Team McCain Conference Call: National Security Update: Giuliani on Fox (video)
posted at 9:31 am on June 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
The McCain campaign hauled out a big gun today on national security: Rudy Giuliani. He told the conference call that the debate on terrorism is important because of the large differences between Obama and McCain. Giuliani described it as between being on the defensive rather than the offensive. Before 9/11, our strategy was unrealistic in retrospect. There was no meaningful follow-up to the criminal prosecution in 1993 for WTC I, no recognition that war had been declared on the US.
At the time, we may not have recognized the pattern, but we certainly do now. Returning to that state of ignorance after all that has transpired since would be a huge step backwards. Hillary Clinton called Obama “irresponsible and naive”, and Giuliani understands why.
Giuliani likened the Boumediene decision to the efforts of the Warren Court to kneecap law enforcement against domestic crime. “We have to follow the Supreme Court’s decisions,” Giuliani said, but the court assigned rights to enemy detainees that have never existed before.
Questions:
- Jake Tapper, ABC: In 2003, McCain visited Gitmo and wrote a letter to Donald Rumsfeld urging him to either try the detainees or release them. How does that differ from Boumediene? — Congress created the procedures to give detainees an evidentiary hearing, one that could be appealed to the DC appellate circuit court. Obama is saying that the 1993 strategy is better than the forward strategy adopted by the Bush administration.
- AP: Is Barack Obama really saying that he wants to adopt a law-enforcement issue, and when is it appropriate to prosecute terrorists? — Obama’s the one who adopted the 1993 WTC trial as the paradigm, and that shows his mindset. Obama was asked what he would do if AQ attacked two American cities, and the answer was that we needed an emergency response, as opposed to Hurricane Katrina. When terrorism takes place on American soil and we capture the terrorists here, then we have to use the civil prosecution, but that can’t be the end of it.
- Me: Nuremberg, and Stupid vs Smart? — Nuremberg did not offer habeas rights to the defendants despite Obama’s continued references. Giuliani says that “stupid vs smart” is partisan excess, but no one can doubt that we’ve been kept safe since 2001. There have been at least 20 planned attacks that have been foiled thanks to the strategies after 9/11 that Giuliani can recall. Now that we understand the nature of the threat, why would we go back to the failed reactive strategies?
- Dana Bash, CNN: Wasn’t WTC I a domestic act? — Certainly, and the terrorists should have been prosecuted — but that shouldn’t have been the end of it. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that this attack was just the first attempt by AQ. The prosecution obviously didn’t incapacitate the terrorist network. Jailing a murderer incapacitates him, but jailing a few members of an international terrorist network doesn’t incapacitate the network or reduce the threat to the US.
Update: Here’s Giuliani making the same point on Fox News:
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
What Cabinet position will Rudy have in the McCain administration?
jgapinoy on June 18, 2008 at 9:34 AM
How much do you owe the AP for publishing their question?
p0s3r on June 18, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Think you want to change “no” to “now” Allah. Last sentence of the first paragraph.
Maxx on June 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM
oops… nevermind, I can’t read.
Maxx on June 18, 2008 at 9:40 AM
“No recognition” is correct … and I’m not Allah. ;-)
Ed Morrissey on June 18, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Obama … wants to adopt a law-enforcement issue, and when is it appropriate to prosecute terrorists …
How does one prosecute a suicide bomber AFTER his attack?
Use Bounty! It’s the ‘quicker picker upper’!
Tony737 on June 18, 2008 at 9:42 AM
Help me understand why McCain didn’t do this conference call himself.
BigD on June 18, 2008 at 9:42 AM
Hey Barry, have you seen what is going on in Iowa?
If so, why the hell aren’t you out there???
benrand on June 18, 2008 at 9:47 AM
benrand on June 18, 2008 at 9:47 AM
——–
Iowa, Illinois .. all the Mississippi River towns (yes, including Nawlins) are gonna get wet.
I haven’t seen vid of either candidate on the (squishy) ground in either state.
