Rudy Giuliani is a lying piece of _____

[yg17]

I'll let you fill in the blank.

Giuliani: "We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/08/rudy-giuliani-we-had-no-d_n_416033.html

Even if he meant to say "after 9/11" he'd still be dead wrong because there's still the anthrax attacks, shoe bomber and DC sniper.

I had some respect for him after 9/11, but no more. He is a lying, opportunistic little weasel who will say anything, even if it's complete bullcrap, to get in front of a camera for 2 minutes.

And Rudy 911iani isn't the only republican to be rewriting history. Dana Perino and Mary Matalin also have forgotten that 9/11 happened under Bush. Do republicans really think that Americans are that stupid? No one except them believes their BS.

[MyDesktopBroke]

Link to 9/11 happening under Clinton's watch (http://www.google.com/search?q=9%2F11+Mary+Matalin+clinton&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a), just in case people ask for it.

Rudy 91ul1ani in 1337.

[atszyman]

Don't forget the Yemen Embassy bombing in 2008.

link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423823,00.html)

[leekohler]

WTF??!!! Is he on crack? Hello!!!!! 9/11, Anthrax and more than a few others. A**hole! :mad:

[nbs2]

Don't forget the Yemen Embassy bombing in 2008.

link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423823,00.html)

While I'm sure that some folks would argue otherwise, we haven't conquered Yemen for the US. That wouldn't be domestic (unless you wanted to argue that the embassy was American soil and thus domestic - too tenuous a link for my comfort).

Now, I am going to disagree with the rest of the posters here. There were no attacks under the Bush administration. Those attacks were under the Cheney administration; the Bush administration was in place for a 100 days at the beginning (before he got squeezed out) and a couple months at the end (when he put Dick back in his place).

[mcrain]

WTF??!!! Is he on crack?

No, he's a Republican. At least if you're on Crack there are support groups to help you make something of yourself other than the low-life, useless piece of **(t that the drugs have turned you into.

[atszyman]

While I'm sure that some folks would argue otherwise, we haven't conquered Yemen for the US. That wouldn't be domestic (unless you wanted to argue that the embassy was American soil and thus domestic - too tenuous a link for my comfort).

I am aware that while it was not necessarily a domestic attack it was still an attack on U.S. interests overseas, much like the attack on the U.S.S. Cole late in Clinton's presidency that is sometimes used as evidence that Clinton didn't keep us safe.

[nbs2]

I am aware that while it was not necessarily a domestic attack it was still an attack on U.S. interests overseas, much like the attack on the U.S.S. Cole late in Clinton's presidency that is sometimes used as evidence that Clinton didn't keep us safe.

I knew where you were going with that, but don't think US interests would qualify as domestic attacks. However, it certainly would meet the same standard at the Cole in determining if Cheney kept us safe.

[mcrain]

Our embassies overseas ARE American soil.

[abijnk]

Also see Dana Perino and Mary Matalin on the issue...

To be honest the part that pisses me off the most is that all three time that I know of NO ONE sitting at the desk with these people corrected them. Not CNN with Matalin, not Fox with Perino, and not stephanopoulos on ABC. WTF people, seriously?

[MacNut]

So what are we labeling the Fort Hood shooting? Was that terrorism or not?

[Eraserhead]

Also see Dana Perino and Mary Matalin on the issue...

To be honest the part that pisses me off the most is that all three time that I know of NO ONE sitting at the desk with these people corrected them. Not CNN with Matalin, not Fox with Perino, and not stephanopoulos on ABC. WTF people, seriously?

That's because the media is really Liberal and very competent ;).

[leekohler]

So what are we labeling the Fort Hood shooting? Was that terrorism or not?

Not sure how they ended up classifying that.

[abijnk]

So what are we labeling the Fort Hood shooting? Was that terrorism or not?

Not sure how they ended up classifying that.

Terrorism Lite

[Zombie Acorn]

So what are we labeling the Fort Hood shooting? Was that terrorism or not?

Islamic radical craziness

[yg17]

If we're not going to call every other school and workplace shooting terrorism, then I see no reason to consider Ft. Hood terrorism, since basically, that's what it was, a workplace shooting. The workplace just happened to be a military base.

The only reason the right considers it to be a terrorist act is because the shooter was brown. If it was a white Christian, they wouldn't be calling it terrorism, just like they didn't call the Holocaust Museum shooting terrorism.

[rdowns]

So what are we labeling the Fort Hood shooting? Was that terrorism or not?


It is, as far as I'm concerned.

[MacNut]

If we're not going to call every other school and workplace shooting terrorism, then I see no reason to consider Ft. Hood terrorism, since basically, that's what it was, a workplace shooting. The workplace just happened to be a military base.

The only reason the right considers it to be a terrorist act is because the shooter was brown. If it was a white Christian, they wouldn't be calling it terrorism, just like they didn't call the Holocaust Museum shooting terrorism.The problem with that is he was a confirmed extremist. I think it was a terrorist act against the country.

