Rudy's best quote:
By krempasky Posted in Special Events — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Rudy is fantastic. After beating up on Kerry's flip flops...
"Maybe this explains John Edwards need for Two Americas. One where John Kerry can vote for something, and one where he can vote against exactly the same thing."
I'll tell you what, I don't think much of his political philosophy - but if Rudy ends up on the campaign trail this fall...the Dems are cooked. Wow.
REMARKS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY AT THE 2004 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
CONVENTION ON MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 2004
Remarks by the Honorable Rudy Giuliani
Former Mayor of the City of New York
Welcome to the capital of the World.
New York was the first capital of our great nation. It was here in 1789 in lower Manhattan that George Washington took the oath of office as the first President of the United States.
It was here in 2001 in lower Manhattan that President George W. Bush stood amid the fallen towers
of the World Trade Center and said to the barbaric terrorists who attacked us, “They will hear from
us.”
They have heard from us!
They heard from us in Afghanistan and we removed the Taliban.
They heard from us in Iraq and we ended Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror.
They heard from us in Libya and without firing a shot Qadhafi abandoned weapons of mass
destruction.
They are hearing from us in nations that are now more reluctant to sponsor terrorists.
So long as George Bush is President, is there any doubt they will continue to hear from us until we
defeat global terrorism.
We owe that much and more to those loved ones and heroes we lost on September 11th.
The families of some of those we lost on September 11th are here with us. To them, and all those
families affected by September 11th, we recognize the sacrifices your loved ones and you have
made. You are in our prayers and we are in your debt.
This is the first Republican Convention ever held in New York City.
It makes a statement that New York City and America are open for business and stronger than ever.
We’re not going to let the threat of terrorism stop us from leading our lives.
From the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, to President George W. Bush our party’s
great contribution is to expand freedom in our own land and all over the world.
And our party is at its best when it makes certain that we have a powerful national defense in a still
very dangerous world.
I don’t believe we’re right about everything and Democrats are wrong about everything.
Neither party has a monopoly on virtue.
But I do believe that there are times in our history when our ideas are more necessary and important
for what we are facing.
There are times when leadership is the most important.
On September 11, this city and our nation faced the worst attack in our history.
On that day, we had to confront reality. For me, standing below the north tower and looking up and
seeing the flames of hell and then realizing that I was actually seeing a man – a human being –
jumping from the 101st or 102nd floor drove home to me that we were facing something beyond
anything we had ever faced before.
We had to concentrate all of our energy, faith and hope to get through those first hours and days.
And I will always remember that moment as we escaped the building we were trapped in at 75
Barclay Street and realized that things outside might be even worse than they were inside the
building.
We did the best we could to communicate a message of calm and hope, as we stood on the
pavement seeing a massive cloud rushing through the cavernous streets of lower Manhattan.
Our people were so brave in their response.
At the time, we believed we would be attacked many more times that day and in the days that
followed. Spontaneously, I grabbed the arm of then Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and said
to Bernie, “Thank God George Bush is our President.”
And I say it again tonight, “Thank God George Bush is our President.”
On September 11, George W. Bush had been President less than eight months. This new
President, Vice President, and new administration were faced with the worst crisis in our history.
President Bush’s response in keeping us unified and in turning the ship of state around from being
solely on defense against terrorism to being on offense as well and for his holding us together.
For that and then his determined effort to defeat global terrorism, no matter what happens in this
election, President George W. Bush already has earned a place in our history as a great American
President.
But let’s not wait for history to present the correct view of our President. Let us write our own
history.
We need George Bush now more than ever.
The horror, the shock and the devastation of those attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon
and over the skies of Pennsylvania lifted a cloud from our eyes.
We stood face to face with those people and forces who hijacked not just airplanes but a religion
and turned it into a creed of terrorism dedicated to eradicating us and our way of life.
Terrorism did not start on September 11, 2001. It had been festering for many years.
And the world had created a response to it that allowed it to succeed. The attack on the Israeli team
at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. And the pattern had already begun.
The three surviving terrorists were arrested and within two months released by the German
government.
Action like this became the rule, not the exception.
Terrorists came to learn they could attack and often not face consequences.
In 1985, terrorists attacked the Achille Lauro and murdered an American citizen who was in a
wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer.
They marked him for murder solely because he was Jewish.
