Insight into a Giuliani Presidency

I am still with Fred; however I just found out Giuliani has foreign policy advisors that I consider awesome (and the Slanted Left considers scary).

Those two are Norman Podhoretz and Daniel Pipes. Podhertz is considered to be a founder (not THE founder) of Neoconservativism and Daniel Pipes is a preeminent anti-Islamist advocate.

My Conservativism leans toward the currently much criticized Neocons. So you can understand why I think it is excellent Giuliani is utilizing Podhoretz and Pipes as part of his advisory team. What ever deficiencies Giuliani has in social Conservativism, the presence of his advisors point to a man that would want to win the War on Terror instead of retreat, lose and give Islamists a toe-hold of political correctness and adverse influence in the West.

In light of that I am going to be re-posting “’We Must Bomb Iran’ Says Podhoretz” and the article it is based on: “We Must Bomb Iran, says US Republican guru.”

The point of the two articles is deterring a nuclear armed Iran; however as you read them (the first will like an intro) realize that Giuliani surrounds himself with advisors (not sycophants) to mold an outlook of a Presidential Administration.

JRH
************************

"We Must Bomb Iran," Says Podhoretz

Mark Alexander
Saturday, October 27, 2007
A New Dark Age Is Dawning

A senior foreign policy adviser to the Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has urged that Iran be bombed using cruise missiles and "bunker busters" to set back Teheran’s nuclear programme by at least five years.The tough message at a time of crisis between the United States and Iraq was delivered by Norman Podhoretz, one of the founders of neoconservatism, who has also imparted his stark advice personally to a receptive President George W. Bush. "None of the alternatives to military action - negotiations, sanctions, provoking an internal insurrection - can possibly work," said Mr Podhoretz. We must bomb Iran, says US Republican guru (more) By Toby Harnden
_____________________________

We must bomb Iran, says US Republican guru

By Toby Harnden in New York
Last Updated: 1:04am GMT 29/10/2007
Telegraph.co.uk

A senior foreign policy adviser to the Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has urged that Iran be bombed using cruise missiles and "bunker busters" to set back Teheran’s nuclear programme by at least five years.

The tough message at a time of crisis between the United States and Iraq was delivered by Norman Podhoretz, one of the founders of neoconservatism, who has also imparted his stark advice personally to a receptive President George W. Bush.

"None of the alternatives to military action - negotiations, sanctions, provoking an internal insurrection - can possibly work," said Mr Podhoretz."They’re all ways of evading the terrible choice we have to make which is to either let them get the bomb or to bomb them."In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Podhoretz said he was certain that bombing raids could be successful.

"People I’ve talked to have no doubt we could set it back five or 10 years. There are those who believe we can get the underground facilities as well with these highly sophisticated bunker-busting munitions."
Although Mr Podhoretz said he did not speak for Mr Giuliani, the former New York mayor whom he briefs daily appears to have embraced at least the logic of his hard-line views.

During a visit to London last month, Mr Giuliani said Iran should be given "an absolute assurance that, if they get to the point that they are going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them or we will set them back five or 10 years".

Mr Podhoretz said: "I was very pleased to see him say that. I was even surprised he went that far. I’m sure some of his political people were telling him to go slow ... I wouldn’t advise any candidate to come out and say we have to bomb - it’s not a prudent thing to say at this stage of the campaign."

But Mr Podhoretz’s 77 years and his position as a pre-eminent conservative foreign policy intellectual means he can not only think the unthinkable but say the unsayable.

"My role has simply been to say what I think," he said, explaining that he takes part in weekly conference calls and is in daily email contact with the Giuliani campaign.

He is the most eminent of a clutch of uncompromisingly hawkish aides assembled by Mr Giuliani. They include Daniel Pipes, who opposes a Palestinian state and believes America should "inspire fear, not affection", and Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official who has argued that Condoleezza Rice’s diplomacy is "dangerous" and signals American "weakness" to Teheran.

"Does Rudy agree with me?" Mr Podhoretz asked rhetorically. "I don’t know and I don’t wish to know." But he added that "Rudy’s view of the war is very similar to mine."

Mr Podhoretz’s thesis is that the war on terror is in fact World War Four and that the 42-year-long Cold War should be more properly described as World War Three.

Awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest honour, by President George W. Bush in 2004, Mr Podhoretz later sought a rare one-on-on audience with the US commander-in-chief. They met in New York’s Waldorf Astoria hotel in the spring.

The author of the recent World War IV: the Long Struggle Against Islamofacsism spent about 35 minutes outlining his case for air strikes against Iran as Mr Bush’s then chief adviser Karl Rove took notes.

"Whether I had any effect on him I truly don’t know but I sure tried my best to persuade him," he said.

