posted on April 25, 2007 11:38:19 PM new
...so let's SCARE people into voting for us ."
Didn't work in '06 and just won't work again. It only points out the weakness of the Repug candidates
Dems Rebuke Giuliani Over Attack Comment
Updated 1:47 AM ET April 26, 2007
By NEDRA PICKLER
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidates on Wednesday rebuked Republican rival Rudy Giuliani for suggesting that the United States could face another major terrorist attack if a Democrat is elected in 2008. The former New York mayor did not back down.
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said Giuliani, who was in office on Sept. 11, 2001, should not be making the terrorist threat into "the punchline of another political attack."
"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," Obama said in a statement.
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said Giuliani knows better than to suggest there is a "superior Republican way to fight terrorism." Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said protecting the country from terrorism "shouldn't be a political football."
"It should be a solemn responsibility that all of us pledge to fulfill regardless of what party we're in," she said when asked about her fellow New Yorker's comment at a Capitol Hill news conference.
Giuliani stood by his comments Wednesday, saying Democrats don't understand the threat posed by terrorists.
"They do not seem to get the fact that there are people, terrorists in this world, really dangerous people that want to come here and kill us," Giuliani said on "The Sean Hannity Show," according to a transcript distributed by his campaign. "They want to take us back to not being as alert which to me will just extend this war much, much longer."
He was defending his remark Tuesday in New Hampshire, where he echoed sentiments expressed by other Republicans in election time. The former mayor said if a Democrat is elected, "it sounds to me like we're going on defense. We're going to wave the white flag there."
But, he said, if a Republican wins, "we will remain on offense" trying to anticipate what the terrorists are going to do and "trying to stop them before they do it."
GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney told reporters in Salem, N.H., Wednesday night that he agrees with Giuliani. "There's no question in my mind that Republican values ... keep America safer," Romney said.
In 2004, President Bush was re-elected after claiming that Democratic Sen. John Kerry would waver in the face of terrorist threats. Vice President Dick Cheney suggested a vote for Kerry would risk another terrorist attack.
In the 2006 election, Bush political strategist Karl Rove accused Democrats of clinging to a pre-Sept. 11 mind-set _ but Democrats came out on top in the majority of midterm races.
"America's mayor should know that when it comes to 9-11 and fighting terrorists, America is united," Obama said. "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."
Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee making a second run for the White House, said it's wrong to suggest Republicans are better at fighting terror.
"The current Republican administration led us into a war in Iraq that has made us less safe and undermined the fight against al-Qaida," Edwards said in a statement. "If that's the Republican way to fight terror, Giuliani should know that the American people are looking for a better plan."
Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a Democratic presidential candidate, said Republican candidates are continuing "the smear tactics and fearmongering of the current administration."
"Americans want real solutions to the many problems our nation faces, not divisive and false rhetoric," Dodd said in a statement. "We need a president who has the experience and ability to unite America, move us forward and make us safer together, and that means leading with hope, not fear."
The Democratic National Committee accused Giuliani of failing to prepare for the World Trade Center attacks, among other criticisms of his record.
"So far Rudy's rhetoric sounds like more of the same failed policies, incompetence and arrogance we've had to suffer for the past six years," said DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney.
Another Republican presidential candidate, Arizona Sen. John McCain, wouldn't say whether he agreed with Giuliani's suggestion. "I can't judge whether somebody else would cause an attack on America," McCain told reporters aboard his campaign bus in New Hampshire.
New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who succeeded Giuliani and also is a potential presidential candidate, said he doesn't see terrorism as a partisan issue.
"There are some people I think who would do a better job fighting terrorism than others, but I don't think there's any party affiliations, no partisanship in that," Bloomberg said.
___
Associated Press writers Liz Sidoti and Holly Ramer in New Hampshire and Sara Kugler in New York contributed to this report.
posted on April 26, 2007 01:29:09 PM new
""It should be a solemn responsibility that all of us pledge to fulfill regardless of what party we're in," she said when asked about her fellow New Yorker's comment at a Capitol Hill news conference.
I agree...IT SHOULD BE.....but the dems are the ones now calling for us to SURRENDER to the terrorists our troops ARE fighting against in Iraq.
Maybe she SHOULD inform her party...that RUNNING AWAY from the terrorists is NOT fulfilling that responsibility.
They're confused again.
======
"Giuliani stood by his comments Wednesday, saying Democrats don't understand the threat posed by terrorists."
As has been PROVEN over and over right here in these threads where the liberals are continuing to deny the threat. They're AFRAID and want to withdraw from the war....because BUSH et al are only pushing FEAR that doesn't exist upon us.
WHAT A CROCK.
Talk about talking out of both sides of their mouths. hillary does it well.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 26, 2007 01:36:33 PM newbut the dems are the ones now calling for us to SURRENDER to the terrorists our troops ARE fighting against in Iraq.
