Giuliani Channels Karl Rove: More Republican Lies

[Editor's Note: While I am on vacation I am reposting some old articles I consider still relavent. For those who care about truth rather than Republican lies, let's look at the real Rudy Giuliani.]

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.


mole333's picture

| | | |

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
bigassbelle's picture

liars, liars, liars

this man frightens me. he is, if one can even imagine such a horrible thing, even worse than the current resident of the oval office. arrogance, hubris, a superficial approach to complex and difficult problems, a chest-thumping macho based on nothing more than time and place and proximity to a disaster that MIGHT HAVE BEEN prevented had bush and his band of thugs bothered to pay attention.


bigassbelle's picture

liar, liar, liar

this man frightens me. he is just another version of the conscienceless, superficial, arrogant, chest-thumping fool we already have. he operates on fear and hubris and a lust for power. his glory days ~ when he was on the news day after day ~ are over and he longs for the past. this is the last, very last, candidate we need to even consider for what is going to be a lengthy and difficult restoration of the republic, ruined by the current crop of criminals and thieves and arrogant fools.


JJ Ross's picture

Which Party

is the totally wrong question imo, the one that will ruin us all if we can't get unstuck from -- as in.
"So WHICH party is more likely to stop an attack . . ."


mole333's picture

Well

Sometimes I might agree with you. But in a case where one party really was focused on such an attack and the other did all it could to ignore it, to refuse to recognize the difference in approach is even more problematic than lumping the parties together. Sometimes it really is appropriate to recognize something a political party does right and what another political party does wrong.


Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Poll

Visit our sponsors

Who's online

There are currently 2 users and 2088 guests online.

Online users

Get our Digestifs du jour

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

culturekitchens

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.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

The way to fight this 'moving forward' frame is not to repeat it--that's the first step. The problem is, Americans want to talk about and correct all the problems the President created and we are in right now. And if we talk about 'moving forward' and looking up the road and turning points--we get distracted from the present.

To reframe, we should force the debate to use a new phrase:

America wants action right now!

This phrase focuses the discussion in Iraq, on immigration policy, on oil policy, on hurricane preparedness--focuses attention on the real concern: a government that fails to act in the face of huge problems.


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify