Giuliani: Terrorists Never Attacked When Bush Protected Us

[ljs]

I bet RedskinsTime calls himself a conservative.

I was poking fun at Giuliani. You SF liberals must be so uptight that you can't laugh at yourselves every now and then.

I thought so- was about to post to Predicto that I thought you were being sarcastic.

[ljs]

My bad. I was thinking 2009 was Bush......the year 2009 went so fast, that I thought last year was still Bush.

there's always time for bush no matter what year it is:evilg:

[Kilmer17]

There were attempts then, and there are attempts now. Nothing has changed.

The underwear bomber that failed under Obama is no different than the shoe bomber that failed under Bush.

And there was a success under Obama. Ft Hood.

[ljs]

Anti-American isn't the only brand of terrorism.

true- but in the context of this topic- I would consider them separate issues.

Almost every president has had what you could say was a Domestic terror attack on their watch.

you could technically consider every workplace shooting, the DC shooter, Columbine and every other school shooting a domestic terror attack, but we aren't talking about that. We are talking about the Muslim Jihadist terror attacks specifically.(at leas I am:silly:)

[Mickalino]

And there was a success under Obama. Ft Hood.

Thank you.

Someone needs to stand up and call that what it was : a terrorist attack.

[Predicto]

there is a vast difference between a crazy man shooting an abortion doctor and a Jihadi terrorist who wants to destroy America. (IMO)

I agree. Doesn't make what Guiliani said any less stupid or false. Certainly no one with half a brain thinks that anything that Obama did was the cause of the Fort Hood shootings, or that anything that Obama didn't do could have prevented it.

Where do the unsolved anthrax attacks fit on this scale? How about the DC sniper attacks? What about all the attacks we don't know about because they were thwarted (under both Bush and Obama)?

Guiliani is a prick who is using the Big Lie tactic.

[Destino]

And there was a success under Obama. Ft Hood.

And there was success under Bush. 9/11. In that case it actually was Al Qaeda, not a US citizen and member of the armed forces that lost his mind.

Are you really trying to make this political cause we can compare if you really want to. If you want to take Rudy's point and run with it I'd be glad to hammer the GOP for allowing 9/11 to happen on their watch. I'd prefer we remember that terrorism isn't a political football but if you'd like to stop the "other than 9/11". No. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. An insider in the whitehouse claimed he mishandled and tried to turn into an excuse to go into Iraq. He then proceeded to give the enemy warning and allowed them all to escape.

You really want to go down this route?

[Mickalino]

:munchout:

[Kilmer17]

And there was success under Bush. 9/11

Are you really trying to make this political cause we can compare if you really want to.

Not at all. Im simply pointing out that what Giuliani was trying to say was in fact accurate. Albeit very stupid and unhelpful.

[Predicto]

I was poking fun at Giuliani. You SF liberals must be so uptight that you can't laugh at yourselves every now and then.

My mistake. Sorry.

For the record, I DO laugh at myself and liberals a lot. But never San Francisco, my true love. :laugh:

[#98QBKiller]

true- but in the context of this topic- I would consider them separate issues.

Almost every president has had what you could say was a Domestic terror attack on their watch.

you could technically consider every workplace shooting, the DC shooter, Columbine and every other school shooting a domestic terror attack, but we aren't talking about that. We are talking about the Muslim Jihadist terror attacks specifically.(at leas I am:silly:)

I agree. I do however, tend to consider things like school shootings, the DC sniper, etc. acts of terrorism too.

[Destino]

Not at all. Im simply pointing out that what Giuliani was trying to say was in fact accurate. Albeit very stupid and unhelpful.

It wasn't accurate it was a situational stat. OUTSIDE OF THE BIG ONE, Bush kept us safe. What the hell kind of argument is that? OUTSIDE THE ECONOMIC MELT DOWN, Bush's economy was great. OUTSIDE THE MASSIVE SPENDING, Obama blah blah blah... that's not an argument. That's fodder for idiots that almost want a terrorist attack to occur because it helps them politically.

[DjTj]

you could technically consider every workplace shooting, the DC shooter, Columbine and every other school shooting a domestic terror attack, but we aren't talking about that. We are talking about the Muslim Jihadist terror attacks specifically.(at leas I am:silly:)

But what if the Muslim Jihadist terrorist is a US citizen who shoots people at his domestic workplace?

What is it that separates Nidal Hassan from John Muhammad?

[Predicto]

Not at all. Im simply pointing out that what Giuliani was trying to say was in fact accurate. Albeit very stupid and unhelpful.

