Rudy bashes Dems on terror, again

Many stellar, qualified, and runnable candidates have found sympathetic ears and fat wallets at the Union League Club in the not-so-distant past.
Alan Keyes is the first one that comes to mind.

If anyone questions the Democrats' policies on terrorism, he is immediately charged with "questioning their patriotism."

Even the Obama sycophants at the Tribune must be getting tired of listening to this canard.

S. Sherman,

You've got it backwards.

Defeatocrats, cut-n-runners & the like were some of the printable names we were called for questioning the wisdom of the Iraq Civil War. Which was and is questioning our patriotism. That is a fact.

Speaking of the Iraq Civil War. Our troops are in the untenable situation of referee and it's time for us to leave.

And Rudy Guliani is a gadfly.

Rudy is a sham and a phony.

After the first World Trade Center attack in 93 Rudy didn't get the radio frequencies between the police and the firefighters in sync even after he was told he needed to do so thus causeing confusion between the two depts during 9/11.

After the first Trade Center attack in 93 Rudy decided it would be a good idea to put his emergency command and control center in the World Trade Center Towers thus he was left to walk the streets of Manhatten in the aftermath of 9/11.

Rudy called off the search for missing firefighters at ground zero in order to placate his business buddies who wanted to open the area up to business right away thus leaving street and sans workers to come across firefighter remains in the drainage system.

Rudy Gigoloiani was once married to his cousin so at least he should still get the redneck vote.
No wonder Shermie and Donnyboy like him so much.

GOBAMA IN 08 !!!

It is really tragic how removal of the head of state of a tiny Country turned into a "life Long" ordeal.

The Iraq war must have really confused the Bush team and its supporters. Little did they realize that the quick task, of removing a head of state was going to take so long, caused so much suffering, and take so many lives.

This long period of "loosing" in Iraq has given at least one Republican Presidential contender the idea of seriously considering the World Terror menace. Then the world might see another 100 year war...likely with civilians steering the activity.

With America's deep pockets and a pool of able bodied young people, America could let the United Nations rest while it stepped up its WORLD POLICEMAN activities.

How many Chicagoans give a sh-t what Giuliani thinks? Not me. Hey Rudy, get another wife, er, I mean life.

I think Rudy has this right:

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, its a duck.

Doug Zook, does it ever concern you when your posts often times mirror that of John E? Just wondering?

Poor Little Johnny E : He seems to think the 9]11 death toll was so high because Rudy didn't get the right Motorolas'. He fails to mention Bubbas extra curricular activities with "that woman" as remission on the defeatocrats watch. Michael Schuerer, head of CIA Bin Laden unit does mention it though, at least 12 blown chances. Sandy Berger surely knows about it too, that's why he was doing his famous stocking stuffing, way before Christmas.
Chimpy, your boy Pinocchio is nothing more than an empty suit. Tony Rezko his swarthy Syrian partner is singing like a canary to Mr. Fitzgerald, looking to cut a deal. He's hoping they can go to jail together on the "buddy system", you might call it "Broke Back Crooks". John, you being in Al Anbar these days, perhaps you missed the N.Y. Times article about Pinocchio Hussein Obama and the strange race based church he belongs to, it wasn't too flattering. He's a lightweight and it showed in his amateurish answers in the debates.

Rudy 2008!!!!.....TCB..............................

Why any Republican candidate would waste his time in Illinois is beyond me--the party is moribund and the state is solidly liberal. Coincident with the liberal tendencies, the populations of Illinois and the other so-called blue Rust Belt states are in decline relative to the booming West and South. Republicans can write off Illinois, Mondalesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin (which always seems to break the Dems' way by 5,000 votes or so) and still be on the glidepath to the Presidency. The only thing Illinois manufactures any more is votes for the Dems.

Hey, maybe Richie Daley will get a hankering to run now that he sees Rudy in the race. Surely he must aspire to something beyond Mare of Chicawwgo.

Has Rudy heard about the report coming out stating terrorist attacks have increased significantly around the world?

Hhhmmmm... It doesn't blame Democrats so I wonder if he conveniently ignored the report.

Speaking of conveniently forgetting, glad John E. pointed out Rudy's failures after the 1st WTC attacks. Let's expand on that & remember Clinton was barely in office a month when the 1st WTC attack took place. Why do reforgetblicans not ever blame the 1st Bush for the 1st WTC attack?

America could let the United Nations rest while it stepped up its WORLD POLICEMAN activities.

