Rudy Giuliani : Expect another 9/11 if you elect a Democrat

The_Giver

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
61
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.

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.

The 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.”

“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.”

more

What a funny guy...
 
Werbung:

Sgt Schultz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
188
Location
The suburbs of St. Louis
The more the public learns about Giuliani the less support he's going to end up with, or at least I hope so. Besides, anyone who claims we are going to defeat or eliminate terrorism does not understand what terrorism is.
 

TheWaffle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
79
This is exactly what I hate. When people yell at the top of their lungs "Democrats are anti-American."
"Republicans are traitors to the constitution."

Could anything be more ridiculous?

It greatly disturbs me that come Fall 2008 Americans are going to vote for democrats if they want out of Iraq and Republicans if they want to stay. That's no way to decide an election. It disturbs me that the real candidates can't rise above this kind of hackery. Hillary Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, McCain should all be ashamed. I hope none of them get elected. We need a president who does more than just trash-talk and fear-monger the best.
 

USMC the Almighty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
2,070
This is exactly what I hate. When people yell at the top of their lungs "Democrats are anti-American."
"Republicans are traitors to the constitution."

Could anything be more ridiculous?

It greatly disturbs me that come Fall 2008 Americans are going to vote for democrats if they want out of Iraq and Republicans if they want to stay.

It's the nature of elections. Look back to '04. The election was literally about Swift Boat Veterans vs. forged Nat'l Guard documents. Is this what we've come to?
 

vyo476

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,401
Location
Massachusetts
It's the nature of elections. Look back to '04. The election was literally about Swift Boat Veterans vs. forged Nat'l Guard documents. Is this what we've come to?

I remember having this discussion with someone during the '04 election. We were talking about how we dislike both candidates. The question then was "Is this election really "who do you dislike less?" Is that what we've come to?" and sadly the answer was a resounding yes.

Unfortunately, it isn't what we've come to. It's what we've always been. Look at the elections in 1796, 1800, 1824, 1860, 1876, and 1912 to see what I mean. The first three especially though. George Washington, our "first" president, was unanimously elected, and every one since then has had to fight to get into office. Except Ford, of course.
 

USMC the Almighty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
2,070
I remember having this discussion with someone during the '04 election. We were talking about how we dislike both candidates. The question then was "Is this election really "who do you dislike less?" Is that what we've come to?" and sadly the answer was a resounding yes.

Unfortunately, it isn't what we've come to. It's what we've always been. Look at the elections in 1796, 1800, 1824, 1860, 1876, and 1912 to see what I mean. The first three especially though. George Washington, our "first" president, was unanimously elected, and every one since then has had to fight to get into office. Except Ford, of course.

You touched on a lot of the so-called "realignment elections" there, vyo. Very interesting, especially the 1876 one.
 

vyo476

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,401
Location
Massachusetts
You touched on a lot of the so-called "realignment elections" there, vyo. Very interesting, especially the 1876 one.

If the election of 1876 wasn't the single most blatant violation of the sovereignty of American citizens than I'd be physically ill to find out what was. As is, just thinking about Rutherford Hayes and Sam Tilden makes me a little queasy (especially since I think Sam Tilden would have made a tremendous President - and instead we got Rutherford "Don't Worry I Won't Run Again!" Hayes).

Still, I'd have to point to 1824 as the worst of the bunch. The tactics employed by the Adams campaign were some of the most vicious and slanderous in our history - everything from his lack of formal education to certain mishaps involving his wife's previous marriage (which technically didn't end until a few years after she married Jackson). Today parties throw around grandiose claims about the candidates that people only believe if they want to. In 1824 the Adams people dug up every painful and embarrassing thing ever to happen to Andrew Jackson, mixed it in with a whole bunch of elitist bull****, loaded it into a catapult and let loose right in the poor guy's face. I may not like Jackson all that much but the lengths that the Democratic-Republicans who didn't like him in the early nineteenth century went to try and keep him out of office were disgusting and inexcusable. You'd think we'd have learned from that, but instead we only learned to get worse at doing it.
 

