+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/17/2018 10:08 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  5.022 Visits   5 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality: Good
Back to Overview  
04/25/2007 08:16 AM ID: 62018 Permalink   

Giuliani Cautions: Another 9/11 if Democrats Win


At a town hall meeting at New England College in Henniker, N.H., Rudy Giuliani, a US Presidential candidate and former NY City mayor, warned that America would be prone to another terrorist attack equal to that of 9/11 if Democrats win the 2008 election.

“If any Republican is elected president…we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani opined and added, “… if one of [the Democrats] gets elected, we are going on defense."

“Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake; the Democrats want to put us back on defense!” Giuliani’s statements received raucous approval.

    WebReporter: CArnold Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  Chris Rock on Rudy Giuliani  
“Rudy, you know, Rudy in a crisis is perfect — he’s like a pitbull. It’s great if somebody’s breaking in your house. But if they’re not, then, you know, the pitbull might eat your kids.”
  by: ironic   04/25/2007 08:58 AM     
  Didn't the last...  
9/11 attack happen after a republican was elected?

Maybe the terrorists only attack if we switch the party of the president.
  by: tellgar     04/25/2007 09:15 AM     
It's the same the world over, stupid war-hungry politicians.

Always for the actions, always airbrushing out the consequences.

Comments like his just compound my belief that people like him know they will suffer no ill effects no matter how big the war, or how many suffer.
  by: Maxx20     04/25/2007 09:28 AM     
  @tellgar: funny  
In that case, lets keep this one.
Yeah, lets. </sarcasm>
  by: redstain   04/25/2007 09:28 AM     
  Haha, what a nut  
I am not sure what else to say about it. He takes the 9/11 thing to such an extreme that it is pretty scary.
  by: Fratley   04/25/2007 10:24 AM     
Wow what a wholly embarrassing statement to make. With this sort of lowest common denominator campaign I think the Dems already have this one in the bag.
  by: Hugo Chavez     04/25/2007 10:36 AM     
you've gotta love it when the republicans say they're the best at fighting terror, and everyone just accepts it as truth. um, republicans just turned the entire nation of iraq into a terrorist breeding ground, and we're suppose to trust the same type of offensive ideology to now defeat it? show me one thing the republicans have done to successfully fight terror.
  by: ManilaRyce     04/25/2007 10:37 AM     
They broke the power base of al queda, the taliban.
  by: Gogevandire   04/25/2007 10:45 AM     
really? they broke the taliban?
  by: ManilaRyce     04/25/2007 10:51 AM     
"show me one thing the republicans have done to successfully fight terror."

I sure hope you planned a long fishing trip, because I don't know what else you plan on doing with that big can of worms you just opened.

How about this question...

Show me anything the Dems and Libs have done to successfully fight terror.

(Lip service, surrender, and cut-and-run don't count as accomplishments, BTW.)
  by: CArnold     04/25/2007 10:58 AM     
Yes, qhich is why the taliban are now fighting a guerilla war, not leading a country.

I said broke there powerbase, not wiped them out.
  by: Gogevandire   04/25/2007 11:02 AM     
"really? they broke the taliban?"

Considering they're using 12yr old boys to carry out their executions, I'd say they're pretty hard up for recruits. Using impressionable little boys to commit their deeds? Something is definitely broken in their network!

Between blowing themselves up and getting picked off by the Coalition, there may not be enough around for Giuliani's prediction to come to fruition. :-)
  by: CArnold     04/25/2007 11:03 AM     
but losing a war and having soldiers slaughtered do count as accomplishments then?
  by: NuttyPrat     04/25/2007 11:03 AM     
"Yes, qhich is why the taliban are now fighting a guerilla war, not leading a country"

which means what exactly? a lot of the monetary support for al-qaeda comes from independently wealthy sunnis. can you think of any republican-friendly country which might have a lot of those? also, i trust that your memory of republican involvement with the taliban goes a bit further back than bush.
  by: ManilaRyce     04/25/2007 11:28 AM     
"but losing a war..."
How do you define "losing a war"? Let's get on the same page before delving into this.

"...having soldiers slaughtered..."
"Slaughtered". Interesting word choice. Considering the length/casualty rate of this war, the US has suffered fewer casualties in Iraq than any other war of this length and magnitude. If this constitutes a slaughter, then WWII and the Korean War were "Exterminations".
  by: CArnold     04/25/2007 11:35 AM     
  Your point?  
Osama is an exiled Saudi Prince.

The current Saudi's dont like him, the idea of them funding him, when he activly wants to topple them, is lunacy.

I also dont see the relevence of the US formerly training the taliban, what does it have to do with anything current?

The powerbase of the Taliban has been broken.
The Taliban were the main source of support for Al-queda.

So, breaking the taliban hurt al-queda.
  by: Gogevandire   04/25/2007 11:38 AM     
i never said the saudi royalty are funding osama, but they aren't as distant to him as you'd like to believe. i said independently wealthy saudis in general were. i also don't understand why you can't see that training terrorist groups like al-qaeda and the taliban is counterproductive to fighting terror. republican presidents have a history of training terrorists and fighting them later.

still, we can focus entirely on the present if you wish. the fact is that al-qaeda and the taliban are gaining more recruits, and have more safe havens throughout the middle east than ever before. neither organization is broken by any stretch of the imagination.
  by: ManilaRyce     04/25/2007 12:06 PM     
The Saudi Royals and friends are rich, everyone else is poor.

Osama wants to topple the heathen saudi royals and take over.
They aint funding him.

Its only been US policy to "fight terror" for 6 years, so the actions of the 80's can hardly be relevent on your terms.

The US isnt training terrorist groups like al-queda and the taliban, I'm not sure if they ever had anything to do with al-queda.
They're training a kurdish group at the moment, but since the kurds want an area the US doesnt, I dont see a future problem.

Al-queda is a sety of beliefs, you dont meet osama, swear an oath of loyalty and get given a silver penny.

However saying the taliban powerbase hasnt been broken is an outright fabrication.

They used to run a country, now they dont, they used to have an army, and now they're scattered guerilla bands.
I'd say they've been hurt pretty badly.
  by: Gogevandire   04/25/2007 12:23 PM     
  As for more recruits and safe havens  
probably, but I have never said invading Iraq was a good idea.
  by: Gogevandire   04/25/2007 12:25 PM     
That's one scary speech, next thing you know he will be talking about democracy needing to be preserved by eliminating the "unbelievers".

