Posted on 04/29/2007 3:53:19 PM PDT by areafiftyone
By James Joyner
Former Senator Gary Hart writes an “open letter” to Rudy Giuliani on the Huffington Post blog. (You’d think someone of his stature could get op-ed space somewhere, no?) His beef is that Giuliani says Democrats aren’t serious about terrorism yet Giuliani did nothing to stop the 9/11 attacks even though Hart put out a white paper in January 2001 saying there was a threat of a terrorist attack in the United States.
The George W. Bush administration did nothing about these warnings and we lost 3,000 American lives. What did you do during those critical eight months? Where were you? Were you on the defensive, or were you even paying attention?
Before you qualify to criticize Democrats, Mr. Giuliani, you must account for your preparation of your city for these clearly predicted attacks. Tell us, please, what steps you took to make your city safer.
Until you do, then I strongly suggest you should keep your mouth shut about Democrats and terrorism.
That’s got to be the silliest thing I’ve read in quite some time. Granted, Giuliani’s grandstanding on terrorism, especially on partisan lines, is rather absurd, too. But, surely, a generalized warning that terrorists might attack the United States is hardly the same as “clearly predicted attacks.”
And what exactly was the mayor of NYC supposed to do with the information? Put anti-aircraft missiles atop the World Trade Center in case some planes were hijacked and flown into them?
For that matter, it’s not entirely clear what President Bush should have done. After all, Bill Clinton was president during al Qaeda’s ascendancy, including numerous attacks on U.S. targets. While some of us criticized him for the tepidness of his responses, it’s doubtful he could have mustered the support necessary to invade Afghanistan and wipe them out. Surely, Bush couldn’t have, either, pre-9/11, having come to office months after the most recent attack.
The 9/11 attacks did not, as the cliché goes, change everything. They did, however, change the nature of the debate around terrorism. While I disagree with silly partisan gamesmanship over the issue, it’s perfectly fair to draw distinctions between one candidate’s preferred policy options and another’s.
If you want to read Gary Hart’s letter click on the link to Gary Hart’s name.
Better to ask ol' BJ Clintoon what he did during "those critical eight YEARS"!! Gary Hart is such a has-been.
|
Against 2 jumbo jets? No the question Hart is why were 2 jets that were flown out of a Logan Airport in Boston Massachusetts, a state that Ted Kennedy and John Kerry represent allowed to be hijacked in the first place? How can a mayor defend a city when another city did nothing for airport security?
Until you do, then I strongly suggest you should keep your mouth shut about Democrats and terrorism.
You party is on the record numerous times in co-opting national security and not defending the troops. You represent a party of traitors and scumbags for the last 40 years. You will destroy this country all just to embarrass and humiliate 1 man, Bush. Your party is so far down the rat hole that there is no way anyone other than an ACLU lawyer would perceive your party as Americans and defenders against terrorism.
This actually is good. This opens the door to Bill Clinton’s incompetence during his administration when it came to protecting the U.S. Rudy Giuliani going after the Democrats this way will help Republicans.
How dare you criticize Clinton's PATRIOTISM??!!
|
Well, because the Dems will make everyone rich (except of course the current greedy corporations). The Dems will save the planet, allow sex with camels, undo the wrongs of slavery, eliminate the non-existant terrorist threat, and whatever else pleases you.
Gary has quite a lofty opinion of himself and his importance, doesn't he? He put out a "white paper" and not everybody memorized it - just wow!
What makes Gary Hart think his opinion is valued. As far as I’m concerned, his career has been distinguished by being wrong about everything. He was, however, the first candidate to bring extramarital affairs into Presidential politics.
Make that a never was.
We're talking 8 months of the Bush being President versus Clinton being President for 8 years. Big difference.
The point being made is not that dems are unpatriotic. Rather the the point is that they don't get it. They don't see terrorism as an issue to be concerned.
Another tactic they try is that if republicans talk about terrorism the dems will say that the republicans are talking fear. Of course if dems talk about terrorism they they're not talking fear. But this is how dems appeal to people with short attention spans.
One of Hart’s all-time losers was his suggestion that we replace our carriers with smaller carriers similar to the Brits. Wouldn’t they have been useful in the Gulf War and Iraqi Freedom? (sarcasm)
Could you imagine a scenario where in say July or August of 2001 then Attorney General John Ashcroft announces that his department has arrested 19 ARAB MEN accusing them of plotting terrorist attacks in the US aimed at killed in excess of 3,000 americans. I think we all know what the PC and racial profiling crowd would have said about that and the NY Times would be asking for the resignation of John Ashcroft immediately.
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.