• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win

ProfJohn

ProfJohn

Lifer
Link
Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.

But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

?If any Republican is elected president ?- and I think obviously I would be the best at this ?- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,? Giuliani said.

The former New York City mayor, currently leading in all national polls for the Republican nomination for president, said Tuesday night that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.

?But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?? Giuliani said. ?If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer.?

?I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,? Giuliani continued. ?We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.?

He added: ?The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.?

After his speech to the Rockingham County Lincoln Day Dinner, I asked him about his statements and Giuliani said flatly: ?America will safer with a Republican president.?

Giuliani, whose past positions on abortion, gun control and gay rights have made him anathema to some in his party, believes his tough stance on national defense and his post-Sept. 11 reputation as a fighter of terrorism will be his trump card with doubting Republicans.

?This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!? Giuliani said in his speech. ?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!?

Giuliani said terrorists ?hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.?

Giuliani continued: ?The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.? He said Americans would fight for ?freedom for women, the freedom of elections, freedom of religion and the freedom of our economy.?

Addressing the terrorists directly, Giuliani said: ?We are not giving that up, and you are not going to take it from us!?

The crowd thundered its approval.

Giuliani also said that America had been naive about terrorism in the past and had missed obvious signals.

?They were at war with us before we realized it, going back to ?90s with all the Americans killed by the PLO and Hezbollah and Hamas,? he said. ?They came here and killed us in 1993 [with the first attack on New York?s World Trade Center, in which six people died], and we didn?t get it. We didn?t get it that this was a war. Then Sept. 11, 2001, happened, and we got it.?
Click to expand...
I think he makes a good point about Democrats going on the defense and returning to a ?react after the fact? mentality. But the 9-11 like comment might be a little strong.
Then again it might be what a lot of people need to hear.

We are so focused on the day to day in Iraq that we forget that there are people out there with the stated goal of killing 50,000 Americans.
 
Pathetic. Fearmongering at its best. The fact of the matter is that this same mentality does nothing but give the fanatical muslims power to say "Here that, they are coming to take our land, kill our people, the imperialist Americans want to kill us, so kill them first".

Of course, all of the lemming followers will go along with them. It's funny how here is nothing different. Both are the same coin, just opposite sides.

The repuglicans offer nothing more than reduced rights and stupid spending. The fact of the matter is that Bush was so concentrated on starting a war with Iraq that he and his people completely ignored A-Q. Then, when they could have taken A-Q down and out for good, they switched back to Iraq and had us in knots for years, wasting precious lives and resources.

It's pathetic that people'll fall for this, when all they have to do is read freakonomics and realize that there are much larger concerns out there.
 
He pretty much killed any chance of me voting for him with that remark. Just shows that he is more of same old stuff we heard and saw from Bush, not a change that this country needs.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We are so focused on the day to day in Iraq that we forget that there are people out there with the stated goal of killing 50,000 Americans.
Click to expand...

That is an argument for leaving Iraq so it doesn't remain our focus.

As for stated goals, I know of a nuclear power whose 12th Imam is going to convert or kill the world to Islam, the same exact sentiment as stated by its 1st supreme leader.
 
I can't believe I used to like this guy. Nice to know the $100K speech he gave at my university last year was 100% complete bullsh!t.
 
Not only is this a stupid, extremist right-wing comment (someone should remind Giuliani he's not posting on FreeRepublic), but it's pretty obvious pandering. Giuliani has shown no sign so far of flying off the hyperbolic deep-end, but he's obviously in trouble on the right with his liberal record on a lot of issues. So what does he do? Well whip out a comment about the Democrats, all Democrats, every Democrat, being unable to protect us from another 9/11. It would be less obvious if he jumped out of a closet and yelled "BOO!". Even among right-wingers, I suspect ProfJohn is pretty alone with his view that Giuliani is "making a good point".

And as far as the "substance" of what was said, I'd just like to point out that terrorism is a new kind of threat that requires a new kind of fight, and I just don't think the Republicans are up to it. Every time you listen to some conservative pundit or asshole-on-TV, you get comparisons to WWII...or any of a number of things that tell me that, as a whole, conservatives really don't understand that it's a new kind of battle we're fighting. They certainly have enthusiasm, but what's really needed here is smarts. It's asymmetric warfare, and even if you're the stronger side, you still can't win by pretending we're facing down divisions of Soviet tanks. And while I'll admit that there is a lot you can rely on conservatives to bring to the table, well thought out, intelligent defense policy is NOT one of their strengths.