The Talibans power was all about sending a couple people out and causing problems. Which they still seem to be doing. Meaning that our involvement has equaled about jack vs squat, leaning more towards squat.
  by: splicer   04/25/2007 01:43 PM     
  Cut n Run?  
From the war on terrorism? Really? When did it begin?
  by: Kaleid   04/25/2007 02:19 PM     
  Do I smell flatulence?  
This is the same fear baiting I saw in the past two elections. Using their same flawed logic I will now blame 9/11 on the Republicans, George W. Gump and this asshat, Rudy Giuliani.

Dubya and Rudy were in power when the 9/11 attack occurred and were the only ones who could stop the attack so I blame them just as if they were flying the planes themselves. FU Giuliani, you are a lying turd. You caused 9/11 you murdering piece of dung. If any Republican is elected we are all dead. They will kill us all. They are murdering bastards who eat the flesh of our children. 3300+ of out children have been devoured whole by the Republicans, how many more do we have to feed them before their appetite is satiated? Is your child next?

Here’s mud in your eye. Wasn't that nice? If Giuliani can spew CRAP all over the planet so can I. I’m so sick of these lowlife fear tactics. Any respect I had for Giuliani just went out the door. So Rudy, what does it smell like up Dubya’s butt? Don’t the Republicans have anything positive to convince me I should vote for them? It seems all they have ever had to prop up their campaign is lies and mud slinging. Crawl back into your sewer scumbag.

Good morning everyone.

  by: Valkyrie123     04/25/2007 02:33 PM     
And the Russians thought the same thing, and when they pulled out of Afghanistan the Taliban moved right back in….and will again, and again, and again. Nothing has really changed; it’s just a temporary relocation measure for the Taliban. Sort of a pleasant outing in the mountains to refresh the soul and reaffirm their faith in Allah. A chance to kill a few infidels and reflect on their misspent youth. It’s kinda like a deer hunting trip here in the north woods. In the words of our illustrious president:

Dubya: “Fool me once……shame on you…..fool me twice…..uh…..uh…..Karl….Karl could you give me a hand here, seems my head is stuck up my butt again…..”

Karl: “DON’T TOUCH ME! I’m beating a hornet’s nest!”

Dubya: “Dick….Help!”

Dick: “How dare that old man stand in front of my shotgun and ruin my chances of being elected president!”

Dubya: “Condi , could you give me a little help out of here?”

Condi: “So now who’s the nappy headed hoe, bee-ache?”

Dubya: “<choke> <gasp>”

There, I think that was the full transcript.
  by: Valkyrie123     04/25/2007 03:01 PM     
  I agree with him  
he has all ready seen the plans of the new attack... There is no way America stops it wars now, it would mean the ruin of the country. It must continue at any cost. So if the democrats win, the USA has to be turned into a totalitarian state. This can be easily accomplished by a large scale terrorist attack.
  by: kraut   04/25/2007 03:20 PM     
  No wait, there’s more  
Dubya: “What’s this, I’m saved, a pretzel.” <chomp, chomp, yumm> <choke> <gasp> “DAMN YOU PRETZEL, YOU FOOLED ME AGAIN!” <flop>…….

Hold applause, just send money.
  by: Valkyrie123     04/25/2007 04:44 PM     
  Blah blah blah  
He knows where all the white vans will be.
  by: machiavelli     04/25/2007 05:04 PM     
I was hoping Rudy would end up being fairly moderate. It turns out he's just as much an extremist as the rest of those maniacs.
  by: erasedgod   04/25/2007 05:08 PM     
  And remember, kids...  
If your vote isn't swayed by fear of terror, the terrorists win.
  by: erasedgod   04/25/2007 05:09 PM     
  rudy just loves to pander to jews  
downfall of the U.S.
  by: rebeldick   04/25/2007 05:12 PM     
Is what has been done to this country's economy, cost of living, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Media, Military, and the psyche of a once proud people. I am generally ashamed at what america has become...and yes, I purposely did not capititalize. The republicans did this, the democrats helped. The people are blind, lazy, disillusioned and confused.
The right wing has destroyed the peoples future from the bully pulpit of morality, while being the most debase, corrupt and despicable waste of human flesh. I pity the poor christians who support these trough feeding swine, who have been used to build the new Reich, these pious and moral dupes who prefer the mass murder and treasonous opportunism of these pariahs of society....just as long as boys dont kiss, and blacks don't move in down the block. I hope you all are sodomized by Blackwater mercs, when they evacuate you for your own "safety" because of the nouveau flu coming down the pike. Find a comfy spot in the Haliburton hotels now being built in rural long as you can pray right? Oh yeah...I forgot the mythical "rapture" will save you all before they break it off in your ass.

In the words of one of the wisest Americans:

"All your children are poor unfortunate victims of the lies that you believe"

" If we were made in God's image, and we are dumb...then God is dumb"

Frank Zappa

  by: machiavelli     04/25/2007 05:40 PM     
Oh yeah, I forgot about The War on Pretzels!
  by: theironboard     04/25/2007 05:57 PM     
Actually they look pretty 'slaughtered' to me coming in sometimes. And though they may not be '12' they're still young and impressionable as well and we're pretty hard up for recruits too. I got your can of worms.
  by: Tanja   04/25/2007 06:38 PM     
Seems all the moderate hopefuls the Republicans have to offer have all turned into the same old partisan extremists. Forget healing, forget cooperation, forget bringing honesty back to the White House, here's some more terror and cheerleading. I bet CArnold's ecstatic. Speaking of which...

"Show me anything the Dems and Libs have done to successfully fight terror."

What an load of ditto-headed spin. The Republicans had the reigns for most of this flawed endeavor, and they certainly didn't take suggestions until America gave the majority to the Democrats. If the Democrats achieved nothing, it was due to Republican obstruction, and it is only the latter party with the long trail of failed policies behind it.
  by: MomentOfClarity     04/25/2007 07:04 PM     
  Rudy Giuliani  
Is just being a demagogue. That's what the right does best. They win you over with fear and intimidation.
  by: Lurker     04/25/2007 07:23 PM     
The Republicans have been doing an absolutely
brilliant job of reigning in people who want to kill
Americans. Yes indeed...
  by: Mister crank     04/25/2007 07:54 PM     
  reining, not reigning.  
My whoops.
  by: Mister crank     04/25/2007 07:54 PM     
  is it just me  

@kraut: what? sarcasm, right?

