Posted on 02/16/2007 10:53:43 PM PST by stockstrader
Why would anyone think that we need Rudy to fight the WOT?
Rudy’s very own words make the very best case AGAINST needing him for that fight—when he stated that, "Clinton did all that he could do" (when he was asked about Slick's dereliction of duty in the WOT). Was that unconscionable, pathetic (not to mention blatantly false) pandering to his liberal base, or what??? I have to give credit where credit is due--Rudy does do a very good job as a Clinton-Apologist.
The person most culpable for 9/11 was Slick. Rudy showed his core liberal slant when he provided badly-needed 'political cover' for Slick by DEFENDING him after the Chris Wallace interview meltdown by saying that (paraphrasing here), "I don’t blame Clinton. Clinton did all that he could do". That comment helped take public heat off of Slick for Slick’s dereliction-of-duty in the WOT and for Slick’s not capturing OBL—when Slick was offered him three times!! It was GREAT political cover, and I’m sure it made big points with the far left. I’m sure that he got a standing ovation at the KOS, the DU and every other liberal blog, talkshow, or TV show. Heck, the DNC couldn’t have done a better job of defending Clinton.
So “Slick did all that he could do”? Oh really, Rudy? Tell us more. Does that include Slick’s building of the Gorelick Wall ? Does that include Slick’s gross underfunding of our military? Does that include grossly underfunding our intelligence agencies with the ‘balanced budget’ that Slick so proudly took credit for? Does that include his minimal responses to numerous terrorist attacks against the US and its facilities/personnel during the Slick years starting with the WTC attack, Khobar Barracks, attacks on US diplomats in Islamabad, to the attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on the US embassy in Peru, and the bombing of the USS Cole? Does that also include Slick’s refusal to accept OBL when Sudan offered him to us three times? THREE TIMES! Does that include Slick’s unwillingness to ‘take out’ OBL when we had him in our sights (according the book from his military aide, Lt Col Buzz Patterson)? So “Slick did all that he could do”? Yarite, Rudy, tell that groveling, pandering lie to the liberals in your ‘new’ conservative base. Yep, Rudy got WILD CHEERS from his liberal buddies for that one!!
Since Rudy himself, said that “Clinton did all that he could do”--and Rudy earlier said that “Most of Clinton’s policies are very similar to most of mine” (paraphrasing), why in the world would anyone think that Rudy would be any tougher in the WOT than anyone else—since he wouldn’t even have been tougher than Clinton?
I just finished reading his book, “Leadership”. In fairness to Rudy, he DID do a good job on crime in NYC. He gets a crisp salute for that one (except, of course, for using his city as a ‘illegal alien sanctuary’—which, I guess, doesn’t count). I forgot, too, to mention that Rudy DOES also kick bad, uninvited guests out of parties (Arafat). Well, I guess that DOES at least qualify Rudy as a good nightclub or party bouncer. But even a good bouncer isn’t ‘selective’ in his job. Why didn’t he help to get rid of the illegal aliens in his city as the INS tried to get him to?? Last time I looked, illegal aliens, too, are UNINVITED GUESTS! A good bouncer does not distinguish between bad and not-quite-so-bad uninvited guests.
Oh, and I almost forgot. He also returned that $10 million check to that Saudi prince. Why not just keep their money? Hmmmm, think about this one. How about this instead? He could have kept the check—and informed the prince that he was going to use the prince’s very own money to open three K-12 (or whatever they have over there), anti-Wahabi (anti-maddrasses) schools in Saudi Arabia’s three largest cities--to counter the virulent anti-US and anti-Western hate, venom and vitriolic lies spewed in the name of Islam (which likely helped to cause 9/11 and will continue to cause us problems for a long time to come) in the existing maddrasses. Just another option here. So Rudy will be tough? How about Rudy’s willingness to use NYC as a sanctuary for illegals—by defying/suing the INS? Yep, real strong in the WOT . /s
How about his pro-amnesty leanings and unwillingness to fight illegal immigration in his own city? No possible or conceivable terror connection there, right? /s How about the ‘gun-grabbing, anti-gun mentality’ of liberals like Rudy, which left our aircrews unable to defend themselves and their passengers on 9/11? Who knows, maybe arming them could have been prevented (extra challenge for the terrorists) 9/11, or even possibly stopped the tragedies that horrible day. Liberals like Rudy would have us believe that guns are bad. Well, it’s a good thing those aircrews weren’t armed that day with guns—or SOMETHING REALLY, REALLY, REALLY BAD COULD HAVE HAPPENED that day!! <----BPSCE (biggest possible sarcasm imaginable ever!!)
How about his ONE and ONLY personnel recommendation to Pres Bush (that we know about anyway) of his buddy Bernie Kerik for Homeland Security? We all know how much that helped the President in the WOT. Since that’s the only recommendation/appointment to a national office we can judge Rudy on, I guess that we could expect more outstanding appointments just like that in the future. Maybe Bill Clinton the UN? Maybe Hillary (in the spirit of conciliation) to the USSC? Just kidding.