It is technically true that "Kilmer was spotted many times groping his own mother's breasts."

The fact that you were an infant at the time might also be relevant to the weighing the significance of the statement.

In other words, technically true can still be a misleading lie in certain contexts. This is one of them.

[mjah]

Careful, the left needs to make sure that all bad guys are classified the same way.

Careful, the right needs to make sure that the worst bad guys are, apparently, completely forgotten. Hey, this is fun! Thanks for the cool game!

And silly me -- I thought Giuliani said we should Never Forget 9/11. I guess he's a firm believer in "Do what I say, not what I forget to do."

As for terror attacks on Bush's watch:

- 9/11

- Anthrax

- Richard Reid the shoebomber (if we count Undies today, then we count this guy in 2001)

- El Al shootings at the LAX ticket counter

- Bomb detonated at recruitment center in Times Square

Not to mention the many abortion clinic bombings, shootings, and arsons which are obviously religious/political in motivation, making them domestic terrorism by any reasonable definition. Those are a sad, constant background to any contemporary time period, not just 2001-2008.

Im simply pointing out that what Giuliani was trying to say was in fact accurate.

Then what was the accurate thing he was trying to say? 'Cuz what he actually said was exactly the opposite of that.

It was about as stupid as anything I've heard in the political media since Palin.

[Predicto]

But what if the Muslim Jihadist terrorist is a US citizen who shoots people at his domestic workplace?

What is it that separates Nidal Hassan from John Muhammad?

When it happened? :laugh:

[Kilmer17]

But what if the Muslim Jihadist terrorist is a US citizen who shoots people at his domestic workplace?

What is it that separates Nidal Hassan from John Muhammad?

Cant we apply the principles of Hate Crime legislation to this?

The difference is WHY they did it.

[Kilmer17]

Careful, the right needs to make sure that the worst bad guys are, apparently, completely forgotten. Hey, this is fun! Thanks for the cool game!

And silly me -- I thought Giuliani said we should Never Forget 9/11. I guess he's a firm believer in "Do what I say, not what I forget to do."

As for terror attacks on Bush's watch:

- 9/11

- Anthrax

- Richard Reid the shoebomber (if we count Undies today, then we count this guy in 2001)

- El Al shootings at the LAX ticket counter

- Bomb detonated at recruitment center in Times Square

Not to mention the many abortion clinic bombings, shootings, and arsons which are obviously religious/political in motivation, making them domestic terrorism by any reasonable definition. Those are a sad, constant background to any contemporary time period, not just 2001-2008.

Then what was the accurate thing he was trying to say? 'Cuz what he actually said was exactly the opposite of that.

It was about as stupid as anything I've heard in the political media since Palin.

Why the Palin reference?

I THINK he was trying to say that there were no succesful acts of terrorism on US soil after 9/11 on Bush watch. And that there HAS been under Obama.

I think thats an incredibly short sighted, retarded, hurtful thing to say. I think he came off like an idiot even TRYING to say it.

[Mickalino]

It is technically true that "Kilmer was spotted many times groping his own mother's breasts."

How did you know Kilmer was breast-fed ?

Were you feeding on the other breast ?

[Predicto]

How did you know Kilmer was breast-fed ?

Were you feeding on the other breast ?

Nah, I didn't start groping her breasts until just last week. :laugh:

[Sikbug]

I'd just like to take a timeout to say how well written this article was. Pure piece of journalistic excellence.

You were probably better off posting the link to the Washington Post article or something

It's just my fav blog, snarky NYer's, I'd rather read that.

[Kilmer17]

Nah, I didn't start groping her breasts until just last week. :laugh:

Now THAT'S funny! :hysterical:

[Predicto]

Byt he way, Dana Perino, Bush's former press secretary, has been floating this line recently as well. We may be seeing the next GOP political meme in its infancy.

[Destino]

I THINK he was trying to say that there were no succesful acts of terrorism on US soil after 9/11 on Bush watch. And that there HAS been under Obama.

Were the anthrax attacks not successful? 5 dead 17 infected... but forget the count, think of it in terms of terrorism. The entire nations was freaking out about checking their own mail.

Let's not forget the Beltway Sniper in October of 2002. Ten people killed three injured over a three week time frame. That certainly had this area terrified. I remember being nervous putting gas in my car.

[Kilmer17]

Byt he way, Dana Perino, Bush's former press secretary, has been floating this line recently as well. We may be seeing the next GOP political meme in its infancy.

Oh guarenteed. It will be a centerpiece of MANY house and senate races this fall. Especially if somehting else succeeds.