In any case, 9/11 happened, and like most media worthy events, it will be used to perpetuate the idea of war. The problem here is not that we've gone to war, it's how we went to war. We sent the MIGHT of the UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES to F up iraq, based on a lie. nonetheless we did a DAMN good job in the beginning by strategically blowing crap up. Then we kinda settled down, and stopped blowing up so much crap, acting like the war was over. In reality the war wasn't over, but the using the might of the army to fight scattered independent groups is asinine. There should be well trained invidually grouped forces working under cover and silently eliminating those we call enemy. It's analgous to using a sledgehammer to crush an ant mound. While you may destroy that entrance, more exist, as do tunnels. Moral, 9/11, a lesson. Our security isn't air tight... no countries' is. Fear will only beget fear, and cripple the body and mind. We don't fear.. the weak who don't fight the wars fear. The lesson is that whatever you sow unto american soil, like in biblical times shall be reaped ten fold. Destroy the few, and you will incur the wrath of the many. No large scale terrorist attack can break the american will. When you blow OUR crap up... . we WILL come and S&*t in your cornflakes... :-)
  by: Burnfactor77   04/25/2007 08:04 PM     
  You can't have a 'war on terrorism"  
its like a war on night combat. You can't fight a tactic! they finally have defined a war they can never win.
  by: MmmMan     04/25/2007 08:12 PM     
"...we're pretty hard up for recruits too."

Sorry, but that is the incorrect answer.

Military Recruitment Continues To Exceed Expectations
(April 11, 2006 7:30 p.m. EST)

"I got your can of worms."
Really? Whew! I thought I lost that can.
Tell you what, since you found and opened the can, feel free to keep it.
  by: CArnold     04/26/2007 12:46 AM     
That article had old numbers. Here is a more up-to-date figure.

Recruiting Numbers Exceed Goals
(January 12, 2007)
  by: CArnold     04/26/2007 12:49 AM     
That's cute. I'm pretty certain that the Marine corps is giving anyone who reenlists $10,000. Signing bonuses are getting higher and higher. Just about everyone over E4 that I know has been grabbed for recruiting duty.
  by: erasedgod   04/26/2007 01:01 AM     
Look who the source of that story is.

Like they'd say anything otherwise.

Wake up to yourself man, its not too late...

  by: Zmethod     04/26/2007 01:02 AM     
I'm relatively sure that Tanja is serving, as am I. You can quote sources all you want, but we can see what's going on around us.
  by: erasedgod   04/26/2007 01:02 AM     
  army recruitment  
anyone with half a brain knows that the army has lowered its recruitment goals by the thousands, along with its standards for recruitment by allowing more category IV applicants. it's not surprising that carnold is the only one here fooled by this.
  by: ManilaRyce     04/26/2007 01:54 AM     
  Wait a Minute  
I remeber seeing "Mission Acomplished" to the war years ago, I can't see Bush lying to everyone about anything let alone that.

CArnold your are a absoulte Lunatic, i'm sorry that your parents droped you on your head so many times.
  by: CriticalCone   04/26/2007 02:24 AM     
  A commentary  
Il Duce Speaks: GOP Loss Means Another 9/11 (libertarian website)
  by: Kaleid   04/26/2007 02:54 AM     
Here i was thinking Rudy might be a real contender.
  by: jendres     04/26/2007 03:12 AM     
“anyone with half a brain knows that the army has lowered its recruitment goals…”

Anyone with half-a-brain and a high-school-level of American History knows that during war-time more troops are required vs troops required during peace time. More troops are required, hence standards (age and background) are softened to meet stringent quotas. Nothing new. It's been practiced for decades.
  by: CArnold     04/26/2007 04:32 AM     
"I'm relatively sure that Tanja is serving, as am I."
You're certain of this?
What is your role in the military? Are you a recruiter?

"You can quote sources all you want, but we can see what's going on around us."
Because you're more knowledgeable than those in the field doing the reporting... right? Yeah... ok.
  by: CArnold     04/26/2007 04:35 AM     
"CArnold your are a absoulte Lunatic, i'm sorry that your parents droped you on your head so many times."

And I'm sorry your parents didn't teach you how to have a meaningful discussion without resorting to personal attacks and mudslinging. Very mature.
  by: CArnold     04/26/2007 04:38 AM     
  All in all...  
Giuliani is saying what everyone has known for years:

Dems and Libs are appeasers and self defeatists. Strong tongues and weak backs. No conviction of principles or fortitude to do what is necessary. No idea of handling problems -- just plunk your head into the ground and pretend problems don't exist. Retreat and surrender.

Just read all the news coming out of the Dems/Libs camp. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has held 3 stances in the past 5 months:

1) "I fully support the war and the troops. We will stay and win the war!"
2) "I fully support the war and troops, but we must have a timetable to pull out."
3) "We must pull out by October."

3 stances in 5 months. I always thought "flip-flops" were a type of thong shoe. Between Kerry, Reid, and many other Democrats, “flip-flop” has taken on a whole new meaning. That’s typical of this party, though. No conviction. No beliefs. No plan. Just flowing with the current of mainstream media. Freakin’ disgraceful.

Oh… and let’s not forget Hillary Clinton.
Shortly after announcing she would be running for president, she VOWED to bring home all the troops, if elected. Months later, she reneged on her promise. She stated that the US couldn’t bring the troops home because it was in the interest of our national security to have them there for several more years. How does one go from one extreme stance to the other side?

Last, but certainly not least: What have the Dems or Liberals done to help combat the war on terror? Nada. Zip. Zero. Before the ’06 elections, every Dem and Liberal jumped in front of every news camera to criticize the Republicans handling of the war and gripe of needing a new plan. America listened and bought the snake-oil from these charlatans. And what has changed since they’ve been in office? All I’ve seen is over $24-billion dollars proposed for pork-projects to lure and bribe House members into voting their way. Preposterous.

Cry and whine all you want, Dems. At least it’s one thing you’re guaranteed to do correctly.
  by: CArnold     04/26/2007 05:00 AM     
"'anyone with half a brain knows that the army has lowered its recruitment goals…'

Anyone with half-a-brain and a high-school-level of American History knows that during war-time more troops are required..."

