Giuliani quits White House race

[[R_H]]

BBC

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has pulled out of the Republican race for the White House after disappointing primary results in Florida.

Mr Giuliani announced in California he was giving his support to Arizona Senator John McCain.

Mr Giuliani, who came third in Florida, had skipped many previous contests.

Earlier on Wednesday, Democrat John Edwards left the race, without backing any of his rivals, after failing to win a single party nomination contest.

Mr Edwards contested Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and his native South Carolina, but failed to get higher than third place.

He told supporters in New Orleans, where he launched his latest White House bid in 2006: "It's time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path."

Rudy's gamble

Mr Giuliani announced his withdrawal at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, where the remaining Republican candidates will go head-to-head in a televised debate later on Wednesday. In a light-hearted news conference, he said he had thought he was the sort of person who had the qualities to make a good president of the United States, "but the voters made a different choice".

"John McCain is the most qualified candidate to be the next commander in chief of the United States," Mr Giuliani said. "He's an American hero and America could use heroes in the White House."

He added that Mr McCain was a longstanding friend and he would campaign alongside him whenever and wherever he was needed.

Mr McCain returned the compliments, praising Mr Giuliani's leadership as mayor in the wake of the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001.

He described his former rival as "my strong right arm and my partner".

"This man is a national hero and I'm honoured by his friendship," he said. Mr Giuliani was seen by his supporters as a tough commander in chief, while other Republicans were weary of his attitude on social issues, like abortion.

When he entered the race more than a year ago he led some national polls and had an impressive war chest. He is reported to have spent up to a million dollars a week on TV advertising in Florida alone.

Correspondents say his decision to focus his efforts on Florida was always going to be either a stroke of political genius or an unwise gamble that would see him fall at the first hurdle.

Mr Giuliani won 15% of the vote, behind Mr McCain with 36% and Mitt Romney with 31% and just ahead of Mike Huckabee who won 13%.

[Vympel]

I'd be happy, but all the presidential candidates left with a chance of winning are warmongers to varying degrees, Obama included, so I could care less.

[HemlockGrey]

I'd be happy, but all the presidential candidates left with a chance of winning are warmongers to varying degrees, Obama included, so I could care less.

You seem to have a fairly broad definition of "warmongering".

[Guardsman Bass]

How valuable is this actually? Giuliani only had one delegate to commit, and he wasn't exacting commanding the heights of public opinion when he withdrew.

[Vympel]

You seem to have a fairly broad definition of "warmongering".

They buy into the fantasy of worldwide American hegemony and the enforcement of same with the casual application of military power. All they disagree on is details. They're warmongers, both Hilary and Obama. Just look at Obama's Iran position.

[DrMckay]

Goddammit. I wanted him to stay in the running and completely split the Republican primary, leaving them with a more undesirable candidate adn influencing some to vote Democrat.

[Ritterin Sophia]

You seem to have a fairly broad definition of "warmongering".

They buy into the fantasy of worldwide American hegemony and the enforcement of same with the casual application of military power. All they disagree on is details. They're warmongers, both Hilary and Obama. Just look at Obama's Iran position.

Again, broad definition for warmongering. The worst I've heard him state is that the US "should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons". With diplomacy meaning "more determined U.S. diplomacy at the United Nations," "harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran's major trading partners," and "a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs." In fact he's giving them more credit than they deserve with statements where he says we need talks with them like we had with the Soviet Union, which is frankly showing a lot more respect than they deserve.

[Uraniun235]

I'd be happy, but all the presidential candidates left with a chance of winning are warmongers to varying degrees, Obama included, so I could care less.

I don't think anyone you wouldn't classify as a warmonger will be electable in this nation for quite some time anyway.

[brianeyci]

The only people who wouldn't be warmongers by that definition are libertarians, because they would always consider war to be undesirable because it costs too much money. Meanwhile, even liberals are not pacifists and would consider war in cases of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and even just to make the world a better place.

