Rudy goes nuclear on Iran

Oh great. Another "diplomat" in the Whitehouse. Diplomacy has taken a back seat to beating ones' chest.

"But this time it becomes amplified through his discussions with foreign leaders and the platform of speaking in London."

The important point is to always make these pronouncements (and to always act) in concert with the community of civilized nations.

I'm not necessarily a Rudy fan, but I agree with him.

Rudy is an idiot who left NYC in a financial mess when he was mayor.
I hope the Republic Party nominates him.

Rudy Julieannie summed up in 30 seconds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMveQ1sG9QU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecrooksandliars%2Ecom%2Fcategory%2Frepublican%2Dparty%2Frudy%2Dgiuliani%2F

"RUDY RUDY RUDY, CALM DOWN, PLEASE!"

So China, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan in the region, IT'S OKAY.

"It's Wednesday, and its just another day that Rudy Guiliani wakes up thinking he is in the SOPRANOS and he is MOB BOSS for the day."

It appears Rudy is taking one for the team today. WE NEED A NEW HEADLINE as Congress sings out NO WE GOT TIME ON OUR SIDE.

Guiliani appears to be taking on Bush College Role as a "CHEERLEADER" Dick Cheney, because he cannot come out of hiding yet until Congress either gives him a "SECURED STAY OUT OF JAIL/IMPEACHMENT or CENSORSHIP CARD RELATING TO (PL 110-55).

Not with Actionable Intelligence, just his own Intelligence sounds like Yogi Bear is stealing picnic baskets in America Parks again.

What a joke!

Why is it that the Republicans have forgotten how to negotiate with everyone in the world? It's always, "my way or the highway". George W. Bush started this craziness.

As much as I dislike Reagan, he brought an end to the cold war without threatening to blow up every other country in the world.

More to the point. With Iran's oil, THEY have plenty of people who are willing to support them, such as the Chinese. So does Mr. Macho Guiliani think that the Chinese and the rest of the world who are getting oil from Iran are just going to sit idly by while we go in and blow half of Iran up.

What a bunch of morons!

Sheesh, what an egotistical mope. This nut doesn't hold any office but thinks it is OK to speak on behalf of the US.

Who is going to set them back five years rooti? You and your gay roommates?

No wonder your family thinks you are an a**hole.

More richness from the Deranged Hypocritical Left. It always has been my contention that you folks don't like wars and sabre rattling and regime change when done by a Republican, like Bush with Iraq. But if it's a Demoncrat doing the warring, sabre rattling and regime change, then you folks are OK with it, like Clinton and Bosnia and Barack Obama and his comment to blow up Pakistan. Obama's pledge to attack an ally unilaterally met with praise from the Loony Left. Guiliani's pledge to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons meets derision from the Loony Left. Iran, which spreads terrorism throughout the Middle East and world, should be talked to, the Loony Left says. Pakistan, which has been a somewhat decent ally on the war on terror, should be attacked and bombed to smithereens, the Loony Left says. Could it also be that because Musharraf has been an ally, the Left hates him? And could it be that the Loony Left, anti-Semites too, love Iran and Ahmadinejad because he wants to remove Israel from the planet, something the Loony Left wants as well?

Um, Johnny D? Did you really write that?? That does not sound like your usual thought process - at least you use usually use punctuation and paragraphs.

But dogjudge is right - do you really think China will stand by and watch their oil go away??

the Loony Left says. Pakistan, which has been a somewhat decent ally on the war on terror, should be attacked and bombed to smithereens, the Loony Left says. Could it also be that because Musharraf has been an ally, the Left hates him? And could it be that the Loony Left, anti-Semites too, love Iran and Ahmadinejad because he wants to remove Israel from the planet, something the Loony Left wants as well?

Posted by: John D | September 19, 2007 2:18 PM

Lil Johnny Tazed & Confused,
You're lying again, NO ONE ever said anything about "blowing up" all of Pakistan", what was said (by Senator Obama) was if we have info on exactly where Osama bin Laden is hiding at in Pakistan, we should go in and get him and I agree with him.

You do remeber that Osama bin Laden, (not Iraq, not Iran) was responsible for 9/11, right?