Ah, so you're conceding that neither quantity OR quality are going so well for military recruiting. No surprise that it had to be parsed from your spin, and that you would belittle MILITARY people who would dare to contradict you...
  by: MomentOfClarity     04/26/2007 05:11 AM     
  All in all...  
...all that typing for the same cheap talking points. "Dems" this, "Libs" that, pity you're not one of the hacks who makes good money off such empty rhetoric.
  by: MomentOfClarity     04/26/2007 05:19 AM     
"Ah, so you're conceding that neither quantity OR quality are going so well for military..."

Quanitity? If they're meeting their recruitment goals, I don't see your argument to this.

Quality? They raised the max age limit to include those in their 30s. I think there are plenty out there that would take offense at you taking such cheap shots at their "quality" because of their age. Perhaps you should rethink (and retype) this thought.
  by: CArnold     04/26/2007 05:24 AM     
"...pity you're not one of the hacks who makes good money off such empty rhetoric."

Here's an instance where I would agree.
Considering you haven't denied or challenged any of the facts I've laid out before you, I can only conclude that you agree (albeit shamefully).
  by: CArnold     04/26/2007 05:27 AM     
  Oh yeah...  
Go Dems! Rosie O'Donnell for President! Woot!
  by: CArnold     04/26/2007 05:28 AM     
  1999 War Games Foresaw Problems in Iraq  
The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue.

How exactly do you win in a country where the vast majority thinks it OK to attack foreign troops?

The Iraqis are screaming, thanks for removing Saddam, now remove thy self!

80% believe in permanent occupation and they want YOU out!
  by: Kaleid   04/26/2007 05:29 AM     
"'I'm relatively sure that Tanja is serving, as am I.'
You're certain of this?"

Um... yeah... I have first-hand knowledge of at least half of that statement... I've got to admit, though, that I'm just making an educated guess about Tanja... you got me there.

"What is your role in the military?"

I'm an active-duty Marine based in North Carolina. Why?

"Are you a recruiter?"

No, but that hardly means I've haven't spoken to one recently.

"Because you're more knowledgeable than those in the field doing the reporting... right?"

I got a good chuckle at that, thanks. I didn't say I'm more knowledgeable; just more honest than those with an agenda.

While I applaud your conviction, you can only ignore the giant elephant in the room for so long.
  by: erasedgod   04/26/2007 05:35 AM     
  Nah, same song and dance...  
...why would I follow your lead? We both know the moves. You make sweeping, salacious claims, you're contradicted, you reframe the argument and change the topic by the time you're contradicted again. See the recruiting subject the time you were rebutted, you were talking about the history of war. I think don't think I need to disagree with you when reality does so sufficiently. The Dems have been legislating and investigating since they got into power. Or, would you have us believe that this bill including a timetable for withdrawal, just the most recent work, is coming out of thin air?
  by: MomentOfClarity     04/26/2007 05:41 AM     
"Go Dems! Rosie O'Donnell for President! Woot!"

Are you doing your own satire? You really are a ridiculous person.
  by: erasedgod   04/26/2007 05:44 AM     
“The Iraqis are screaming, thanks for removing Saddam, now remove thy self!
80% believe in permanent occupation and they want YOU out!”

Somalia wanted us out, too. Remember that? Do you remember how worse-off they were after we (and the UN) left? If not, you should read up on it.

Yes, we retreated from a conflict. Guess who was in charge? A Dem… of course.

“The failure was Clinton's decision to pull out the day after [18 soldiers died]. The truth is he lacked the kind of moral personal force that it took to persuade Congress and the American people that even though this is not popular, we have to do it."
—Bowden, in an interview with Elizabeth Snead, reporting for the Washington Post
  by: CArnold     04/26/2007 06:15 AM     
  I didn't wanna read all of your posts.  
This issue came up during the Cuban missile crisis during one of the hardest decisions of the 20th century. Bobby Kennedy was adamant about being on the offense to attack the Cubans before they could finish the Russian missile placements.

After a long hard discussion Bobby came to the realization that the US has never been an offensive nation and he did not believe it was part of our belief's in the USA. Obviously this ideal has went astray, but Bobby's reasoning was that if we as a nation began to perform strategic offensive attacks on the enemy it would be no different in what the Japanese did to us at Pearl Harbor. He also believed that being such a powerful nation we had a great responsibility to maintain our appearance of a respectable body in the international community. Once you start attacking to prevent a 'possible attack' you are no different than the enemy.
  by: kuhl   04/26/2007 06:16 AM     
“You make sweeping, salacious claims, you're contradicted, you reframe the argument and change the topic by the time you're contradicted again.”

MoC, when have you ever contradicted me with facts? Links, please?
Enough said.

“See the recruiting subject the time you were rebutted, you were talking about the history of war.”

And now I’m talking to you about hypothetical contradictions and time-table bills. Did you have a point, or just a rant?

“Or, would you have us believe that this bill including a timetable for withdrawal, just the most recent work, is coming out of thin air?”

Bush indicated his intentions to veto any Bill that included an artificial timetable. He was very clear on this.
What did the Dems do? Work alllll this time on a Bill with an artificial timetable. Glad to see that my tax dollars are being spent so that they can do all this BS posturing. All they’ve done is waste time and money with this ridiculous Bill. If they were so intent on contributing and helping, why did they not spend time creating a negotiable Bill, instead of one that would be axed? Back to the drawing board… Just another tactic to waste time without producing results. Typical crap.
  by: CArnold     04/26/2007 06:25 AM     
I don't claim to be a staunch Giuliani supporter. I think he's got a quite a few very good points and ideas, and this story would certainly be one of them.

However, the next President (if he runs) should be Fred Thompson.

That's our man. He's sure to bring "Law & Order" to all of us.

Go Fred!
  by: CArnold     04/26/2007 06:42 AM     
What is it with you Republicans and crappy actors?
  by: l´anglais     04/26/2007 06:59 AM     
Would you rather have a politician in office who was a great actor, or a crappy one?

I'd opt for the latter. Think about that...
  by: CArnold     04/26/2007 07:04 AM     
"...why did they not spend time creating a negotiable Bill..."