There's plenty of reasons to go to war that are noble. If Iraq and Afghanistan hadn't happened, Zimbabwe and Sudan probably would have. Condolezza Rice and Colin Powell before 9/11 would have been considered "liberal" in America. Foreign intervention is by definition liberal, Wilson Plan, Marshall Plan. Just that the neoconservatives have hijacked it just like conservatives hijack everything else worth anything from the liberals, and have perverted it. Like how they hijacked "everybody has equal rights" to "protect white man's rights affirmative action is bullshit" or "everybody has the right to free speech" to "religion should be in schools."

If Obama said "under no conditions would we use force in Iran" that would basically signal to the regime they could go ahead and make nuclear weapons. When Bush says "all options are on the table" he really fucking means it. When Obama says "all options are on the table" it's just to talk shit to the Iranians, to make sure they know there's teeth. Diplomacy without teeth like the League of Nations never works, and economic sanctions against dictatorial regimes never work because only the population suffers and the Army and dictator are the last to starve.

[Vympel]

If Obama said "under no conditions would we use force in Iran" that would basically signal to the regime they could go ahead and make nuclear weapons.

That Obama is even talking about it in those terms just shows he's bought into the paranoid warmongering paradigm carefully constructed by hysterical hawks over the past few years. The only presidential candidate I can think of who expressly rejects this phony-ass fear of Iranian nukes is Ron Paul, who quite rightly derides such talk as war propaganda.

A presidential candidate who was acceptable to me personally would say that unashamedly in no uncertain terms, thus revealing a reasonable, non-herd-mentality mindset - though my ultimate desire would be for this fictional candidate to admit that the notion of preventing any nation from getting nuclear weapons is inherently idiotic, and incapable of being acheived without serious adverse consequences.

[brianeyci]

Why does it matter what he expressly says?

Your problem is with the very concept of limiting nuclear proliferation in general, which has little to do with the Iran issue. Do you think that the proliferation of gun-type devices is a good thing? Anti-nuclear proliferation is about as anti-war as possible.

I think Stuart mentioned it was a lot easier to stop people making nukes and a lot harder to make nukes than most people think -- it doesn't take two graduate students and a physics lab, it takes specific parts that have to be ordered in bulk. North Korea proved it's possible to fuck up even a gun-type so it's conceivable with the right controls you can keep nukes away from rogue states forever, or at the very least extremely limited quantities. Limit quality parts, quality electronics, they are fucked. I don't see how it's "inherently idiotic" or "incapable of being acheived."

[Sea Skimmer]

North Korea proved it's possible to fuck up even a gun-type so it's conceivable with the right controls you can keep nukes away from rogue states forever, or at the very least extremely limited quantities. Limit quality parts, quality electronics, they are fucked. I don't see how it's "inherently idiotic" or "incapable of being acheived."

North Korea and Pakistan actually, but they very well may have been using a shared design.

[Vympel]

Why does it matter what he expressly says?

Because words mean things. Iran's not dangerous, and the only guy who comprehends that is Ron Paul (and probably Dennis Kucinich). I wouldn't trust any of those other schmucks to tell me the damn time.

Your problem is with the very concept of limiting nuclear proliferation in general, which has little to do with the Iran issue.

Nonsense. It has everything to do with Iran - he's bought into the completely false sense of urgency about the issue, which proves he has both an incurious mind, and poor judgement.

Do you think that the proliferation of gun-type devices is a good thing? Anti-nuclear proliferation is about as anti-war as possible.

As a general proposition. In the hands of a superpower, it's nothing but a stupid excuse to rattle sabres. The very idea that the US is intolerably threatened by Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is laughable.

I think Stuart mentioned it was a lot easier to stop people making nukes and a lot harder to make nukes than most people think -- it doesn't take two graduate students and a physics lab, it takes specific parts that have to be ordered in bulk.

Or simply developed indigenously. Where do you think the United States ordered its specific parts?

North Korea proved it's possible to fuck up even a gun-type so it's conceivable with the right controls you can keep nukes away from rogue states forever, or at the very least extremely limited quantities. Limit quality parts, quality electronics, they are fucked. I don't see how it's "inherently idiotic" or "incapable of being acheived."

