Giuliani Says Only a Republican Can Stop Another 9/11

[Kulindahr]

I lost all the respect I had for Rudy when, post 9/11, he said he "breathed easier" knowing Butthead was president.....Somehow I don't think a cheerleader for the most incompetent/stupidity/devious/lying administration in the history of the US will be elected dogcatcher, let alone president........Who would be his VP, Kerrick?

Right after 9/11, I thought having Bush as president was a good thing -- he looked and sounded confident and competent for those few days, and then Afghanistan went well.

But then came the "USA PATRIOT" Act, and Iraq.....

Reagan was an actor who made a decent president; Bush is a president who should have been an actor -- he can talk a good line, but that's as far as it goes.

 

[Kulindahr]

Hillary would make a good beginning on that rhetoric if she'd promise to do what the Constitution provides for our security: get the militia in gear.

Something I find irritating about some of my NRA acquaintances is that they want to exercise the right to keep and bear arms without bearing the responsibility. That right is there for self-defense, but it's also for the stated reason of "a well-regulated militia" -- meaning well-trained, properly disciplined... and prepared to respond when called on. Some of these guys would scream their heads off if the governor of their state called them out as being the only militia available, but that's a responsibility that comes with the bearing of arms.
What Hillary ought to pledge is that she will ask Congress to call up the militia, to the extent of requiring all gun-owning citizens to report for drill and training at least weekly, and to stand ready to answer the call of their states' governors in case of any act of terrorism.
My firearms are ready.

 

[radical matt]

I wanna look at this for a sec:

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

It's interesting, while this is the HEADLINE, Giuliani actually does NOT say it himself. This is what you call propaganda; picking a divisive title that actually does NOT represent the material it headlines.

MANCHESTER, N.H. - - 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.

“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.

He's pretty right about this. The major, well known Rep candidates have said that they will be on the offense in the war on terror, and they will be actively trying to stop them using whatever means (even borderline unConstitutional ones...) to do so. They will TRY. Now, he should have said TRY to anticipate, because there's nothing inherent to Replublicans to make them more able to anticipate it. However, they will more likely employ means to do so than Democrats. Not that that will make them successful, however...

[QUOTEThe 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.”

[/QUOTE]

Again, he's right...maybe. America will probably never FALL due to terrorism, we're ultimately too persistent, AND we have a lot of people that (willingly!) carry guns and fight for the right to do so. But, he's also right that Democrats tend to prefer a military isolationism as regards the rest of the world (outside of following the UN anywhere and everywhere it goes...oh, and NATO. Basically, if it's not in the US's interest, they're in favor of it.) Ecconomic interaction, cultural interaction (they tend to prefer European, Asian, and African...and South American...oh, and Australian...OH, and also Central American and Canadian...yeah, they like those cultures better than US culture), BUT, they don't want to have soldiers going anywhere for US defense unless we're actually attacked on our own soil. This isn't inherently a bad policy, except that sometimes you have to go other places to keep from getting screwed later (See WWII).

Will we have more losses playing defense? That depends. If we amp up anti-terrorist, intel, and other non-military militaristic anti-espionage/terror stuff, then we might suffer fewer losses. If we don't, then more civilians will die. If you're on offense, you have a military distraction, so fewer civilians (here) are in danger. So offense tends to lower civilian casualties, but naturally increases military ones. However, in civilian bombings, large numbers of people die AT ONCE. Which one is ulitmately the greater toll in human lives I can't say, but getting it over with quicker is usually the better option (though not always.)

BUT, all that said, he's right. The leading Dem candidates (Obama and Hillary) are anti-war. Hillary's not as anti-Afghanistan as she is anti-Iraq. I think Obama's against both. The leading Reps, McCain and Giuliani are both pro-war, especially if they consider it beneficial to "freedom and democracy." For better or for worse, he's right. Not to mention that ALL the Dem Senators have signed on a bill saying get out of Iraq (regardless of the situation over there or the will of the people or the needs of the people), so I think this forecasts what it is they'd want to do as President.

“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.”

Again, Dems going on defense...he's right. That might not be a bad thing though. White flag in Iraq...again right. Whether you call it surrender or "withdraw", we'll be leaving Iraq to its fate and giving the terrorists and insurgents a victory. Our Senate majority leader said it, --the war in Iraq is lost--, if we "loose" it, then someone MUST, by definition, win it. And if we aren't winning it, that means the terrorists win. You can call it a white flag of surrender, or you can call it a loss, either way, it means a win for the bad guys. The Democrats have been clear on this, that is what they want. The Patriot Act...not sure if the Dems will pull back on it (they may even extend it, they tend to like being in people's bedrooms), but pulling it back may not be a bad thing, same with electronic surveillance. Interrogation...the Dems complain about it a lot, but they might not change it. Once it's their person in the White House, they'll have a vested interest in America's security (as it is right now, they WANT America to be un-secure, that way they can win elections...don't believe me? It worked for them in '06.) I would actually like it toned down. Torture is NEVER acceptable in my eyes.