I remember when a certain Republican President said that he wanted Bin-Laden "dead or alive", whatever happened to that?

Riddle me this, Rudy (or Dyslin, since you're the local GOP apologist):

Where will the troops come from to fight this war? Whose tours will you extend further? Will you institute a draft or raise enough revenue through taxation to pay for it in today's dollars?

John D.,

Just like my over the top posts don't cut mustard, neither do yours.

Obama never said "...blow up Pakistan" and you know it."

More richness from the Deranged Hypocritical Left.
Posted by: John D | September 19, 2007 2:18 PM

Al least he's altering his open a bit these days. Still a bore though.

I really believe this is is a John D. troll. I looked back at some of his posts, and he has never run on like this guy does.

Actually, it looks like Jerry White POSING as John D.

Please Johnny, tell us you did not post that. This post was way below your usual standards.

then you folks are OK with it, like Clinton and Bosnia
Posted by: John D | September 19, 2007 2:18 PM

Yeah...Bosnia turned out to be a real blunder, didn't it?

Sure sounds like the usual idiotic John D ramblings to me.

I mean, its not like Obama was reiterating what the President said: that we would go after Bin Laden in Pakistan if Musharaff won't.

I still don't understand why this is news. If it was, why didn't all the Wingnuts go ballistic when President Bush said, without hesitation, THE EXACT THING OBAMA SAID.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/20/bush.intv/index.html

Gimme a break.

The posting with John Ds name on it was ignorant, mean spirited, and filled with lies. So yes I believe he did write it or at the very least completely agrees with it. After all what would the difference be?

John D

Attacking anyone.

The loony left, etc.

Simple question. If Osama bin Laden was in Iran how long would it be before we went in and took him out?

Now with all the success we've had with our "ally" in Pakistan we're supposed to sit by and wait?

I'm sure you don't see the irony in all of that, do you?

BTW, so everyone getting oil from EITHER Iran, or from any country that ships through the Straits of Hormuz are going to just sit idly by?

Folks, I wrote that. There is punctuation, but yes, no paragraphs. Very busy today.

But the fact remains, you folks are hiding from the truths I put forth. Whether Obama said he would bomb Pakistan to smithereens or just merely invade Pakistan, the fact is you folks were all for that. You folks are all for the invasion of a sovereign ally and one that has been more help than not in the War on Terror.
Yet, you folks seems to deride any tough talk on Iran, which throughout most of the civilized world is recognized as a terrorist state and a threat.
No one has discussed the hypocrisy issue I put forth, and my guess is because it hit the nail right on the head. When a Democrat is in charge, all wars and tough talk and regime change are OK. When it's a Republican, then you folks are against all of that.
You folks love Iran for one simple reason, well two: Your hatred for Bush makes you love Iran; and your anti-Semitism also makes you love Iran.

"Whether Obama said he would bomb Pakistan to smithereens or just merely invade Pakistan, the fact is you folks were all for that. You folks are all for the invasion of a sovereign ally and one that has been more help than not in the War on Terror."

Its really, really, really simple, John.

Osama Bin Laden attacked the United States homeland on September 11, 2001. At the time he was in Afghanistan. Us "loons" wanted to take out his base in Afghanistan and catch and kill him and his operatives.

Osama Bin Laden is widely believed to be in PAKISTAN. Us "loons" want to CATCH THE PEOPLE WHO ATTACKED US ON SEPTEMBER 11. They are in Pakistan. There is no hypocrisy whatsoever in being able to tell the difference between a country that has attacked us and one that has not.

Iraq did not attack the United States on September 11. There is no connection. When DID Iraq attack the United States? In 1987, while we were arming our Iraqi allies. http://navalwarfare.blogspot.com/2007/05/20th-anniversary-of-attack-on-uss-stark.html

Iran did not attack us on September 11. There is no connection. When did Iran attack America? I'm trying to think of an incident since then but I think the last time was 1979. (And I do not count their proxies, such as Hezbollah, attacking our proxies, such as Israel, as an attack on us. And I'm Jewish, so please spare the "anti-Semitic" garbage)

Intelligence analysts have been saying that the next attack will likely be directed from the same Pakistani tribal regions where Bin Laden and Zawahiri currently reside. George Bush promised AFTER 9/11 that terrorists would not be allowed sanctuary in any nation. They are currently living comfortably in Pakistan. That is why President Bush, and then Obama, have stated what us "loons" have been saying all along: if Musharaf will not do everything in his power to take out the top leadership of Al Qaeda in his country, then we may be forced to.