Because you're subscribing to the IMO incredibly arrogant notion that no one but the West is smart enough to actually develop these things for themselves as opposed to ordered it in from Wal-Mart.

[brianeyci]

Because words mean things. Iran's not dangerous, and the only guy who comprehends that is Ron Paul (and probably Dennis Kucinich). I wouldn't trust any of those other schmucks to tell me the damn time.

Words mean little in politics; action is king, particularly voting record and ideology. Do you seriously believe Obama will invade Iran as easily as Bush or any of the Republicans? Or at all? Or even attack with missiles? Once a bomb is detonated Obama can use the king "out" and say they already have a bomb so it's too risky.

Bush doesn't want to invade Iran because Iran will get a nuclear weapon. It is a meme the conservatives stole from liberals: they stole the idea that less weapons in the world is a better thing. He wants to invade Iran because he thinks their culture and religion is a mortal threat to the United States, and he wants control of their oil. Obama hasn't been suckered into anything; he's holding to a core liberal principle, "less bombs."

Because you're subscribing to the IMO incredibly arrogant notion that no one but the West is smart enough to actually develop these things for themselves as opposed to ordered it in from Wal-Mart.

You're subscribing to the IMO worse notion that there's only 1 or 0, let them have nukes or do nothing. Even if nuclear proliferation is inevitable as you say, there's nothing wrong with delaying it. And that means forcing the Iranians to develop it all covertly as opposed to an open policy. And if you want to oppose it, your diplomacy must have teeth.

[brianeyci]

Also, Ron Paul would invade if he thought invasion was profitable. It's entirely possible that properly managed, an illegal invasion could be profitable if there's pillaging and looting. That scares me a lot more than someone who says they would invade Iran only if Iran defied the international community's inspection system. The former can be manipulated, the latter at least the Iranians can play and evade.

[Adrian Laguna]

Vympel, it would appear to me than more than finding all US frontrunner candidates unacceptable, you find the US's position as a super-power unacceptable. Because the fact of the manner is that by your definition of "warmonger" there is no-one that the US populace would be willing to elect as their leader who would not be one. Furthermore, I have doubts that any super-power would act in a manner that you would not describe as "warmongering". The US hasn't, the Soviets didn't, and the British Empire practically made a hobby out of picking on small undeveloped nations. Human nature rears its ugly head, I suppose.


Anyway, relating to the OP. My mom's husband says that he believes Guiliani wasn't really interested in the presidential campaign. Not that he wouldn't like to be President, just that he doesn't want it bad enough to put in the effort required. Why did he run? To develop business and political contacts that would be useful to him in the future. As for all the money he's blown in the campaign, none of it was his.

[K. A. Pital]

I have doubts that any super-power would act in a manner that you would not describe as "warmongering".

Vympel said only that "all the presidential candidates left with a chance of winning are warmongers to varying degrees, Obama included, so I could care less."

This is correct. Would you care if a British Lord, or King in earlier times, or a CPSU General Secretary became changed by another with similar positions? Especially if you were living in Australia, for example? Or would you say the exact same thing as Vympel did: "I couldn't care less"?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Then why is he commenting in a foreign politics thread?

[Gerald Tarrant]

Also, Ron Paul would invade if he thought invasion was profitable. It's entirely possible that properly managed, an illegal invasion could be profitable if there's pillaging and looting.

Could you explain that please? I've always thought that his foreign policy position was isolation, a fairly common Libertarian theme (related to disdain for most forms of government power). I have seen no indications that profit entered into his calculations. If you've seen any statements saying profitable war is acceptable I'd like to hear them.

[brianeyci]

It's pretty simple. Not like Iraq => too many taxes, too many bodies, too expensive. The contrapositive is no taxes, no bodies, not expensive or in other words profitable => like Iraq. The logic is undeniable. Unlike other people who have other reasons for not liking Iraq like too many dead Iraqis or no chance of winning, Ron Paul doesn't.