Some of those terrorist were released and some of the remaining terrorists allowed to escape by the
Italian government because of fear of reprisals.
So terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community and too often the response,
particularly in Europe, was “accommodation, appeasement and compromise.”
And worse the terrorists also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously, almost in
direct proportion to the barbarity of the attack.
Terrorist acts became a ticket to the international bargaining table.
How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize when he was supporting a
terrorist plague in the Middle East that undermined any chance of peace?
Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of the world much like our observing
Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate ourselves to peaceful co-existence with the Soviet
Union through mutually assured destruction.
President Bush decided that we could no longer be just on defense against global terrorism but we
must also be on offense.
On September 20, 2001, President Bush stood before a joint session of Congress, a still grieving and
shocked nation and a confused world and he did change the direction of our ship of state.
He dedicated America under his leadership to destroying global terrorism.
The President announced the Bush Doctrine when he said: “Our war on terror begins with Al
Qaeda, but it does not end there.
It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
“Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”
And since September 11th President Bush has remained rock solid.
It doesn’t matter how he is demonized.
It doesn’t matter what the media does to ridicule him or misinterpret him or defeat him.
They ridiculed Winston Churchill. They belittled Ronald Reagan.
But like President Bush, they were optimists; leaders must be optimists. Their vision was beyond
the present and set on a future of real peace and true freedom.
Some call it stubbornness. I call it principled leadership.
President Bush has the courage of his convictions.
In choosing a President, we really don’t choose a Republican or Democrat, a conservative or liberal.
We choose a leader.
And in times of danger, as we are now in, Americans should put leadership at the core of their
decision.
There are many qualities that make a great leader but having strong beliefs, being able to stick with
them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader.
Winston Churchill saw the dangers of Hitler while his opponents characterized him as a warmongering
gadfly.
Ronald Reagan saw and described the Soviet Union as “the evil empire” while world opinion
accepted it as inevitable and belittled Ronald Reagan’s intelligence.
President Bush sees world terrorism for the evil that it is.
John Kerry has no such clear, precise and consistent vision.
This is not a personal criticism of John Kerry.
I respect him for his service to our nation.
But it is important to see the contrast in approach between the two men;
President Bush, a leader who is willing to stick with difficult decisions even as public opinion
shifts, and John Kerry, whose record in elected office suggests a man who changes his position
often even on important issues.
When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, John Kerry voted against the Persian Gulf War.
Later he said he actually supported the war.
Then in 2002, as he was calculating his run for President, he voted for the war in Iraq.
And then just 9 months later, he voted against an $87 billion supplemental budget to fund the war
and support our troops.
He even, at one point, declared himself an anti-war candidate. Now, he says he's pro-war. At this
rate, with 64 days left, he still has time to change his position at least three or four more times.
My point about John Kerry being inconsistent is best described in his own words when he said, “I
actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
Maybe this explains John Edwards’ need for two Americas - - one where John Kerry can vote for
something and another where he can vote against the same thing.
Yes, people in public office at times do change their minds, I've done that, or they realize they are
wrong or circumstances change.
But John Kerry has made it the rule to change his position, rather than the exception. In October,
2003, he told an Arab-American Institute in Detroit that a security barrier separating Israel from the
Palestinian Territories was a "barrier to peace."
A few months later, he took exactly the opposite position. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post
he said, "Israel’s security fence is a legitimate act of self defense."
The contrasts are dramatic. They involve very different views of how to deal with terrorism.
President Bush will make certain that we are combatting terrorism at the source, beyond our shores,
so we can reduce the risk of having to confront it in the streets of New York.
John Kerry's record of inconsistent positions on combatting terrorism gives us no confidence he'll
pursue such a determined course.
President Bush will not allow countries that appear to have ignored the lessons of history and failed
for over thirty years to stand up to terrorists, to dissuade us from what is necessary for our defense.
He will not let them set our agenda. Under President Bush, America will lead rather than follow.
John Kerry's claim that certain foreign leaders who opposed our removal of Saddam Hussein prefer
him, raises the risk that he would accommodate his position to their viewpoint.
It would hardly be the first time he changed his position on matters of war and peace.
I remember the days following September 11th when we were no longer Democrats or Republicans,
but Americans determined to do all we could to help the victims, to rebuild our city and nation and
to disable our enemies.