His last statement, though, is the first I disagree with. We will never go back to pre 9-11. Forever more, we will be vigilent. Maybe after some 50-100 years of no terror at some point in the (sadly, distant) future, but right now? No. Democrat OR Republican in office, we won't ever be going back to pre-9/11.

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

At the moment, this is true. However, I fear neither do the Republicans, they're just quicker to fight and more valorous (or foolhearty...) than the Democrats. This isn't always a bad thing, nor is it ever a good thing.


ALL THAT SAID: The Dems, especially in this PURELY POLITICAL Iraq withdraw bill, are playing politics with the war. I say this because they pass this even KNOWING that it WILL be vetoed, and that they will NOT have enough votes to override the veto. This is like that non-binding resolution last year. It isn't courage, it's saying "We're showing what we think so we can wave it around in front of the American people even though we know it's a blank (bullet term)" It won't do anything, but they're spending time and money, both of which could better be spent trying to SUPPORT and PROTECT the soldiers and the American people, wasting it, to do something that is totally futile. They can SAY they're against the war...doing this is playing politics with soldier's lives by withholding their funding, because AFTER this gets vetoed, then they have to spend MORE time and money drafting ANOTHER bill before our soldiers get what they NEED. Playing politics with lives...that's dispicible...though I'm sure there's another thread for that...


Anyway, so basically, all that Guliani was quoted as saying here is right (except the pre-9/11 comment), and are all valid points for debate. Do we want a candidate that will play offense, or would it be good for us to get out of Iraq and go on defense (maybe build a wall on the Mexico border...like Age of Empires, no better defense than a wall...well, okay, good offense is best, but after that, walls. ^_^) Should we pull back, not so overextend ourselves, and so on and so forth? Might not be a bad thing.

Fear tactic? Not exactly. It's the truth. If you think that truth is something to be afraid of, don't vote Democrat. BUT, if you think that that stuff is a good idea (again, minus the pre- 9-11 thing, which is NOT going to happen), and some of that stuff he said the Dems would do I DO think are good ideas, then vote Dem. Every one of you who says this is a scare tactic, you need to vote Republican in 08, because this is the stuff the Dems will do. BUT, some of them may very well be GOOD THINGs. So if you do NOT think that this is a scare tactic, and you think that what he's saying the Dems will do ARE good things that we should be doing, vote Dem.

...what? Don't like how I turned that around on you guys? Tough. I may end up voting Dem in the next election. Repealing the Patriot Act (still haven't found it to read...), cutting back interrogation (and cutting back torture and probably reinstating Habeus Corpus for the "enemy combatants")...I think these are good things. Pulling out of Iraq? As I've said before, -I- think we should, BUT, we should do it hard and fast, none of this "six months we will begin withdraw" bull-crap. If you're gonna pull out, do it overnight when no one expects it. Shock and awe when they wake up in the morning and can't even find a tank tread as they were coverd by the sands in the night winds. That's the way to do it.


So yeah, what Giuliani's saying about the Dems? He's absolutely right. And it's an absolutely valid area of discussion and debate. And it might just have me voting Dem because I think a lot of those are good ideas. Fear tactics? No. Not unless you think the stuff he's saying the Dems will do is bad, because, again, he's right.



Now to meintion a few people: s3bbl3s
Good man! You're right, to respect the leader of your country is respectin the RIGHTS of the PEOPLE to vote and respecting YOUR COUNTRY. It's respecting Democracy and freedom. People who disrespect Bush not only are being petty, but they're disrespecting his office (the Presidency), the country he's in charge of (the United States of America), and THE PEOPLE who voted him into office! How many posts here have said that the people that reelected him in 2004 were stupid idiots who shouldn't be allowed to vote (among other things they were accused of being too stupid to do or that they shouldn't procreate cause it harms the genepool, ect...) This isn't just disrespecting a man, it's showing disrespect to our political system, out voters, the majority, the nation, and the highest office in the land.

I know that no one that reads this (who doesn't already agree) will accept this, but I'm wanting to go on record as saying it. If Hillary wins (and I will NOT vote for Hillary...probably not anyway...), she'll still be my president. I won't bash her as a person, or the people that voted for her, ect, because -I- respect the position of the office and the will of the people. Too bad some people are too petty and self-important soas to be unable to even comprehend the true level of malicious, disrespectful bile they're spewing.


