Giuliani Channels Karl Rove

Rudy Giuliani has just shown that he is as much a lying fearmonger as Karl Rove or any other Bush administration toady. From Politico:

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.

Ummmm...let's review some history, Rudy. Ronald Reagan and the elected Bush both SUPPORTED the Muslim fanatics that evolved into al-Qaeda. Bill Clinton is the one who first recognized them as a threat and tried to get them. The attack he ordered after the bombing of the USS Coles hit the location where bin Laden had JUST LEFT. The Clinton administration PREVENTED the millenium attacks. Clinton was so focused on getting al-Qaeda that the Republicans called him "obsessed" with al-Qaeda and he TOLD Bush that al-Qaeda would be the number one focus of Bush's administration.

Now let's look at Bush's administration: he ignored the warnings, let 9/11 happened, and he has consistently ignored the continuing al-Qaeda threat and instead invaded Iraq, a nation with absolutely NO TIES to al-Qaeda before we invaded. Experts around the world agree that we are LESS SAFE THAN EVER because of Bush's failed foreign policy.

So, Republicans SUPPORTED the groups that became al-Qaeda, Clinton attacked al-Qaeda, Bush ignored them, allowing them to attack America. So WHICH party is more likely to stop an attack, the Democrats who were "obsessed" with stopping al-Qaeda or the Republicans who supported and then ignored them?

And while we are at it, let's not forget something about Rudy himself. Rudy Giuliani wants us all to think of him as the 9/11 candidate, but the TRUE heroes of 9/11, the firefighters, detest the man, refusing to even invite him to a presidential candidate's forum that ALL the other candidates, Republican AND Democratic, were invited to. Personally, I would rather support our firefighters than the lying chickenhawk Giuliani who seems ready to repeat all the worst mistakes of the Bush administration. America wants change. Both McCain and Giuliani have shown that they represent more of the same old failures.

http://culturekitchen.com/mole333/blog/giuliani_channels_karl_rove
Mouse over the text to select it, then press Ctrl-C to copy it.
No votes yet
mole333's picture



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
blog comments powered by Disqus ">
Albert Howard's picture

Clinton and Obama: Why A White Woman Needs A Black Man

Did This Prophetic Handshake Cost Hillary The Election?

AlbertHoward org

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may link to webpages through the weblinks registry
  • You may post code using <code>...</code> (generic) or <?php ... ?> (highlighted PHP) tags.
  • Flash node macros can be added to this post.
  • Insert Flickr images: [flickr-photo:id=230452326,size=s] or [flickr-photoset:id=72157594262419167,size=m].
  • You may use [inline:xx] tags to display uploaded files or images inline.
  • Images can be added to this post.
  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see <a href="/interwiki/1">interwiki</a>.
  • Links to specified hosts will have a rel="nofollow" added to them.

  • You may post PHP code. You should include <?php ?> tags.
  • You may use <swf file="song.mp3"> to display Flash files inline
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • E-Mail addresses are hidden with reCAPTCHA Mailhide.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

User login

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

Upcoming events

  • No upcoming events available

QUOTES

So the recent struggles about network neutrality have led me to recognize something I hadn't quite seen before. And that something in turn makes more puzzling the debates that have been raised around network neutrality. The something to recognize is that in a fundamental sense, fair use (FU) and network neutrality (NN) are the same thing. They are both state enforced limits on the property rights of others. In both cases, the limits are slight --the vast range of uses granted a copyright holder are only slightly restricted by FU; the vast range of uses allowed a network owner are only slightly restricted by NN. And in both cases, the line defining the limits is uncertain. But in both cases, those who support each say that the limits imposed on the property right are necessary for some important social end (admittedly, different in each case), and that the costs of enforcing those limits are outweighed by the benefits of protecting that social end. So from this perspective, it is easy to understand those who reject FU and NN (who are they?). And it is easy to understand those who embrace FU and NN. What gets difficult is understanding those who embrace one while rejecting the other --at least when that rejection is articulated in terms of "government regulation".

Poll