"He was very cordial. He was warm. He listened. He occasionally asked a question as I made the case but he was truly poker faced."

Mr Podhoretz left the meeting unshaken in his belief that Mr Bush would attack Iran before he leaves office.

"The spirit of the questions was not to try to refute or contradict what I was saying. I didn’t get any negative vibes."

He said that now "the debate [over Iran] is secretly over and the people who are against military action are now preparing to make the case that we can live with an Iranian bomb".

Neither Mr Bush nor Mr Giuliani, however, would countenance Teheran acquiring a nuclear weapon and either one would authorise military action once they were convinced Iran had passed the point of no return with its uranium enrichment programme.

"Unlike a ground invasion where you’ve got to mass hundreds of thousands of troops, it takes six months and everybody knows you’re mobilising, with air strikes, we’ve got three carriers in the region and a lot of submarines," Mr Podhoretz said.

"I would say it would take five minutes. You’d wake up one morning and the strikes would have been ordered and carried out during the night. All the president has to do is say go."

______________________

Insight into a Giuliani Presidency
John R. Houk
© October 29, 2007
________________

From A New Dark Age Is Dawning front page:

Mark Alexander, an honours graduate in economics (and political science), is not affiliated or associated with any political party. He is the INDEPENDENT voice of REASON.
_______________

We must bomb Iran, says US Republican guru
© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007.

There is a Left Agenda in Wanting to Lose the War

Matt Sanchez is an embedded reporter for World Net Daily in Iraq. He provides a perspective that the Mainstream Media (MSM) has little courage to report honestly because of President Bush hatred. Any smacking of success stories from the troop surge undermines Leftist Democrats and Leftist MSM from their agenda of bringing down the influence of the Christian Right Conservatives and neoconservatives. Currently the former and latter groups I have mentioned are the victims of a relatively successful epithet propaganda campaign. In other words the Left is trying to convince the voting public that the war is the result of the Christian Right and neocon influence and they are correct. The conclusion the Left wishes to impose on the voting public is that the War on Terrorism in Iraq is an abject failure. Thus vote Leftist Democrat even though they have no viable solutions (other than abandoning the mission) to win the war initiated by President Bush supporters.

That solution is mere hate propaganda by the Left to regain political control of America to continue the eradication of Biblical morality and the transformation of America into a Secular Humanist value system that normalizes disgusting lifestyles and denigrates the Christian foundations of America’s heritage.

The ruthless Democrats will use any tool to win voters for their ultimate goals even if it means proclaiming the War on Terrorism and the coming clash with radical Islam a loss and something to flee. That plays well with voters that have become impatient with the war not ending microwave style, i.e. the quick zap and leave.

Since the MSM controls most of the dissemination of information to the public, the microwave generation listens. These are voters that care more about what happens to provide their comfort zone and family life in the now rather than the consequences of bad choices for the future. For the most part this chunk of voters listening to MSM propaganda is not political. If they vote at all it is because of unhappiness that the government is blamed for.

So we have the politically Slanted Right via alternate modes of media (Blogs and the few Slanted Right news outlets) vying with information dissemination of the Slanted Left MSM which supports Slanted Left Democrats. The non-political Joe American that merely wishes to live and pursue happiness votes on the scale that perpetuates their life goals. For these voters (again if they vote) the vote is cast for the person they believe will maintain their pursuit of happiness regardless of political affiliation. These are the voters that were enraged with righteous indignation at the occurrence of 9/11. And these are the voters that the Slanted Left have been working to erase the memory of the attack on American soil on 9/11.

Whew! That felt good.

Anyway back to WND embedded reporter Matt Sanchez.

Sanchez writes how Sunni’s are beginning to reach out to American Troops of the Surge because of the murderous rampage of al-Qaeda-Iraq (AQI). Read it and allow it to influence your thought patterns. Remember 9/11!

Norman Podhertz on Iran and Neocon Profile

Norman Podhertz is a man I highly respect. He is a reason that I still lean toward being a Neocon. Podhertz perceives who the enemy is and calls for victory – the extreme prejudice kind of victory in which the rules of war is to engage the enemy to its utter destruction.

It sounds harsh however if the War on Terrorism is continued to be fought with namby pamby rules of engagement it will last for decades until someone figures out the obvious to win. Just as the Allies figured it out to win WWII against Axis Authoritarian regimes of Germany, Japan and Hitler military puppet Italy.



Norman Podhertz biography (with a mention of a few other Neocons) from International Relations Center – Right Web:

JRH 7/25/07
***************************************

(This is really an anti-neocon website; however their exposition is concise and non-vindictive.)