And as for the domino theory, its worth noting that the Islamists LOST seats in the last Pakistani parliamentary election, now holding only 16% of seats. By far the dominant Musharaf opposition are democrats. And the generals are too conservative (in the traditional sense) to unleash nuclear weapons that will surely be traced back to them.

Its time to get Bin Laden, John. Attacking Iran ain't gonna help, 'cause he's in Pakistan. Bush has had longer to catch Bin Laden than Clinton has. Maybe he should focus on the debacle he's created in Iraq (previously void of terrorists) and improving reconstruction in Afghanistan, and instead of lurching out at Iran (already surrounded on both sides by the U.S.) send some Predator drones to reign hellfire down on the known Al Qaeda terrorist camps that have proliferated in Pakistani Wazuristan.

"Your hatred for Bush makes you love Iran; and your anti-Semitism also makes you love Iran."

Are you really as childish and obtuse as you come across? Please show some evidence that any "loon" here or anywhere else says they "love" Iran. Taking out Iran would have made more sense BEFORE Iraq, as it has always been the bigger threat. But we are not capable of producing a positive outcome in a country less than half the size of Iran.

So maybe a little caution may be in order this time around, tough guy? After all, who exactly is going to fight this war? The surge has to end in April because the tours are coming to a close. Where are we gonna get the soldiers, and whose gonna pay for them, John?

Irecall a quote that goes, "Mohandas Gandhi,what do you think of Western Civilization?Gandhi replyed...It would be a good idea!" My question is ,you think the West is now civilized?How about without Nuclear Weapons even?/

"Hiding from the truths I put forth" - John D

You're sure to get some laughs with that line. We're still waiting to see any smidgen of truth from you.

As your buddy Condi would say, no one could have imagined that any American, much less a Republican keyboard commando, would oppose the idea of going after Bin Laden wherever he is if we had good intelligence on his position. (Unless that idea was proposed by a Democratic presidential candidate, I guess.)

Your theory about Democrats opposing Republican-sponsored wars would make more sense if it weren't for the fact that most Americans (including Democrats) supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the first gulf war. But please don't let facts or reality stand in the way of your future posts.

Hey...are you one of those people who think Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack?

Voice of America and Fiasco at Persian Service.

As a native born Iranian, I would like to suggest that there is no need to attack Iran militarily if the Bush administration pays attention to those who know the situation and use the awesome power of publicity instead of military.
Millions of dollars are spent in Persian Service of Voice of America but the end result is nothing but scandalous way of management and programming.
It is hard to believe but the Persian Service which supposed to be an organization to convey the policy of the U.S. has become a free platform for hard-line terrorist group of communists who attack the United Sates!
I have the documents in writings to prove that these were done with the knowledge of the management.
I used to work there and as I said before, I have all the documents in writings.
The manager is a woman called Sheila Gandji who can not read and write Persian. Therefore, in order to hide this shortcoming from the higher management, she has hired an eighty something man called Kambiz Mahmoudi who has a lengthy background as crook and in charlatanism.
Don’t think that this is a personal vendetta.
Let me quote you a view from another media:
"The Iran Steering group concluded that much of the anti-American perspective that is broadcast is the result of decisions made by station managers in Washington D.C. and Prague. Sheila Gandji, the manager of Persian service has faced sharp criticism, particularly for her decision to stop VOA shortwave radio program in July, 2006 in order to focus on television broadcasts, which are more susceptible to censorship, since the government regularly confiscates satellites dishes in order to prevent the infiltration of foreign broadcasts."
The bizarre situation at the Persian Service of Voice of America caused the Republican Senator Coburn to write a long letter to President Bush about the fiasco there.
It is only in America where the government pays to be insulted.
Really, why Voice of America is doing this harm to our nation?
Do you want more information? Write me: ijadi14@yahoo.com

This guy, Rudy Caesar Tiberius Gaius Caligula Germanicus Nero just can't wait to get his finger on that trigger.

