From Good Morning America

Quote :

"What Obama should be doing is following the right things Bush did. One of the right things he did was treat this as a war on terror. We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We've had one under Obama"

Now I think I remember some domestic attacks. There was that anthrax that killed a few people. There were those DC sniper attacks. There was the "shoebomber". And I even think there was a little incident in New York City while Giuliani was mayor. But it was probably something minor that Giuliani would forget and not base entire campaigns on.

Of course the liberal media were happy to correct his mistake.
Oh, they weren't?
How odd.

1/8/2010 7:57:52 PM

seriously this is ridiculous.

1/8/2010 8:00:18 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/08/giuliani-says-no-domestic-terror-attacks-under-bush/

Quote :

"Giuliani says no 'domestic terror attacks' under Bush Posted: January 8th, 2010 12:37 PM ET From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney Rudy Giuliani said Friday that the United States was not subjected to domestic terror attacks when he was in office. Rudy Giuliani said Friday that the United States was not subjected to domestic terror attacks when he was in office. (CNN) - Echoing recent comments from former Bush administration officials, Rudy Giuliani defended former President George Bush's record on terrorism Friday, saying the country was not subjected to domestic terror attacks when he was in office. "We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama," Giuliani said on ABC's Good Morning America. Democrats and other political observers were quick to question Giuliani's comments, wondering how the former New York City mayor would classify the attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as Richard Reid's attempted shoe-bombing in late 2001. "Giuliani seems to have forgotten about the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and shoe bomber Richard Reid," ABC's George Stephanopoulos, who conducted the Giuliani interview, wrote on his blog. Giuliani's comments are similar to those of former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino and former Dick Cheney aide Mary Matalin, both of whom have said in recent weeks no terrorism attacks occurred under Bush. "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term," Perino told Fox News last November. In December, Mary Matalin - a former senior adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney - made comments that seemed to place the 9/11 attacks under President Clinton's watch. "We inherited a recession from President Clinton and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history," Matalin a CNN analyst, told John King on CNN's "State of the Union" last month. "

Looks like he's not the only GOP making that claim.

It's because 9/11 happened on Clinton's watch, so it doesn't count

1/8/2010 8:10:16 PM

hahahaha seriously im still amazed by this.

1/8/2010 8:10:22 PM

I, for one, have forgotten. Who was Bush again?

1/8/2010 8:37:36 PM

Giuliani, of all people...

I'm having trouble thinking of something more ironic.

1/8/2010 8:45:28 PM

This should probably go in the GOP credibility thread.

1/8/2010 8:50:00 PM

hahahaha, that's some rich shit. that it was Guliani? even better

1/8/2010 8:54:50 PM

geez, could he mean second term? Only thing I can think of.

I hate politics sometimes. This kind of shit doesnt help at all.

1/8/2010 9:01:28 PM

Have you guys not learned by this point that when there's nothing interesting to report, the world's most irrelevant people will be put in front of the camera to provide what amounts to little more then televised blogging? The God Damn balloon dad was on Larry King talking about how his hoax wasn't a hoax for the love of God.

1/8/2010 9:28:00 PM

Rudy Giuliani isn't exactly the balloon boy

1/8/2010 9:29:07 PM

That point being that networks are hardly concerned with the factual validity of anything they air.

1/8/2010 9:34:04 PM

Well, I suppose you could view 9/11 (which was followed almost immediately by the anthrax attacks and the shoebomber) as a wake-up call, and start the tally from after that point. In fact, I think it could be argued that this is pretty clearly what Giuliani meant, at least with respect to 9/11 (whether you view the ~3 months that those events spanned as a single entity in terms of time period from which to start counting is more arguable).

The DC sniper attacks were quite potentially not motivated by terrorism in the same sense that the other attacks were (though they probably did more to terrify people than any of the rest).


So, all in all, this was a totally stupid thing to say, even at face value, but it isn't quite as ridiculous as it appears if you think a little more about the timeline of events and what Giuliani likely meant.

