I'm sure liberals have a biiiiiiig problem with him saying this.
Lets see how well my readers can defend or disprove Giuliani's remarks...
Lets really see who wins this debate...I think the conservatives are the ones who will have to work harder at it...use facts and reason, not emotion and name calling..
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
31 comments:
Giuliani isn't afraid to politicize the war on terror. That's what makes him stand out, despite his flaws.
The Dems think only they are allowed to politicize war, since their sensitive and brooding souls "care." Revolutionary Islam, like Fascism and Communism, will ultimately fail. We are seeing change in the Muslim world already, if we look at cities like Dubai. However, it is a question of a moderate amount of sacrifice now or an inordinate amount of pain, possibly involving WMDs, later.
Much of what is wrong on the Dem side is sheer ignorance. Fanatics shout ALLAH AKBAR!!!, praise Hitler and demonize the Jews, and promise to incincerate countries with nukes to bring out the Apocalypse. In the face of this, the left mindlessly clings to its Marxist template -- revolutionary Islam really wants universal health care, not the divine glory of martyrdom and suicide, and their leadership just makes rhetoric to fool the religious sheeple, which is how they see politics in Western countries.
Given the left claims to be diligent students of diversity and multiculturalism, they should know better than this. But as we all know, they don't really care as much about understanding the perspectives of others, which can be quite frightening at times, as much as they care about hating the West-- the UK, United States, Israel, Australia, Canada, and if Sarkozy wins -- add France to the list of evil countries "just as bad" as North Korea, Syria, Iran, and Cuba. Scratch Cuba--- that's still a utopia to a lot of people out there.
The 20th century-- the Age of the Supertyrants -- should be over. The international left, at home and abroad, needs to stop making heros out of dictators like Saddam Hussein.
Jason said, well basically he said, "blahbady blah blah blah."
Jim--
You are about as articulate as liberals get.
I gotta tell ya, Jason. I think Jim really nailed ya with that last comment. For the life of me, I can't conceive of a counter!!!
The really sad part is that Jim can't see that the actions and words of the Democratic leadership directly threaten the security of our nation. These people have shown nothing but a deep hatred of Bush that supercedes all other concerns that they claim to hold dear, save one, the desire to be in power. They have obstructed every effort of Bush in the fighting of this war under lame complaints of loss of rights, Big Brother oppression and other such stupid and baseless accusations. There may be some Dems with the sense to understand the stakes regarding the war, but none of those run the party, and they haven't made themselves known, Joe Lieberman notwithstanding.
Yeah, Rudy's right. Jim just can't see it.
damn I think you've discovered something here.
"blahbady blah blah blah." What a perfect libweenie response.
Was it in response to Revolutionary Islam?
How about the Jewish question?
Or was it the evil capitalist point that caused such an articulate response?
damn I think you've discovered something here.
"blahbady blah blah blah." What a perfect libweenie response.
Was it in response to Revolutionary Islam?
How about the Jewish question?
Or was it the evil capitalist point that caused such an articulate response?
But I have to say, I'm very uncomfortable with Giulianis acare tactics. Not that I think he's totally off base, just that it rings a little hollow at this point in the debate.
oops,
I understand the need for a little verification, but
DAMN!!!
Oh, and on the nukes. I think we need to contain all the loose nukes. If someone though about using one..well, lets just say they know that we have a lot more of them than they have and if nuked I think that nearly all Americans would give the go once the criminals were identified....tooooooo much fear!
Fear emboldens the enemy, it is precisely what they want.
Jim said jason basically said blahdeblah because his view on the liberal position is nonsensical to him as it is to me. Ya, I know, being ignorant liberals we don't really know what liberals think..only conservatives do ...right? You can't debate that.
ron
what jason is saying (hope I don't overstep here Jason) is this.
Liberals do not understand our enemy. therefore you can't possibly have any kind of effective policy
Of course i disagree but thanks for putting it in english..maybe some other time we can debate it..I'll let it go for now with what I said above.
