Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Rudy please just shush....

Here we go again, the theme that electing a Democrat will increase terrorism as per an email I received quoting a comment that Rudy Giuliani made 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!"

Politico states it being said in this manner:
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.

I'm guessing that the Former Mayor forgot who was president when September 11th happened and who has been president since...


Cyberseaer said...

What I think the former NYC mayor was the eight years prior where Clinton downsized the military and was laxed on defense. Under Clinton's command there was the first WTC attack, then the attack on the USS Cole, and then the US Embassy in Kenya (if I am not mistaken). It could be argued that the Clinton administration help set up the attack on September 11, 2001 by not taking stronger action in pursuing the terrorists in the first three attacks on US soil or property.

Plus Rudy is towing the party line. Like McCain won't do that that now that his running.

I'll tell you this much. If Rudy is the Republican candiate for president, I will vote for him. He made a lot of unpopular decisions, but he made NYC safer and more family friendly from the cespool that it had become under the previous Democratic adminidtrations. And on Sept. 11, 2001, the way Rudy took charge, all was forgiven and he was almost cannonized by the people of New York.

I'm sure that Hillary and Obama (the great leaders of free speech until racist religious "leaders" get offended. Say what you want until you piss off 0.000000000003% of the people and lose your job.) will rebutt by tomorrow if their writing staff haven't done so already.

Cyberseaer said...

Proofreading, not a strong suit of mine.

Hooda Thunkit said...

You're right shush Rudy.

We WILL be attacked again and it has NOTHING to do with the political affiliation of the president, but everything to do with the fact that we and those who wish us harm still exist.

The only real solution to this is when one of us eliminates the other and nothing less.

A grim reality, this one.

Lisa Renee said...

Well, I can't vote for Rudy, nor can I say at this point the other two thrill me so let's hope it doesn't turn out that way.

I'm tired of the theme that Democrats would somehow put us in more danger than we would face under a Republican President. And of course the never ending finger pointing. It's dishonest and I'll have a problem with any of them that sink to that level.

Lisa Renee said...

I wish I could disagree with you Hooda but that is the reality at the end of it all.

Roman said...

Look it's plain and simple on this one. Bush gets ambushed by critics on the attack of 9/11 and the lack of quick response and then the world backs him up on the answer towards the enemy and then most of the same supporters became mute when asked why the flopping occurred. This is a problem yes but I can also see that if led by a democrat incidents will be ignored on a repeat scale. Things were great when Clinton was in office, the world knew of bombings through television events that were thousands of miles away. The Clinton years were those best described as "The Utopia Years". Maybe if Mrs. Bill Clinton plays her cards right we might be able to go back to the purple hills and yellow fields running, dancing and singing.
OR we can wake the hell up and realize that danger is out there and our current president is doing what he needs to do to keep those of us who do and DON'T support him, because whether I like it or not we as Americans have the right to do so.

Roman said...

I wrote about this a while ago. Check it out and see that it's not me that can easily see the waffling and flopping of some Americans that just so happen to be mostly democrats.

kateb said...

I know they will try to attack us again - that's been made obvious over and over again.

If we do give over Iraq - what do you think the consequences would be?

Maybe that would make the terrorist attacks against us just stop? The legacy attacks, and cyberseaer mentions a few - these things would stop?

It's a white flag of sorts to give Iraq over?

Roman - there is alot of opposition to what you're saying. They say that if we pull out of Iraq and surrender it - somehow it will help the position we are in.

I don't understand how,,,but alot of people (and papers) are saying it.

TLC said...

Rudy says: But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped. he's a psychic too???


Yeah, shush Rudy. You're giving me a headache.

Anonymous said...

Its just terror. He's trying to scare people into voting for him. He's pathetic, and a bit sick.

Lisa said...

I just heard about this five minutes ago from Rosie - whatevah!

Noel Granite said...

What i don't get about the left is that they rail against the Patriot act and yet in the same breath they complain about unacted upon memos telling of a coming attack on the nation(Sept.11).Can you imagine the uproar from the left if somewhere around June 2001,president Bush would have taken to the airwaves and told the nation that he was about to implement policies/laws to stop this possible upcoming attack.The Big Brother comments would have been flying.Well as we have seen whatever bush decides on ANY topic he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Head Spinner Scott said...

What a loser. I am not even an experienced politician, but I am willing to bet that my response to a terrorist attack would be more powerful and well-planned than a rush to revenge.

Wasn't President Bush also downsizing the military as pat of Rumsfeld's military of the future? I was in the Army during the Clinton years and it wasn't like we just quit training or being prepared.



Two "quagmires", Vietnam & Iraq.

The Vietnam War occured during a
Democratic presidency with Kennedy/Johnson/McNamara, and in Iraq, a Republican with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

Vietnam, 10 yrs, 58,000 dead troopers, then the pull-out. Iraq,
3,200 & counting, four years with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

In Robert S. McNamara book, "In Retrospect" the ex-Ford CEO said,
"We were wrong, terribly wrong!"

Mull this over: Who, as Secretary of Defense was more wrong, Rumsfeld
or McNamara? Who, the least experienced in matters dealing with politics and warfare?

As a soldier, I'd appreciate your
perspective. reb