I appreciate Rudy’s comment that we need to look to the future, rather than in the rear-view mirror. That said, Rudy’s view of the past is extremely important in determining whether I want him to make the next foreign policy decision. His statement that invading Iraq was “absolutely the right thing to do” just boggles my mind.

Before we invaded, Al Qaeda was had zero presence in Iraq, Iraq”s army held Iran at bay, and Iraq was a secular state. Five years later, Al Qaeda kills our soldiers every day, Iran controls the largest block Parliament and the largest militia, and Sharia law has spread to much of the country. Our enemies are stronger – we batted 3 for 3 on this one.

Since when does handing Iraq to Al Qaeda, Iran and fundamentalist Islamists on a silver plate constitute strong national security credentials? If you are really a hawk, I just don’t understand how you can support him. Where are the candidates that are both hawks and realists?

And Neiya, I raise this now because I don’t want to have a candidate that will be ripped apart in the general election.

Conservatives would not trash talk their own sides runner’s commitments.

We realize you are not right wing. now leave us alone and go bug the leftists.

rudy giuliani governed a city of 8.5 million people, larger than 40 states, and took it from the most dangerous city in the country, to the safest. he took a defecit, and turned it into a surplus. he cleaned it up from top to bottom. even his harshest critics would be reluctant to go back to a pre-giuliani new york. compstat revolutionized how crime is fought, and the city’s prosperity is a testament to the success of globalization. giuliani pre-9/11 has a resume that overmatches the top three democrats combined, and his leadership that day was nearly universaly praised, and only liberal revisionist try to see it differently now.

see for yourself, list the accomplishments of giuliani as compared to obama, edwards, and clinton(remember marrying slick willy doesnt count, she has to stand on her own as president, he cant be in the situation room with her). its really not even close, or even fair, which is why liberals want to talk about rudy and abortion or rudy in drag or rudy and his kids, because his resume is something none of them can touch.

The problem the Democrats make is they’re in denial. That’s why you hear things like you heard in the debate the other night, that, you know, Iran really isn’t dangerous; it’s 10 years away from nuclear weapons. Iran is not 10 years away from nuclear weapons, and the danger to us is not just missiles, the danger to us is a state like Iran handing nuclear weapons over to terrorists, so it has to be seen in that light, and we have to be successful in Iraq.”

There is no segue way from his last statement in the 1st paragraph and the first statement in the 2nd. This man is all talking points and no substance. C’mon, Rudy, say something substantive. I dare ya.

I don’t know how people don’t see through his thin veneer of empty rhetoric. Even when he was doling out a billion dollar in cuts to New York agencies, he didn’t say how he was going to do it. He just cut the agencies’ funding. Is there a worse presidential candidate? And if you say Hillary Clinton, I will retort with Brownback. And if someone says Obama, I will say Romney.

you know what orteeega, it sure beats the barrack obama “when i was doing nothing deserving of a presidential bid” shtick and the even better hillary “when i became frontrunner because of who i married” shtick.

yea rudy shouldnt talk about his resume, because it only makes the dems look worse. lets see, barrack resume is blank and hillary’s begins and ends with who she married. what a joke.