global test.
____________________________________________
If it were up to John Kerry, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he’d still be controlling Kuwait.
____________________________________________
"Finally, what he did after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, where I guess at that point terrorism was still just a nuisance. He must have thought that because that’s why he proposed seriously reducing our intelligence budget, when you would think someone who was really sensitive to the problem of terrorism would have done just the opposite.
I think that rather than being some aberrational comment,
it is the core of the John Kerry philosophy:
that terrorism is no different than domestic law enforcement problems,
and that the best we’re ever going to be able to do is reduce it,
so why not follow the more European approach
of compromising with it
the way Europeans did in the 70s and the 80s and the 90s?
"This is so totally different than what I think was the major advance that President Bush made – significant advance that he made in the Bush Doctrine on September 20, 2001, when he said we’re going to face up to terrorism and we’re going to do everything we can to defeat it, completely. There’s no reason why we have to tolerate global terrorism, just like there’s no reason to tolerate organized crime.
"So I think this is a seminal issue, this is one that explains or ties together a lot of things that we’ve talked about. Even this notion that the Kerry campaign was so upset that the Vice President and others were saying that he doesn’t understand the threat of terrorism; that he thinks it’s just a law enforcement action.
It turns out the Vice President was right. He does and maybe this is a difference, maybe this is an honest difference that we really should debate straight out.
He thinks that the threat is not as great as at least the President does, and I do, and the Vice President does."
_______________________________________
Comments
love,
jason mulgrew
internet quasi-celebrity
Let's break this down. What is War?
Prior to 9/11, leaving out the war on poverty and the war on drugs, war was a state of hositility between two or more sovereign states. Declared or not, wars were resolved between the states through some formal declaration of truce or end of hostilities. Once the states resolved their differences, the continued agression on the part of one or the other parties citizens was not an act of war. Since it was not sanctioned, it was criminal behavior in the eyes of both sovereigns.
Now the gist of your article Bob, is to try and argue that in a totally unconventional conflict, such as the one in which we are engaged with Al Queada, there is no party with which the US can negotiate a peace, truce or settlement.
Since various Islamic groups want to make a name for themselves as part of the "Jihad" against the US, a settlement, if possible, with one, will have no impact on other similar groups. There is no sovereign with which we may reach an accord.
If you assume that acts of terrorism against the US, will continue independent of any agreement the US might reach with any one group, you see why this is not a war in any true sense of the word.
I don't think that Kerry is saying, fighting terrorism is not important. I just think that there is a problem with the way the debate is framed. Giuliani and others are jumping on the semantics to make a false point.
Since we can not eliminate every nut bar who holds a grude agaist us or the rest of the West, we know there never will be an end to the "war".
Kerry is just trying to be practical, and is trying to reframe the problem. Destroying all of Al Queada is impossible. We just want to make the acts against the US, very infrequent.
If Guiliani is suggesting that there will be a day there are no terrorist attacks agains the US or the west, in our lifetime, then he is an idiot. I regret that that Kerry's statements cannot be understood for what they really are.
But since we have an election in 3 weeks, scratching beneath the surface isn't going to happen. And I agree with Kerry, that we have lived in fear for 3 years without an attack. Kudo's to Bush. But he may not be responsible for every potential attack, nor can he be blamed for every future attack.
I think Kerry is trying to refocus our efforts to those things, those actions we can do something about, and accept the fact that some things that will occur in the future must be accepted as being the big dog on the planet, and are inevitable "collateral consequences" of being at the top of the dog pile.
Nixon ran for president with his "plan" to end the war..."Peace with honor". And we know how that turned out.
I am old enough to remember that war, and domestic issues were not completely subordinated to the Vietnam war, even though it was a far larger war than the "war on terrorism".
If terrorism really has no end because one individual can carry out an act in the name of Islam or any other ideology, does this mean that all other issues facing this nation must be ignored. Kerry is not advocating anything like the spin on Fox news. He is just trying to get some prospective on this problem in relation to the other problems confronting this country.
Perhaps people should go back and read 1984. When you have a constant external enemy, it easy to avoid discussing the problems at home.