I'm looking forward to your post. I hope you send a second comment briefly summarizing it (with a link) once it's up.

The lefarkins review is poorly written. The reviewer recites “neococonservative!” as if that word were an argument. The article also includes strange attacks against cliches (do we want a novel grand strategy every 4-8 years?), and an unusual conspiracy theory view of history (the “Romance” bit) that makes little sense.

As someone who hesitates to endorse Giuliani's view on missile defense, I still cannot endorse the blogger's myopic focus on that subject. Additionally, his link to Giuliani's view on Vietnam is a caricature of a serious argument.

I'm certain that coherent attacks on what Giuliani wrote cna be written. I am looking forward to reading yours. However, the lefarkin hit-piece is not an example of that hoped-for genre.

“Rudy Giuliani's ghostwriters have concocted a foreign policy that sounds remarkably similar to the disastrous neoconservative fantasies that guided the US into its current predicament. Based on what “Giuliani” wrote, you may just as well be asking for an additional four years of the Bush administration, with Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and and John Bolton returning to their positions of previous glory.”

Does that help?

As for your sophisticated dismissal of what I wrote, I can assure you that describing the neoconservative interpretation of cold war history as a “romance” has nothing to do with believing in conspiracies. After Vietnam, neoconservative intellectuals articulated a particular (and simplistic) story about American history; they used this historical narrative (which sounds quite like a romantic plot line) to make arguments about the uses of American power. That power, especially as it was expressed during the first term of Bush's administration, has fucked the country into a cocked hat.

If you want more of that, be my guest.

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/08/rudys-war-on-us.html

You're employing the genetic fallacy.

Giuliani's, or anyone's, argument might sound exactly like something written by Hitler, endorsed by Stalin, and approved by a quorum of generally bad guys in the deepest pit of Hell.

It may also be right or wrong.

Do you offer anything other than this method of (illogical, but perhaps rhetorically effective) argument?

The Good:
http://a517dogg.blogspot.com/2007/08/giulianis-foreign-policy-vision-good.html

The Bad:
http://a517dogg.blogspot.com/2007/08/giulianis-foreign-policy-bad.html

The Ugly:
http://a517dogg.blogspot.com/2007/08/giulianis-foreign-policy-vision-ugly.html

http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/08/19/giuliani-s-foreign-policy-vision-as-grokked-by-a517d0gg.html