Dems rebuke Giuliani over attack comment

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidates on Wednesday rebuked Republican rival Rudy Giuliani for suggesting that the United States could face another major terrorist attack if a Democrat is elected in 2008. The former New York mayor did not back down.

Article

I personally think that this is low. Anyone else?

I think he's right. Whether rightly or wrongly, I think al-Qaeda now views Democrats as much weaker than Republicans and would be much more likely to launch an attack under a Democratic administration.

Either that or he is trying to scare some people into voting for him? The conspiracy nut in me wants to say it almost sounds like he is threatening us!

I think that I am going to lean more towards sailors ideology. I think that to say al-Qaeda views Democrats as MUCH weaker than republicans is not only speculative but quite ironic since 9-11 happened under republican watch. I would feel much safer with a Democrat in office, I think when that happens the rest of the world may stop hating us so much and probably back off as the choke hold of the war on terror dwindles into Vietnam II.

2 pennies

Prior to 9/11 al-Qaeda only had experience with the Democratic Clinton administration.

During Clinton's reign, there were at least two major attacks (the African embassies and the Cole) that created little or no response.

Contrarily, after 9/11 two Islamic countries were toppled by the U.S. under a Republican administration.

I think you're fooling yourself if you think that al-Qaeda won't at least think they will be able to get away with more under a new Democrat regime.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Prior to 9/11 al-Qaeda only had experience with the Democratic Clinton administration.

Neither of wich were on US soil. Democrats would have actually gone after Bin Laden, instead of twisting lies to invade another country.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority. G.W. Bush. 3/13/02"

Contrarily, after 9/11 two Islamic countries were toppled by the U.S. under a Republican administration.

And the people living in those countries are much better off for it

I think you're fooling yourself if you think that al-Qaeda won't at least think they will be able to get away with more under a new Democrat regime.

I think you are falsely equating political affiliation to the ability to strike fear in the hearts and minds of terrorists.


[edit on 26-4-2007 by kleverone]

Originally posted by kleverone
I would feel much safer with a Democrat in office, I think when that happens the rest of the world may stop hating us so much and probably back off as the choke hold of the war on terror dwindles into Vietnam II.

Democrats scare me just as much as some Republicans. If not more. Not due to their current war stance, but due to the fact that throughout history they are responsible for more wars than Republicans. You can bet your sweet tush Hillary is drooling to do something to Iran...

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I think you're fooling yourself if you think that al-Qaeda won't at least think they will be able to get away with more under a new Democrat regime.

Because that "R" by Rudy's name makes him a man. (And Al Jazerra, not to mention our allies, won't exploit his numerous YouTube drag appearances one bit.)



Whatever. America is tired of open border Republicans. And Rudy is their king.


Come on in terrorists! I'm the world's Mayor! Free Airplane rides for A-Rabs!

Originally posted by RANT
And Rudy is their king.

I obviously meant queen.

Yeah. He makes Bin Forgotten think twice. Good one.

Originally posted by LostSailor
You can bet your sweet tush Hillary is drooling to do something to Iran...

I disagree, I beleive that anyone with half a brain will stay as far away from Iran as possible. Iran is not a threat to the US no more than Iraq was. These BS wars are a result of a Father and Son Tandem that have sunk America to a new low.

Democrats right now are trying to take away funding for the troops.

They also want to give our enemy a heads up by announcing a surrender date.

Terrorists know that an attack on the United States will be likely viewed as a criminal matter as it was during the Clinton Administration.

Terrorists thrive on weakness, and a sure sign of weakness for the United States would be the election of a member of the Democrat Party.

How many times have we been attacked since 9/11?

That will change with a Democrat President.

Originally posted by RRconservative
Democrats right now are trying to take away funding for the troops.

They also want to give our enemy a heads up by announcing a surrender date.

They are trying to end a war that never should have been started in the first place. This war was not about fighting terrorism! Where's Bin Laden? This was personal for Bush and he used the attack on NY to try to make daddy happy.

Terrorists thrive on weakness, and a sure sign of weakness for the United States would be the election of a member of the Democrat Party.

Actually they would take care of the problem istead of blaming the next attack on Iran or Syria(regardless of who attacked).

