Exploiting 9/11 Is Not Enough for Rudy Giuliani

By Brigitte L. Nacos
To borrow from Yogi Berra, “It’s déjà vu all over again.” The Republicans on the campaign trail beat up on Democrats for being soft on terrorism and on defense and thus on Iraq. And nobody is more aggressive than Rudy Giuliani. In his campaign speeches, Giuliani calls Democrats the “party of losers” that refuses to “admit the existence of Islamic terrorism.” As reported in the Washington Post, at a stop in Texas, Rudy said, “Democrats have already declared we've lost.” And when asked about the recent National Security Estimate’s revelation of a revitalized al-Qaeda organization, Giuliani said according to the New York Times, ''I can interpret one way or the other depending on whether you are a Republican that is in favor of having the surge work or you're a Democrat in favor of the surge not working.''

Obviously, Giuliani utilizes an old dirty trick that has worked remarkably well for Republicans for more than 25 years: They proclaim over and over again that Republicans are tough on terrorism and defense and that Democrats are weak on both scores--and sooner or later the public will accept fiction for fact.
Exploiting 9/11 for his financial and political ambitions is obviously not enough for Giuliani.

Never mind that terrorism has resulted in far greater loss of American lives during Republican administrations than Democratic ones. Jimmy Carter’s much maligned handling of the Iran Hostage Crisis brought all the hostages home alive. The same cannot be said for the presidency of Ronald Reagan, when hundreds of American Marine’s did as result of a terrorist attack on their barracks outside of Beirut, Lebanon, when several Americans were brutally killed by their Hezbollah captors somewhere in Lebanon, and when scores of Americans perished, when terrorists blew PanAm Flight 103 out of the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland. While the first World Trade Center Bombing, the East African Embassy Bombings, and the terror attack on the USS Cole along with the Oklahoma City Bombing occurred on President Bill Clinton’s watch, the catastrophic 9/11 strikes were carried out, when George W. Bush occupied the White House. None of these presidents and their parties should be blamed.

When Giuliani and McCain and Mitt Romney and the rest of the Republican bunch of macho men on the campaign trail talk tough on terrorism and the Iraq war, they speak of the need and their determination to win. They should tell us what they would consider victory in Iraq. It seems that even the president and his strongest supporters do no longer believe that Iraq will become the shining model of democracy for the region. Giuliani and his rivals should tell us how long they would keep the U.S. military in Iraq and at what strength? Never mind costs--we know already. Giuliani has proposed tax exemptions of up to $15,000 per family for the purchase of private health insurance. And that on top of financing the Iraq war for however long it takes to win!? Since Rudy’s proposal is likely to please at least the insurance companies, they should make Rudy a highly paid lobbyist, when he fails to win the White House and when his 9/11 luster fades.

As for the Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination, especially Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, they would be well advised to stop going after each other and rather concentrate on discrediting Giuliani’s and other Republicans’ old tale about Democrats being soft on terrorism and defense. The latest Gallup poll shows that when it comes to handling terrorism and the Iraq war, Americans trust Giuliani (69%) and McCain (66%) already more than Clinton (55%) and Obama (53%). With respect to Iraq, the old tricks have not worked—yet in that there is no marked advantage for Giuliani (55%) and McCain (55%) in comparison to Clinton (54%) and Obama (51%).

Unless the Democratic front-runners focus on their Republican opponents and discredit their charges, it may be “déjà vu all over again.”