Giuliani's not the golden candidate

July 1, 2007

A couple or three presidential debates ago, a Fox News clacker asked a Democratic critic of Bush's war policies a question that went something like this: If you knew that a terrorist group had an atom bomb and was planning to blow up an American city, would you be willing to torture a suspected member of that group to find out where it was?

The unstated premise of the question is candidates who are reluctant to torture terror suspects are too soft to be trusted with the leadership of the free world.

I don't remember who the candidate was, but I recall he got that Mike Dukakis caught-in-the-headlights look and mumbled a totally unsatisfactory answer. It's too bad I'm not running for president; I'd know what to say.

&#8220Darn right I'd torture him. And if that didn't work, I'd bring in his mother and put a blowtorch to her feet as he watched. And if that didn't work, I'd bring in his son and cut his ears off in front of his dad. And if that didn't work, I'd show him a picture of Rudy Giuliani. That would break him. You can't afford to be squeamish when national security is at stake.”

Perhaps that answer would satisfy the blood lust of the Fox Network. The problem is, the decision to commit torture is never that easy or clear-cut. Life is not like a television show. In real life, not all the people you suspect of being terrorists are really terrorists. A lot of them are merely people with the wrong names who are caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Innocent people.

That's why we have laws and rules, to protect people like them and like us. When we violate those laws and rules, when we ignore them, we abandon the very ideals we claim to be defending, and the enemy has won.

While we're on the subject of Rudy Giuliani, the hero of Sept. 11, 2001, remind me again of what was so great about his response to the Twin Towers disaster. Basically, he did what a mayor is supposed to do in that situation - stayed calm, looked as though he was in charge, showed up. There are 100 mayors, maybe 1,000, who could have done the same. Why does that make him qualified to be president?

The American people in recent decades have shown a lamentable bias against presidential candidates with discernable qualifications for the job. They chose Bush the younger over Al Gore, Bill Clinton over Bush the elder, Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford, in each case choosing the man with the thinner resume.

So I suppose that works in Giuliani's favor. He's never held an elective office above mayor, never had to deal with foreign governments, continental problems, global economic relations. Why not put him on the world stage to decide issues of life and death? Why not let him deal with a legislative body 20 times larger than he's ever looked at before?

If you were picking a Republican candidate strictly on qualifications, you'd pick Sen. John McCain. He's been in the military and knows something about it. As a senator, he's dealt with national and international problems. He has at times, though not always, had the courage of his convictions. If you're a conservative Republican, you could do worse than McCain. And you probably will.

If I were to choose most interesting Republican, however, I'd pick Ron Paul, the Texas congressman. He is easily the most forthright candidate on either side. He's a Libertarian. He's against big government. He's against taxes, the ban of same-sex marriage and the war in Iraq.

&#8220I'm for the individual,” he says. &#8220I'm not for the government.”

I may not agree with him on the issues, but I admire him. He stands for something.

But Rudy Giuliani? Do you really want Rudy Giuliani with his finger on the nuclear trigger? What are you, crazy?

Don Kaul is a two-time Pulitzer Prize-losing Washington correspondent who, by his own account, is right more than he's wrong. E-mail him at dkaul1@verizon.ne.