If you don't buy that because you think politicians can be illogical, I don't have any statements from him that he'd invade if war was profitable. Even if a politician believed that, he wouldn't be so stupid as to say it. So we have to conclude from his belief system under what circumstances he would condone invasion.

Libertarianism is not just about disdain about government power. It's about captialism to the nth degree, taken to too far an extreme rather than with checks and balances of government control. Profit is the main goal of capitalism.

Unless you have some statement saying Ron Paul would not invade another country under any circumstances, we have to infer from his statements what circumstances he would invade, due to the nature of politics.

[Darth Wong]

Before the invasion, a lot of people were spouting the canard that wars are good for the economy. It's funny how that was stated as if it was virtually an uncontestable truth at the time, and now, just a few years later, everyone in the whole damned country realizes how totally false it is.

However, wars are good for defense contractors.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

People probably make the association that war is good for the economy because they misinterpreted the consequences following WW1 and WW2 for the American economy. They miss a few key points, though.

[Darth Wong]

I spoke too soon. A quick perusal of a few right-wing sites indicates that there are still people who think wars are good for the economy. Some of them even claim that the current war has been good for the economy, citing economic growth figures to "prove" their point. I guess the fact that the "boom" was just a speculation bubble (which is about to pop) has somehow escaped these idiots' attention.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Libertarianism is not just about disdain about government power. It's about captialism to the nth degree, taken to too far an extreme rather than with checks and balances of government control. Profit is the main goal of capitalism.

Not so much. Some libertarians like the free market because it usually channels normal selfish impulses into social goods (check out Smith's invisible hand). The market isn't good just 'cause. For them the market is good because it channels free actions at least partially into some societal good. So they can be free and not have everything go to hell. I've in fact seen plenty of Libertarians who are huge advocates of personal privacy laws that favor the employee over their employer. Try Radley of the Agitator (google him). I'm not going to excommunicate "Libertarians" who favor corporations over individual privacy, but saying that every single one is in favor of capitalism and all its results is patently untrue. There are Libertarians who worship the market, and there are Libertarians who are advocates of freedom. And note my sig. It's not a position it's a vector.

Unless you have some statement saying Ron Paul would not invade another country under any circumstances, we have to infer from his statements what circumstances he would invade, due to the nature of politics.

I'm asking for those particular statements about when he would invade.

There's a broad swath of opinions in Libertarianism (we're ironically kind of unorganized) but there is a general sentiment of war being a colossal waste. I don't know if you could reliably call Mark Twain a Libertarian, but the following passage would probably be descriptive of most Libertarians views on war. And most politicians/commentators from the 19th century were decidedly less statist than most folks today, so associating him with Libertarianism isn't too unreasonable.

. . . This incident burst upon the world last Friday in an official cablegram from the commander of our forces in the Philippines to our government at Washington. The substance of it was as follows:

A tribe of Moros, dark-skinned savages, had fortified themselves in the bowl of an extinct crater not many miles from Jolo; and as they were hostiles, and bitter against us because we have been trying for eight years to take their liberties away from them, their presence in that position was a menace. Our commander, General Leonard Wood, ordered a reconnaissance [sic]. It was found that the Moros numbered six hundred, counting women and children; that their crater bowl was in the summit of a peak or mountain twenty-two hundred feet above sea level, and very difficult of access for Christian troops and artillery. . . . Our troops climbed the heights by devious and difficult trails, and even took some artillery with them. . . . [When they] arrived at the rim of the crater, the battle began. Our soldiers numbered five hundred and forty. They were assisted by auxiliaries consisting of a detachment of native constabulary in our pay-their numbers not given-and by a naval detachment, whose numbers are not stated. But apparently the contending parties were about equal as to number-six hundred men on our side, on the edge of the bowl; six hundred men, women, and children in the bottom of the bowl. Depth of the bowl, 50 feet.

General Wood's order was, "Kill or capture the six hundred."