How many times have we been attacked since 9/11?

How long has it been? How long before that was any other attack of that magnitude?

That will change with a Democrat President.

We'll see in one year

Originally posted by kleverone
I personally think that this is low. Anyone else?

He's right. They are just upset because he's right and he said it.

booo frick'n hooo.

Oh .. and get used to it. The Dems will be throwing some serious muck around. It's politics and it's a big election coming up.

Originally posted by kleverone
ironic since 9-11 happened under republican watch.

It was completely planned out during the CLINTON watch.
It was also supposed to be carried out under the CLINTON watch
but the date got changed. (that's on a thread here somewhere)

Originally posted by FlyersFan
He's right. They are just upset because he's right and he said it.

booo frick'n hooo.

Did you really just say "booo frick'n hooo"?
And wasn't he the mayor of NY during the attacks? Yeah, He'll keep us safe

Originally posted by FlyersFan

It was completely planned out during the CLINTON watch.
It was also supposed to be carried out under the CLINTON watch
but the date got changed. (that's on a thread here somewhere)

OK.. What

Congrats, you just went and ruined the little bit of credibilty you had left after that boo fricking hooo statement with. It was completely planned out during the CLINTON watch.
If you are going to spew someone else's opinion as fact at least go after something believable Or at least post a link.

anyway, thanks for the laugh.


[edit on 27-4-2007 by kleverone]

Originally posted by kleverone
I disagree, I beleive that anyone with half a brain will stay as far away from Iran as possible. Iran is not a threat to the US no more than Iraq was. These BS wars are a result of a Father and Son Tandem that have sunk America to a new low.

You're damn right anyone with half a brain would stay away from Iran. That's why I don't think Hillary would stay away! Maybe even Obama.. . Though, I'm not sure he's as tied into the lobbyist.

Originally posted by kleverone
wasn't he the mayor of NY during the attacks?

Duh!

you just went and ruined the little bit of credibilty you had left ..

My credibility is fine. It's definately much better than yours.

at least go after something believable

www.9-11commission.gov...

Common sense - try it.

The FACT is that 9/11 took place when Bush was in office less than 9 months. It HAD to be planned out during the Clinton years. TV news reports stated that the 9/11 Commission found evidence that the 9/11 hit was supposed to have happened a year earlier but that the plans had to be changed.

Deal with it.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Duh!

That was a rhetorical question. Good job though

you just went and ruined the little bit of credibilty you had left ..

My credibility is fine. It's definately much better than yours.

you got me.

Common sense - try it.

I did. Which is why I don't take some else's opinions and speculation as gospel.

The FACT is that 9/11 took place when Bush was in office less than 9 months.

Thats jsut enough time to make a baby, or take 7 months of vacation

It HAD to be planned out during the Clinton years.

Why? Because you want it to be true? How about some REAL Proof?

TV news reports stated that the 9/11 Commission found evidence that the 9/11 hit was supposed to have happened a year earlier but that the plans had to be changed.

Yeah that commsion is totally believable and 100 percent acurate

Deal with it.

I believe I just did.

[edit on 27-4-2007 by kleverone]

Originally posted by LostSailor
You're damn right anyone with half a brain would stay away from Iran. That's why I don't think Hillary would stay away! Maybe even Obama.. . Though, I'm not sure he's as tied into the lobbyist.

So you are saying that the current administration has less than half a brain? Well at least we agree on something.

Originally posted by RANT

If that doesn't scare the terrorists, I don't know what will.

sigh the constant regurgitation of leftist liberal talking points coming from ' kleverone' just makes me wanna vomit. hey here's an idea smart guy democrats supported 'bushes lies' ( might as well call them clinton lies aswell she made the same case ) when the iraq war was popular, now they are just playing washington politics with it and pandering to the leftist ignorant move on crowd like yourself.

is it so hard for you to think for yourself kleverone or do you constantly have to regurgitate howard deans lines?. typical hollywood leftists, I'm in valencia so i encounter you guys daily. I suggest taking a shot of reality. continue drinking that move-on koolaide.

rudy G was right about the democrats and that party will be defeated in 2008 easily.


[edit on 27-4-2007 by ape]