Posted by: bezelt | Apr 30, 2007 9:05:33 PM

Hey right bezelt the U.N. did a bang up job in Rwanda, or perhaps Darfur was more to your liking. The U.N. is a useless tool of policing anything. They did do a good job of stealing money in the oil for food program, and they have proven they are also capable of raping 12 year old girls in Africa, and sexual assault and coverup of co- workers also seems to be another activity they excel at. Bottoms up on your tall glass of Kool-Aid bezelt.

"Cement Shoes" for the insipid clown John E.

It will be Rudy in 2008...the Americans will never trust the Defeatocrats and the Soros Consortium for their welfare.

John D,

(With apologies to John E.)

Great minds think alike.

Yeah, the Repubs did a great job on terror.

We're more terrified now than we were right after 9/11.

Frankly, I've never bought into threats. Attacks happen every day and out of the blue - just ask Mosely Braun. You don't think she was terrified?

The best thing we can do is avoid the temptation to fear and to do our best to watch our backs. That includes you, Mosely Braun. Stop walking the streets of Chicago at midnight. You're inviting terror.

Don B,

The U.N. is only as strong or as weak as its member states want it to be.

Regarding Rudy.

For this post, I'll just stick to the politics.

Republican candidates do not have a clear front runner and Rudy's main (only?) credential seems to be he was mayor of New York City on 9/11. Given his stand on some social issues and his matrimonial history I don't see how he wins in the bible belt. Which leaves me guessing that the Republican nomination will go all the way to convention.

Exactly what is Giuliani known for except happening to be at ground zero when some fundamentalist wingnuts crashed the planes? Seriously, exactly what are his qualifications?

Accusing Democrats of being incapable of handling the defense of this country is extremely offensive. I'm a Democrat and I could care less if he's been married 20 times. But if he insists on trying to demonize Democrats, then I'll work my butt off to see to it that he loses big should he be the 2008 nominee.

Rudy seems to forget that the Republicans were in charge of all parts of the government when 9/11 happened.

Wingnut vs. Reality, Chapter 68:

"Doug Zook", above: "Republican candidates do not have a clear front runner ..."

Reality (from the latest Rasmussen poll): Giuliani 30%, McCain 14%, Thompson 14%, Romney 11%.

Seems to me like there's a clear front runner, Doug.

I would ask what exactly his "offensive" plan against terrorist attacks is. What has our "offensive plan" to date won for us? Not Iraq or support in the Middle East; not other international support. We have a larger insurgent problem than we came with; more widespread terrorist issues and fears about countries like Malaysia, etc. Or, if we don't we should.

And the problem with "offense" in this issue is that it overruns and tramples the sovereignty of the countries against which we are being offensive. Yes, Saddam Hussein needed to be taken out (and didn't Bush I have an opportunity, but deserted the Kurds in their time of need?), but what did he have to do with Al Qaeda? Couldn't we have finished the job in Afghanistan, cut out bin Laden and then moved on to green (more oily) pastures in Iraq? Wouldn't that have made more sense?

And if our defenses had been better, wouldn't 9/11 had a better chance of failing?

The point is, we need both: offense and defense. Frankly, I would rather have better port defenses, more big crate searches, x-rays, whatever it takes to find fissile materials... Step up on border control from the south, because as porous as our border is with Mexico, can you imagine how porous their other borders are? Who's getting in from that side and then getting in here? Although I don't exactly agree with a wall... There's some thinking to be done here.

Anyway, my point is, there are tons of "defensive" stances to be taken that would be safer and more effective than a continued offensive attack against mobile enemies without a home state to call their own. What are we going to do, continue to invade country after country to find these guys? Alienate the whole geographical area, which, if anyone recalls, we are desperately dependent upon for oil?

And if you pay attention, the Kurds are about to make a huge play for independence. What are we going to do about that, since we set up the gameboard for that to happen?

What the "Swamp", usually so ready to publicize polls, hasn't yet told its readers: the latest Rasmussen Poll has Giuliani beating St. Barack in a head on head matchup. Republican Giuliani beats hillary too.

Bruce, Don B, others,

Oh yes, you're right. Rudy would be an excellent candidate (wink, wink). Especially now that Judith got rid of his combover (wink). And won't she be a great asset at cabinet meetings? (wink wink wink). The GOP should flock to him (wink wink wink).