Scorecard so far:
Jim F- He can't calm down his emotionalism and is unable to make any point. This is a very, very legit point to make. Dem's have made this entire war a political issue, never trying to support Bush or the troops at any point. They want to talk and reason with terrorist (don't even think about saying that is not true) and they don't want to use the military or methods of tracking and defeating terrorists...
Ron tried to make a point...I don't have time to read every word this morning...I'm sure it was mixed with solid thought and then sprinkled with one or two emotional outbursts...
blamin and Jason...well done...
ron,
Do you mean you actually understand that these people want to kill us, and don’t care how they achieve this goal?
I would hope any potential leader of this county would understand such a basic concept.
But how best to deal with said reality has me concerned.
Let’s see, on the one hand we have the “take them out before they take us out” philosophy.
On the other hand we have the “please Mr. Scary bad guy, we promise to quit over-consumpting and raping the planet, do you think you can leave us alone?
Which has you sleeping better at night?
Ya, ya, I know, you’ll claim it’s a little more complex than that – but – when you boil off the bullshit, that’s it in a nutshell, as they say.
Marshall, you may think that the "words of the Democratic leadership directly threaten the security of our nation." You're entitled to that opinion. The FACT is that the policies, deeds and actions of the Bush administration not only threaten the security of our nation, they have already put the security of our nation in jeopardy.
In the words of game, these are the facts and they cannot be debated.
Game is so rational he must be emotionally dead. Somehow he equates emotionalism with weakness. No such connection as far as I'm concerned. Every time he reads something he can't argue against, it "shows emotionalism" as if that's a bad thing. Too bad.
I find it close to insulting that you would say the people that want to change policy want us to lose. I just don't understand how you could even imagine believing such a thing. It makes no sense at all. Even for your magical "power". The vast majority of Americans including Democrats and the population of the world supported the President wholeheartedly when he attacked Afganistan. You are right, many democrats (not the politicians but in the rank and file) did not support the Iraqi occupation. We wanted to continue after Tora Bora and catch Osama who after all was the organize of those who attacked us. It seemed incongruous to many of us that we should shrink from that fight and turn to something else before we finished the job. We still feel that is a job that needs to be finished.
We were told buy the architects of the war that it would be brief and with all the oil they had it would pay for it's self. We were at the very least there, sold a bill of goods. Nobody signed up for a decades long battle in Iraq that cost a trillion dollars of our countries resources. We feel this is not wise policy. We think there are better ways to do it, some of which I have listed above. Osama basically beat Russia by bankrupting them. That is the date they are looking for more than our withdrawal date from Iraq. Once we are out of Iraq we can use our money and resources on multiple fronts at home and abroad. It has nothing to do with surrender and if the enemy thinks it's defeat they will be in for a big surprise. To leave troops in Iraq as targets so the won't "follow us home" is just a sickening thing to do to our soliders. Sign up to be cannon fodder!! How could you disrespect the troops more.
Just understand that the position of the people to the left of Dick Cheney is not surrender and is not defeat if we continue the battle and advance and adapt to changing circumstances.
Worry not about Al Queda in Iraq(Sunni). I betting big money that Moqtata al Sadr and his Badar Brigades(Shia) will bet the hell out of them. Why not let them do the work for us?
I am sure that the next comments will be something to the effect that I am wrong on the Dem position or some such thing. If that's all you got..well it ain't good enough. I and we are ready to find success here. We haven't seen much and want to adjust our tactics. Besides, I think the US already won the military portion once they defeated Saddams army, captured Saddam and now he is dead and no longer a threat. Let's not turn a victory into defeat. Lets go get Osama!
Jim,
I don't know, I think maybe when an argument is argued from the heart instead of the mind it can justifyably be called emotionalism.
you said concerning Game "Every time he reads something he can't argue against, it "shows emotionalism" as if that's a bad thing." Well is it a bad thing or not? And just for the record, he doesn't have to "say" shit, the words you people speek stands on their own merit.