More of Linda's lies. Please quote one Democrat that used the phrase "surrender to the terrorists". They believe we should pullout, but pullout does not equal surrender.
It was the same old mantra that was used by the Republicants in Vietnam and now they are using it again today.
Perhaps when Bush can define what the mission is, what victory In Iraq is, people will actually sit down and listen to him.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 26, 2007 01:46:15 PM new
Linda you know you must speak literally to whack packers. In the future, do not use the phrase "surrender to terrorists" in describing philosophies and actions which so translate.
Apparently, they get confused if they can't match the actual words.
Also in this respect: do not say "giving support to our enemies" when discussing voting for resolutions calling for "scheduled troop withdrawals" because you'll just get the old "where did so and so 'give support to our enemies'".
posted on April 26, 2007 01:46:39 PM new
I've said the anti-war liberals are doing the same thing they did during the VN war/conflict.
Their WILLINGNESS to give the victory to the communists was no different then than their willingness to ADMIT DEFEAT to the terrorists now.
What part of that haven't you been able to GRASP?
And on what's required.....how many millions of times do you need to read it to GRASP it?
Talk about being unable to READ and comprehend the written word......are you an IDIOT mentally?
By now even YOU should have 'gotten' the message of WHEN we'll leave.
That you haven't....ONLY speaks to your OWN incapibilities, ld.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 26, 2007 02:00:37 PM new
LOL desquirrel....please forgive me.
=========
It's just hard to read so many being in such denial about all of this.
Not getting this isn't at all about 'Pres. Bush' but rather such a serious issue AMERICA faces...all of us. Their use of a National problem with terrorism as a way to gain political seats/the WH...rather than actually CARING and DOING something to prevent it.
I swear, there are times when those liberals who live in denial scare me MORE than what the terrorists SAY they want to do to America. Because I know our military and many American's who AREN'T 'serving' our Nation will do all they can to prevent it. But how does one deal with those who DENY there IS a major problem? With those who don't have the courage to stand up and prevent it? With those who believe these religious madmen can be 'talked' out of it....IF America would just admit how WRONG ALL our actions have been....and following THEIR directions.
Like Spain is doing now.
Like the UK, Germany and France are beginning to do now.
Will we have enough clear-headed thinkers who DO realize this isn't going away???? EVER.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 26, 2007 04:00:09 PM new
I hope Rudy is the guy running for President from the repugs. You you wouldn't think its the same 3 time married guy when New York is done with him. HA HA HA
posted on April 26, 2007 04:13:15 PM new
I already know I won't be voting for Rudy....
...he's not conservative enough for me.
But I'd wager a bet waco that more American's will be concerned if he'll protect our nation from muslim extremists like those on 9-11....than how many times he's been married.
They don't want a COWARD who won't protect this Nation. And the number of times one has been married has NOTHING to do with protecting our Nation....something the liberal dems don't appear to have ANYONE who WILL.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Goes to show what happens when mingotree REFUSES to state/post her sources....LOL
=======
Best of the Web Today - April 26, 2007
Best of the Web Today - April 26, 2007
By JAMES TARANTO
I'm Not Being Defensive!
If an exchange between Rudy Giuliani and top Democrats is a preview of next year's general election campaign, Republicans have reason to be a lot more confident than they have been these past few months.
Fox News Channel's Brit Hume reports:
Washington woke up [Wednesday] to morning headlines that Rudy Giuliani predicted a "new 9-11" if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008.
Barack Obama responded that Giuliani has "taken the politics of fear to a new low."
John Edwards said Giuliani's comments were "divisive and plain wrong."
And Hillary Clinton called it "political rhetoric" that would not lessen the threat of terrorism.
The problem is Giuliani never said what the headlines claimed.
ROFLMHO!!!!
It all started with a story in The Politico newspaper, which contained not a single quote to support its lead and headline.
But it got picked up elsewhere nonetheless.
What Giuliani actually did say is what he has been saying for weeks, that Democrats would play defense instead of offense in the War on Terror, the same approach tried back before 9/11.
Late yesterday afternoon the Democratic National Committee sent an email bearing the signature of chairman Howard Dean (reproduced at Little Green Footballs), in which he misquotes Giuliani outright:
Rudy Giuliani should be ashamed.
The former New York City Mayor is politicizing September 11th in his 2008 presidential bid. Here's what he said at a recent campaign stop in New Hampshire:
"If a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001... Never ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for (terrorists) to attack us if I have anything to say about it.
And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!"
I won't let this wannabe Republican nominee get away with remarks like these.
In fact, the first sentence in the Giuliani "quote" was not something Giuliani said but something Roger Simon of The Politico wrote.
