In response to Rudy Giuliani’s claim that a Democratic president would lead to another 9/11, Barack Obama has released the following:
“Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics. America’s mayor should know that when it comes to 9/11 and fighting terrorists, America is united. We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure. I think we should focus on strengthening our intelligence, working with local authorities and doing all the things we haven’t yet done to keep Americans safe. The threat we face is real, and deserves better than to be the punchline of another political attack.”
Giuliani, it’s time for the adults to work on this issue, please take your toys and shut up.
Unadulterated BS
Are we killing terrorists in Iraq, any terrorists?
Democrats want us to stop killing and capturing terrorist in Iraq in a war that has helped to prevent ANY act of domestic terrorism in America.
The democrat party is NOT united with the rest of america in the fight against terrorism. The democrat party in fact WEAKENS our fight against terrorism every single day. The democrat party has politicized our fight agaisnt terrorism (aptly demonstrated by Harry Reid crowing over all the votes he thinks the democrats will get by opposing the war….)
Here’s the simple answer to Rudylina. What party was in charge of the White House and New York City when the terrorists struck? Enough said.
Pedo is a perfect example of why Republicans are weak on national security. They just don’t understand terrorism or how to fight it. To Republicans, terrorism is an excuse for misplaced military adventurism, a political tool, and a way to loot the US treasury.
Yes, but Rudy has the added power of ! Legitimized for deployment against our eternal foes by Patriot Act III!
Sorry, I screwed up the html tag; here’s the actual comment…
Yes, but Rudy has the added power of corrupt henchmen! Legitimized for deployment against our eternal foes by Patriot Act III!
Here’s a story about St. Rudy which I think aptly demonstrates why this man ultimately can’t be trusted to take his responsibilities to the people seriously. It may be a much smaller scale matter than running the war in Iraq, but I think is highly revealing.
I have a friend who works at a publishing house in Manhattan doing type and photo setting, stuff like that. In the days after 9/11 his office began recieving photographs of firemen and police officers known to have lost their lives in the Twin Towers collapse. Their job was to clean up and arrange the photos for the purpose of producing a commemoration for the families and the city. Now this work was being paid for with city funds, and they had everything ready to go, but were surprised to receive orders from the Mayor’s office NOT to publish the material they had worked so hard to put together for the general public.
They didn’t understand why this could be until some time later, when Rudy Giuliani’s best buddy Bernard Kerik came out with a book using many of the same photos. This is the very book described here, which Kerik took a handsome take from, decreasing revenues supposedly intended for the 9/11 victim families. Now, while Kerik’s sleazy actions have since come to light, no one has made much of the fact that Giuliani personally held up a public project so that his best buddy could get his book out first, to capitalize on material that should have been available to the public for free.
St. Rudy DOES NOT CARE about the welfare of the public nor take responsibilities concerning terror or its aftermath seriously when doing so might impeded the abilities of his cronies to line their pockets. This man is not a noble, honest, tough crusader as our media has desperately tried to paint him. He is just a dishonest schmuck trying to ride the fact that his ass happened to be in the mayor’s chair when the planes hit into the Oval Office.
Democrats want us to stop killing and capturing terrorist in Iraq in a war that has helped to prevent ANY act of domestic terrorism in America.
Yeah, thats why they’re opposed to the Iraq war, because they want the terrorists to win so we can surrender to them. Not because we’re flushing money and lives down the toilet to accomplish nothing, its because they’re actually evil. Biebull say am so.
The democrat party is NOT united with the rest of america in the fight against terrorism.
Hence why they lost the last election so severely.
The democrat party in fact WEAKENS our fight against terrorism every single day.
To paraphrase a wise and venerated doctor I heard from in a different thread, Democrats have held Congress for three months and there hasnt been a successful terrorist attack against the US Pedro. Brand Democrat, Bay-be.
The democrat party has politicized our fight agaisnt terrorism.
…Pedro, the fuck do you think Guiliani was doing when he said Democrats will make 9/11 happen all over again? Obama calls him on it, and its the Democrats who are politicizing terrorism? Are you honestly that… actually no, you know what, you’re not that stupid. Nobody is actually that stupid. You’re trying to pick stupid fights because you’re just pathetically desperate for the attention of people you inspire to hate you. Get bent, doc.
Yes. If the Dems take the white house there will be another attack like 911. Why do the republicans swear to know this. Because the first one was orchestrated by them to allow a plot to follow through so W could look like a hero and “bring the country together” and give him a reason for war.
This time they’ll orchestrate an attack to make the Dems look bad and scare the American people. Republicans only know how to rule by keeping the citizens ignorant and in constant fear.
Go to hell Giuliani. There’s a very special place for people like you down there.
thanks for explaining the democrat position Spitar….the Republicans staged 9/11…..
Just imagine if Al Gore had been president. The 9-11 attacks would have been prevented, gas prices would be about $1.50, the economy would be booming, health care might be affordable…
Pedro, if it’s a global war on terrorism, why are we spending our money on a local war between Sunnis and Shiites. Isn’t there a threat in North Africa, Somalia, Indonesia, CAR, Kazakhstan, Philippines, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran. How poorly are we treating those other hot spots if we are spending all our dollars in Iraq.
I will give you the one-time benefit of the doubt that you can talk reasonably about this issue.
Shorter Pedro: I don’t have a problem! It’s everybody else that has a problem!
Eat dick, doc.
Well done, spitar. You represent the cutting edge of modern progressive though… err, mental activity.
kag224,
Not enough said at all. The answer, of course, is both parties. But if you will consult with Spirtar, I’m sure he can explain how Republicans actually executed both attacks, were on the grassy knoll, and attacked Pearl Harbor, the Maine and the Alamo.