Hell of a photo opportunity for the first one to put on hip waders and get in with the Nat’l Guard or Boy Scouts and fill some sandbags, though.
Y’know, what with Obama being the Junior Senator from Illinois, he damn well OUGHT to be filling sandbags! Of course, he’s actually the junior senator from Chicago, and you can bet money neither he nor Dick(head) Durbin give a rat’s ass about anything south of I-80.
Mew
acat on June 18, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Attorney General or Homeland Security I would hope.
Squid Shark on June 18, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Giuliani gets it. The LIBERAL-5 of the Supreme Court has done an incredible amount of damage with the Boumediene decision. It’s just treasonous what the court did and it needs to be fixed with legislation and then Congress needs to ban the Court from having anything to say about it.
Congress has the Constitutional power to do that and they need to get it done. Our solders are not policemen, they are solders.
(sorry about that Ed, I guess it’s time for me to get glasses)
Maxx on June 18, 2008 at 9:56 AM
If you want to hammer home the fact that Obama wants to go back to the Bill Clinton/Janet Reno/Jamie Gorelick method of tracking down and prosecuting terrorists, sending Rudy out there gives the effort a little more gravitas (to borrow the Democrats’ beloved word from eight years ago). McCain will have to make that point himself eventually, but you’d rather have him do that in a higher-profile location (sorry Ed), than an early-Wednesday morning conference call.
jon1979 on June 18, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Rudy should be out there pounding this home. McCain should promise to name Rudy as Attorney General if elected.
Steve Z on June 18, 2008 at 10:11 AM
I must be a little thick on this one. Rudy is a surrogate for McCain on national security? Is he next going to send Mitt Romney out to talk about the economy?
BigD on June 18, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Just prosecuting a few Japanese Navy Pilots after Pearl Harbor would not have solved the WWII problem. You have to pursue the whole organization that is at war with you as Bush did with Al Queda. The prosecution of the 1st WTC bombers did not prevent the escalating series of Al Queda attacks on US interests at Khobar Towers, the African Embassies, the Destroyer Cole and 9/11.
Besides, do our soldiers now have to Mirandize illegal combantants captured on the battlefield and provide them with lawyers to make their interrogation statements pass Federal evidence muster in court hearings after Boumidiene? When do our soldiers require warrants to search for evidence and what entity could issue such warrants for foreign locations? How do we control losing intelligence assets if we have to give terrorists attorneys sources of the evidence against them? We already saw one attorney for Sheik Rahman prosecuted for assiting the terrorists? What if we capture 100,000 illegal combatants? Wouldn’t the court system collapse under the numbers? Would we have to turn them loose if we could not prosecute them?
Boumediene opens many questions but the court provided no answers. How do our soldiers know what to do? Obama also does not answer these questions while he praises the decision. He is a lawyer; he should be asked how these issues will be addressed if he is commander-in-chief now that we have this can of worms decision.
KW64 on June 18, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Rudy…Director of Homeland Security
pecan pie on June 18, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Sounds good to me.
Maybe Rudy can have a cabinet level position like so many people here are suggesting. And Romney can as well.
Again, sounds good to me.
wise_man on June 18, 2008 at 10:28 AM
In a world that ran right side up: McCain - POTUS, Romney - VP, Rudy - Chief Homeland Security, Bolton - Secy of State, Malkin - Press Secy.
JustTruth101 on June 18, 2008 at 10:34 AM
I like that list, JustTruth101. But if the world really ran right side up, McCain wouldn’t be on that list at all.