I remember President Bush coming here on September 14, 2001 and lifting the morale of our rescue
workers by talking with them and embracing them and staying with them much longer than
originally planned.
In fact, if you promise to keep it just between us so I don’t get in trouble it was my opinion that the
Secret Service was concerned about the President remaining so long in that area.
With buildings still unstable, with fires raging below ground of 2000 degrees or more, there was
good reason for concern.
Well the President remained there and talked to everyone, the firefighters, the police officers, the
healthcare workers, the clergy, but the people who spent the most time with him were our
construction workers.
Now New York construction workers are very special people. I’m sure this is true all over but I
know the ones here the best. They were real heroes along with many others that day, volunteering
immediately. And they’re big, real big. Their arms are bigger than my legs and their opinions are
even bigger than their arms.
Now each one of them would engage the President and I imagine like his cabinet give him advice.
They were advising him in their own words on exactly what he should do with the terrorists. Of
course I can’t repeat their exact language... because this is the Republican convention.
But one of them really went into great detail and upon conclusion of his remarks President Bush
said in a rather loud voice, “I agree.”
At this point the guy just beamed and all his buddies turned toward him in amazement.
The guy just lost it.
So he reached over, embraced the President and began hugging him enthusiastically.
A Secret Service agent standing next to me looked at the President and the guy and instead of
extracting the President from this bear hug, he turned toward me and put his finger in my face and
said, “If this guy hurts the President, Giuliani you’re finished.”
Meekly, and this is the moral of the story, I responded, “but it would be out of love.”
I also remember the heart wrenching visit President Bush made to the families of our firefighters
and police officers at the Javits Center.
I remember receiving all the help, assistance and support from the President and even more than we
asked.
For that I will be eternally grateful to President Bush.
And I remember the support being bi-partisan and actually standing hand in hand Republicans and
Democrats, here in New York and all over the nation.
During a Boston Red Sox game there was a sign held up saying Boston loves New York.
I saw a Chicago police officer sent here by Mayor Daley directing traffic in Manhattan.
I’m not sure where he sent the cars, they are probably still riding around the Bronx, but it was very
reassuring to know how much support we had.
And as we look beyond this election – and elections do accentuate differences – let’s make sure we
rekindle that spirit that we are one – one America – united to end the threat of global terrorism.
Certainly President Bush will keep us focused on that goal. When President Bush announced his
commitment to ending global terrorism, he understood - - I understood, we all understood - - it was
critical to remove the pillars of support for the global terrorist movement.
In any plan to destroy global terrorism, removing Saddam Hussein needed to be accomplished.
Frankly, I believed then and I believe now that Saddam Hussein, who supported global terrorism,
slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people, permitted horrific atrocities against women,
and used weapons of mass destruction, was himself a weapon of mass destruction.
But the reasons for removing Saddam Hussein were based on issues even broader than just the
presence of weapons of mass destruction.
To liberate people, give them a chance for accountable, decent government and rid the world of a
pillar of support for global terrorism is something for which all those involved from President Bush
to the brave men and women of our armed forces should be proud.
President Bush has also focused on the correct long-term answer for the violence and hatred
emerging from the Middle East. The hatred and anger in the Middle East arises from the lack of
accountable governments.
Rather than trying to grant more freedom, create more income, improve education and basic health
care, these governments deflect their own failures by pointing to America and Israel and other
external scapegoats.
But blaming these scapegoats does not improve the life of a single person in the Arab world. It
does not relieve the plight of even one woman in Iran.
It does not give a decent living to a single soul in Syria. It certainly does not stop the slaughter of
African Christians in the Sudan.
The changes necessary in the Middle East involve encouraging accountable, lawful governments
that can be role models.
This has also been an important part of the Bush Doctrine and the President's vision for the future.
Have faith in the power of freedom.
People who live in freedom always prevail over people who live in oppression. That’s the story of
the Old Testament. That’s the story of World War II and the Cold War.
That’s the story of the firefighters and police officers and rescue workers who courageously saved
thousands of lives on September 11, 2001.
President Bush is the leader we need for the next four years because he sees beyond today and
tomorrow. He has a vision of a peaceful Middle East and, therefore, a safer world. We will see an
end to global terrorism. I can see it. I believe it. I know it will happen.