That said, what exactly was Giuliani trying to say? I mean, it's not like this was some huge coordinated attack where the bad guys sat down, thought strategically, and said "OK, this is it...now's our chance, with Obama in the White House." No, they've been throwing shit against the wall periodically all along, and finally one jackass managed to slip through the cracks of the very security system put into place under the Bush Administration...so in that light, really all you could accuse Obama of is not evolving our security any further in the past year...

but what would he have done to counter this one? I mean, this was pretty much the shoe-bomber attack all over again, just with the little bomb moved from the shoes to the taint. Existing security measures LONG since in place should've been able to handle this one, right? You know, the stuff enacted...under the Bush Administration.




Of course, the reality is that those motherfuckers are eventually probably going to get lucky, and all we can really do is suppress them to where the odds are very, very slim...then each hope we're not one of the unlucky ones on the airplane when they finally do make it through. Achieving 100% security, if even possible even with the limited scope of air travel, is not really practical.

1/8/2010 9:58:00 PM

Man with all the heat Obama is getting you'd think he spent almost a full 3 years on vacation days while presiding over two different wars, one of which had no practical or substantial connection with the 9/11 attacks and that he and his entire administration lobbied for under false pretenses

1/8/2010 10:11:50 PM

In a similar vein (sorta) today I caught Bortz saying that a terrorist attack will happen before the Nov elections. It wasn't qualified with "if they don't fix things" (but maybe it was implied), no, just "an attack will happen".

1/8/2010 10:24:43 PM

Just like O'reilly was saying last night that "One more attack will be end of the Obama administration".

1/8/2010 10:59:44 PM

or we could just stop pissing these folks off.

1/8/2010 11:10:07 PM

I can't help but notice a tinge of hope in their voices when guys like Bortz and Hannity say these things.

1/9/2010 7:00:46 AM

^
Kind of like the utter glee in democrat's voices as they bemoaned the collapse of Bush's economy during the '08 election?

1/9/2010 10:13:30 AM

Quote :

"I can't help but notice a tinge of hope in their voices when guys like Bortz and Hannity say these things."

Which is probably the sickest part of all of this. I mean, I want to see Obama fail to enact most of his ideas, because I really don't think they're any good. I want to see him face problems that show exactly what I was saying under Bush, that real security is hard and this Hollywood security isn't doing anyone any good. But that doesn't mean I want to see another attack. I don't want people to die just to prove Obama wrong. It's sickening to me that there really do seem to be people out there hoping for violence. No ones opposition to Obama should be so strong that they would prefer innocent people die over him getting lucky and having an incident free presidency, despite any misteps or failures to implement real security.

1/9/2010 10:15:28 AM

Its funny how many so called "constitutionalists" are willing to step on the constitution when it comes to something that goes with their agenda. The moment we give up rights and bypass the constitution for the sake of security is the moment the terrorists have won.

1/9/2010 10:18:34 AM

In my rage over the possibility of Lost being preempted by the State of the Union address, I had completely forgotten about terrorism.

I'm supposed to be scared of those guys, right?

1/9/2010 10:52:38 AM

Quote :

" that real security is hard and this Hollywood security isn't doing anyone any good."

so..... since domestic security basically hasn't changed in the last year, we've escalated Bush's main front in the "war on terror", drone attacks are ramping up in Pakistan, and we're supporting attacks in Yemen now, I assume you were complaining about "Hollywood security" for the last 8 years, right?

1/9/2010 11:52:54 AM

Can someone remind me why we have an interest in Israel again. I know the Israel thing has been turned over infinity times here. Is it just for oil, basically?