The battle began-it is officially called by that name-our forces firing down into the crater with their artillery and their deadly small arms of precision; the savages furiously returning the fire, probably with brickbats-though this is merely a surmise of mine, as the weapons used by the savages are not nominated in the cablegram. Heretofore the Moros have used knives and clubs mainly; also ineffectual trade-muskets when they had any.

The official report stated that the battle was fought with prodigious energy on both sides during a day and a half, and that it ended with a complete victory for the American arms. The completeness of the victory is established by this fact: that of the six hundred Moros not one was left alive. The brilliancy of the victory is established by this other fact, to wit: that of our six hundred heroes only fifteen lost their lives.

General Wood was present and looking on. His order had been, "Kill or capture those savages." Apparently our little army considered that the "or" left them authorized to kill or capture according to taste, and that their taste had remained what it has been for eight years, in our army out there-the taste of Christian butchers. . . .

Let us now consider two or three details of our military history. In one of the great battles of the Civil War ten per cent of the forces engaged on the two sides were killed and wounded. At Waterloo, where four hundred thousand men were present on the two sides, fifty thousand fell, killed and wounded, in five hours, leaving three hundred and fifty sound and all right for further adventures. Eight years ago, when the pathetic comedy called the Cuban War was played, we summoned two hundred and fifty thousand men. We fought a number of showy battles, and when the war was over we had lost two hundred sixty-eight men out of our two hundred and fifty thousand, in killed and wounded in the field, and just fourteen times as many by the gallantry of the army doctors in the hospitals and camps. We did not exterminate the Spaniards-far from it. In each engagement we left an average of two per cent of the enemy killed or crippled on the field.

Contrast these things with the great statistics which have arrived from that Moro crater! There, with six hundred engaged on each side, we lost fifteen men killed outright, and we had thirty-two wounded. . . . The enemy numbered six hundred-including women and children-and we abolished them utterly, leaving not even a baby alive to cry for its dead mother. This is incomparably the greatest victory that was ever achieved by the Christian soldiers of the United States.

Link

I have never met a Libertarian who notes war is a good thing. As a matter of fact the first Libertarian I ever met built an argument to dismantle the old trope about War being good for the economy. There's even some Libertarian explanations about how WWII didn't get us out of the depression, it just got FDR to cut regulations which let them recover.

As a matter of fact Ron Paul's dislike for intervention is a long standing position, unrelated to profit

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I compliment the gentleman from California for bringing it to this floor.

This is an immensely important constitutional issue and one that we should pay close attention to and obviously support. I would like this same principle, of course, to apply across the board, especially when it comes to bombing foreign countries, like Iraq, because we should not be involved in war efforts without the consent of the Congress.

The Constitution is very, very clear on this. Unfortunately, policy has drifted away from a noninterventionist constitutional approach. Just in the last 2 days we had five resolutions implying that we have the economic strength, we have the military power and the wisdom to tell other people what to do.

Usually it starts just with a little bit of advice that leads next to then sending troops in to follow up with the advice that we are giving. So I think this is very, very important, to get this out on the table, debate this, and for Congress to reassume the responsibility that they have given to an imperial presidency.

Prior to World War II there were always debates in the House of Representatives any time we wanted to use military force. Whether it was 150 years ago, when we decided to spread our borders southward towards Mexico, or whether 100 years ago when we decided to do something in Cuba, it came here. They had the debates, they had the arguments, but they came to the floor and debated this.

Today, ever since World War II, we have reneged on that responsibility. We have turned it over to the President and allowed him to be involved. We have given him words of encouragement that implies that we support his position. We do so often and, as far as I am concerned, too carelessly. But when we do this, the President then assumes this responsibility; and, unfortunately, since World War II, it has not even been for national security reasons.

The Persian Gulf War was fought with the assumption that the administration got the authority from the United Nations. If we are to express ourselves and to defend our national sovereignty, we should have the Congress vote positive on this resolution because it is so critical.