It may seem a long way off. It may even seem idealistic.
But it may not be as far away and idealistic as it seems.
Look how quickly the Berlin Wall was torn down, the Iron Curtain ripped open and the Soviet
Union disintegrated because of the power of the pent-up demand for freedom.
When it catches hold there is nothing more powerful than freedom. Give it some hope, and it will
overwhelm dictators, and even defeat terrorists. That is what we have done and must continue to do
in Iraq.
That is what the Republican Party does best – when we are at our best, we extend freedom.
It’s our mission. And it’s the long-term answer to ending global terrorism. Governments that are
free and accountable.
We have won many battles – at home and abroad – but as President Bush told us on September 20,
2001 it will take a long-term determined effort to prevail.
The war on terrorism will not be won in a single battle. There will be no dramatic surrender. There
will be no crumbling of a massive wall.
But we will know it. We’ll know it as accountable governments continue to develop in countries
like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.
We’ll know it as terrorist attacks throughout the world decrease and then end.
And then, God willing, we’ll all be able on a future anniversary of September 11th...
To say to our fallen brothers and sisters. To our heroes of the worst attack in our history and to our
heroes who have sacrificed their lives in the war on terror.
We will say to them we have done all that we could with our lives that were spared to make your
sacrifices build a world of real peace and true freedom.
We will make certain in the words of President Bush that they have heard from us.
That they have heard from us a message of peace through free, accountable, lawful and decent
governments giving people hope for a future for themselves and their children.
God bless each one we have lost, here and abroad, and their families.
God bless all those defending our freedom.
God bless America.
« Liveblogging the Vice President at CPAC — Comments (0) | Night One: The Difference — Comments (6) »
Rudy's best quote: 28 Comments (0 topical, 28 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I honestly can remember few greater speeches
For anyone who's there. I'm assuming he's working off a teleprompter, but he's moving around a lot. Not just the message, but the delivery is great. His hand movements are useful, demonstrative, but not over the top.
I'm just so impressed.
that the two bills were actually quite different. One of them paid for it - PAID FOR IT - by rolling back tax cuts on the top 5%; the other one "paid for it" by borrowing still more money and continuing to run up massive deficits.
Bush threatened to veto the first one. Threatened to veto $87 billion dollars before he signed it! Sounds like a flip-flop to me.
Kerry himself said it would be irresponsible to not support the second version if his version failed.
Cheers, and goodbye.
vintage Giuliani, and the vignettes about construction workers were 1000% more engaging than any of those Al Gore ad exemplums. But in the middle parts I thought he came off as surprisingly shrill and defensive, like the kid who's been picked on one too many times. The delegates ate it up, but I'm kind of hoping the voters at home smell what I smelled: fear. This was a fairly brutal full-on attack on Kerry as a person, the kind of thing that should be beneath elder statesmen types. We'll see I guess. My gut reactions are invariably different from the morning-after media spin.
I think we all know what the morning media spin will be ... The only way Guliani could escape being skewered by the New York Times would be to have endorsed Kerry...
I can see the headlines in the NYT, LA times, WashPost: 'bitterly negative', 'disturbing hatred', blah blah
Digby, for one, alludes to Nazi propaganda and the commenters seem to just love it. So I'm guessing however the MSM spins it neither wings will be happy.
I think the foundational decency of the Republicans and Rudy was on bright, contrasting display here. Rudy honored Kerry's service and that brought applause.
DO remind me where a key speaker at the DemCon so honored GW's service.
I do believe your charges of "shrill and defensive" are a classic case of projection.
Rudy Giuliani's speech was excellent, especially the delivery of it. And while his tone was not as subdued as that of McCain's (who argued for civility in this election), he clearly said that--after the election--he hoped Dems and Repubs could stand together in bipartisanship like they had done after 9/11.
He also very clearly said that he was not making a personal attack against John Kerry. What is negative and mean about stating how Kerry voted? It's a matter of fact. He talked about Kerry's policy. (Okay, the Edwards' "Two Americas" joke was a little over the line.)
If it's "uncivil" to talk about an opponent's public record of votes and actions, just what is left?
But it was definitely a full-on attack, rather than the jokey asides you saw at the dem convention. An excoriation of Kerry's public record. Not all of it "genuous" imo (it's a matter of carefully decontextualized fact).