1/9/2010 11:59:30 AM

Religion, oil, Jewish lobbying

1/9/2010 12:15:39 PM

1) religion - Evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians believe that the land is Israel is holy and is key to the 2nd coming of Christ. According to the bible, the nation of Israel must be reestablished in the area before Jesus can come back, a "prophecy" (some would say self fulfilling) that came true in 1948. Jewish people also believe the land of Israel is holy, but for slightly different reasons than Christians. Nonetheless, Christians here are happy to have Jews hold and protect the land over there, because Christian interests in the are a much more closely aligned with Jewish interests than with Muslim interests (who also believe the land is holy....). The entire Christian-Zionist movement is really a ploy on the Christians part to have the Jews do all the work in securing the nation of Israel to speed up the 2nd Coming. The part everyone overlooks is that Christians believe that when the 2nd Coming does occur, the Jews will be sent straight to hell. Of course, Jews don't believe this and are still waiting for their own 1st Coming or whatever. So fundamentally, Christian and Jewish beliefs about the area are strictly opposed to each other, but politically, it makes sense. Christians want to keep control of Israel, which is occupied by Jews. Therefore, Christians support Israel seemingly at all costs. Jews don't believe the 2nd Coming story, but they are more than happy to have the full support of the most powerful nation on earth, no matter what the reasoning is.

2) racism, i believe - this is tied into the religion thing, but I think a lot of white folks over here get worked up over the thought of a tiny country of whitish people, with a religion pretty similar to theirs, surrounded on all sides by mean brown-skinned people

1/9/2010 12:28:56 PM

Quote :

"I assume you were complaining about "Hollywood security" for the last 8 years, right?"

Yes I was.

1/9/2010 12:29:36 PM

Quote :

"or we could just stop pissing these folks off."

Easily the most absurd thing posted in this thread.

1/9/2010 12:37:05 PM

mambagrl needs to get banned for reals

1/9/2010 7:30:40 PM

Perhaps we should follow the example of the legendary and revered hero of America Franklin Roosevelt. For national security, for their own protection, and the good of the american people we should round up all muslim american people and send them to internment camps until this war on terror ends.

1/9/2010 8:14:29 PM

Maybe you disagree with it but why do you think its an absurd idea to change the immoral policy that has lead to Jihad against us.

Yes, terrorism is wrong and two wrongs don't make a right but wouldn't it be nice to have the moral high ground here?

1/9/2010 8:31:11 PM

We do.

1/9/2010 9:51:53 PM

immoral policy?

immoral in the sense of not worshiping some made up presence?

1/9/2010 10:33:49 PM

Why do you think islamic extremists attack/attempt to attack us?


((hickmisconceptionhint), its not because we wear bikinis and aren't muslim. 80% of the world is non muslim. its also not because we are "rich" see switzerland and many others)

1/9/2010 11:13:11 PM

they fucking hate Switzerland too.

1/9/2010 11:38:19 PM

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ter_glo_ter_ind-terrorism-global-indicator


check out where

norway
south korea
iceland
finland
luxemburg
ireland
netherlands
denmark

are. some of the wealthiest, non muslim, panty waving nations on the planet.

As a matter of fact, the five wealthiest nations, have a terrorism indicator of 0.

1/9/2010 11:59:38 PM

Quote :

"mambagrl needs to get banned for reals"

she speaks some truth in here. I know its hard to swallow that American foreign policy isn't right all any of the time.

1/10/2010 12:12:15 PM

I kind-of view mambagrl as the leftist equivalent to aaronburro. She seems to be able to keep him tied up enough not to bother other threads.

1/10/2010 12:17:23 PM

Quote :

"Maybe you disagree with it but why do you think its an absurd idea to change the immoral policy that has lead to Jihad against us. "

What, exactly, is this immoral policy you speak of? And how does it stack up against the immorality of al Qaeda and its allies? And did you seriously just imply that Islamic extremists don't have any beef with Denmark?

Quote :

"I know its hard to swallow that American foreign policy isn't right any of the time."

If you think that al Qaeda is waging a holy war against the West, Shias, moderate Sunnis, Kurds, Hindus, and others because of American meddling in Perisia half a century ago, then you are embarrassingly ignorant of the situation.

1/10/2010 3:28:33 PM

Quote :

"If you think that al Qaeda is waging a holy war against the West, Shias, moderate Sunnis, Kurds, Hindus, and others because of American meddling in Perisia half a century ago, then you are embarrassingly ignorant of the situation."

You just embarrassed yourself with your ignorance

1/10/2010 3:32:30 PM

How so?

1/10/2010 3:33:06 PM