What has our "offensive plan" to date won for us?
Posted by: Jen DC | May 1, 2007 7:53:21 AM

For starters Jen DC.... Mohmar Khadafy decided that the idea of keeping WMD might be an unhealthy pursuit these days. The Syrians also decided their vacation spots in Lebanon are not as safe and secure as they once were. Turkey has now shown that secularism is no longer acceptable there. There were 180 Taliban killed last week in Afghanistan, not quite the safe haven it once was. Things have changed, while we may not get too mush help from Iran and Syria, despite Pres. Pelosis' visit, things are changing. The Saudis are engaged, 172 terrorists' arrested a few days ago, there is a lot of good being done, it just pains the left too much to admit to it.

Bad news today for the Defeatocrats and Ms. Pelosi and Harry Reid the head of Al Queda in Iraq , according to news accounts was killed by Sunnis' in Iraq.

Now it looks like America should defocus TERROR(call it simple Terror) and focus on WORLD TERROR.

Although the Bush team has been fighting simple TERROR in Iraq for four years, you can't tell that by looking at the current conditions in Iraq. The Bush team has not done well fighting simple TERROR in Iraq but that could be because of the two faces of TERROR.

The Bush team set out to fight simple TERROR in Iraq when maybe it should have set out to fight WORLD TERROR from Iraq. Mr. Rudy Giuliana seems to be directing America's attention to WORLD TERROR.

Perhaps there is a difference between simple TERROR and WORLD TERROR. If Iraqi terror had been simple TERROR as the Bush team imagined, the troops would have been home years ago. But WORLD TERROR could keep the troops in Iraq indefinitely with America citizens footing the bill. And the Bush team demanding that Congress hand over the money to the Bush team with no strings attached. Or the Bush team will VETO.

It looks like Mr. Rudy Giuliana, a Republican, does not want to stray too far from the Bush team's Iraq policy. It looks like those taboo subjects will remain taboo. It looks like the American electorate will not hear an official version of the Weapons- of- Mass-Destruction catalyst that led America to declare war on Iraq.

Perhaps the American electorate should just “TRUST” the Bush team to “DO THE RIGHT THING” and just “ BACK OFF” any other thoughts about questioning the actions of the Bush team.

While PERFORMANCE ebbs and flows, the Bush team's RHETORIC is always at HIGH TIDE.

Bruce,

If you're quoting a national poll (I don't know), I will reiterate that these polls are meaningless when you consider how the nominating process works. With the exception of McCain, whose campaign is going in a freefall dive, these national polls are mostly name I.D. in nature.

For what it's worth, I feel the same way about the Democratic race.

Don B, you said it right by mentioning the Al Qaeda head in Iraq was killed. The Al Qaeda head in Iraq. OK. Where is THE head of Al Qaeda? Where is Osama Bin laden? I certainly haven't heard the administration utter his name lately. I wonder why?
I think that 140k troops looking in the right places might better be able to find Bin Laden rather than sit in the middle of a civil war that the administration caused.

Don B., stop the scare tactics. That is exactly how the Nazi fascists convinced their countrymen to launch a war.

Don B. Said:

Hey right bezelt the U.N. did a bang up job in Rwanda, or perhaps Darfur was more to your liking. The U.N. is a useless tool of policing anything. They did do a good job of stealing money in the oil for food program, and they have proven they are also capable of raping 12 year old girls in Africa, and sexual assault and coverup of co- workers also seems to be another activity they excel at. Bottoms up on your tall glass of Kool-Aid bezelt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Your comments on the United Nations are well taken. But you left out the United Nations, working in cooperation with the elder Bush to stop Saddam Hussein's expansion attempt.

Of course it took DIPLOMACY to get all those countries to agree on that activity. But you can't expect a "bring em'on" type diplomacy to persuade anybody to do anything but perhaps do as the phrase suggests.

With respect to unlawful behavior, every country on this globe has to deal with unlawful activities within its jurisdiction. That is a fact of life - whether it be the United Nations or the United States of America, or even the European Union or Russia or France and so on...

But the United Nations is here. It has a job to do. Don't make matters worse by swashbuckling aggresive activities outside the world body.

There are small countries, with no visible means of protection. They will likely think about getting their own protection if world behavior sometimes depends on an act of one persom or one country instead of a consortium of countries. The concept of self defense is not lost on countries.

While the League of Nations was here, then not here, the world kept on going. But today is different. If the United Nations goes or is rendered ineffective, nations would scramble to get the latest and greatest weapons with which to defend themselves. It would be - every nation for itself.

