Politico Stretches On Giuliani Remarks
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, The War On Terrorism, WarSome may even call it ‘lying’, but the website reports that Rudy talked about how electing a Dem President means a ‘new 9/11.’
Read this story and tell me if you can find Rudy suggesting anything like that.
I certainly didn’t…
The former New York City mayor, currently leading in all national polls for the Republican nomination for president, said Tuesday night that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.“But the question is,” Giuliani said, “how long will it take and how many casualties will we have? If we are on defense (with a Democratic president,) we will have more losses and it will go on longer.â€Â?
“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,� Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.�
He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.�
Now, I won’t excuse his hacky attempt to paint the Dems as weak on defense, but he certainly didn’t suggest that voting in a Dem president would bring about a ‘new 9/11.’ He said they didn’t understand the war on terrorism and that we’d have more casulaties as a result. And it certainly appears to me that he’s talking about the global war…not getting hit at home.
I don’t know…maybe you can find something I didn’t, but considered me disappointed with Politico’s spin on this one.
UPDATE:
Well, well, well…looks like Drudge has picked up the title of the article as his main headline: GIULIANI WARNS OF ‘NEW 9/11′ IF DEMS WIN
Did he read the article either?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 24th, 2007 and is filed under 2008 Election, The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 24th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
“Now, I won’t excuse his hacky attempt to paint the Dems as weak on defense”
Well, it does fit at least SOME of the Democratic Presidential candidates. I mean who looks at Kucinich and sees “Commander In Chief”?
But you are right, Rudy doesn’t say what Politico (or Drudge) says he says.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Simon only gives you some short quotes, not the whole speech. But he was there, so maybe he’s just paraphrasing a direct quote.
In any case, it directly echo’s what Dick Cheney said before the 2004 election, so it would hardly be unprecedented.
And in the same vain, here’s how Giuliani described being on defense in 2004:
GIULIANI: And worse, they also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously almost in direct proportion to the horror of their attack.
Terrorist acts became like a ticket to the international bargaining table. How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize while he was supporting a plague of terrorism in the Middle East and undermining any chance of peace?
Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of our world, much like observing Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate the Soviet Union through the use of mutually assured destruction.
President Bush decided that we could no longer be just on defense against global terrorism, we must also be on offense.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Umm…who takes Kucinich seriously again?
April 25th, 2007 at 9:10 am
“This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!� Giuliani said in his speech. “Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!�
It could be that he garnered that idea because of the above quote from the speech. Giuliani says we were attacked because we were “on defense” and that Democrats will put us back “on defense” implying that, indeed, Dems will allow another attack to happen. Of course, he didn’t say it outright, but the implication is clear.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Yes, the implication is clear and in fact Giuliani is correct. The Democrats would in all likelihood put the U.S. back in a defense posture. Why don’t the Democrats instead of bitching about implications, say the obvious:
“Yes, we were on defense, but the ‘defense’ sucked and thus we were successfully attacked. The goal of winning the WOT should be, in fact, to get the U.S. back in a defensive posture. In order to that, you have commit resources to building an adequate defense, obviously better than pre-9/11. The saying, “The best defense is a good offense” works with football games. It doesn’t work so well with national security because it means you are constantly at war.”
But all the Dems do is nag and complain and badger — which makes them look weak on national security, because real men don’t whine.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Dos Peros, thanks for summing up everything I’ve thought about national security for the past five years.
Also, thanks for pointing out a way the Democrats can turn their perceived weaknesses into their strengths instead of answering, “Yeah, well…um…you’re meen 2 me!”
April 25th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
I think it’s perfectly legitimate for Giuliani or anyone else to accuse the Democrats of not understanding the war on terror and the threats posed to us. Most Democrats seem far more focused on pointing out the failings of Republicans than they are on trying to institute a different approach. One thing I hoped for in a Democratic congress was a revived focus on plugging the still-gaping holes in our security. Instead we’ve had a near non-stop focus on Iraq.
Just once I’d like to hear a major Dem stand up and say “George Bush is 100% correct about the seriousness of the threats posed to us. But he’s wrong about the solutions. Here’s what we should be doing instead…”
I don’t know why Dems don’t speak that way. But, until they do, they are vulnerable to the kinds of accusations thrown around by Giuliani.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Are any elected Democrats reading this? God, they should. Let’s start our own party, to hell with both of em.
Alan, Hillary and Obama are tiptoeing around a platform like the one you describe, but they don’t articulate it. (Don’t get me wrong, they’re both very articulate) They come off looking like waffling temperature-takers. Keep watching Obama, though. I predict he’s gonna nail Hillary (and the rest) on this one. You’ll notice he doesn’t have a “clear” foreign policy position yet. Look out when he does. Hillary’s back is against the wall, because she can’t escape the Iraq vote problem. She’s already been trapped parsing her words like her husband. Is anybody looking forward to more of that?
DosPeros, I predict Obama’s foreign policy plank will be identical to your post. Rudy did the Dems a favor by framing it in these terms.
Great chain, all