To mowrest20:
I missed your post earlier and ralized that you said (with less words) what I'm saying. What's more, you changed position in light of new evidence. THAT, more than the first thing even, is worth of praise.


To smelter44:
Sorry man, but you're wrong. As Kuhl pointed out, the Democrats do this too...and a LOT of them. I think what it is is that in the end, about 5% (if even) of the populice in the two major political parties is actively mentally engaged with the candidates and what they say. The other 95% either don't have time or effort (or interest), so they blindly follow. Then there's the 70+ish% of Americans that just don't care anymore (or is it more than that who don't vote in elections? I forget, are we at 10% or 30% of people actually voting? I keep thinking more like 10...) It's because there are two parties, both extremes, and people pretty much just get with the one they think is closer to their views (and most Americans are moderate, so it's really a coin toss, almost), and simply have to grit their teeth or follow along, and most choose to follow along. This is no less true of Democrats. It's like someone that said to me that Atheists tend to be more logical than Religious people. My reply was that it's a percentage thing, but there are Atheists without logic and Religous people with it, and she conceeded that point. Same here; there are both Reps and Dems that follow along (a majority) and think for themselves (a minority.) Unfortunately, both parties cater to their extreme elements and ignore the ones that are actually free thinkers.


To anyone I didn't mention: Maybe next time. Good posts though, with the exception of a few people that seem only interested in furthering their agendas and not discussing the issue or the quotes.


To anyone who gets this far: Yay! ^_^ Good job. Here, you deserve a cookie! ^_^ -gives out free cookies-

 

[NickCole]

Senator Clinton (D-NY) released the following statement on this:

It'll be interesting to see if Hillary's new style will pay off for her.

I wonder how many votes she'll gain, and how many she'll lose, by having her backbone removed and put in storage.

It's important to know our own strengths and play to them.

I understand why she's doing what she's doing but I think she's making a big mistake.


"No, I must keep to my own style and go on in my own way; and though I may never succeed again in that, I am convinced that I should totally fail in any other." --Jane Austen

 

[Kulindahr]

Radical matt:

Thanks for the cookies!


That was one heck of a long post. You raise a lot of valid points, mostly about the generalizations we make, e.g. that going on defense will increase casualties. And your point about the headline is an extremely important one; not long back I read a column by an investigative reporter who decided to look into how closely headlines reflected the content of articles under them, and determined that while generally they did a good job, far too often they were crafted to catch attention without regard for being accurate, and also far too often they were crafted to reflect the writer's or editor's views instead of accurately summing up the article's content -- and in conclusion decided that headlines are used too much as a tool to hand people a conclusion before reading the article.

You make an important point about anticipating further attacks: trying is not doing. In government, even more than in other areas, "trying" is frequently a lot of activity without result, and often is activity that sounds good but doesn't address the problem -- or if it does address it, has side effects that are worse than the problem (e.g. the "USA PATRIOT Act"). Even with all our technology, and even if we had as many agents in the field as we really ought to, intelligence work still comes down to luck in too many cases. It isn't engineering, where a given input results in a predictable output, or even business, where a given input has an output that lies within a statistically probable range. It's far more like trying to keep weeds from growing in a garden, not so much by digging them up, but by hunting for the weed seeds that haven't yet germinated.

One last topic; I'm not even going to try to hit everything:

There are a number of very firm and objective things Congress could legitimately do to make objections to the whole Iraq situation clear without the futile inanity of deadlines (which is a mistake they haven't learned from Vietnam). One would be to pass a law that in the future, National Guard troops cannot be counted in planning offensive operations except in a nation which has attacked us. Another would be to legislate that National Guard troops flat out cannot be used overseas except in officially, formally declared wars, not just 'authorized' actions -- or, at the very least, without a separate, specific authorization from Congress (I'd prefer the former option). Another would be that U.S. forces cannot be used or involved in "nation building" without an invitation to do so from an authority or faction with a plainly credible potential for assuming control after we've lent a hand.
I could go on. My point, really, is that Congress is too much about sound and fury, and too little about substance. Any of those actions I suggested would be a resounding condemnation of how this bungler of a president has handled things, without handing an opportunity to enemies or endangering our folks in uniform -- and, more importantly, forbid such adventurism in the future.

 

[timnmostud]

Really? Fear mongering by a Republican candidate? What has the world come to?