Happiness is a warm gun, hey Rudy?

Here's a loony leftie speaking out against ANY proposal by ANYONE to invade/bomb/whatever Pakistan. Now that juannieD can't use his vague generalizations ("all you guys, you all, everyone, what ever) he needs to find another argument. See juannieeD, I was against invading Iraq in the first place, I am against invading Iran, and for invading Afghanistan. After all, that's where the enemy is. Someone once asked John Dillinger why he robbed banks. He said "Because that's where the money is." I guess Dillinger was a better tactician than president chen-saw and his chief mis-annunciator earboy.

Which Allies? Speak for yourself Rudy, the entire world does not want another mass killing of innocent people (just the Israelis).

John D.,

Obama talked about going after al Queda with actionable intelligence if Mushareff couldn't or wouldn't.

That's the truth.

Oh please. You bunch of panty-waist pacifists! Talking with Iran??? Why didn't you TALK with Hitler? Go ahead and suck up to Iran and when they get the nukes and blow up Israel, all you anti-Semites can dance in the streets of London handing out candy.

" Whether Obama said he would bomb Pakistan to smithereens or just merely invade Pakistan, the fact is you folks were all for that. You folks are all for the invasion of a sovereign ally and one that has been more help than not in the War on Terror."

Ahhhhh, John D, show me where I said that.

Tom O, the reality is MOST Demoncrats were against the first Gulf War, not for it.
As far as going after bin Laden, the U.S. did and did so when it invaded Afghanistan in 2001.
As far as going after bin Laden today in Pakistan. The problem is that if that were to happen, there still is no guarantee we would get him. Second, by invading Pakistan, you have created an even bigger problem. Third, by invading Pakistan, you immediately weaken Musharraf even more.

Now, the news today says Al Qaeda has declared war on Musharraf. That actually can be a good thing. Perhaps Musharraf will be forced to send troops in that part of Pakistan to hunt down bin Laden. Perhaps Musharraf will need our help and ask for it.
For folks who believe everything should be done under UN approval and that invading sovereign nations is a bad thing, invading Pakistan and making it even more unstable and hence an even more unstable Middle East seems to be OK in the eyes of the Loony Left.
Like I say: hypocrites.

"Second, by invading Pakistan, you have created an even bigger problem."

A bigger problem than having Public Enemies #1 and 2 living freely, planning attacks against Americans? Do explain.

"Third, by invading Pakistan, you immediately weaken Musharraf even more.":

Aaaaaand, Dyslin? Read up a little on Pakistan. THE LEADING ALTERNATIVE TO MUSHARAF IS NOT ISLAMISTS!!! We prop him up because that fits our Cold War mentality. As I said earlier, and you clearly ignored, the Domino Theory that your "cut and run" ilk believe as gospel in regards to Pakistan is simply another theory, one that conveniently ignores the FACTS I laid out above.

"For folks who believe everything should be done under UN approval and that invading sovereign nations is a bad thing, invading Pakistan and making it even more unstable and hence an even more unstable Middle East seems to be OK in the eyes of the Loony Left.
Like I say: hypocrites."

Invading sovereign nations is a bad idea when the likely instability produced outweighs the advantages. That was by far and away the clearest when it comes to Iraq, as they were stable and a critical counterweight to the real threat, Iran.

Our other greatest threat is in Pakistan. I LOVE how you throw around the word "invasion" when it suits your purposes. Would you like to go on the record and say that you know for a fact that a Predator attack on Bin Laden/ Zamahiri would definitely lead to 1) the government falling, 2) the Islamists taking over, and 3) them using their nuclear expertise to pass along to terrorists, resulting in the inevitable destruction of their nation.

Finally, most importantly, where are we going to get the troops for this great Iran adventure. Do tell!

Iran is not anyone's problem except for Israel. Only Israel and Israel-firsters are making a big deal about Iranian nukes, just because it will end Israel's ability to blackmail its neighbors into submission.

Iranian nuclear parity with Israel is a GOOD thing because it will force Israel to make peace with all of its neighbors on terms that are fair considering there's only 5 million Jewish Israelis compared to 250 million Arabs in the region.