OK, back
to your original point(less).I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt on your paranoid rants concerning the Bush Admin just because that's a whole different debate, and it doesn't really answer/justify your dodge of the pertinent question. I'd like to revisit your Dem leadership threatening the security... comment. You never really answered the question.
Let's just say for the sake of argument that I'm a towel-headed, women abusing, hundred virgin fantasizing kind of terrroist. How exactly is it that the "words of the Democratic leadership" doesn't empower me in some way?
Or I'm a young teenage Iraqi guy, surronded by people pressuring me (with the threat of death to my family) to support the party of God, and lock in the hundred virgins deal, instead of supporting democracy, because after all, the American press is telling us, they, (the Americans) aren't going to stay the course, and are going to "run out", before a foundation is established.
Hmmmm? how the hell can you look yourself in the mirror and support these greedy, power hungry MF's?
Ron,
You are absolutely, totally wrong.
You said: "The vast majority of Americans including Democrats and the population of the world supported the President wholeheartedly when he attacked Afganistan"
No the "vast majority" of Dems did not support the prez. Do I really have to go back and pull up all the anti-anything-Bush-does comments? No, the Dems were dead set against Afgan, and then Iraq convenietly came along to "refocus" their obstructionism.
I mean anybody with a long term memory can see the pattern. Iraq just shifted the Bush-trash talk, nothing more, nothing less.
But I can see how that particular fantasy makes you feel better about your current views.
Say "cheese"
Ron,
come on dude, you can't simply re-write history and expect it to stick. Ya, ya, I know it seems to be working for the Clinton presidency, but that don't mean it's going to work for you.
You said: "We were told by the architects of the war that it would be brief and with all the oil they had it would pay for it's self"
Total and utter bullshit! The overwelming hue and cry of the libweenies was that "this whole war is about control of oil. "yaaa that's the real reason we attacked Iraq, because Bush wanted to give Halliburton all the oil!!!
So don't hand me that bullshit!!!
Ron, you do, on occasion make a decent point, don't ruin it by fabricating a bunch of nonsense!
Well, I don't really think you intentionally mislead, you just over realied on your leftist sources. Shame, shame, you'll learn after a few more missteps. Here's a hint, take the time to investigate the questions/concerns those with opposing views have before totally relying on partasians.
Blamin said, "Hmmmm? how the hell can you look yourself in the mirror and support these greedy, power hungry MF's?"
I give this right back to you. The unitary executive? The we don't have to have no stinkin warrants? Who is power hungry?
Yes you do have to pull up the comments from the vast majority of Democrats who didn't support Bush's attack on Afghanistan. But you know what? You can't. Ron is absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong. You are trying to rewrite history.
"You said: "We were told by the architects of the war that it would be brief and with all the oil they had it would pay for it's self""
This is absolutely true of course. It doesn't speak at all to what the reason for the war was so don't try to change the subject.
Blamin...Your just joshin me right? If not go back and look at what Paul Wolfiwitz said before Iraq. Go back and look at the poll numbers at the time of Afganistan. Polling report.com. Well over ninety percent. It was the Iraq invasion that jumped the shark. We were united and had the whole world with us on the terrorism fight before that. Even those nasty French supported us at the beginning. YOU are the one trying to rewrite history. Or is your memory that blurry? All this is widely known and the facts of what I just said are easily avaliable from video of Wolfiwitz to the poll numbers to archives of French newspapers. Look it up if you forgot. And while you are at it I would kindly suggest that you quit listening to Rush and Sean and try to get some real information...unless you were kidding which I hope you were.
Let me add that if you or anybody else on here is convinced of what you said then it is easier to understand why you may be upset. The fact remains that you are upset over falsehoods.
Ron and Jim,
I'm greased but I'm going to jump in anyway.
Bush said from day one that the war on terror will be a lone one. Said so before we went to either country.