The Democrat-friendly New York Times is more careful, but it manages to take Giuliani's words out of context:
In his two months on the campaign trail, the central animating theme of Rudolph W. Giuliani's presidential campaign has been that his performance as New York mayor on Sept. 11, 2001, makes him the best candidate to keep the United States safe from terrorists.
But when Mr. Giuliani broadened that message here on Tuesday night, saying that Democrats "do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us" and that if they were elected the United States would suffer "more losses," the response from his Democratic rivals was swift and pointed.
Rush Limbaugh has the actual "more losses" quote, and, contrary to the impression the Times gives, it is substantive and not pointedly partisan:
The question is going to be, "How long does it take, and how many losses do we have along the way?" And I truly believe if we go back on defense for a period of time, we can ultimately have more losses and it's going to go on much longer.
The power of our ideas is so great we'll eventually prevail. The real question is, "How do we get there?" Do we get there in a way in which it is as expeditious as possible and with as little loss of life as possible, or do we get there in some circuitous fashion.
This is just the latest example of one of the oddest rituals of American politics: Democrats try to smear Republicans as mean and dirty by falsely accusing them of saying terrible things about Democrats.
The classic example, to which we devoted a 2004 essay, is the plaint: Stop questioning my patriotism!
As we wrote then:
Democrats themselves raised the issue of patriotism by defensively denying that they lacked it. A cardinal rule of political communication is never to repeat an accusation in the course of denying it ("I am not a crook". These candidates "repeated" a charge no one had even made.
It's happening again. Now the claim that "if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11" is part of the political debate--thanks to the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
The Giuliani kerfuffle is an especially lovely example of the self-defeating nature of this Democratic tactic, if one can call it that.
Giuliani's criticism of Democrats was that their approach to terrorism is to go "on defense," and the Democrats responded by getting all defensive. Kind of proves his point, doesn't it?
======
ROFLMHO
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 26, 2007 05:26:32 PM new
Well....I just LOVED that while they AGAIN threw the #*!@ at a republican.....it landed BACK on their OWN doorstep - SCREAMING DEAN misquote.
figures. They rarely get anything STRAIGHT...but it doesn't stop them from continuing to throw the #*!@.
posted on April 26, 2007 06:06:04 PM new
Bear said, "Glad I read this one, when I opened it I expected to be reading about Craw sex life with the Energizer bunny."
posted on April 26, 2007 06:24:01 PM newI've said the anti-war liberals are doing the same thing they did during the VN war/conflict.
Nope the Republicans got us into Vietnam and lost that war and they are repeating the same mistakes that were made back then.
They continually use the same mantra and fear tactics that were used back then.
Well the Republicans will have the blood from two failed wars on their hands and have to live with it for years to come.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 26, 2007 07:17:12 PM new
lol.....delusional speak again. tsk tsk tsk
The only way this war will end during THIS admin....is if the dems finally find their 'guts' and stop funding it.
All this other game playing they're doing WILL hurt only our fighting troops....no one else.
And that you're REAL proud of.
The blood won't be on THIS admin. hands. And the dems are too COWARDLY to stop funding a war they keep SAYING LOL LOL LOL they want stopped.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 27, 2007 04:43:58 AM newNope the Republicans got us into Vietnam and lost that war and they are repeating the same mistakes that were made back then.
Wrong as usual logansdunce. It was Lyndon Johnson that got us in the Vietnam mess, John Kerry that got many fine men killed and it was the REPUBLICANS that ended your losing war. If you remember, clearly you don't, it was tricky Dick that ended the war.
.
.
.
If it's called common sense, why do so few Demomorons have it?
Stonecold states, "Wrong as usual logansdunce. It was Lyndon Johnson that got us in the Vietnam mess. John Kerry that got many fine men killed and it was the REPUBLICANS that ended your losing war. If you remember, clearly you don't, it was tricky Dick that ended the war."
Your effort to blame the Democratic party for the Vietnam war and praise the Republicans for ending it is not supported by facts. Since the war with Vietnam was never officially declared, most timelines for the conflict begin as early as 1945.
The truth is that the Nixon administration allowed bombing raids to be carried out during what was supposed to be a time when Cambodia's neutrality was officially recognized. As a result of the hearings, Congress ordered that all bombing in Cambodia cease effective at midnight, August 14, 1973.
"Tricky Dick" was no more effective than Bush in ending a war. He just happened to be President when the war ended.
posted on April 27, 2007 06:00:07 AM new
LOL yea right Helen-like it wasnt Clintons fault he was getting blowjobs in the oval office..."he just happened to be there"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you dont want to hear the truth....dont ask the question.
posted on April 27, 2007 06:20:52 AM new
And I'll bet you are so jealous. Such an insignificant event in the total scheme of things and you still have it etched on your brain.