And scientist would rush to move the hands of the Doomsday clock closer to midnight.

Don B said:

For starters Jen DC.... Mohmar Khadafy decided that the idea of keeping WMD might be an unhealthy pursuit these days. The Syrians also decided their vacation spots in Lebanon are not as safe and secure as they once were. Turkey has now shown that secularism is no longer acceptable there. There were 180 Taliban killed last week in Afghanistan, not quite the safe haven it once was. Things have changed, while we may not get too mush help from Iran and Syria, despite Pres. Pelosis' visit, things are changing. The Saudis are engaged, 172 terrorists' arrested a few days ago, there is a lot of good being done, it just pains the left too much to admit to it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Afghanistan? I seem to remember Afghanistan as being the chosen Al Qaeda target before the Bush team decided to shift focus to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. That was, like, four years ago.

Now going back to mentioning Afghanistan makes one wonder whether the changed focus by the Bush team helped in the war on terror. The judgement of the Bush team centered on Saddam Hussein. Now it appears to be back where mainstream thinking had it four years ago - Al Qaeda.

It is likely that the price of the Bush team's war on terror will be highly classified document. The American electorate will likely not be told how much the Bush team paid (using Amrica's credit card)to remove a single head of state.

That document, if it is generated, will likely occupy a spot in Pandora's box - right next to Mr. Tenet's terror document delivered to the White House two months prior to 9/11/2001 and the document "now discredited" saying that Iraq had WMDs.

The Bush team led America to war based upon a WMD threat.

Don B,

"Turkey has now shown that secularism is no longer acceptable there."

And this is a good thing? An "accomplishment?"

Don B,

"Turkey has now shown that secularism is no longer acceptable there."

And this is a good thing? An "accomplishment?"

Posted by: Bryan | May 1, 2007 11:37:23 AM

Probably not for secular progressives Bryan.

I implore all of you to "google" Rudy Giuliani and promise the entertainment will be worth your time. You will also conclude that this man is a nut and should not be considered for any high office.

Don B,

So am I understanding you correctly that you are arguing that the defeat of secularism is, indeed, a good thing, and a worthy goal of American policy? Are you aware that Turkey is a majority Muslim state? Are you saying that a Muslim theocracy would be preferable to a, GASP!, secular progressive state? Or would the only acceptable non-secular state be a "Christian" one? I was under the impression that we were fighting in Iraq to establish secular democracy (well, after that non-existent 9/11 connection and the long gone WMD's), but I appreciate you setting me straight on this one.

Don B. Said:

The Saudis are engaged, 172 terrorists' arrested a few days ago, there is a lot of good being done, it just pains the left too much to admit to it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Speaking about Iraq - both the Red Cross and the United nations say Iraq is in a humanitarian crisis. The humanitarian crisis has been compared to the exodus in 1948.

But a member of the Bush team just pointed a finger at another country about its humanitarian problems. See how in-denial works.

And you say things are improving - but not to the point where you would want to spend a two week vacation in Baghdad. You would not likely want to spend two weeks in the environment the Iraqis have to spend all their time in.

And who should the Iraqis thank for allowing them to participate in helping the Bush team - clear first Iraq and next the world of terror. Who should the Iraqis thank for removing a sitting government and replacing it with nothing.

Right, things are getting better in Iraq, but only if you are way on the outside looking in.

Fooling all of the people all of the time is is now DOA.

Here's some info I dug up on Guilani:

"In 2000, Mayor Giuliani appointed 34-year-old Russell Harding, the son of Liberal Party of New York boss and longtime Giuliani mentor Raymond Harding, to head the New York City Housing Development Corporation, despite Harding not having a college degree or relevant experience for the position. Harding spent lavishly on himself in the job; in 2005, he pled guilty to defrauding the Housing Development Corporation and possession of child pornography and was sentenced to five years in prison."

Wow. He sounds like the boob who we currently have running the country. Republicans must be proud of the elite pool of candidates running for president.

Bruce Said:

What the "Swamp", usually so ready to publicize polls, hasn't yet told its readers: the latest Rasmussen Poll has Giuliani beating St. Barack in a head on head matchup. Republican Giuliani beats hillary too.

Posted by: Bruce | May 1, 2007 8:19:03 AM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I visited the Rasmussen Poll to see how it compared with the polls I watch at PollingReport.Com

The Rasmussen Poll consistently gives Mr. Bush's job approval rating higher than the many polls listed by PollingReport.com.