Edit: And no, warrantless wiretapping, torture and the PATRIOT ACT are NOT smart new ideas. They are the OLD ideas, just adapted to the police instead of the military. But pissing all over the bill of rights isn't going to make us any safer than driving tanks through the Middle East, and for exactly the same reason. Although it might be viscerally unsatisfying to pick a more intelligent, less flashy, approach, it will work a hell of a lot better.

Just as the most obvious exactly, while the TSA certainly looks spiffy in their new uniforms, that money could probably have been better spent on more intelligence analysis. But that wouldn't have been as good of a political move, and that's what this is about at the end of the day. Republicans are the party of national security, and as such I wouldn't imagine they're in that big a hurry to actually make the nation secure.
 
1. It's arguable that the damage done to this country by Iraq is worse than the damage done by 9/11, economically anyway. (and I think the American death toll is higher, and it hurt our public image more than appearing 'weak')

2. Oh yeah, we're really on the flippin' offense. That's exactly what we're doing in Iraq, going on the offense, taking ground, hunting down our enemies, and decimating their ability to fight. Oh wait, no, we're not, we're kind of just reacting after the fact to any attacks that happen, without any clearly defined goals to complete.
 
Originally posted by: Fox5
1. It's arguable that the damage done to this country by Iraq is worse than the damage done by 9/11, economically anyway. (and I think the American death toll is higher, and it hurt our public image more than appearing 'weak')

2. Oh yeah, we're really on the flippin' offense. That's exactly what we're doing in Iraq, going on the offense, taking ground, hunting down our enemies, and decimating their ability to fight. Oh wait, no, we're not, we're kind of just reacting after the fact to any attacks that happen, without any clearly defined goals to complete.
Click to expand...

No ******.. 🙂 New totals for US troop Casualties came out today.. they EXCEED US Deaths for 9/11 .. not to mention the 10,000+ seriously wounded US Soldiers

Bush is such a fricken saviour.. oh.. and a genius to boot
 
Maybe I was wrong with me ?good point? argument.

Most likely the 2008 Democrats will talk about taking apart all of Bush?s programs, but once in office they will quietly leave a lot of them alone, or make minor changes to the programs.

Just as Bill Clinton promised to end the ban of gays in the military, change our policy on Haitian boat people and a dozen other things. Talk is cheap, but once they are in office the next President will have to actually do something about national security and the threat of terrorism instead of just talk about it.
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Pathetic. Fearmongering at its best.
Click to expand...
'Nuff said.

This is shaping up as the first election that I don't vote. (OR at the very least vote against someone)

I can't think of one candidate I like. I'd almost put Newt at the top of my list. I read his book. I liked what I read especially his take on health care.

Meh... It's early. Things will shake out.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Maybe I was wrong with me ?good point? argument.

Most likely the 2008 Democrats will talk about taking apart all of Bush?s programs, but once in office they will quietly leave a lot of them alone, or make minor changes to the programs.

Just as Bill Clinton promised to end the ban of gays in the military, change our policy on Haitian boat people and a dozen other things. Talk is cheap, but once they are in office the next President will have to actually do something about national security and the threat of terrorism instead of just talk about it.
Click to expand...

That's a big reason I want a Democrat to win in 2008. I'll be honest, I'm not sure a Democrat would have better ideas or do a better job, but I don't like the Republican approach, and they don't seem to be learning anything. Instead of being strong, but in a new direction, Giuliani brought out the boilerplate from 2004. I thought it was pretty silly even then, but now it's just sad...it just reeks of politics instead of smart security policy.

But the big reason I'd like to see a Democrat in the oval office discussion security policy is that that seems like what they might actually do. Republicans seem way too caught up in this frat boy, tough guy approach to national security, I really wonder how intelligently someone who makes comments like those Giuliani made can talk about national security. Politics spends a lot of effort trying to convince us otherwise, but in the rest of life, the guy who talks a good fight isn't always the guy you want on your side when the ACTUAL fight starts. The Republicans talk an excellent national security policy, I'm just not convinced that translates into real national security.
 
I'm not sure who I'll vote for in the next election, but the #1 thing that'll be a make or break is a more than talking point for votes strategy for dealing with terrorism.

If a candidate wants to advocate pulling out of Iraq that's totally fine with me, their just going to have to come up with a non-rabid We must go! We must leave! We were wrong! type of argument on why leaving is actually better in the long run* than staying.

*The long run is not 4 or 8 years. The long run is 50, 100, 150 years down the road.

I tend to lean towards what Giuliani is getting at here, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for a Dem. if they could actually produce a clear plan...unfortunately that hasn't really been done yet, so I guess we'll just have to see what shakes out later in '07 here.

Chuck
 
Hey---wasn't Guiliani Present in NYC on 9/1/01---did he have any advance premonitions terrorists would choose that day to strike?--and if he did he sure did nothing to prevent it.