Roll over, Classic. It is the year 2007 and the topic is a president who is a danger to the world.
posted on April 27, 2007 07:43:01 AM new
Roll over, Classic. It is the year 2007 and the topic is a president who is a danger to the world.
Wrong Helen the topic is the demos incorrect assumption of Rudys speech.
"""It was Lyndon Johnson that got us in the Vietnam mess"""
Actually for once craw is partially correct. JFK started the mass increase of US military to S Vietnam from advisers to actual combat troops. Johnson inherited what JFK started and interfered with military operations making a successful conclusion impossible.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on April 27, 2007 08:15:21 AM new
Vietnam
1945-1960: A hundred or so advisors
1960-1968: Oh well, several MILLION served.
Tricky Dick takes the enemies' multi-YEAR negotiating tactic and responds with massive air attacks on NV infrastructure and supply lines in "neutral" Laos & Cambodia.
Peace agreement reached.
Conversion to wacko speech:
Da Republicans started the war.
War criminal Tricky "happened to be there" when it ended and bombed the peace loving People's Republics of...., concentrating on the hospitals and orphanages.
posted on April 27, 2007 12:49:17 PM newyea Im real jealous I couldnt get a blowjob from some HO
So that is why you had to settle for getting one from Deepthroat, aka Linda_L
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 27, 2007 12:58:25 PM new
With all the rhetoric from the warhawks about the Dems supposedly aiding the terrorists, he is actually someone that did aid the terrorists and they are silent.
BAGHDAD (AP) — A U.S. officer has been accused of aiding the enemy — a charge that carries the death penalty — for allegedly providing an unmonitored cellphone to detainees while he commanded an MP detachment at the jail that held Saddam Hussein, the military said Thursday.
Army Lt. Col. William H. Steele faces nine charges in all, including fraternizing with a prisoner's daughter, storing and marking classified material, maintaining an inappropriate relationship with an interpreter and possessing pornographic videos.
The rare charges were among the most serious levied against a senior American officer in Iraq, but were the latest in a series of embarrassments for the U.S. military detention system here.
The alleged incidents occurred from October 2005 to this February, starting when Steele was commander of the 451st Military Police Detachment at Camp Cropper on the western outskirts of Baghdad and in his later post as a senior patrol officer for the provincial transition team headquarters at nearby Camp Victory, the main U.S. military base.
Steele was detained in March and is being held in Kuwait pending an Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury hearing, officials said. His age and hometown were not released.
The U.S. military command declined to comment on the case but stressed nothing had been proven. "These are troublesome allegations, but again they are just allegations at the moment," the main U.S. military spokesman, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, told The Associated Press Radio.
The most serious charge, aiding the enemy, was tied to Steele's time at the jail at Camp Cropper.
Military officials refused to give any details about the charge, including who used the phone and how.
Saddam spent most of his final days at the Camp Cropper jail before his Dec. 30 execution at an Iraqi military base in northern Baghdad, and many members of his regime remain among the facility's 3,000 or so prisoners.
A new, $60 million jail opened at the base in August and many inmates were transferred there from Abu Ghraib prison, which was closed and transferred to Iraqi control after gaining notoriety for widely publicized photographs of American guards and interrogators abusing detainees.
Steele served at Camp Cropper from October 2005 through the end of October 2006, after which he transferred to Camp Victory with the 89th Military Police Brigade, said a military spokesman, Lt. Col. James Hutton. He was arrested while based at Camp Victory, the spokesman said.
Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said the charge of aiding the enemy "could cover a multitude of sins," but he said a prosecutor would be hard pressed to get a death sentence without showing "evidence that the purpose was really to aid the enemy and hurt our side."
However, he added, Steele could be found guilty regardless of his intent in loaning the phone to a detainee — "even if he thought the detainee was calling his wife's allergist" — as long as the phone calls helped the detainee or some enemy.
Steele also is accused of fraternizing with the daughter of a detainee toward the end of his tenure at Camp Cropper and during his subsequent posting at Camp Victory.
Other charges stemming from his tenure at Camp Victory include failing to obey an order by an MP deputy commander and possessing pornographic videos. He also is charged with failing to fulfill his obligations in the expenditure of funds, the military said without elaboration.
Hutton declined to provide more details on the charges, saying the investigation was still underway.
In a similar case, a Muslim chaplain in the Army, Capt. James Yee, was charged in 2003 with mishandling classified material, failing to obey an order, making a false official statement, adultery and conduct unbecoming an officer after the military linked him to a possible espionage ring at the Guantanamo Bay prison where suspected terrorists are housed.
All criminal charges were dismissed in March 2004, but Army officials found Yee guilty of the non-criminal charges of adultery and downloading pornography. But the reprimand he received was thrown out by a general a month later and he later received an honorable discharge.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
Are YOU a Bunghole?