Where would you put Fred?
wise_man on June 18, 2008 at 10:39 AM
If your opposing candidate is sending out people like Susan Rice to say we should go back to handling terrorists the way we did after the World Trade Center I attack, sending out the politician who was nearly killed by the results of that policy, the World Trade Center II attack, is a pretty smart stategerie on the McCain staff’s part. It challenges Obama to either say why Ms. Rice is more authoritative than Rudy Giuliani in explaining how we should handle terrorists and the consequences of being wrong, or it forces Barack to do another flip-flop on the issue (which my guess he’ll do within the week, at least for public consumption).
jon1979 on June 18, 2008 at 10:47 AM
wise_man on June 18, 2008 at 10:39 AM
——–
Disagree. I don’t dislike Romney for VP, but he doesn’t appear to bring much, and with the stature he acquired during the primary, I’m not sure how well Mitt would play second-fiddle to McCain.
As for where to put Fred, I’d put him at State, and put Bolton back at the U.N. with orders to shoot to kill.
Mew
acat on June 18, 2008 at 10:49 AM
and put Bolton back at the U.N. with orders to shoot to kill.
That would make me very happy.
wise_man on June 18, 2008 at 10:52 AM
These are daily conference calls that are routine in presidential campaigns and are normally conducted by campaign staff to talk about the issue of the day. They help add background and details for the media to whatever the candidate himself is going to say that day in his scheduled campaign stops. They also give the campaign a chance to respond to whatever the opponent has said. McCain elevated this one by bringing in Giuliani. It worked because Giuliani’s comments made the top of all the stories.
Anyone who has XM radio, it carries all these conference calls every day on POTUS 08, channel 130. I’m addicted to it! The McCain campaign is doing a terrific job on these calls.
rockmom on June 18, 2008 at 11:01 AM
No one in any of these interviews seems to remind Bambi that those arrested for the 93 attacks were arrested in Jersey City, NJ (My loving home town) those we have in Gitmo and elsewhere were not.
Those arrested in WTC 93 were done so by what I assume were FBI agents, they were read their rights and they had houses and evidence to check. A guy shooting at you from an alley won’t have evidence or be very willing to stop from pressing his ignition while your telling him that he can get a free ACLU lawyer if he wants.
PS. Word was Barry was in Iowa filling sandbags with various things, Old Documents, Bullcr@p and the bodies of those he had to pull from under his bus (they absorb well)
Rbastid on June 18, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Somebody call the Sheriff, we was robbed.
Speakup on June 18, 2008 at 11:27 AM
What kind of player is that? My tardputer just shows a black box?
its vintage duh on June 18, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Not bad, not bad at all. ‘Cept maybe we should nominate Ed for Press Secretary! Michelle can stay on at Fox (and her own site). And Ed would give us a private line to the White House—right, Ed?
MrLynn on June 18, 2008 at 3:20 PM
I’m just seeing a black box, too. Safari usually has no trouble playing the videos here.
MrLynn on June 18, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Mitt might just help bring in Michigan. John McCain should campaign with Mitt and Rudy on either side, kicking economic and national-security butt wherever they go, a Fearsome Threesome. And McCain should make it clear: “This here’s the kind of horsepower you’re going to get in a McCain administration.”
Might even make the base sit up and take notice.
MrLynn on June 18, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Well, the difference would be that Ms. Rice is not Obama’s former primary opponent. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see the benefit to “Team McCain” sending Giuliani out to talk about major national security events. Benefits Giuliani, maybe. Other than that, it might make me wish Rudy was the Republican nominee. (I was actually a Romney supporter)
BigD on June 18, 2008 at 3:37 PM
That’s an easy one…Barack HUSSEIN Obama will face Mecca five times, and pray for the BOMBER. Then to not be undone by Saddam Hussein, he’ll make sure the BOMBER’S family recieves $25,000 U.S. tax free dollars. Mission accomplished.
byteshredder on June 18, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Take away his virgins? Send him some of Heidi Fleiss’s former employees?
njcommuter on June 18, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Now THAT’s FUNNY!!!
.
And Shep, and Anderson Cooper, and all the wackos who blamed Bush for Katrina.
On topic, I think barry really would call someone after an attack.
First? his wife (she is meaner), then maybe France or Heinz Kerry, or Murtha…we’re doomed.
shooter on June 18, 2008 at 10:11 PM