I was just trying to convey how surprising it was to see Giuliani in attack-dog mode. A party confident of winning doesn't go immediately for the jugular, especially not with a star with such good centrist credentials. That's why I'm saying I may not be the only one that smells fear.
Somehow enumerating Kerry's serial flip-flopping and studious avoiding of leaving footprints during two decades in the Senate is a "personal attack."
Gee, I guess that means all we can debate is his war record.
Since when is Rudy Giuliani an elder statesman? He was a ferocious street-fighter as Mayor, and he's hardly elderly - he's barely sixty!
The supreme hypothetical spare us from elder statesmen like Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, anyways. Poisonous old toads, the lot of them.
The attack on the Israeli team at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. And the pattern had already begun.
The three surviving terrorists were arrested and within two months released by the German government. Action like this became the rule, not the exception. Terrorists came to learn they could attack and often not face consequences.
Ugh. Bad history and bad example. After the Germans released the Munich group, Israel hunted each of them down and killed them (and correctly so, in my view). You will note that this act of standing up to terror -- correct and just as it was -- did not cause peace to break out among Israel and its enemies, either immediately or thirty years on.
Indeed, this example supports the view that the war on terror cannot be won in the short term, and that fierce reprisals -- though necessary -- will not by themselves win the day. It's a point Guiliani makes, with some effectiveness, later in his speech. But, standing where it is, this example poor support for the notion that the opposite of "appeasement" will protect us.
..was valid: "the pattern had begun".
The private justice the Munich terrorists received was not as important as the public appeasement the Germans conferred.
The Europeans have never put up a united front against Islamic terrorists, mostly for reasons of political appeasement.
The private justice the Munich terrorists received was not as important as the public appeasement the Germans conferred.
The Europeans have never put up a united front against Islamic terrorists, mostly for reasons of political appeasement.
This makes no sense. Assume that the Europeans have repeatedly appeased terrorists and terrorist causes. Rudy's and your logic requires them to have suffered proportionately more terrorism, all things equal, than others who have not appeased terrorism. And, yet, the evidence doesn't show this; indeed, the evidence suggests to me the opposite (particularly accounting for proximity to the ME and the porous borders of the EU).
I do not favor a policy of appeasement; I will not, however, endorse or live in the fantasy that if we just "stand up to the terrorists," we'll ipso facto win. This ain't a schoolyard, and we ain't dealing with a schoolyard bully. (Indeed, that tactic doesn't always work with schoolyard bullies!) A bit more sophistocation is required.
Again, it was a very fine speech. But this example was abysmal -- at least, in the manner it was used.
While Israel made its best effort to kill all of the Black September terrorists involved in the Munich massacre, it never got Jamal Al Gashey, who was still alive when the documentary One Day in September was filmed.
Also, although Palestinian terrorism still goes on, there has never since been such an audacious attack as the one in Munich.
of Islamic terror continue to be mostly The US and Israel (the Great Satan and Little Satan). A terror campaign that Europe has essentially abetted.
The Madrid bombings indicate that Europe itself will not be spared. There were others not as well known to Americans:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/1995%20islamist%20terror%20bombin
gs%20in%20France
The French journalists being threatened at this very moment are threatened not because of what France is doing to any foreign nation. Maybe it will dawn on the European countries that even appeasement won't forestall Islamic aggression against their own cultures. Or maybe it's too late.
Perhaps if he'd volunteered for overseas duty, hell, if he'd even simply shown up, Democrats would have acknowledged his service. We certainly don't denigrate John McCain, or Chuck Hagel, or the few other Vietnam-vet Republicans who've actually worn a military uniform for real, as opposed to playing dress-up on a flight deck.
This is NOT an argument you can win.
This makes no sense. Assume that the Europeans have repeatedly appeased terrorists and terrorist causes. Rudy's and your logic requires them to have suffered proportionately more terrorism, all things equal, than others who have not appeased terrorism.
Not really. It doesn't follow that any terrorist, regardless of ideology, would attack a nation when it can influence its policy otherwise. If appeasement brought on increased terrorism, then why does any nation appease them? It follows that a person or entity appeases because it is less painful than confrontation not that one appeases to increase confrontation.
And, yet, the evidence doesn't show this; indeed, the evidence suggests to me the opposite.
