Fearless Rudy plays the fear card...

Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win
By: Roger Simon
April 25, 2007 01:28 PM EST

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.”

He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”


After his speech to the Rockingham County Lincoln Day Dinner, I asked him about his statements and Giuliani said flatly: “America will be safer with a Republican president.”

Giuliani, whose past positions on abortion, gun control and gay rights have made him anathema to some in his party, believes his tough stance on national defense and his post-Sept. 11 reputation as a fighter of terrorism will be his trump card with doubting Republicans.

“This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!” Giuliani said in his speech. “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 said terrorists “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.”

Giuliani continued: “The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.” He said Americans would fight for “freedom for women, the freedom of elections, freedom of religion and the freedom of our economy.”

Addressing the terrorists directly, Giuliani said: “We are not giving that up, and you are not going to take it from us!”

The crowd thundered its approval.

Giuliani also said that America had been naive about terrorism in the past and had missed obvious signals.

“They were at war with us before we realized it, going back to ’90s with all the Americans killed by the PLO and Hezbollah and Hamas,” he said. “They came here and killed us in 1993 [with the first attack on New York’s World Trade Center, in which six people died], and we didn’t get it. We didn’t get it that this was a war. Then Sept. 11, 2001, happened, and we got it.”

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=26253787-3048-5C12-001430CB6F4D84FC

 

I'm no Rudy supporter, but I have to agree with him on this observation. Certainly we will be at greater threat of terrorist attack if any of the democrat candidates get into office. How could anyone really even argue that point? They are already claiming the war on terror is a republican trick. Next they will be joining their fervent supporters in questioning if 9/11 even happened. We know the democrats will adopt a "law enforcement" approach to terrorism, they will close gitmo and release the hundreds of terrorists held there and will insist on giving any future terrorist suspects a full federal court trial with an army of government paid lawyers. CAIR and other radical muslim pressure groups will be given veto power over domestic security issues. We can expect a return to the days when al qaeda could attack our citizens ,troops and ships at will without any effective response.

 

Which party was in the White House when 9/11 happened?

 

I don't know, but I think it was a different one from the 90's. You know, that one that didn't do anything to combat terrorism in general or go after the perpetrators of the first wtc bombing. I think OBL even stated that for these reasons he felt free to go to war with the US. That is the way it happened isn't it?

 

We never had a chance when the Bushies came in. They were rookies and the plot was bizarre.

They took over at the end of January in 01 and tons of positions were unfilled for months. Then the boss went on vacation for the month of August after six months on the job. Probably the last clear chance would have been Rice listening more to Clarke and the FBI putting 2 and 2 together -- but that would have been a stretch.

9/11 Report - Chapter 8 - The System Was Blinking Red

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec8.pdf

As for Rudy, I'm astonished that no investigative reporters have reexamined his admin. and that 93 attack with the goal of shredding him now. Likewise, no one has yet dug into his hedge fund years after leaving office. He's a brittle, vulnerable candidate.

 

The one who couldn't read a PDB.

Its typical republican. Reagan gave the Ayatollah Khomeini WMD's for the hostages cause ya know, its the chickenhawk way. When the marines got blown to smithereens, Reagan did nothing and gave up the base in lebanon shortly thereafter.

Republicans on national defense is like the great chickenhawk John Wayne, all talk and hide when the action arrives.

 

Very true. But then again except for the Bush's no Republican since Lincoln has put America into a war.

Generally piece of dogshit liberal Democrat's like Wilson, FDR and LBJ feel comfortable sentencing hundreds of thousands of GI's to their death.

Of course WWll was a "noble" war. We wouldn't have wanted Hitler to stop the Russian commies or Japan to keep Red China at bay now would we....

 

I'm sure Osmam bin Ladin and al qaeda are quaking in their boots at the thought of having to face Hillary, Janet Reno, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Now if we're talking about some Christian group out in the middle of nowhere bothering no one, then yes, a Clinton administration would pose a deadly threat to them. Actual terrorists? The record would say they will be quite safe.

I don't support Rudy for other reasons, but I don't doubt that he will go after terrorists in a manner that will make Bush look like the ACLU.

 

How has Bush done at getting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to quake in their boots?

 

from foxnews.com:

"Washington woke up to morning headlines that Rudy Giuliani predicted a "new 9-11" if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008. Barack Obama responded that Giuliani has "taken the politics of fear to a new low." John Edwards said Giuliani's comments were "divisive and plain wrong." And Hillary Clinton called it "political rhetoric" that would not lessen the threat of terrorism.

The problem is Giuliani never said what the headlines claimed. It all started with a story in The Politico newspaper, which contained not a single quote to support its lead and headline. But it got picked up elsewhere nonetheless.

What Giuliani actually did say is what he has been saying for weeks, that Democrats would play defense instead of offense in the War on Terror, the same approach tried back before 9/11."



So where are all the people who like to complain about republicans being liars?