 

[chance1]

clearly Giuliani did not say what is making the 80% foam - no matter

however, based on the senate and house voting - I have to agree with him

Bush's policies may have failed IN Iraq, but we have not had an attack since 911

hooray for Bush

who must be given credit the 5% of the time he deserves it

if only to be fair

back to Giuliani - there is validity to what he is saying

can't have it both ways guys

 

[radical matt]

To quote...someone (because the points are valid):

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

It's interesting, while this is the HEADLINE, Giuliani actually does NOT say it himself. This is what you call propaganda; picking a divisive title that actually does NOT represent the material it headlines.

...and...

Fear tactic? Not exactly. It's the truth. If you think that truth is something to be afraid of, don't vote Democrat. BUT, if you think that that stuff is a good idea (again, minus the pre- 9-11 thing, which is NOT going to happen), and some of that stuff he said the Dems would do I DO think are good ideas, then vote Dem. Every one of you who says this is a scare tactic, you need to vote Republican in 08, because this is the stuff the Dems will do. BUT, some of them may very well be GOOD THINGs. So if you do NOT think that this is a scare tactic, and you think that what he's saying the Dems will do ARE good things that we should be doing, vote Dem.

...what? Don't like how I turned that around on you guys? Tough. I may end up voting Dem in the next election. Repealing the Patriot Act (still haven't found it to read...), cutting back interrogation (and cutting back torture and probably reinstating Habeus Corpus for the "enemy combatants")...I think these are good things. Pulling out of Iraq? As I've said before, -I- think we should, BUT, we should do it hard and fast, none of this "six months we will begin withdraw" bull-crap. If you're gonna pull out, do it overnight when no one expects it. Shock and awe when they wake up in the morning and can't even find a tank tread as they were coverd by the sands in the night winds. That's the way to do it.


So yeah, what Giuliani's saying about the Dems? He's absolutely right. And it's an absolutely valid area of discussion and debate. And it might just have me voting Dem because I think a lot of those are good ideas. Fear tactics? No. Not unless you think the stuff he's saying the Dems will do is bad, because, again, he's right.

PLEASE, one of the anti-Giuliani people address this stuff. After all, this IS what the Dems are going to do. Why am I the only one that thinks they have good ideas? ...while those of you who are totally in favor a Dem becoming president are terrified about WHAT THEY THEMSELVES HAVE PLEDGED TO DO!

Weird, I'm more in favor of some Democrat ideas than the local Democrats here...how...odd...

 

[Kurn]

To Mr. Giuliani:
There are PTA committees that could do a better job than the Bush Cabinet, and too many other Republicans are mired in clichés of the Cold War Era to be at all effective.
The Republicans have learned their lessons well. Unfortunately the books they read are 15-years out of date!

 

[radical matt]

Interesting, no one seems to want to bite, huh? They'd rather say the same "Bush/Republcans are stupid and can't do the job"...while even they realize that Dems can't either, otherwise they would say so. ^_^

...most interesting indeed...

 

[Kurn]

Assumptions about 'what the Dems will do' is just banana peels.

Mr. Gore and Mr. Kerry would both have provided far more intelligent responses to the terrorists than GWB. The Republican party in general [not all] are too laden with clichés that betray their lack of a grasp on reality.

Of the Democrats, I'm most impressed with Hillary Clinton, Mr. Richardson and Mr. Edwards as Beings sensitive to the Present and its real challenges.

 

[lancelva]

Interesting, no one seems to want to bite, huh? They'd rather say the same "Bush/Republcans are stupid and can't do the job"...while even they realize that Dems can't either, otherwise they would say so. ^_^

...most interesting indeed...

The Democrats had a plan to go after bin Laden in retaliation of the bombing on the USS Cole and left them with the incoming Bush Administration, who didn't do anything.

 

[radical matt]

...and their current plan, should they be elected President, is EXACTLY what Giuliani says they'd do. No one should realistically be able to dispute this because all the Dem front runners have said they plan to pull back the troops, cut back on survaillence, interrogation, ect ect.

My questions are:

Are these really such bad things? (If they are, you guys need to vote for Giuliani)

and

If they are, why are you defending the Democrats since they've already voiced their intentions to do just these things?

 

[Sausy]

I think most of the Democratic field running will do fine on the world stage confronting the challlenge posed by al-Qaeda and other Islamic radicals.Despite my misgivings and some strong disagreements on some policies mostly outside the foreign policy realm,they'll do what is best in our national interests.If they do harbor naively unrealistic expectations of the potential for engagement and diplomacy alone,that will be remedied when the reality of Mideast politics rears its head.I am not in the least apprehensive of any major Democratic candidate being elected on that..they will be far less arrogant and condescending than the current approach.Demogoguery will not serve the debate constructively at all.