EVERYBODY said that Hussein was a threat. They had been saying he needed to be removed since the 90's. I've seen quotes to that effect attributed to Kerry, Dean, Clinton (both of 'em), Gore, and several others. Most world leaders felt he was a threat to stability. Bush simply had the balls to act on that assumption (rightly so) and had Congressional support. (That means a lot of Dems, too)
The whole world was with us for about twenty minutes following 9/11 and many of them bailed and started blaming us for it in no time. Though we had most of the same allies as we did for the first Gulf War, Germany, France and Russia began to crap on us immediately for reasons that were indicated less than ethical.
Almost from the beginning, jamokes such as bin Laden viewed Iraq as a major front in the battle against us. Our interest in securing Iraq has been to build up a new ally in the area to be a stopgap against further radical activity.
Our interest in oil in that reason has been primarily to protect the production and distribution to all buyers around the world.
Democratic rhetoric has been and continues to be a major factor in emboldening the scumbags against whom we fight. They are thrilled to know that only a segment of our nation wants to kick ass and win. This is an important aspect of the situation to them. They are happy to know that it won't be long before they can claim legitimate victory against their enemies due to the lack of resolve and will to win by too many of our own people.
I've got more but I'm tanked. Later.
Marshall says:
Democratic rhetoric has been and continues to be a major factor in emboldening the scumbags against whom we fight. They are thrilled to know that only a segment of our nation wants to kick ass and win. This is an important aspect of the situation to them. They are happy to know that it won't be long before they can claim legitimate victory against their enemies due to the lack of resolve and will to win by too many of our own people
Marshall, this is NOT a fact. There is not a bit of fact in it. It is your opinion...here is mine.
Turning the scumbags into world beaters and scary monsters as you guys have done has done more to embolden them and gather recruits for them than anything the the Democrats could ever do.
For example you have gangs in LA. One gang suddenly gets press as a scary giant that all the enemies are afraid of. Daily you here press reports on how they may take over the entire city if people aren't careful. If you are a gangster, what gang do you want to join...the big bad one everyone is afraid of right? This scaredy cat attitude has harmed our effort. We may be paralyzed with fear but we should never let them see it and we should have never acted in a way that told them that we were. We, even if we secretly thought differently, should have derided them as flys on the wall and nasty little freak nuscances that we were going to swat at the time of our chosing..here and there and everywhere. Don't do their ego building for them! The legitimate victory will never come. Al queda hasn't won shit if we pull out. They will have a fight to the death with the Shias and Hamas will help the shias cuz they are. Let them do the killing for us it that is their choice.
Pulling out of Iraq to adapt different methods to fight them and streamline our fight is not losing and people running around saying that just gives them the impression that that is what it is and how we see it. Hell, we won a long time ago. It's you guys trying to turn it into defeat. If we pull out of Iraq I am not done fighting people who want to harm us...are you? Well if it ain't over there is no winner or loser.
That is just my opinion but it is just as valid and makes at least as much sense as yours does. Quit acting scared!!! Even it you are you are just emboldening the enemy by doing that.
Acting scared? Staying put and smakin' 'em on their own turf is hardly acting scared. But you have to look at it from their perspective. They have stated publicly that they think attrition will carry the day. They view us as paper tigers, "knowing" that it is just a matter of time before we bail. Dem rhetoric gives them major wood because it signals such a time is near. The people in the middle are crapping themselves at the thought of us pulling out prematurely, as Harry Reid's father should have. This can be supported by viewing interviews conducted by Michelle Malkin during her recent trip to Iraq. (Go to HotAir.com and search recent archives)
As for producing these vermins by our actions, that is patent nonsense. These assholes have been doing this shit for 1400 years. Thomas Jefferson had dealings with the likes of Islamic shitheads with the Barbary pirates. They used the exact same rhetoric of Islamic bullshit back then. Read their words and you'd think it was Zarqawi or bin Laden speaking.
Leaving Iraq before we've reached our goal, particularly in the middle of a new strategy, is stupid, naive, politically motivated crap and I'm glad the Dems are not in charge.
You can argue tactics all you want. That's a legitimate debate. Lincoln went through a few generals before Grant and Sherman got the job done. Patraeus might be that guy for Bush. To think that because the assholes have stepped up their efforts now means only that they are looking to head off the troop surge. If they make it look nasty, they're hoping a Harry Reid will convince enough in this country to change course before all the new troops are in place. Now is definitely the wrong time to leave. We need to turn it up if we need to do anything.