See, CArnold, this is why I don't waste time debating you, just pointing out your silliness. Since the Dems haven't committed sweeping reforms (insituting communism, sending Republicans to death camps, whatever silly things you think Dems want), that means they've done nothing. They can't get an acceptable timetable to a man who won't consider a timetable, so they've failed at bringing the troops home. I'd really like to hear just what you think a successful Democratic party would have accomplished. Let's hear it.

"MoC, when have you ever contradicted me with facts? Links, please?
Enough said."

Are you really so absurdly egotistical to think I'd go back to dig up such things? More silliness...
  by: MomentOfClarity     04/26/2007 07:34 AM     
“See, CArnold, this is why I don't waste time debating you, just pointing out your silliness.”

You’re becoming irate… aren’t you? Take a time-out, before you become unnecessarily ugly.
I’m not trying to be a smart arse, either. I actually think this conversation is evolving into something that could be educational and beneficial to all and I wouldn’t want it tainted with mudslinging. Let’s just stick to the topic and facts, shall we?

“Since the Dems haven't committed sweeping reforms (insituting communism, sending Republicans to death camps, whatever silly things you think Dems want), that means they've done nothing.”

Errrr… communism and death camps? You’re being pretty far fetched. Either you didn’t understand what I said in my post, or you’re just out-of-touch with what is expected from our “leaders”.

“They can't get an acceptable timetable to a man who won't consider a timetable, so they've failed at bringing the troops home. I'd really like to hear just what you think a successful Democratic party would have accomplished. Let's hear it.”

Great assessment and question. Seriously. And thanks for asking.

Before I state my answer, let’s briefly review how our government operates.

Before a bill becomes law, it must do one of two things:
1) Be passed in the House and receive the President’s signature approving the bill.
---------- OR ----------
2) Receive a two-thirds vote in the House. Once a bill receives a two-thirds majority vote, such a vote supersedes Presidential veto and becomes law.

A President can’t pick and choose which portions of the bill will pass, and which will be vetoed. It’s a packaged all-or-nothing deal. Either the Bill, as a whole, passes with his blessing, or it gets vetoed.

1 - The Dems pumped the bill with over $24-billion of pork-spending projects. What is “pork-spending”? It’s extravagantly excessive spending on menial or trivial projects.
For example:
Someone’s household income is $40K a year, and he has a wife and 2 kids. Yet, he spend $20K p/yr on building up his Baseball Card collection. This is a “pork project”. Money that could be better spent elsewhere is being spent on “trivial and menial projects”.

2 – Bush has made it perfectly clear that he would veto any bill that included an artificial timetable for troop withdrawal. The Dems spitefully included such a stipulation within their funding bill (along with $24-billion in pork projects). This bill was going to fail, and they KNEW it.

All the time and money preparing this bill was in vain. They knew it wouldn’t pass. This bill wasn’t a matter of “getting things done” or accomplishing anything of merit. It was pure posturing. When word of this bill reached Bush, he told them to stop the crap and give him a passable bill. Instead of working on such a bill, they instead took a week off for Spring Break! Incompetence at its finest!
  by: CArnold     04/26/2007 09:05 AM     
  The answer...  
What the Dems should have done is realize:

“Ya’ know what? We’re wasting time and tax-payers money with this stupid charade. Bush is going to Veto the crap out of this bill, and there is no way in Hades that we’re going to pass such a ridiculous bill pumped full of pork-fat through the House. If we’re going to pass this thing, we need to:
1 – Cut out all the fat. Taxpayers will be aghast with all this wasteful spending. We will shoot our credibility in the foot with this nonsense!
2 – If we want to institute a timetable, let’s create a non-partisan committee to monitor the progress in Iraq. Let’s measure the progress in 3 annual evaluations. If measurable progress is not consistently shown within those reviews, funding will be cut and the troops will come home.

Does that not sound like a reasonable compromise? I fully agree the war cannot go on indefinitely, but some concessions have to be made for any stipulative bill to pass without a two-thirds House vote. And even with such a compromise, it would allow supporters to support the war (although on an incentive basis). I’m quite certain that such a bill would pass a two-thirds majority vote and would even be given Presidential approval.

There’s my answer. If you, or anyone else, has a solution, I would like to hear them, as well.
  by: CArnold     04/26/2007 09:06 AM     
You're aware that the republicans created the biggest US government in US history? Bush loaned more money than all previous presidents put together.

You're in love with the republican party. What a joke.

The war on terrorism is a joke.

  by: Kaleid   04/26/2007 11:28 AM     
So that makes it ok for the Dems to waste money too?
  by: Gogevandire   04/26/2007 11:35 AM     
I'm not supporting either, but it's wrong to point out the dems as the big spender party when the republicans are responsible for the biggest US government ever.

The dems should begin to dismantle Orwellian crap like the "The Patriot Act". I don't expect them to. And I expect a lot of dems smiling at the idea of having permanent military bases in Iraq. You know, Clinton signed a regime change policy for Iraq back in 1998. Scott Ritter is correct, there's no real difference between the two parties in foreign policy. A lot of people screaming for an end on the Iraq disaster do not know these things. A lot of people also do not know that even Clinton during his years knew that Saddam was disarmed.

The elite as a whole think that people are stupid and easily mislead.

It's all pretty much a show.
  by: Kaleid   04/26/2007 11:44 AM     
I strongly recommend that you watch a BBC documentary that can now be found in 3 parts on google video. It's called the Power of Nightmares.
If you already believe you know everything then you have nothing to worry about by watching the documentary, but if you admit to yourself that you cannot be 100% sure, then this 3 part documentary has a very interesting opinion. Either way, I highly recommend you or anyone go and watch it.
  by: Rappy   04/26/2007 12:52 PM     
  Whats it about  
If its on a par with loose change, I have something to fear, wasting my time.