Rudy’s very own words defending Slick, make the very case against a 'one trick pony' like Rudy--since he is, in effect, minimizing and trivializing the number one reason given by Rudy-apologists for his own election! Thanks again for your comments, Rudy. But then again, why should that surprise anyone since he once said that’s Slick’s policies weren’t all that different than his own (paraphrasing again). Yep, if that won’t fire up and energize the base for a big turnout, nothing will. /s
Combine Rudy’s comments defending Slick, with:
(1) The incredible growth in government surveillance activities from the Patriot Act,
(2) The growth in government surveillance in ECHELON,
(3) The growth in government surveillance in CARNIVORE,
(4) Redeployment of FBI personnel from illegal drugs to national security,
(5) The removal of the Gorelick Wall (thanks, again Slick—Rudy, are you listening?),
(6) The new gigantic government bureaucracy, with tens of thousands of new government employees, the TSA,
(7) With its huge, bigger, parent version—the new Washington, DC, bureaucracy (aka the Homeland Security Dept),
(8) The blank check now given to our intelligence agencies, and,
(9) The greatly increased coordination/info sharing between our intelligence agencies and the foreign intel agencies of our allies and friends,
(10) Belated arming of our aircrews,
(11) Increased presence of federal air marshals,
(12) The new, first-ever Director of National Intelligence,
(13) Stepped-up, updated and more thorough background checks on all employees in sensitive positions (govt and private industry), and
(14) Who knows what else—as this is all that quickly comes to mind--I’m sure there’s lots more that we aren’t even aware of,,,
--and you see that Pres Bush will be leaving behind a strong, impressive and formidable line of defense that any future President can ride on for a long, long, long time.
Given the massive changes and improvements in our security systems mentioned above, we don't need a ‘one-trick pony’ like Rudy--when his abortion, gun control, pro-gay, pro-amnesty, big govt leanings (not to mention minor issues, like the 'train wreck'--aka his personal life) make him totally unacceptable to the traditional conservative base.
To be fair here, I have to also criticize the anti-Rudy crowd here on FR. It’s just absolutely ridiculous to be a ‘one issue’ voter (like some anti-Rudy people here are) and oppose Rudy because of just ONE SINGLE particular issue —when there are just SO DARN, MANY OTHER ISSUES to oppose him on too!
He DID do a great job as mayor of a large, eastern liberal city. Another salute to him. He was perfect for that job. Attorney General? Maybe. Good choice, actually—after all he did have a great deal of success fighting crime in NYC. THEN, maybe, just maybe, he could finally work to get rid of those illegals that he chose to ignore as mayor. With Rudy as AG, we can also be assured that this country will never have a ‘squeegee man’ problem (although no US President has yet to be faced with this societal scourge rearing its ugly head on a national scale, its still better to be safe than sorry) . Homeland Security? Even I think HE would be a whole lot better than his first choice, Bernie Kerik. HUD? We already know how effective he was in fixing broken windows on abandoned buildings in NYC. Which reminds me, how about Head of FEMA? That’s it. Bingo. The ideal job for him—as it blends his background and experience perfectly. He would be great! There are lots of good choices for Rudy in the next Administration (especially if it happens to be the Democratic Party in the White House).
But Rudy as President? No thanks. Liberal Republicans are more dangerous that liberal democrats—because liberal Republicans BLUR THE DISTINCTION between liberalism and conservatism—making liberalism much more acceptable.
But at least he is electable. /s
Because he can win. And history proves he can take on the bad guys. And win.
I ain't voting for him because of WOT considerations or leadership. I'll be casting vote for him to bring conservative justices to the courts.
Please expound on this. How does history prove this...exactly?
Seems like there are people here who would be quite content to see the clintons back in the white house.
He took the Mob out of South Street Seaport and a couple of other places they were entrenced.
Cleaned up Times Square too.
Name me one liberal who has ever named conservatives to the courts.
Name me three Republicans, conservatives or not, who Giuliani named to the courts in NYC while he was Mayor.
But while you're looking, allow me to say, respectfully, that this claim of yours is a complete and utter crock.
Seems as if there are people here who are content to nominate a complete liberal to head up the conservative party.
"Most of Clinton's policies are similar to most of mine." - Rudy Giuliani
Wow. The Democrat Media, and the RINOs in the GOP, have you believing that all you, a free and sovereign citizen of these United States, are going to get are crumbs.
That really sucks.
My advice to you is to suck it up and stick it back down their throats...
Good rant. Bookmarking.
Is that really the choice we have right now? Really?
Those of us that are old enough, and that knew that New York City was unsavable, remember how Rudy did the impossible, he saved New York.
Before 9/11 the media was in the process of destroying Rudy and then the Towers went down and we got a second look at the man, as he, for whatever reason became a symbol of American strength.
By being the greatest mayor that NYC has ever had, and after proving that again after 9/11, Rudy showed us that he can make history, now what we conservatives have to figure out is what kind of history does he desire to make.
Link please. Or are we talking vanity?
Exactly. Nobody's perfect. Rudy's a tough guy. He cleaned up NYC. The Liberals hate him. He can win. He's got my vote.:-)
(not to mention the fact that he attended hundreds of 9-11 funerals - and Hillary attended NONE.)
No, a LOT of people here would much rather see a conservative in the White House while some people here seem to prefer a liberal. The latter makes no sense to me whatsoever.
"now what we conservatives have to figure out is what kind of history does he desire to make."
How about the destruction of the Republican party? That would be pretty historic!
"but it's what we've got."
Why, is the election next week? Why is it the only chance we have?
Can't we give it 6 months or a year or so? Just to see what shakes out.
There is bill, then there is hillary, and I think hillary is more of a leftist than her husband was. Question is, which clinton was Giuliani referring to and which policies in particular was he talking about.
Frankly, I can't tolerate hillary, and now with the way she's been backtracking on the war, and talking about getting out of iraq if she becomes president, I'd rather not see her get in the white house, even if it means we end up with half a conservative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.