Just getting back to this post. Thanks for so articulately pointing out the pure absurdity of the “we’re causing them to act this way” argument.
Ron, do you really want me to go back and cull all the hysterical observations those of the leftist mover and shaker committee said about our involvement in Afgan.?
As Marshall pointed out, post 9/11, for about 20 minutes we had what some may call a consensus. After that the Dems, stayed awake at night, trying to think of ways to undermine Bush. And I do mean undermine. We’re not talking about mere disagreements on strategy, but a concerted effort to portray him in a negative light, solely for the purposes of gaining power for their own.
And just to head off any hysterical rantings from jim – I don’t, never have, automatically agree with everything done by Bush. It just so happens, based on history and geography, that I believe Bush had a decent long-term plan in dealing with Islamo-fascist. My biggest complaint, is he’s not engaged in a “total war” concept.
Screw what the libs/weenies/socialist/press may say. This “trying to please the other side” was the downfall of his father and it will be the downfall of him.
Marshall said, "Bush said from day one that the war on terror will be a lone one."
Sure, and nobody denies that. But you continue to conflate the Iraq conflict with the so-called "war on Terror." As much as you like to believe Bush, they are not the same. Never were.
"bin Laden viewed Iraq as a major front in the battle against us". Only in that he sucked Bush into Iraq because he knew that's what Bush wanted to do, and he knew that Bush would get bogged down in a no-win situation that would drain the resources of the US (like the Afghan war did the Soviets) and would produce no good outcome for the US.
Bush is the one who has played into bin Laden's hand all along the way.
Wow Marshall you see us as acting like defeatists and cowards and I see you guys as acting like proppers of the jhidist egos,fearmongers and harming our effort by spending big money and stuck in one place like they want...we see things differently, who woulda ever guessed!
Jason, I am sorry my friend but I still don't understand you. I think we must be on different planets. Your posts always appear more novel like than reasoning and judgment. I don't intend this as an insult just saying that I have a hard time matching it with my rational mind...maybe that is a good thing for you?! Maybe we just think and draw our conclusions in quite different ways. Apparently so.
Ron,
How are you NOT acting like defeatists? Every move that has been made by the Dems, or rather, every word spoken, has generated the exact responses as has been detailed. We hear it from the mouths of terrorist leaders themselves. Why do you continue to deny this or give it no credibility. The one thing you can't do is to pretend the bad guys won't follow through on their threats.
But it's true. We do see things differently. My side tends to see things as they truly are. Your side as you wish it was. My side knows the enemy means what they say, proves they mean what they say on a continual basis, and your side likes to think that after 1400 years, you have some way to convince them to play nice with the rest of the world. It's not fear-mongering we do. It's truth telling. It's cage-rattling. Wake the hell up and see what is so plain. These fuckers want to dominate or kill us. Period. We take them at their word because they continue to prove they mean what they say. If you want to believe pie-in-the-sky crap, you do so at your and your loved ones' risk. Unfortunately, you risk my loved ones as well. Stop it.
Marshall,
This is nonsense I wouldn't expect out of you. Do you honestly believe that if we pull out of Iraq that we are going to just lay down and let them destroy us? Couldn't there be an honest difference on what to do about the problem? Couldn't it be possible that we see a huge risk in spending what we are spending while the enemy spends dimes to our dollars? Hell you guys are suppose to be the money people! Quit grinding my country to dust!
"Couldn't there be an honest difference on what to do about the problem?"
Of course there could be. We're just waiting to hear it. But one thing is certain, whatever it is can't include leaving things to an Iraqi government not yet prepared to take care of business. This only leaves the place up for grabs, and who the hell do you think is going to grab it? Leaving now is not a viable option. Leaving now is cowardice and turning our backs on those who've put their faith in us. Come up with something that doesn't include those certain results.
Post a Comment