While PollingReport.com lists many polls that show Mr. Bush's job approval in the low thirty's a few show Mr. Bush's job approval in the mid to high thirtys. I saw only one poll that put Mr. Bush's approval rating as high as 38 per-cent.

But the Rasmussen Poll seems to consistently track in the forty's.

It was good that you named your poll. That way people can, if they so desire, visit the poll to see its behavior.

If I wanted to quote a poll favorable to the President, I would choose the Rasmussen Poll if that was acceptable to my target audience. And next, I would choose Fox/Opinion Dynamics Poll. But I would not say,"polls say...", without saying which poll was saying...

Polls do differ, sometimes by significant margins.

Republican candidates do not have a clear front runner and Rudy's main (only?) credential seems to be he was mayor of New York City on 9/11. Given his stand on some social issues and his matrimonial history I don't see how he wins in the bible belt. Which leaves me guessing that the Republican nomination will go all the way to convention.

Posted by: Doug Zook | May 1, 2007 6:47:53 AM

Doug: I believe terrorism will once again trump all other issues, I also believe Moveon .org will end up biting the Dems' in the rear end. They make no secret of the fact they bought, and now own the democratic party........that will undoubtedly make a lot of moderate people very nervous.

Doug: I believe terrorism will once again trump all other issues, I also believe Moveon .org will end up biting the Dems' in the rear end. They make no secret of the fact they bought, and now own the democratic party........that will undoubtedly make a lot of moderate people very nervous.

Posted by: Don B | May 1, 2007 8:36:49 PM

Don B,

Where do you get this stuff?

Don B Said:

Doug: I believe terrorism will once again trump all other issues, I also believe Moveon .org will end up biting the Dems' in the rear end. They make no secret of the fact they bought, and now own the democratic party........that will undoubtedly make a lot of moderate people very nervous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Perhaps wishful thinking on the part of Don B. Seems like he now wishes that Moveon.org bites the Democrats in the rear end.

Moveon.org is having a lot of trouble trying to be heard on right leaning networks. And it is absurd to say anybody owns the Democratic party. But when one is grasping at straws, that can happen.

Why not tell this forum what achievements the Republicans have made. That is a good selling point for Republicans. What tasks have they completed in a fashion that could qualify them for an "atta boy"? Anything! Katrina? Iraq? Medicare Plan D? Iraq??

Did Will Rogers say it best? "When you realize you're in a hole stop digging". The Bush team is still digging in Iraq. And there appears to be no chance that it will ever realize it is in a hole.

Don B.

Moveon.org was successful raising money to help Democratic candidates.

Would a President lead his country into war based upon a fake document? Did the President know information he revealed as a reason to go to war was false?

If the President knew the information he used to justify an invasion of Iraq was false, that should qualify as a reason to impeach.

A President, like the rest of us, is innocent until proved guilty. The Congress should do its job and let the evidence say one way or another. It looks like this President has crowned himself King and is above the reach of all the country's laws.

America needs an OMBUDSMAN. America needs a human being to look after the interest of the country. It may be difficult for a political party to act on behalf of the country if it is the target. We saw the Old Congress go into "hibernation" rather that investigate Mr. DeLay.

We saw the Bush team break laws that were not to its liking. We saw the Old Congress change laws that the Bush team broke. We have seen a "ton" of ethics transgressions. And we have seen nothing that could come close to being a "job well done" where it mattered to America.

Mr. Tenet's new book has prompted some retired CIA people to say something like Mr. Tenet should taken more responsibility for the Iraq condition than he has.

Something is confusing here. Did the CIA sign off on the idea that Niger could get 500 tons of Uranium Oxide out of Niger without the French, who operated the facility, knowing it about it?

Was the CIA for or against mentioning WMDs in the President's State of the Union address in January or 2003?

If the answer to those two questions is no, then it looks like the CIA did not want to declare war on Iraq in the first place.. and if the CIA had been the “Decider” an Iraqi war may never have started.

But the CIA, of course, is not the Decider.

So, just how could Mr. Tenet have made the Iraqi war effort better? Well...if Mr. Tenet had the authority to put troops on the streets of Baghdad to maintain law and order during the transition from the Hussein regime to the new post Hussein regime, it is likely that four years of war effort would have produced something the Bush team could have been proud of.

But someone allowed anarchy to play itself out.

And it is still playing itself out. How did Mr. Tenet influence Baghdad's anarchy ? He didn't. Mr. Tenet is not the Decider.