[yg17]

The problem with that is he was a confirmed extremist. I think it was a terrorist act against the country.

The people behind the Pittsburgh police shooting and the Holocaust Museum shooting were both white supremacists, which I would consider pretty extreme, yet no one considers those acts of terrorism.

[MacNut]

The people behind the Pittsburgh police shooting and the Holocaust Museum shooting were both white supremacists, which I would consider pretty extreme, yet no one considers those acts of terrorism.I think white supremacists are the lowest denominator of person. They should be charged with terrorism. The problem is the Supreme court says a lot of what they do is free speech.

[leekohler]

I think white supremacists are the lowest denominator of person. They should be charged with terrorism. The problem is the Supreme court says a lot of what they do is free speech.

The vast majority of what they do is free speech. That's not a problem, that's the way our country is. That's part of living in a free country.

[MacNut]

The vast majority of what they do is free speech. That's not a problem, that's the way our country is. That's part of living in a free country.The majority of what they do is incite and promote terror, much like a extremist. So why don't we track these people.

[gibbz]

Also see Dana Perino and Mary Matalin on the issue...

To be honest the part that pisses me off the most is that all three time that I know of NO ONE sitting at the desk with these people corrected them. Not CNN with Matalin, not Fox with Perino, and not stephanopoulos on ABC. WTF people, seriously?

I guess George corrected him after the fact. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/01/rudy-giuliani-no-domestic-attacks-under-bush-one-under-obama.html)

[Zombie Acorn]

The problem with that is he was a confirmed extremist. I think it was a terrorist act against the country.

He also had contact with some rather unpleasant places/folks that were involved in terrorism in the past.

I would consider a school shooting terrorism though.

[leekohler]

The majority of what they do is incite and promote terror, much like a extremist. So why don't we track these people.

There is no law saying that people cannot express opinions, how ever unpopular they may be. It is actions that may be illegal. And I believe the FBI does indeed keep tabs on them.

[bradl]

I think white supremacists are the lowest denominator of person. They should be charged with terrorism. The problem is the Supreme court says a lot of what they do is free speech.

This is arguable.

If taken literal, the 1st Amendment says that Congress can't pass any laws banning free speech, press, assembly, religion, or petition. But in relation to speech and press, that doesn't give everyone and/or the press, respectively, carte blanche to say or print anything they want. Hence, libel and slander laws. Those laws also were upheld in the 1970s with the Carol Burnett vs. National Enquirer case, too. So while not directly against anyone, they couldn't directly claim free speech, and slander couldn't be used. But they can't plead the 1st without some insightly debate.

BL.

[gibbz]

I guess not surprising since a day earlier Rudy claimed that the shoe bomber attempt happened before 9/11. Additionally, he claims that Obama didn't comment until 10 days afterwards, when in fact it was closer to 3 days. Nevermind, Bush didn't respond to Richard Reid until 6 days later. What a douche.

Link (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/07/giuliani-shoe-bomber/)

When King pointed out that “President Bush took six days once in a similar incident,” Giuliani responded that “six days is less than 10″ and that he believed “that six days was before the September 11th attack.” King then clarified that “Bush waited six days on the shoe bomber,” to which Giuliani responded, “that’s correct.”

[Eraserhead]

^^ Bush didn't even respond to 9/11 for 9 days (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_the_September_11_attacks#Public_response_in_the_United_States)) :eek:.

[abijnk]

I guess George corrected him after the fact. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/01/rudy-giuliani-no-domestic-attacks-under-bush-one-under-obama.html)

And it is the "after the fact" part that worries me. It's not like it would be hard or bad form to correct that.

[gibbz]

And it is the "after the fact" part that worries me. It's not like it would be hard or bad form to correct that.

I agree. More people will see a show or respond to video than a buried online correction. When people are allowed to go unquestioned when spouting out anything on a national stage, it is unforgivable.

[Eraserhead]

^^ +1. Someone could have looked it up on Wiki through the earpiece if he wasn't sure.

[StruckANerve]

The DC Sniper was considered a Terrorist Attack? I haven't heard that before.

[Zombie Acorn]

The DC Sniper was considered a Terrorist Attack? I haven't heard that before.

I think it depends on intent a lot, if they were randomly killing to incite panic and fear then I would consider it terror.

[Counterfit]

The guy's ex-wife thinks she was the eventual target, because she knew many of the people killed. Linky (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/10/virginia.sniper.wives/index.html).
Not sure if that makes it terrorism or not...

[stubeeef]

Why is one thing a lie and another a falsehood or a mistake?

How about some of these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7i2onW0&feature=related) or this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Z5KZ42GXw)?

[obeygiant]

Why is one thing a lie and another a falsehood or a mistake?

How about some of these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Z5KZ42GXw)?

If a democrat lies I don't want to hear about it.