I take it that your position is that the reason that Europe has suffered very little at the hands of Middle Eastern terror groups is a reflection of the hardline taken? I would be very interested to see how you can substantiate this.
I do not favor a policy of appeasement; I will not, however, endorse or live in the fantasy that if we just "stand up to the terrorists," we'll ipso facto win.
Maybe I just am not capable of nuance, but when you are confronted with a bully you have exactly two choices: stand up or capitulate.
While the stand up strategy doesn't always win the first time I would submit it does win in the long run. In this case in particular standing up and standing firm is all we need to do because at this point we are bigger than the bully we are facing and we have to keep it that way.
If you haven't noticed it isn't Bush's service that is a matter of debate.
Do you want to invest in some Purple Heart bandaids?
The Band-Aids REALLY support Darleen's point.
In the past month Kerry has been exposed as a liar (Christmas in Cambodia) and a fraud on at least one decoration (first Purple Heart). The fact that Republican elected officials have been too genteel and decided not to humiliate Kerry in public is their concern not mine.
like U.S. David to the al Qaeda Goliath. The rhetoric of American underdogism isn't going to work in this war.
In law, present-sense recollection is normally deemed to be pretty compelling evidence in a courtroom. Here are Kerry's contemporaneous journal writings from December/January 1968, as transcribed by the Boston Globe in 2003. An excerpt:
Today you move to the northern end of the area -- towards Cambodia -- and excitement tingles the nerves that appreciates the new and the unexplored and you enjoy starting the other engine, hearing the deep throb of the diesel engine and the hums as the boat reaches for the step and shoots spray out on both sides as she moves up the river. The (unable to read) shows you where you are and where you are going and you trust the mesmeric sweep that illuminates islands and boats and jumps and sandbars. The (unable to read) hasn't been working very well and without it speed can be dangerous but you have moved over this part of the river before...
[snip]
Ahead lies the APL from which you will refuel and steal a morning meal. Both operations completed you pass from the Navy and again enter the world of beauty that surrounds you as you move up the meandering channel of the main water route to Cambodia. Its daylight now and moving with you are junks and barges and swamps of all sizes and shapes and colors and within each person with a world of his own fears and hopes and aspirations. Simplicity characterizes everything around you and because of this an unassuming peace envelopes the fatigue with which you (were) traveling). A small canal looms up on the left and methodically, as though the chart by your side were slave to the wheel, you turn the boat into it and enter still a more perfect world of shapes and colors.
Try again. Unfortunately, the big lie tactic is at work, where the lie gets copious media coverage, but the truth/rebuttal gets scant.
Sheesh. I'm on your side of this one.
of Islamic terror continue to be mostly The US and Israel (the Great Satan and Little Satan).
The relevant question is, "why?" In answering that question you will see the illogic of Rudy's choice of example.
The Madrid bombings indicate that Europe itself will not be spared.
The Madrid bombs in fact suggest the opposite of Rudy's point regarding appeasement.
It doesn't follow that any terrorist, regardless of ideology, would attack a nation when it can influence its policy otherwise.
I'm not sure if there's actually dispute, here. You seem to be repeating my argument.
I take it that your position is that the reason that Europe has suffered very little at the hands of Middle Eastern terror groups is a reflection of the hardline taken?
Uhh, no, the opposite. Appeasement, as you note, can work.
Maybe I just am not capable of nuance, but when you are confronted with a bully you have exactly two choices: stand up or capitulate.
Re-read my post:
I do not favor a policy of appeasement; I will not, however, endorse or live in the fantasy that if we just "stand up to the terrorists," we'll ipso facto win. This ain't a schoolyard, and we ain't dealing with a schoolyard bully. (Indeed, that tactic doesn't always work with schoolyard bullies!) A bit more sophistocation is required.
The point is that the schoolyard bully analogy is an exceedingly poor one.
While the stand up strategy doesn't always win the first time I would submit it does win in the long run. In this case in particular standing up and standing firm is all we need to do because at this point we are bigger than the bully we are facing and we have to keep it that way.
Change it to the stand-up strategy can win the the long run, and is more likely to win in the long run than a strategy of appeasement, and you have my agreement. Nothing is certain; you can play the odds and still lose (or you can execute the right policy poorly).
On construction workers and President Bush has me grinning from ear to ear.