I'm not sure where this comment has come from though, what exactly have I said?
  by: Gogevandire   04/26/2007 01:04 PM     
  I wonder what they  
mean by another 9/11 - which was fake and planned. The dems are involved in the dirty plot and war? its possible. Giuliani should keep quiet, he was the Mayor of NY when the WTC was attacked, and everyday more evidence shows that 9/11 was a lie, i.e. inside job. I feel sorry for the Italians if Giuliani was involved. Its another blow to the Italian integrity. However, as written in the bible, 9/11 was a day of days - the truth shall come out, i just hope that this people catch up with god and let the world know the truth - besides being Busted completely, which no Army in the world can sustain a lie, this is so Hitler and he failed - good always triumphs over bad and there is always a Black Hole, everywhere in space, very near to make sure that we dont become completely godless. God is truth. Its true fact and only he can set us free. Welcome to judgment day of days.
  by: unitybeing   04/26/2007 01:21 PM     
its funny how Bush was in a class of children when the deceit happened, lack of innocence?
  by: unitybeing   04/26/2007 01:24 PM     
do people actually believe this drivel anymore...

it almost baffles me how 9/11 has managed to fly under the radar of ignorance this long... and even morese why the rest of the world allows the US to continue their pursuit of world domination under the guise of "fighting terrorism"

obviously giuliani is either gorssly ignorant of the fact that the US is the major leading cause in terrorism right now as their war is the breeding grounds of terrorism where one previously did not exist... despite the fact that the US government knowningly lied and said completely contrary to what was in iraq.... or he's just plain stupid... or under the thumb...errrr wallet.

*cue star wars empire music*

giunliani: we must keep the rebel scum from overthrowing the empire... i mean the democrats from overthrowing the rebpublicans.

speaking of which have bush and cheney been taking the star wars saga alittle too seriously....anyone else think this is strangely parallel to the events in "a galaxy far, far away and a long time ago", aside from the fact the bush unlike anakin was never a good
  by: havoc666     04/26/2007 01:35 PM     
  @unity being  
"its funny how Bush was in a class of children when the deceit happened, lack of innocence?"

also keeping in mind that allegedly they had received warning of the attack... although i'd go so far to say the exact minute of the collapse was determined before the planes ever left the ground. the planes nor the breif fires can actually explain the collapse... some people still cling the beaten and bruised popular mechanics to "prove" 9/11 happened exactly how the governemtn said it happened... completely disregaurding any fact that pointed in a direction the offical story did not mention... such has steel simply doesn't degrade that fast under such comparitively lower temperatures over such a breif time period... studies have shown that even at twice the temperature and 50% more time the steel used in the WTC would still easily have more than 50% integrity. buildings such as the windsor building in madrid, sapin have burnt for 20+ hours without a total collapse... as these types of building are designed to stop themselves from collapsing... hence why every few stories of multiple story building such as high rises and sky scrappers like the WTC, so the lower floor don't catch the collapsing floors and stop the collapse, which is what happen in the windsor building partial collapse... building such as these do this by being designed to hold their own weight several times over... the WTC was well-over designed in almost all respects. the WTC boasts a incrediblely much more robust core, which is entirely self supported; which would have been largely intact with only the most minor damage from the plane impact, and should have remained standing un affected even if all the support around it wer severed as it itself goes directly into the bedrock as well as the other 42/43 supports which surround it inside the shell.
  by: havoc666     04/26/2007 01:53 PM     
agreed, i remember when that info came out in 2002? 2003? eish it was right after the 9/11 - also the fact that most people were not at work when it happened, perhaps it was full of dolls or they allowed some collateral damage (2002 movie) to happen. Either way, this whole situation is so low, many have sold their souls and like the Bible said, it isnt the Devil's fault - it is the fault of those who sell their souls to him. I dont believe in blaming the 'devil' - but in comparison to Hitler, it was the German Army with the People that actually feed him the 'anti-jewish propaganda' - he was just a puppet like the first show he watched, watch the movie about him trying to be an artist, i actually think he was good. It is sad that he sold his soul thought, or perhaps became part of the movement to survive heh and perhaps let some jewish people escape, all very understandable, he perhaps had a gun to his head, until the end. Bush is ofcourse a different story - one which we will learn soon in history books.
  by: unitybeing   04/26/2007 02:07 PM     
  Rudy knows doody  
Remember this: Giuliani

Concerning NO WMDS

"No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?”

First of all, that's despicable. Plain and simple.
  by: machiavelli     04/26/2007 03:54 PM     
  let's check  
rudy's involvement in anything that has to do with all of bush's little secret org.'s like the bilderbergs and trilateral comission. how has he made his money recently? there is a reason why he threatens another terror attack, and that's because he is in league with those who are plotting it. members of the military industrial complex do still control the media and most other information sources with propaganda. the problem is, you could never understand just how deep it goes, or just how strong their systems of control are. why do you think bush is still in office, or why we have so many legacy candidates for senate and the house? so much old money in washington, and it's the same families who were there to begin with, and they are afraid of losing control of your lives. pay attention, people. it's a matter of true freedom or the illusion of choice between the lesser of two evils.
  by: warchylde010176   04/26/2007 04:21 PM     
I haven't seen loose change so I don't know. But I doubt it since Adam Curtis is a very respected anthropologist and not a shlock-media type like Michael Moore. I am guilty now of assuming Loose Change is in that Michael Moore vein, but anyway I don't really believe that. I am saying this in anticipation of this being a correct guess in your eyes. If you dont fancy it, he has another incredibly insightful 4 part documentary called Century of the Self. Which is a broader anthropological study of the 20th Century.

You wont find many better fought arguments, so I don't think you would even be wasting your time, for if you didn't agree with it you could arm yourself against the best of the "other sides" arguments.
  by: Rappy   04/26/2007 04:24 PM     
  Here's the link

I recommend anyone to watch the introduction and decide from there.
  by: Rappy   04/26/2007 04:30 PM     
  CArnolds Heroes  
Bush, Cheney, Rice, Frist, Foley, Cunningham, Abrahmof, Lay, Hastert, Grassley, Schwarzenegger, Wolfowitz, Strauss, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Rove, Libby, Gonzales, Santorum, Quayle, Nixon, North, Agnew, Hatch, Specter, Thurmond, Sensenbrenner, Young, Lewis, Tancredo, Weldon, Musgrave, Rogers, Blackburn, Foxx, Sessions, Lott, Boehner, Ney, Harris, Blunt..........

All these and more are indictable, and worthy of the finest accomodations the penal system has to offer. If you read comprehensively what they have done to this Republic, anyone regardless of party affiliation should be disgusted.

The Democrats have their skeletons as well, but this rogues gallery should have their exploits and TRUE voting records taught in civics classes in US schools.

Now let the shrieking begin...

