Democrats & Liberals Archives

Giuliani: Bush's Disciple

I find it amazing that though President Bush is in the basement of public opninion because of his stubborn refusal to define an exit strategy in Iraq, Rudy Giuliani thinks he can win the presidency by following Bush’s lead: Bashing Democrats as defeatists who are eager to surrender in Iraq. Evidently, he is unaware that American sentiment about Iraq has changed.

If he keeps it up, his ridiculous statements will assure that no Republican will win the 2008 election. Wonderful! Giuliani outdid Bush with this statement:

If any Republican is elected president — and I think obviously I would be the best at this — we will remain on offense....I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense. 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.

This sort of divide-and-conquer rhetoric has worked very well for Bush. So Giuliani thinks it will work for him as well. It will not. Giuliani is behind the times. This ferocious bashing of Democrats worked in the past, in 2002 and 2004. It did not work in 2006. Why? Because everyone saw what a fiasco Bush led us into through secrecy and skullduggery.

Furthermore, and perhaps of greater importance, Democrats are not taking it as they did before. They are answering back.

Barack Obama released this statement:

Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject [this] kind of politics. America’s mayor should know that when it comes to 9/11 and fighting terrorists, America is united. We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure. I think we should focus on strengthening our intelligence, working with local authorities and doing all the things we haven’t yet done to keep Americans safe. The threat we face is real, and deserves better than to be the punchline of another political attack.

You can't win in the fight against terrorists by dividing the country. Uniting the country - which Democrats want to do - is the first step in winning this great conflict.

Senator Hillary Clinton released this statement:

One of the great tragedies of this administration is that the president failed to keep this country unified after 9/11. We have to protect our country from terrorism. ­It shouldn’t be a Democratic fight or a Republican fight. The plain truth is that this Administration has done too little to protect our ports, make our mass transit safer, and protect our cities. They have isolated us in the world and have let Al Qaeda regroup.

And a tougher statement was released by the DNC:

How can the man who failed to prepare NYC for a second attack after the first one, quit the 9/11 commission because he was too busy raking in money from sketchy business deals, can't assess if the surge is working or if Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons claim that he will keep America safe?

Rudy, you are not such a hero. The public knows that now. They know that Republicans have won many elections through fraud and smears, and they govern through secrecy and corruption. Last November, the public elected a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House. In November of 2008 they will elect a Democratic President.

Rudy, be a good disciple of Bush and keep up the attacks. It's the best way to elect a Democratic president.

Posted by Paul Siegel at April 25, 2007 5:27 PM
Comments
Comment #218438

I wouldn’t count my chickens before they hatch. With all the BS from both major parties you might just see a big upset and an independent get elected. I hope that a good independent does throw his hat into the ring soon.

Posted by: KAP at April 25, 2007 5:40 PM
Comment #218466

I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense. 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.

That may be an over-the-top and divisive way of putting it, but let’s face it… this is the Democrat’s policy in a nutshell. In fact, most of them will tell you that’s what they want.

How can the man who failed to prepare NYC for a second attack after the first one… ?

One might just as well ask ask how the party who failed to prepare the country for a second attack can claim that they will keep America safe.

The Democrats failed us before 911 and the Republicans failed us after. Since both parties refuse to update their dangerous platforms, neither of them has any credibility left on this issue.

Posted by: IceWarrior at April 25, 2007 9:33 PM
Comment #218469

Why it that when Republicans attack Democratic policies “they are trying to divide the country,” but when Democrats attack Republican policies it’s done in order to “unite the nation?” It takes some serious mental gymnastics—and a great deal of blind partisanship—to see things in those terms.

It’s obvious that both parties (AND Independents—so don’t think they’re innocent lambs either) indulge in a great deal of smearing and empty posturing.

Additionally, the very term “devisive politics” that seems to have entered our political vocabulary is an absurdity.

If you have a position—any position—then those who don’t agree are being “devisive” insofar as they spoil the perfect unity that would prevail if everybody saw things your way. But they could just as well say that YOU are the one being devisive.


Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 25, 2007 11:13 PM
Comment #218498

One might just as well ask ask how the party who failed to prepare the country for a second attack can claim that they will keep America safe.