Today, we have been overextended. Our military is not as strong as some people believe. Our economy is probably not nearly as strong as some believe. We have troops that could be attacked in Korea. We have the potentiality of bombing Baghdad at the same time we have troops in harm's way in Bosnia. So we have spread ourselves too thinly, and we are vulnerable.

We have a responsibility here. The Congress has a responsibility to the American people. We are here to defend the national sovereignty and the protection of the United States. Troops in Bosnia threatens our national security and threatens the lives of the American citizen who is protecting or fighting in this region. So it is up to us to assume this responsibility.

Link

Ron Paul was here objecting to intervention in Bosnia Herzegovena. He's expressly noting the power that Congress ought to have over decisions to intervene militarily. Just in case you forgot the Bosnian intervention was pretty much casualty free, and Paul objected to it.

Not like Iraq => too many taxes, too many bodies, too expensive. The contrapositive is no taxes, no bodies, not expensive or in other words profitable => like Iraq. The logic is undeniable.

WTF? That's not undeniable logic, that's a stupid logical leap. These objections are vote getters because they most directly affect Americans. It's not unreasonable that he would emphasize these points. That doesn't mean he doesn't care about the moral aspects of killing foreigners, it means he's trying to explain to Americans how Iraq is negatively affecting them, by mentioning the practical consequences affecting them of the invasion. In short you're assuming because he left out other objections, that he doesn't consider them important. That isn't undeniable logic.

And this is a pretty weak argument

If you don't buy that because you think politicians can be illogical, I don't have any statements from him that he'd invade if war was profitable. Even if a politician believed that, he wouldn't be so stupid as to say it. So we have to conclude from his belief system under what circumstances he would condone invasion.

In fact he voted against the 2002 Iraq war resolution, when it could have conceivably been a profitable "seize the oil fields and install a puppet government" sort of a thing. Which is more evidence than you have. As a matter of fact his actions suggest that NO invasions would be acceptable under his belief system.

[Vympel]

Words mean little in politics; action is king, particularly voting record and ideology. Do you seriously believe Obama will invade Iran as easily as Bush or any of the Republicans? Or at all? Or even attack with missiles? Once a bomb is detonated Obama can use the king "out" and say they already have a bomb so it's too risky.

Well, what is Obama's voting record, exactly? What leadership has he offered in relation to Iran (or even Iraq?). Very little, as far as I know. At the outset, he looked like a pretty impressive candidate, but he's done jack shit except buy into the usual paradigm.

Bush doesn't want to invade Iran because Iran will get a nuclear weapon. It is a meme the conservatives stole from liberals: they stole the idea that less weapons in the world is a better thing. He wants to invade Iran because he thinks their culture and religion is a mortal threat to the United States, and he wants control of their oil. Obama hasn't been suckered into anything; he's holding to a core liberal principle, "less bombs."

You seem to be under the impression that I believe that they're all as bad as each other - they're not. However, in terms of foreign policy, there's very little difference between their respective positions, and I don't think anyone on the receiving end of a bombing campaign cares much as to the nuance of the reason why, when the premise is fundamentally false.

Also, I dispute the notion that Bush wants to invade Iran because Iran will get a nuclear weapon - I think it's quite clear from neocon thought to which he subscribes that any country (apart from Israel, their supposed allies) possessing nuclear weapons in the region is unacceptable to their so-called interests.

You're subscribing to the IMO worse notion that there's only 1 or 0, let them have nukes or do nothing. Even if nuclear proliferation is inevitable as you say, there's nothing wrong with delaying it.

Depends on how you do it. Maniacal blather about "all options being on the table", including nuclear weapons, is madness.

And that means forcing the Iranians to develop it all covertly as opposed to an open policy. And if you want to oppose it, your diplomacy must have teeth.

That's more like extortion. Diplomacy is actually being willing to compromise on an issue, which the US (at least under Bush) has never been willing to do. Whether Obama does so is another matter, but from what I've seen, I doubt it.

There comes a point in that sort of issue where the other side a: may back down or b: tell you to bring it on. And then mobster concepts like national "credibility" come into play. And all bets are off.