And man, the more Obama opens his mouth, the more he looks and sounds VERY not ready for prime time. I think Hillary takes him.
Folks, correlation does not equal causation. The lack of attacks post-9/11 may correlate to the invasion of Iraq(in the sense that the two things were happening at the same time), but there’s no apparent causal link. In fact, the various AQ attacks around the world since then, including those against Coalition allies, imply something very different.
Also, I tend to doubt pedro et al are going to jump on the “Bush was wrong” bandwagon if there should happen to be another major attack in the US before his term ends.
It’s a bad faith argument all around.
I of course agree with you mike…I was being snarky in response to Ollie suggesting that the “democrats take over”. I don’t think there is NO causal link between our attacks on Iraq, but it will be nearly impossible to prove it if there was. I do also believe that most of these groups understand the dire consequences of attacking the US, at least if Bush is still here. Regardless of how you think the GWOT is going, no one can argue that there are a huge number of dead/captured terrorists as a result.
My point stands that it is hard to argue that we are doing well from the standpoint of attacks on american soil, which to me is probably the key issue for most americans. So Ollie saying we aren’t doing a good job is just so much hot air.
“Regardless of how you think the GWOT is going, no one can argue that there are a huge number of dead/captured terrorists as a result.”
So what? This is exactly the kind of short-sighted, simple minded attitude that makes the conservative approach to terrorism so woefully inadequate, if not outright dangerous.
Let me explain for you Paul….
Dead terrorist=Good.
There’s a huge number of dead/captured innocent people, too.
Just sayin’.
Your inability to understand THAT simple concept is what makes the leftist approach to terrorism so dangerous.
Oh, have they killed Bin Laden yet? Did I miss it?
“Dead terrorist=Good.”
Imagine if we’d handled Ireland like that this past half century or so. There probably wouldn’t be an Ireland anymore.
Civil war and periodic sectarian violence is somewhat more complicated than Dead terrorist=Good, Pedro.
You want them to actually attempt to find and capture the person who actually ordered the September 11th Attacks and is responsible for the deaths of many thousands of people? You know what you want, you want the moon on a stick!
Pedro, please tell me how many terrorists there in the world.
Then please give me historic examples of when killing fanattics who are willing to die for their cause has actually dissuaded fanatics willing to die for their cause from, you know, dying for their cause.
Hey, Pedro, how will we know when we’ve won the war on terror?
When we kill all the terrorists, silly.
“Dead Terrorist=Good.”
Maybe Pedro should go play Rainbow Six for a few days and let the adults talk about the actual war against terrorists. That way everybody’s happy.
“Dead terrorist=Good.”
Um, ya. But does it follow that “Dead terrorist=Mission Accomplished”?
No.
Pedro, if we are going to spend 10% of our Federal treasure on fighting the GLOBAL war on terror, why are we going to spend 100% of it in Iraq, a country which was just 5 years ago a secular society? You just don’t seem to be a serious thinker on this topic.
No domestic terrorist attacks in the last 5 years…None.
One dead fanatic=one less fanatic to try to attack the US=Good.
lets see if we can get frame to unleash another torrent of back to back posts…that is how you can tell he is agitated…
How would Al Qaeda benefit from another terror attack?
If their stated strategy is to bog down the United States and do a slow bleed of our military assets and our financial resources, they appear to be doing a halfway decent job of it in Iraq, and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan as well.
Another attack on US soil would lead to a demand for direct action against AQ leadership, even if they were on Pakistan’s soil, and perhaps even against AQ sponsors in Saudi Arabia as well. It’s not clear how AQ would benefit from that, at this point.
It is possible they could decide to launch another attack, post 1/20/09, simply to establish that they can. But perhaps the UK might be a more likely target, even in that instance.
Sure, Pedro. And what did you do to that fanatic’s son to convince him not to follow his father down the same path?
“One dead fanatic=one less fanatic to try to attack the US=Good.”
Which, again, does not necessarily equal “victory.” But keep repeating it and other meaningless observations over and over until the headache goes away …
No domestic terrorist attacks in the last 5 years…None.
Nor have there been any in the past 5 days that I’ve been consistantly playing Paper Mario. What’s your damn point?
One dead fanatic=one less fanatic to try to attack the US=Good.
Nineteen dead fanatics + One September Morning = Not Good at all actually = Argument cound do with a bit more nuance and you’re a dick for oversimplifying.
One dead fanatic = potential for replacement by fanatic’s family = Less Good
One dead civilian = potential for civilian’s family to harbor hatred for america sufficient that they may endorse/join tose who would destroy us = Kinda bad if you think about it.
Concept that the terrorist threat to America is finite and destroyable = Shut the fuck up, Pedro.
Pedro, what do you call the anthrax mailings if not a domestic terrorist attack?
No domestic terrorist attacks in the last 5 years…None.
Jesus, now you sound like Dugger.
duros,
“Jesus, now you sound like Dugger.”
Please, please. I know my prose induces rapture even among ideological heathens, but Jesus was and is every bit as persuasive and eloquent – and long before I.
Pedo doesn’t quite understand how it works. Dead terroist = good; is not correct if there are more terrorists when you are finished subtracting than there were before you applied your fuzzy math to the problem.
It’s an interesting insight into how his mind works though. Nuance is just something that happens to other people.
– and long before I.
haw haw.
Somebody needs to nuance him upside the hayed.
Of course, he didn’t say that.