Compare these two answers Mayor Rudy Giuliani (9/11) gave Sunday on “Meet the Press.”
Regarding the duration of United States’ occupation of Iraq:
MR. RUSSERT: Your best estimate as a potential commander in chief, how long will U.S. troops be in Iraq?
MR. GIULIANI: For as long as necessarily to get the strategic objective achieved. I mean, we, we, we have a strategic objective in Iraq, and sometimes we lose sight of that in light of all the politics that are surrounding it. Our strategic objective in Iraq is an Iraq that’s stable and an Iraq that will act as an ally of the United States in the ongoing Islamic terrorist effort war against us.
. . .
Everything that I can see, information that I can get, tells me that our military, including General Petraeus, thinks that there’s still a chance we can achieve that objective. As long as there’s still a chance that we can achieve that objective, we should support it, Democrats and Republicans.
. . .
MR. RUSSERT: …as of now you’re, you’re prepared to spending more–several more years if necessary.
MR. GIULIANI: For now–I, I don’t think you put it–when has any country ever won a war with great pressure for time limits placed on the military while you are engaged in that war? I think there’s been a counterproductive thing done here that–if we had gone into any war with, you know, “You’ve got a year to do this, you got two years to do this, otherwise we’re going to give the enemy a timetable of our retreat,” you almost can’t succeed in that war. The enemy even figures out you can’t succeed, and they outlast you.
Regarding energy security:
MR. RUSSERT: Congress–the House has passed an energy bill which would mandate 35 miles per gallon per automobiles by the year 2020. Would you support that?
MR. GIULIANI: That isn’t the way I think it should be done. I think what we should be doing is developing the alternatives so it’s possible to accomplish that as opposed to just setting mandates and not having the support there for expansion of hybrid vehicles, expansion of biofuels, including ethanol. Expansion…
MR. RUSSERT: But you’re against increasing miles per gallon.
MR. GIULIANI: I would not do it that way, yes. I would do it with heavy expansion of hybrid vehicles, which move some of the sources over to electricity, then deal with clean coal, nuclear power, hybrid vehicles, expansion of hydroelectric power, more oil refineries, more domestic oil. All of those things are the things that we should be supporting. And we should be selling that to the, to the rest of the world, because if, if–no matter what we do, if China and India and these other countries that are developing don’t start to get control on this, it’s going to wipe out any good that we do. So the real emphasis here should be on developing energy independence and creating these alternative industries.
Contrast what Giuliani is asking of Americans. On one hand, if you are a member of the armed forces you can expect to continue risking life and limb near the oilfields in Iraq. Giuliani offers no finality to that war–we’re there as long as there’s “a chance” that things might turn out well.
On the other hand, if you don’t have connections to the military, then nothing is asked of you. Heaven forbid that we even require SUVs to have a few less horsepower or cubic feet of cargo space. That wouldn’t be good for business!
I suppose it’s just a coincidence that Giuliani’s law firm and campaign have strong financial ties to the energy industry. I can’t think of anyone who would benefit from a continued U.S. military presence in the Middle East + high American demand for oil, can you?
Meanwhile, “IEA exec says oil supply crunch looms.”