@CA..I am an don't consider this a defense of the Democratic Party. But this criminality is hard to beat.

  by: machiavelli     04/26/2007 04:57 PM     
I'd take a great leader, like JFK or Bill Clinton, over a crappy actor like the Governator or Bonzo Goes to Washington, any four-year presidential term.

You're going to gripe about pork barrel spending now? Well, get off your high pig if you're acting like Republicans don't do this. You should read up on the career of Ted Stevens, R - Alaska, he of the $3 billion to help out senior citizens trying to switch to HDTV and the infamous "bridge to nowhere."

If Republicans are going to start slamming Democrats for pork projects, they're truly hypocritical. While I agree that pork spending is a problem, you can't blame it all on one party, one administration or even one era.
  by: l´anglais     04/26/2007 04:59 PM     
No one is trying to do so.
  by: Gogevandire   04/26/2007 05:07 PM     
Wait for CArnold to get out of bed and answer for himself said in the past you don't speak for him ...remember ...
  by: Hugo Chavez     04/26/2007 05:10 PM     
  the problem is  
you are all still worried about demicrips and rebloodlicans, it's all a farce, a smoke screen, a great-big festering diversionary distraction type tactic harvested simply to keep you all occupied. get over yourselves and look at the good of the whole, will you? those repulicans you think are straight laced aren't so conservative, and the dems that you think are liberal, really don't give a damn about the poor, the down trodden or the working class. you are being lied to, wake up!
  by: warchylde010176   04/26/2007 05:15 PM     
A President can’t pick and choose which portions of the bill will pass, and which will be vetoed. It’s a packaged all-or-nothing deal. Either the Bill, as a whole, passes with his blessing, or it gets vetoed."

You cleverly omitted the SIGNING STATEMENTS grossly overused by this criminal in excess of the sum total of ALL US Presidents ever and then multiplied to a ridiculous extreme.
Most American don't clearly understand how your formula is far from cut and dry.
  by: machiavelli     04/26/2007 05:55 PM     
  PORK FOR CArnold  
Before you embarass yourself any further about pork spending on US soil, justify to the American taxpayers this drain of US wealth.

Dov Zakheim a DUAL US-Israeli citizen was in charge of the Pentagon budget went 3 TRILLION Dollars went "missing"..anounced on Sept 10, 2001 by Rumsfeld.

Dov Zakheim, former Bush appointee as Pentagon Comptroller from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004. At that time he was unable to explain the disappearance of $1 trillion dollars. Actually, nearly three years earlier, Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001 that an audit discovered $2.3 trillion was also missing from the Pentagon books. That story, as I mentioned, was buried under 9-11's rubble. The two sums disappeared on Zakheim's watch.

5.3 trillion?..Give him a ham sandwich...hows that for pork?
  by: machiavelli     04/26/2007 06:14 PM     
Upset? It sounds like you're using the "shrieky and unhinged" ploy. If I'm upset, I place increasing emphasis...exclamation points, the occasional curse word, etc. I have no reason to be upset here, and I'll tell you why (though I rarely speak directly of an SN user). I view you much like I view people like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. At first, one is frustrated (even angered) by their baseless slander and spin. After a while, you realize that's all they have to offer, because they're so wrapped up in their ideology - they're all talking points. Arguing that Democrats might have a point would be like arguing that God might not exist to a fundamentalist Christian. So, one stops taking their prosteletyzing seriously, but it can be fun to point out overarching factual flaws and logical inconsistencies. Verstehst du?

I mention communism and death camps because I really don't think you have any idea what the Dems are about, just that Dems are Liberals and Liberals are wrong. I think you've remained ignorant reflexively, and when called on it you've STILL not been able to tell me just what the Dems, following their goals, should have done by now - just what YOU think they should be doing on one particular issue. This just confirms for me that you have no idea what the opposition is about, thusly how can your opinion of their success be credible?

Your summary is a perfect example of this. Firstly, you try to bring pork into this as if that's ever mattered to Bush in the last 6 years when the Republican Congress were passing pork-laden bills. Sorry, that's obviously a non-issue because he was notorious even to the right for never vetoing anything as a fiscal conservative should. Just what ARE the outrageous pork expenditures in this bill? Do you even have specifics, and if so, is there another "bridge to nowhere?" That was really special...

Next, you talk about the timetable as a "spiteful" measure, but the shallow motivation you ascribe to it is really reflective of your own understanding. The measure is not there to spite Bush, but because bringing the troops home is what the Dems were brought into Congress to do. Since you know this, I'm not sure if you're tangled up in your talking points or making dishonest arguments. Since the timetable is key to bringing the troops home, the Dems must keep hammering on it despite Executive opposition. If that is the most that is within their snowballing power now, that is still action. The most laughable part is that you support the obstinacy of the Executive, the real obstacle here, and even blame the DEMS for failing to work around it. That's simply where your plan fails - the elephant in the corner is that the Republicans refuse to compromise, a problem you pin on the Dems. Why, oh why, can't they make that blind man see?

It's really ridiculous, why get upset over it? The partisans are the clowns in the to laugh when they blast you with the seltzer.
  by: MomentOfClarity     04/26/2007 07:27 PM     
  hey now  
"I mention communism and death camps because I really don't think you have any idea what the Dems are about,"

as a modern socialist with communist tendencies, i take offence to that. when you say communist, you're thinking of russia's totalitarin regime, not true communism, please make the distinction. we are different from those who would execute others for having differing veiws.
  by: warchylde010176   04/26/2007 07:34 PM     
  Alexander Haig?  
Sounds like Giuliani is trying to be the next Alexander Haig.

The "War on Terror" is almost as successful as its predecessor, the uber-successful "War On Drugs".

Actually, I think that Borat® had it right when he stated that he supported America's "War Of Terror"...
  by: Zpravodajec     04/26/2007 07:34 PM     
  Don't worry, warchylde  
I'm only using the word in the ill-informed, pejorative sense often used by the Right because I'm implying that someone is ill-informed. The death camps thing was suggested as a separate, but similarly ill-informed, belief.
  by: MomentOfClarity     04/26/2007 07:49 PM     
thanx, it's hard to be a thinking socialist in a nation of cowboys.
  by: warchylde010176   04/26/2007 07:56 PM     
My sincere challenge to you: Stop everything your doing right now; drop your whole life, and get to your local recruiter's office. Come over here and 'do your part' and put some meat behind all that rhetoric. If you come out of your 2nd, 3rd tour feeling the same about republican policy thats fine too. But at least at that point you've served; you finally see the whole picture and we can take all take you a little more seriously. I double dare you, why not? 15 month tour Army or 7 month tour marine (due to their higher rate of 'slaughter'). -You choose, you can even bring your laptop!
  by: Tanja   04/27/2007 05:41 AM     
  Too late!  
I was bellied over laughing at Carnie's tossing about of tired clichés about liberals and his pompous recitation of half-truths, and I was about to pwn him once again, but I see he's already been sent through the spanking machine by the rest of you guys.