Aside from Irving Kristol, few of the writers and ideologues associated with neoconservatism can claim as lasting an influence on the political faction as Norman Podhoretz, the longtime editor of Commentary magazine and an adjunct fellow at the rightist Hudson Institute. Under his editorship, which lasted from 1960 to 1995 (he is now editor at large), Commentary became the quintessential mouthpiece of the neoconservatives, serving as a soapbox from which Podhoretz and like-minded writers shaped the contours of what he called the neoconservative "tendency" as it began to emerge in the late 1960s and early 1970s. From that platform, Podhoretz and others lambasted the anti-war movement, extolled the virtues of military power, attacked "appeasers" like George McGovern, and condemned the supposed amorality of the counterculture and of liberal social policies. Podhoretz also cofounded the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD) in the mid-1970s to serve as a pressure group aimed at fighting back the politics of détente with the Soviet Union and championing a fierce anti-communism that became the central theme of the early presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Discussing Podhoretz's influence, Andrew Bacevich writes in his 2005 book The New American Militarism: "Once his own fling with sixties radicalism ended, Podhoretz launched a 'scorched-earth campaign against the New Left and counterculture.' From his editorial command post at Commentary ... Podhoretz did much to create and refine the fiercely combative neoconservative style. That style emphasized not balance (viewed as evidence of timidity) or the careful sifting of evidence (suggesting scholasticism) but the ruthless demolition of any point of view inconsistent with the neoconservative version of truth, typically portrayed as self-evident and beyond dispute" (p. 72).

In his writings, Podhoretz commonly explicated themes associated with neoconservatism, including its constant preoccupation with weakness, the centrality of the Holocaust, the belief in U.S. exceptionalism, and the view that U.S. military force is a unique arbiter of good in global affairs. For Podhoretz, the Vietnam War was the new "Munich"—"the self-evident symbol of a policy that must never be followed again." (Munich is the classic symbol of appeasement because it is where Neville Chamberlain of Britain and other leaders agreed in 1938 to allow Adolf Hitler to take control of land in Czechoslovakia, thus fostering Nazi expansion.) The debacle in Vietnam had resulted in the lessening of the possibility of the United States wielding its military power, a result that Podhoretz considered potentially catastrophic. As he wrote in 1982: "The survival not only of the United States but of free institutions everywhere in the world depends on a resurgence of American power." Thus, he and other neocons in the 1970s, including his wife Midge Decter, struggled to overcome the post-Vietnam "malaise" in U.S. culture, which they thought was expressed in the counterculture and the "appeasement" polices of both the Nixon and Carter presidencies (quotes in this paragraph cited in Bacevich, pp. 74-75).

Podhoretz gained a reputation while at Commentary for overusing Holocaust imagery to describe contemporary events. Remarking on Podhoretz's work, Peter Novick, author of The Holocaust in American Life, writes: "Once one starts using imagery from that most extreme of events, it becomes impossible to say anything moderate, balanced, or nuanced; the very language carries you along to hyperbole ... Anyone who scoffed at the idea that there were dangerous portents in American society had not learned 'the lessons of the Holocaust.'" This preoccupation also found expression in neoconservatives' views on Israel. As Decter once wrote while criticizing politicians whom she felt were not sufficiently supportive of Israel: "In a world full of ambiguities and puzzlements, one thing is absolutely easy both to define and locate: that is the Jewish interest. The continued security—and in those happy places where the term applies, well-being—of the Jews, worldwide, rests with a strong, vital, prosperous, self-confident United States" (cited in Gerson, Neoconservative Vision, p. 165).

Describing the sharp neoconservative reaction to perceived anti-Semitism in the United Nations following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the conservative scholars Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke argue that a consensus gradually emerged among key neoconservatives like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Irving Kristol, and Podhoretz that "America and Israel ... shared a common ideological struggle against common enemies. The 1970s saw the vague consensus of neoconservatism ... wrap itself tightly around the belief that America must have a self-assured and robust elite, which must be willing to employ U.S. power promptly and resolutely, if need be, and prepared to stand up to the USSR along with its anti-American and anti-Semitic allies at the UN and beyond" (Halper and Clarke, America Alone, p. 60).

For Podhoretz and his cohorts, the world is in a constant state of crisis. Living under this constant threat demands a stark choice between "surrender or war," as Podhoretz once wrote when criticizing the Carter administration (cited in Bacevich, p. 77). Near the end of the 1980s, as the Soviet Union began to crumble, Podhoretz's Commentary continued to warn of impending doom from the Soviets. In 1987, he published an article by Eugene Rostow, which argued: "The Soviet program of indefinite expansion achieved by the aggressive use of force ... [is still] the central problem ... of world politics and American national security." A year later, the French writer Jean-Francois Revel wrote in Commentary that glasnost was a ruse: "It is an instrument through which [Gorbachev] can consolidate his own power by using the press to indict and, little by little, eliminate his predecessors' men" (quotes from Ehrman, p. 175).