[stubeeef]

If a democrat lies I don't want to hear about it.

I guess a dem lie is like a tree falling in the forest; if there is no one from fox news there-no one hears it.:p

[leekohler]

I guess a dem lie is like a tree falling in the forest; if there is no one from fox news there-no one hears it.:p

Yeah- none of us have criticized or called out any Democrats on lies. You just keep on believing that. :rolleyes:

[IntheNet]

If a democrat lies I don't want to hear about it.

You won't on this board....

[Rt&Dzine]

Nothing new here. I've never had much respect for Giuliani and lost all respect for him after 9/11. The way he used the tragedy for his own glory. And his lying, his mistresses, etc. I wouldn't take anything he says seriously.

[NT1440]

You won't on this board....

Care to open your damn eyes once in a while?:rolleyes:

I used to like "America's Mayor", then I became old enough to actually follow politics...

[Eraserhead]

How about some of these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7i2onW0&feature=related)

1. "I'll make our government open and transparent" - that isn't a lie - its something that he's essentially promised to do by the end of his term. He has made some progress however.

2. "Just as Louis Brandeis said 'sunlight is the greatest disinfectant'" That isn't actually true he basically did say that (best/greatest are interchangable words)... (source (http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2003/1203/nv/nv2.htm))

3. "As President I'm going to make it impossible for congress or lobbyists to slip pork barrelled projects or corporate welfare into law when noones looking" Fair enough - he's being a little hyperbolic there. He hasn't failed to reduce pork barrel spending though.

4. "Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public."I don't know anything about this. Are meetings where laws are written "more open" now? When he say's "No more secrecy" that is a lie though (source (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/these-42-people-are-shaping-us-internet-enforcement-policy.ars)).

5. "5 days to look online at a bill before I sign it" - aren't they all online on house.gov or senate.gov?

6. "When there is a tax bill being debated in congress you'll know the names of the corporations that will benefit" Probably fair enough. That sounds like an unachievable goal to me.

7. "We will put every corporate tax break and every pork barrel project online for everyone to see" Aren't ammendments available to view on house.gov or senate.gov?

[Eraserhead]

or this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Z5KZ42GXw)?

When they "accidentally" get confused between the Iraq and Afghanistan war in their first point I'm not going to watch the rest of the video.

[mactastic]

You know, it's funny... I remember all this hew and cry from the righties here about the incredible insight into the profound mental deficiencies of Obama that was provided by his mistakenly being quoted as saying something about 54 states. Yet Guilliani gets a pass from y'all for forgetting when 9/11 happened. Very interesting, particularly considering how insistent you good folks are that there not be any sort of double standard in politics -- at least this week.

The majority of what they do is incite and promote terror, much like a extremist. So why don't we track these people.
Because if you do, the extreme right get's all butt-hurt and declares that you're going after them. Not sure why they want to conflate themselves with these extreme-right whackos, outside of the obvious reason.

The guy's ex-wife thinks she was the eventual target, because she knew many of the people killed. Linky (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/10/virginia.sniper.wives/index.html).
Not sure if that makes it terrorism or not...
Dude... he's a Muslim, that makes it terrorism. Get with the right-wing talking points, will ya?

[MyDesktopBroke]

I don't think you could win an argument that he didn't terrorize a large area around the shootings. Remember the tarps over gas stations?

What ever the motivation, he instilled terror into many, many people.

[Lord Blackadder]

He calls the closure of Gitmo an "absurd" idea. I think that should immediately tip us off that he's not on the level.

Rudy Giuliani has been successful in municipal politics in NY, but he's totally out of his depth when speaking about national and international issues. Some might say he's out of his depth in municipal politics as well I suppose.

[63dot]

He will say whatever it takes to get him closer in 2012 for the GOP nomination, especially with angry Republicans. He could be their next candidate, so conservatives will largely ignore inaccuracies in what he says.

He does not always tell the truth, but he comes across as an authority Fox news seems to go to on world events. While Palin doesn't know up from down, but at least says what she believes, Giuliani will say something, whether he believes it or not, for his own gain. Who believes Giuliani didn't know about terrorist attacks from 9/11/2001 to 1/20/2009?

What is scary is that people believe Giuliani as one friend of mine commented that he thought the former Mayor was correct in his statement. This scared me.

[mactastic]

I don't think you could win an argument that he didn't terrorize a large area around the shootings. Remember the tarps over gas stations?

What ever the motivation, he instilled terror into many, many people.
Serial killers instill terror as well. But we generally dont think of them as terrorists. Terrorism is generally considered to require a political motivation in order to be considered terrorism. What the DC snier did may have caused people to feel terror, his motivation does not appear to be political in any way. Thus it's hard to classify it as terrorism.

[Forsaken]

Why is one thing a lie and another a falsehood or a mistake?

How about some of these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7i2onW0&feature=related) or this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Z5KZ42GXw)?
Two wrongs don't make a right. Didn't they teach you that in school?