USMC the Almighty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
2,070
If the election of 1876 wasn't the single most blatant violation of the sovereignty of American citizens than I'd be physically ill to find out what was. As is, just thinking about Rutherford Hayes and Sam Tilden makes me a little queasy (especially since I think Sam Tilden would have made a tremendous President - and instead we got Rutherford "Don't Worry I Won't Run Again!" Hayes).

But more significantly, it ended Reconstruction.
 

vyo476

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,401
Location
Massachusetts
But more significantly, it ended Reconstruction.

There's another huge debate that centers on that word that I'm not sure I want to get into. Admittedly my Reconstruction era history is more than a little shoddy - Besides the fact that Johnson and Grant both had enormous issues and most of the social inequities in the South weren't dealt with but were just swept under the carpet. Yeah, not our finest moment.
 

Dave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
364
This is exactly what I hate. When people yell at the top of their lungs "Democrats are anti-American."
"Republicans are traitors to the constitution."

Could anything be more ridiculous?

It greatly disturbs me that come Fall 2008 Americans are going to vote for democrats if they want out of Iraq and Republicans if they want to stay. That's no way to decide an election. It disturbs me that the real candidates can't rise above this kind of hackery. Hillary Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, McCain should all be ashamed. I hope none of them get elected. We need a president who does more than just trash-talk and fear-monger the best.

I couldn't agree more. Its hard to believe that Obama could get the funding he has when his entire platform consists of "I was always against the war, so that means I should be the one to end it." McCain is no better. Its unbelievable that he is still seen as the maverick outsider that would change the way Washington works.

Right now I'm hoping Mitt Romney can make a good run. He might be the only legitimate candidate I see right now that won't split the country further than it already is.
 

vyo476

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,401
Location
Massachusetts
I couldn't agree more. Its hard to believe that Obama could get the funding he has when his entire platform consists of "I was always against the war, so that means I should be the one to end it." McCain is no better. Its unbelievable that he is still seen as the maverick outsider that would change the way Washington works.

Right now I'm hoping Mitt Romney can make a good run. He might be the only legitimate candidate I see right now that won't split the country further than it already is.

Mitt Romney might not split the country any further than it already is but he won't do anything particularly good either. His tenure as governor of my state wasn't the worst in recent memory but his policies didn't do us a whole lot of good and really just raised our taxes. The one thing he did was he got a couple of the Big Dig projects open but sadly Boston is still (and will always be) a freaking mess.

Politicians from Massachusetts are just a bad, bad idea. Those of us from Massachusetts with brainpower and a lack of strong partisan ties admit that rather freely.
 

9sublime

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
2,620
Location
Bristol
It scares me that many of your election candidates could become the most powerful individual in the world (or so they say). Although the state of the UK is not much better. At least Blair is going out the window this time around.
 

TheWaffle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
79
It scares me that many of your election candidates could become the most powerful individual in the world (or so they say). Although the state of the UK is not much better. At least Blair is going out the window this time around.

It is tragic but many other countries are not much better. I remember hearing one politician give a speech in Austria talking about how he 'Wanted to get rid of these black drug dealers with their gold chains and cell phones, he wanted to purify Austria.'

Another thing is that the world has never been run by the wise. I think it's because the smarter people of the world find other more human forms of fufilment. The type of person who encounters the drive to conquer all others is usually very unstable. Likewise the rulers of the royal families raised as royalty from birth had extremely skewed views of the world.
 

Raiderwalt

New Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
1
Here's what I like about this statement. It ignores the fact that the worst attack ever occured on their watch. I know they like to blame Clinton for being asleep at the wheel, but once they took over it didn't seem like fighting terrorists was a top priority for the Bushies. Tax cuts, yes.
 
Werbung:

marilynj55

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Messages
22
I couldn't agree more. Its hard to believe that Obama could get the funding he has when his entire platform consists of "I was always against the war, so that means I should be the one to end it." McCain is no better. Its unbelievable that he is still seen as the maverick outsider that would change the way Washington works.

Right now I'm hoping Mitt Romney can make a good run. He might be the only legitimate candidate I see right now that won't split the country further than it already is.

I think this election will be won by the person with the strongest position on getting us OUT of Iraq as soon as possible. That is the issue that is splitting our country apart right now. My understanding is Romney supports the war. How could his being president and us continuing in Iraq, be in any way good for our country?
 
Top