With the end of the Cold War, Podhoretz quickly joined forces with a second generation of neoconservatives who began championing a new U.S. interventionist policy, a notion that found preeminent expression in Charles Krauthammer's 1990 Foreign Affairs article, "The Unipolar Moment," which argued that the United States should take advantage of its position as the unique global superpower to impose its priorities across the world. Unlike some of his contemporaries, such as Robert Tucker and Irving Kristol, Podhoretz fully embraced this new campaign, which eventually coalesced around the many ideologues who created the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in 1997. Podhoretz signed PNAC's founding statement of principles, which called for a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity" that would ensure "American global leadership." It added: "we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

After 9/11, Podhoretz became one of the most prominent supporters of the view, initially dreamed up by neoconservative academic Eliot Cohen, that the United States was fighting World War IV. In a 2004 Commentary article, Podhoretz opined: "We are only in the very early stages of what promises to be a very long war, and Iraq is only the second front to have been opened in that war: the second scene, so to speak, of the first act of a five-act play. In World War II and then in World War III [the Cold War], we persisted in spite of impatience, discouragement, and opposition for as long as it took to win, and this is exactly what we have been called upon to do today in World War IV."

He added, employing that old standby of Holocaust imagery: "For today, no less than in those titanic conflicts, we are up against a truly malignant force in radical Islamism and in the states breeding, sheltering, or financing its terrorist armory. This new enemy has already attacked us on our own soil—a feat neither Nazi Germany nor Soviet Russia ever managed to pull off—and openly announces his intention to hit us again, only this time with weapons of infinitely greater and deadlier power than those used on 9/11. His objective is not merely to murder as many of us as possible and to conquer our land. Like the Nazis and Communists before him, he is dedicated to the destruction of everything good for which America stands."

In a 2002 speech at the American Enterprise Institute, Podhoretz borrowed a line from George Kennan's famous 1947 article "The Sources of Soviet Conduct," which argued for a policy of containing and rolling back the Soviet Union, to describe the war on terror. Replacing the words "Russian-American relations" in the original with "Islamic terrorism," Podhoretz said: " The thoughtful observer of Islamic terrorism will ... experience a certain gratitude for a Providence which, by providing the American people with this implacable challenge, has made their entire security as a nation dependent on their pulling themselves together and accepting the responsibilities of moral and political leadership that history plainly intended them to bear."

Podhoretz is the author of several books, including The Norman Podhoretz Reader: A Selection of his Writings from the 1950's through the 1990's (2003); The Prophets: Who They Were, What They Are (2002); My Love Affair with America (2000); Ex-Friends (1999); The Bloody Crossroads: Where Literature and Politics Meet (1986); Why We Were in Vietnam (1982); Making It (1980); The Present Danger; Breaking Ranks: A Political Memoir (1979); and Doings and Undoings: The Fifties and After in American Writing (1966).

Last Updated: March 27, 2007
_________________________
Hudson Institute, Staff Bio: Norman Podhoretz, http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=PodhNorm.

Andrew Bacevich, The New American Militarism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).

Mark Gerson, The Neoconservative Vision (Lanham, MD: Madison Books, 1997).

Charles Krauthammer, "The Unipolar Moment," Foreign Affairs, Winter 1990/1991.

John Ehrman, The Rise of Neoconservatism: Intellectuals and Foreign Affairs 1945-1994 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995).

Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neoconservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

Norman Podhoretz, "World War IV," Commentary, August 17, 2004.

Norman Podhoretz, "America at War," speech at the American Enterprise Institute, February 13, 2002.

___________________________
Published by the International Relations Center (IRC, online at http://www.irc-online.org/). Copyright © 2007, International Relations Center. All rights reserved.

Recommended citation:"Norman Podhoretz," Right Web Profile (Silver City, NM: International Relations Center, March 27, 2007).

Web location: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1320

Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Chellee Chase-Saiz, IRC

Copyright © 2007, International Relations Center. All rights reserved.
****************************

The IRC is obviously hostile to Neoconservativism however I got to tell you everything this website means as a scathing expose is a course of realism if America wishes to maintain a dominant place in the globe. Once America quits being a hegemon, America will cease to be the Home of Brave and the Land of the Free.

Even the YouTube link/video is meant to expose how the Neocons are designing to take over the world, but again that is a misperception. The Neocon goal is to maintain American hegemony to maintain the American Way of Life.