Richard Cohen has a rather conventional column in the WaPo this morning, which, in essence, states the obvious: the coming presidential election can sway either way because of the ever-present national defense issues. Both sides will use and abuse it after their fashion.
Okay.
But his article does include this howler: The GOP is adept at painting Democrats as soft on national security. It is equally adept at saying so in the most scurrilous way. And while most Americans would like the war to end, they do not favor a precipitous withdrawal and neither have they forgotten Sept. 11, 2001 — the entirety of Giuliani’s case for the presidency, after all.
Say what?
Rudy Giuliani is also greatly responsible for making New York – our biggest city of course – livable again after decades of high crime and disrepair. No other candidate in either party can cite a leadership accomplishment anywhere near that.
Your response, Richard?
Roger while you are correct about Gulliany, I would argue that the GOP adeptness at painting democrats soft on defense has more to do with the truth about democrats than political tricks.
Notice how Cohen conveniently leaves out how Bill Clinton cut military spending down to the bone. So much so that it is inconceivable we could engage two Iraq size conflicts (forget Iran) let alone a major one like Korea should the situation change and a military conflict became inevitable.
On the contrary while Bill kept loosing his nuke keys at the golf course, Embassies and US navy ships were getting blown up.
Kosovo you say? That was NATO and nothing happened until thousands were dead.
Rwanda, Mogadishu – black hawk down.
Read something very interesting about Mogadishu, on Rantburg, I think, it seems there is a document trail leading to a certain dead dictator who was the money man.
They’re still putting together the pieces, but out it will come and of course, it will be old history, no big deal, he wouldn’t work w/AQ’s precurser because he was secular…..
It’s important to remember that the job of President isn’t just about “policy”–it’s an executive job, which involves actually getting things done. I think it’s pretty important that the next President be someone who has actually run something big, whether a state, a big city, or a major corporation. Running a congressional office staff doesn’t count.
Richard Cohen was a Post court reporter who, as I recall, was instrumental is breaking the Spiro Agnew scandal. He was elevated by the Post to
a column, just like the now clownish, barely literate Eugene Robinson. How they elevate these fools remains a mystery. The Post clogs its op ed page with screamers like EJ Dionne, Robinson, Ruth Marcus and Cohen
Cohen, an emotional serial ranter who retains his column while living in New York City, should know something about Rudi’s time in NYC, but he ignores Rudi’s less publicized accomplishments in streamlining the city administration, bringing the city back from its deathbed under Dinkins, fighting crime with new and innovative street tactics, and facing down the racist Al Sharpton. Perhaps, Richard is spending too much star gazing on Madison Avenue.
If Rudi is going to snatch the nomination, the columns of Richard Cohen will not influence the outcome one wit.
Mr. Cohen correctly observes that “most Americans do not favor a precipitous withdrawal . . . .” The problem, of course, is that this is exactly what all the Democratic Presidential hopefuls do favor.
I didn’t even know he was still alive. The Syracuse Pravda stopped running his columns years ago.
Maybe Cohen didn’t live in NY while Guliani was mayor. Or maybe he didn’t notice the change.
Either of which would keep a more perceptive man from writing that column.