| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Dems rebuke Giuliani over attack comment |
| 2007-04-27 |
| Appears Rudy has struck a nerve... WASHINGTON - 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." Were you standing under those buildings when they came down, Barak? Unlike yourself, I don't think Guiliani considers terrorism a "punchline". "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. It says so right here in my talking points cliche book that my staff received from the DNC... Former North Carolina Sen.John Edwards said Giuliani knows better than to suggest there is a "superior Republican way to fight terrorism." What do you suggest, Johnny? Spray Osama in the eyes with hairspray? Oooooh, I'll bet that would really sting... Sen.Hillary Rodham Clinton said protecting the country from terrorism "shouldn't be a political football." Unless, of course, she's the one making it one... "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. ...or at least make it look like it. 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. "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." They want another hit here so bad before 2008 that they can taste it. How many dead Americans on US soil do you think they'd be willing to accept for maybe 10 percentage points in the polls? 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." So what is it, pretty boy? Care to let us in on it? Of course you don't. Cuz you don't have one. 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." Well, I guess that leaves him out then. He would be one of my two picks for the Waitress Sandwich Olympics though... 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. Quick question, Karen... Have we been hit again yet? A short answer will suffice. 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. Why don't you stick to protecting the nation from the evils of trans fats, okay, Mike? |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #9 The comments of Hillary + Obama this AM as shown on both CNN + FOX all but officially affirms the correctness = broad parameters of Dubya's policies - IMO the only thing Hillary + Obama did not say THAT COULD BE INTERPRETED AS PRIMA FACIE SUPPOR FOR DUBYA = GOP was that they would send US milfors into the ME in direct response to any Terror attack agz America. THE GOOD NEWS FOR THE DEMS IS THAT BOTH OF THE ABOVE'S COMMENTS COULD ALSO BE INTERPRETED AS SUPPOR FOR INCREASED UNIVERSAL GOVT-ISM, AKA SOCIALISM + "REGULATION". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-04-27 22:05 |
| #8 During the debate, moderator Brian Williams of NBC News brought up Giuliani’s comment, and the candidates quickly pronounced it a “myth.” But Williams then turned to Sen. Barack Obama, second in the polls but gaining fast on the frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “If, God forbid, a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities had been hit simultaneously by terrorists,” Williams said, “and we further learned beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?” The question was specifically focused on a military response, but Obama didn’t talk about the military, or any use of force at all. “Well, first thing we’d have to do is make sure that we’ve got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans,” Obama said. “And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.” “The second thing,” Obama continued, “is to make sure that we’ve got good intelligence, A, to find out that we don’t have other threats and attacks potentially out there; and B, to find out do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.” The reference to “some action” might be interpreted as an endorsement of the use of force, but in the rest of his response, Obama softened even that notion. “But what we can’t do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast,” he said. “Instead, the next thing we would have to do, in addition to talking to the American people, is making sure that we are talking to the international community. Because as has already been stated, we’re not going to defeat terrorists on our own. We’ve got to strengthen our intelligence relationships with them, and they’ve got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake.” That was it. Obama’s answer to a question of how, as commander-in-chief, he would change America’s “military stance” in response to an attack by al Qaeda did not involve using the military. Williams then turned to former Sen. John Edwards, the strong third in the Democratic race. “Senator Edwards, same question: God forbid, two simultaneous attacks tonight, we knew it was al Qaeda. What would you change about U.S. military stance overseas?” “Well, the first thing I would do is be certain I knew who was responsible, and I would act swiftly and strongly to hold them responsible for that,” Edwards said. “The second thing I would do, and some of these have been mentioned already, is find out how that this happened without our intelligence operations finding out that it was in a planning stage.” Edwards offered nothing on how the United States might strike back. “How did they get through what we all recognize is a fairly porous homeland security system that we have in this country that has not been built the way it needed to be built?” he continued. “You know, did the weapons that created this — these two simultaneous strikes come through our ports? Were they in one of the containers that have not been checked? How did these weapons get here? And how do we stop this from happening again? I believe — and this goes to the question you asked earlier, just a few minutes ago — global war on terror. I think there are dangerous people and dangerous leaders in the world that America must deal with and deal with strongly, but we have more tools available to us than bombs. And America needs to use the tools that are available to them so that these people who are sitting on the fence, who terrorists are trying to recruit, the next generation, get pushed to our side, not to the other side. We’ve had no long-term strategy, and we need one, and I will provide one.” Just as with Obama, there was nothing on a military response: One question, two leading candidates, and no explicit promise that either man would use military force in the event of not one but two more attacks on the United States by al Qaeda. It was only when Williams directed the same question to the Democratic frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, that the audience heard a suggestion that the United States might actually take military action if attacked. “I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate,” Clinton said. “If we are attacked and we can determine who was behind that attack, and if there were nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.” Congrats, boys. Right outta the box, Hillary comes out sounding like she's got more balls then the two of you combined. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-04-27 16:56 |
| #7 Yesterday's Best of the Web has a summary of the situation and the intentional misquotes. |
| Posted by: spiffo 2007-04-27 15:00 |
| #6 Raj, you see, as a Republican mayor of New York city, Rudy was responsible for stopping the attacks. (Except for the part that George Bush was also responsible.) So, we need to be reminded that it was Rudy's fault... |
| Posted by: Rambler 2007-04-27 14:47 |
| #5 "Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said Giuliani, who was in office on Sept. 11, 2001" Um, is this supposed to mean anything, Ms. AP |
| Posted by: Raj 2007-04-27 14:39 |
| #4 The truth hurts, doesn't it dhemicrats? |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-04-27 14:13 |
| #3 Dems reacted to the NY Times misinterpretation of Guilliani's statements by basically saying and confirming exactly what he said. They'd play defense. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-04-27 13:50 |
| #2 reading a blog yesterday ( Captain's Quarters?) that cut these fools down fairly quickly; seems each and every one mis-quoted Rudy. too bad however that the MSM won't pick that up and share with Mr and Mrs Six-Pack |
| Posted by: USN. Ret. 2007-04-27 13:46 |
| #1 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. 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, … They want to take us back to not being as alert which to me will just extend this war much, much longer." Giuliani gets it. 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." Do tell. Exactly what sort of “shared purpose” is there with Islam, whose sole objective is world domination? Obama displays such a profound lack of comprehension that he has automatically disqualified himself from the presidency. I can only hope he continues to exhibit this sort of lunacy and thereby forfeit all chance of being elected. The democrats, each and every one of them, continue to prove that they have not a single damn clue in how to fight Islam. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-27 13:22 |