And given that---what gives anyone the slightest idea he has developed magic psychic powers now?
The only thing he has gained is a magical ability to totally discredit himself.

Or should we just cut to the chase and call a spade a spade---another politician unable to see what a total liar they come off as.

But he can cheer up---he didn't lose my vote---I would never vote for that pandering idiot in the first place. Thus remark just seals the deal.
I think he just lost any chance he ever had.
 
Originally posted by: tomywishbone
I'd think, his combover & lisp would be enough to scare away the evil-doers.
Click to expand...

No sh*t... what is it with old men? Get the beard trimer out, set the rake at 2 or three and buzz that stuff off.
 
Giuliani never had a chance with the 25-30% of the Dem. voters, even if advocated giving Iran nukes just so they'd be happy and we wouldn't be such self-hating world bullies.

He's saying this to sway the 10-20% swayable....just like Hillary, Obama, McCain, etc. will all do the same type of thing on Iraq, GWoT, and any other hot button issue.

It's going to be a crazy '08 election, this is just the beginning...

Chuck
 
After the first world trade center attack, how did Rudy respond? Did he have soldiers armed with shoulder-fired missiles on the roof? Radar systems?
No, he installed the Emergency Response Center IN the World Trade Center, against the advice of security experts.
We knew terrorists were targeting that building.
What a complete ass.
This is more Republican posturing while they make you less safe.
 
Originally posted by: chucky2
Giuliani never had a chance with the 25-30% of the Dem. voters, even if advocated giving Iran nukes just so they'd be happy and we wouldn't be such self-hating world bullies.

He's saying this to sway the 10-20% swayable....just like Hillary, Obama, McCain, etc. will all do the same type of thing on Iraq, GWoT, and any other hot button issue.

It's going to be a crazy '08 election, this is just the beginning...

Chuck
Click to expand...

I'm not sure acting like a huge douche bag is really going to resonate with the swing voters. Maybe I'm overly optimistic about the state of this country, but I think people got a little tired of Republicans screaming "The Democrats will get you killed!" LAST time around. Rehashing it doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
 
Originally posted by: marincounty
After the first world trade center attack, how did Rudy respond? Did he have soldiers armed with shoulder-fired missiles on the roof? Radar systems?
No, he installed the Emergency Response Center IN the World Trade Center, against the advice of security experts.
We knew terrorists were targeting that building.
What a complete ass.
This is more Republican posturing while they make you less safe.
Click to expand...
Like the mayor is going to have the authority to put missle launchers on the roof and say "shot at anything that comes close" :roll:
 
He sure as hell ain't getting my vote.

I have now officially added Giuliani to the Election '08 blacklist of candidates NOT to vote for.
He can now join McCain, Romney, Edwards, Kucinich, and Gingrich.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford

I'm not sure acting like a huge douche bag is really going to resonate with the swing voters. Maybe I'm overly optimistic about the state of this country, but I think people got a little tired of Republicans screaming "The Democrats will get you killed!" LAST time around. Rehashing it doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying though: He's saying this for the 10-20% who have no opinion on if this comment is douche bag'ish or not.

We've got people who vote for president based on how they smile...whether true or not, these type of statements resonate well with those voters.

Hillary knows what Giuliani is saying, because she herself is very clear on pointing out she voted in favor of action. No way would she be putting herself out there like that if she herself wasn't trying to pull some of those right leaning 10-20% in herself...

Chuck
 
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: Rainsford

I'm not sure acting like a huge douche bag is really going to resonate with the swing voters. Maybe I'm overly optimistic about the state of this country, but I think people got a little tired of Republicans screaming "The Democrats will get you killed!" LAST time around. Rehashing it doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying though: He's saying this for the 10-20% who have no opinion on if this comment is douche bag'ish or not.

We've got people who vote for president based on how they smile...whether true or not, these type of statements resonate well with those voters.

Hillary knows what Giuliani is saying, because she herself is very clear on pointing out she voted in favor of action. No way would she be putting herself out there like that if she herself wasn't trying to pull some of those right leaning 10-20% in herself...

Chuck
Click to expand...

I guess I'm biased based on my political views, I actually used to be quite the swing voter. But every time I hear a Republican make a comment like this, it makes me want to vote for the Communist party. I doubt I'll be voting a straight Democratic ticket any time soon, but it's going to be a while before any Republicans get my vote. Now maybe I'm alone here, but I wonder how well comments like this will be received by that crucial 20%.

But you're probably right, and not just with this comment in particular. The kind of stupid stuff that gets applause and votes is just sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top