You’re talking about the Republicans, right?

How can the man who failed to prepare NYC for a second attack after the first one…

This is actually an underestimate. Rudy insisted on the putting the emergency response city in the WTC, even though his advisors said that he shouldn’t because it was a target (duh). The city would have been better off if he had ignored the issue.

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 26, 2007 8:39 AM
Comment #218505

I, for one, hope Guiliani gets his Party’s nomination. I’m dying to see which dress he’ll wear to the GOP primary victory party.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 26, 2007 12:13 PM
Comment #218514

I, for one, hope Guiliani gets his Party’s nomination. I’m dying to see which dress he’ll wear to the GOP primary victory party.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 26, 2007 12:13 PM

I’d rather see Rudy in a dress than Hillary in one of Bill’s old suits. Does anyone have a photo of Hillary in anything other than slacks? She should emulate the dressing style of our classy first lady, Laura Bush.

Posted by: Jim at April 26, 2007 1:26 PM
Comment #218517

Guiliani says that we will return to a pre 9-11 mentality.

Does that mean that we will no longer start foolish pre-emptive wars that cost 100,000 or more Iraqi lives and over 3,000 American lives?

Does that mean we will bring back the Bill of Rights that the disgraceful Patriot Act took?

Does that mean we will use an intelligent aaproach to stopping world terrorism rather than one of swatting flies with a sledgehammer?

Well, if that is what he was talking about than sign me up.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 26, 2007 1:44 PM
Comment #218524

>>Does that mean we will use an intelligent aaproach to stopping world terrorism rather than one of swatting flies with a sledgehammer?

Well, if that is what he was talking about than sign me up.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 26, 2007 01:44 PM

I’m with you, Tom, the only fear the terrorists have right now is that we’ll actually pull out of Iraq, and dedicate our resources to a real ‘war on terror’…

Posted by: Marysdude at April 26, 2007 3:10 PM
Comment #218539

Marysdude

What would a democrats real “war on terror” look like anyway?

Remember, a war is offensive in nature and requires “winning”…

Posted by: cliff at April 26, 2007 5:39 PM
Comment #218545

>>What would a democrats real “war on terror” look like anyway?

Remember, a war is offensive in nature and requires “winning”…

Posted by: cliff at April 26, 2007 05:39 PM

cliff,

Well, for starters I’d quit refering to it as a ‘war’. Terrorists represent no government, they are criminals. A Democrat (me) would treat them like criminals. I’d enlist the help of as many nations as possible, by showing them that they would be better served if terrorists were rounded up and arrested (which is what we should have done to benLadin). And if I found it necessary to invade another nation, i.e., Afghanistan, I would take the steps and commit the resources to complete the mission. And lastly, I would not lie to the American people nor the world about a stupid mission in Iraq.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 26, 2007 7:02 PM
Comment #218582
I’d rather see Rudy in a dress than Hillary in one of Bill’s old suits.

Umm… Whatever gets you through the night, Jim. Thanks for sharing.

What would a democrats real “war on terror” look like anyway?

First off, it would actually involve killing al-Qaeda terrorists instead of Iraqi women and children.

It would involve changing the way Muslims think about America — winning them over by example to the principles of freedom and peace that we say we cherish — to keep the next generation from strapping on TNT belts.

A Democratic war on terror would be truly global in scope, involving the cooperation and resources of all civilized nations rather than trying to play Lone Ranger with a military more suited to refighting the Cold War.

In short, it would be effective, as opposed to the Republican strategy has done nothing but strengthen the enemy, because Democrats would wield ALL of America’s might against Islamic extremism, not just our overstretched military.

That’s what al-Qaeda fears most. In their own words:

“Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization.

Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected.”

Posted by: American Pundit at April 27, 2007 2:02 AM
Comment #218600

Well…

That’s what I thought you would all say…

Truly all things that have never been done before…

Posted by: cliff at April 27, 2007 11:45 AM
Comment #218611

That’s right, cliff. If they had, bin Laden would be dead and terrorism would be nothing but a minor nuisance by now.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 27, 2007 1:12 PM
Post a comment