Monday, September 17, 2007

Rudy states the obvious about Mrs. Bill Clinton

Rudy’s on fire again. While other would be Rep candidates snipe at one another, Rudy takes aim at the real adversary, Mrs. Bill Clinton. Here’s a bit of what Rudy had to say from the Washington Times’ Inside the Beltway this morning:

"Basically, if you have to select, who do you trust here — Hillary Clinton or General Petraeus?" Mr. Giuliani asked. "I kind of think I'd go with the general, who's got a record of honesty and integrity. And here he's subjected to their attacks on his character at a time in which he is putting his life at risk for his country.

"Who is [Mrs. Clinton] to be attacking the integrity of an American general? I know she desperately wants to be president of the United States, but you have to have some standard, some decency," he said, adding that "the panic came about a couple weeks ago, when she made the astounding statement that if there were an attack on America, it might help the Republican Party.

"Do you see how these people look at the world? I wouldn't think that way in a million years," Mr. Giuliani said. "And the reality is if the [Iraqi] surge is successful, it's not a problem for the Democratic Party, it's good for America. We're Americans, after all. And if there's an attack on America, it's not good for Republicans, it's bad for all of us.

Wow, that’s pretty direct stuff. The one thing I might have changed was, “who do you trust here – Hillary Clinton or anyone else with pulse?” And with the brilliant “who’s got the record of honesty and integrity” line he is obviously, if indirectly, calling Bill’s gal Hill a liar. And who can argue with that? The other candidates should take a lesson from Rudy and get their message out by pounding Democrats not one another.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I heard the caterwalling this weekend that Rudy was going the first go negative. This came from the Hillary camp. I guess the Hillary camp has decided not to respond to Rudy's comments but claim a foul has been committed. Several things can happen when you are winning an argument against a liberal. You can then be called a racist, pro-big business, pro-big drug company, a warhawk, and going negative. It seems to be the standard playbook for libs. I guess the going-negative comment was due up this weekend. It will now be pushed back in the rotation.
The Griffin.