Posted on 04/15/2007 2:57:29 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
Why would you expect one socialist not support another?
actually, that was a huge mistake by Bush. perhaps the single biggest of his “new tone” approach.
but we are stuck with it now - what he did letting Berger go, his failure to politicize the blame for 9-11, etc.
but what the hell - let’s blame Rudy for it and move on.
I agree.
I think Rudys trying to get the DumocRat nomination because he will never make to the primaries with his liberal B*llSh*t. Keep talking Rudy!
Even money Forbes joined because Rudy told him he supported a flat-tax, which of course Rudy later stated that he did not support any kind of flat-tax.
Their support was also before Rudy started opening his yap and spewing his Liberal crap.
Not blaming Rudy for Bush’s lack of spine. But considering his supposed “tough on terror” credentials, this is disappointing.
Rudy: Because Bill Clinton's policies are a lot like mine.
There you go again with the Ted Olson baloney. As I posted to you before with the actual numbers, over the years Ted Olson has contributed money to DEMOCRATS. He was also extremly free with his money for Rooty-tooty when he was mayor and supporting liberals 24/7.
Anyway, who died and made him 'Conservative in Chief'?
So stop with the Ted Olson crap. Ted Olson is nobody special. He's just another lawyer.
This is a case where Rudy would have handled it a lot like Clinton. He has compared himself to Clinton regarding his policy.
The way Rudy can flip and flop while singing a different tune out both sides of his mouth, his talents seem suited to the entertainment business (circus?).
"Most of [President] Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine"--Rudolph Giuliani, New York Post, Jun 8, 1999"I don't think tonight's result is tragic, I guess because I'm not that partisan a person ...
(restating RWG quote from 1996)
I think President Clinton is a good man, he's a very decent man, and the country has run pretty well."--Rudolph Giuliani, commenting on Bob Dole's loss in the 1996 presidential election.
New York Times, Nov 7, 1996
They get into the name dropping thing.
They repeat them over and over ad nauseum.
You are supposed to be impressed, and vote for Rudy because Ted says he is voting for Rudy. LOL
One step right... two steps left... for the past 55 years.
Didn’t Rummy even say the stories of Able Danger are not real?
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?SpeakerId=3996
check out the video to the right, where Fred talks about Terrorism pre-9/11, and how we are not prepared, because of millitary budget cuts, that where heavily due to the Clinton administration.
Tell that to the Treasoncrats who regularly blame the US and Israel, as if the terrorists had a right to fly them planes into the buildings.
He's right. The ones responsible for the attacks were the Islamofacists. Clinton was/is a piece of trash, but to blame him for the attacks would be ridiculous. He most certainly could have done more to prevent it but let's lay the blame squarely where it belongs. How would blaming him for the attacks be any different from the demented scumbags who to this day say we deserved it, or were asking for it? I don't see this as Rudy sticking up for clinton, I see it as focusing on the perpertrators and staying away from finger waving.
"The jihadists very much want a victory in Iraq. They feel that if they could defeat us in Iraq they will have a great victory for terrorism,"Giuliani said."What that should do is organize us to say if they want a big victory in Iraq then we have to deprive them of that victory."
This is different from what he's saying now.
Terrorists "are going to continue to be at war with us, no matter what the outcome in Iraq," Mr. Giuliani said recently in New Hampshire. The night before, he said that "there are no sure things, "and that if the United States fails in Iraq, "we have to be ready for that, too." In California a few days later, speaking of "the danger of focusing on Iraq too much," he said that complete success there would not win the fight against terrorism, and that failure there would not lose it.
Again, what is the problem with this? We are going to continue to be at war regardless of what happens in Iraq. President Bush has said many times that this will be a long war and that Iraq is just one front in the overall picture. I don't think that anyone can honestly say that our success in Iraq would mean that our enemies will give up fighting, and likewise I don't think anyone can honestly say that failure there would mean that we have lost this generational war. Rudy is right when he says that complete success there would not win the war and that failure would not lose it. It would be a severe blow to our chances of ultimately defeating the Islamofacist threat but it would by no means be the end, not for the US.
Now....flame away
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.