"The Democrats are capitulating, indecisive cowards! Conservatives have made our world so much safer! I want Michelle Malkin to put on a giant strap-on and pound me like the GOP wh*re I am! BAH! BAH! BAAAH!"

Hahaha. Carnie. Wot a laugh riot.
  by: Volkova_Nova     04/27/2007 08:27 AM     
I'm sure much of what I am going to say, has already been said. But I am too lazy to read 97 comments.

This guy is crazy. He is a Catholic who supports abortion and divorce. He is a Christian who cross dresses (a sin if you read the Bible).

On top of these weird contradictions he has the audacity to state that Democrats will cause another 9/11. Talk about extremist bull shit. Last time I checked Republicans were in office during 9/11. Bush was just finishing up a six week vacation chopping wood on his ranch. Republicans were so intent on 'restoring dignity' to the White House they didn't bother properly debriefing outgoing democrats about potential terror threats. They were asleep at the wheel during the attacks.

Since then we did attack terror groups in Afghanistan. But then Bush made up some lies and got us embroiled in an unwinnable war in Iraq that has cost this country billions of dollars, and thousands of lives.

The only thing we are doing in Iraq right now is reminding the Middle East why they should hate us.

When democrats win the next election, if we are attacked, it will not be because they are in office, it will be because Bush has done nothing for eight years but reinforce hatred of America all around the world.

His administration will be remembered as the cause of more foreign policy disasters than any other administration before. The corruption, the erosion of our rights, and giving people a real reason to hate us. He can take credit for all of that.

This hypocritical toss pot has no chance of winning. I am just so sick of hearing him milk his 'heroic' leadership during 9/11.
  by: ZCT     04/27/2007 03:19 PM     
  And CARnold takes them all on!  
You know what they say, my frothy friend, arguing on
the internet is a lot like competing in the special

Even if you win, you're still a re*ard.
  by: Mister crank     04/27/2007 09:56 PM     

“The failure was Clinton's decision to pull out the day after [18 soldiers died]. The truth is he lacked the kind of moral personal force that it took to persuade Congress and the American people that even though this is not popular, we have to do it."
—Bowden, in an interview with Elizabeth Snead, reporting for the Washington Post

If you knew anything about that, then you'd know that Clinton tried to sought approval from congress to continue the campaign in Somolia....

On November 9, 1993, the House used a section of the War Powers Resolution to state that U.S. forces should be withdrawn from Somalia by March 31, 1994; Congress had already taken this action in appropriations.

Guess what you asshat, the republicans were the majority party in congress at the time.

Hi-ho bush when you get some actual facts that don't fall apart upon just scratching the surface.

Have you ever thought about doing some fact finding yourself instead of repeating like a parakeet what Billy boy and Rush tell you?
  by: ukcn001xyz   04/28/2007 12:25 AM     
  Thanks, UKC  
That's exactly the source I was looking for to illustrate just why this malarky about the President being the sole decider in times of war is so wrong. Read up, CArnold - the Republicans checked Clinton with such "cut and run" tactics last time, and there was precedence for such checks prior to that. Portraying such measures as either new or inappropriate is just ignorant or dishonest.
  by: MomentOfClarity     04/28/2007 12:47 AM     
Uhm.........9/11 happened on republican's watches............hello?

WTC 93' and WTC 01' attacks happened on Giuliani's watch. He had 8 years to implement a security plan.

What do you think Vietnam was...not a cut and run... or perhaps as Fox would of put it - slice and split?

I'll give you this clip to watch by Keith Olbermann regarding Giuliani / your comment that Dems / Liberals are less inclined to save lives. Geez.

  by: mr-anderson   04/28/2007 01:46 AM     
I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure that the entire US budget for the last 3 years is less than the 5.3trillion you claim was stolen.
  by: Gogevandire   04/30/2007 04:28 PM     
  Another 9/11?´s good to see how wrong your destroy America first predictions were. HA HA HA: Oh yeah... Go Dems! Rosie O´Donnell for President! Woot! by: CArnold 04/26/2007 05:28 AM Woot! Woot! Donald Trump for President! LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[ edited by teapublican ]
  by: teapublican   06/09/2016 10:08 PM     
long time since I was here. But of course Giuliani was wrong..since the so called tough war on terrorism has started the problem has become at up to 10x worse.

The method of fighting with a military has an extremely poor track-record:

And to possibly repeat some things... Bush focused solely on Iraq prior to 9/11:

December 19, 2000: Clinton Tells Bush His Top Priority Should Be Bin Laden; Bush Says It´s Saddam Hussein Instead

President Clinton and President-Elect Bush meet for their "exit interview," in a two-hour meeting. [CNN, 12/19/2000] Clinton gives Bush his list of his top five priorities. At the top of the list is dealing with Osama bin Laden. Clinton also discusses the tensions between Pakistan and India, who are threatening each other with nuclear strikes; the crisis in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine; he discusses North Korea; and he discusses Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Bush shakes Clinton´s hand after Clinton wraps up his presentation, and says, "Thanks for your advice, Mr. President, but I think you´ve got your priorities wrong. I´m putting Saddam at the top of the list." [Moore, 3/15/2004, pp. 16-17] Just one day before, CIA Director George Tenet had warned Clinton that al-Qaeda could attack US interests in the next several weeks (see December 18, 2000). In 2003, Clinton will speak about the interview, saying that he recognized Bush felt the biggest security issues facing the US was Iraq and a national missile defense: "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden." [Reuters, 10/16/2003]

The Deafness Before the Storm

Evidence piles up that Bush administration got many pre-9/11 warnings

O´Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11

2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat
  by: Kaleid   06/09/2016 10:21 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: