Giuliani: Don't Be Conned

[pault]

The mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani, is going to run for president in 2008. He has a rep for being a "Hero" of 9/11.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor whose popularity soared after his response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, moved closer to a full-fledged campaign for the Republican presidential nomination on Monday.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a sign that he's serious about running for the White House, the two-term mayor was filing a so-called "statement of candidacy" with the Federal Election Commission. In the process, he was eliminating the phrase "testing the waters" from earlier paperwork establishing his exploratory committee, said an official close to Giuliani's campaign.

 

 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/05/D8N3O4302.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's too bad here in reality Giulini was not a hero of 9/11, in fact his bureaucratic bs made a bad situation worse.

 

 

 

http://dailygotham.com/blog/paul/giulia ... e_on_water

 

 

 

http://dailygotham.com/blog/paul/swiftb ... y_guiliani

 

 

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12282006/ne ... berman.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moreover, the notoriously flawed 9/11 commission unsurprisingly gave him gentle treatment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioners Thomas Kean, a Republican, and Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, disclosed in their 2006 book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (ISBN 0-307-26377-0) that the Commission did not pursue a tough enough line of questioning with former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani because its members feared public anger if they challenged him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"It proved difficult, if not impossible, to raise hard questions about 9/11 in New York without it being perceived as criticism of the individual police and firefighters or of Mayor Giuliani. We did not ask tough questions, nor did we get all of the information we needed to put on the public record," they wrote. As the New York Times reported, "The commissionÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s gentle questioning of Mr. Giuliani during his May 19, 2004, testimony at the New School University in Greenwich Village was "a low point" in its handling of witnesses at its public hearings, they wrote."[21]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commi ... y_Giuliani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More resources:

 

 

 

http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/ar ... 40520.html

 

 

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html

 

 

 

http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_giuliani-account-9_11.html

[Devilsdragon]

lame, now we get to talk about the presidential campaign again in government >

[Tigra00]

It's cute that he thinks he can win because he was in a political position in New York when 9/11 happened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Too bad he fails to realize that in 2008, the chance of a Republican becoming President is exactly 0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

70% of the country hates George Bush. Therefore, 70% of the country will not trust his party to not screw up like he did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even the religious right cannot put their party in office. Democrats turn in 2008, unless they SERIOUSLY mess something up in Congress the next two years. Nancy and her tyrade about personal military plane usage for her family isn't freakin' helping them. She apparently thinks she's much more of a VIP than she is.

[dangeresque]

Everybody in New York will vote for him though...and there is almost no republicans there, they like him because he did a good job of cleaning up NYC...i would probably vote for him if i was old enough

[pault]

lame, now we get to talk about the presidential campaign again in government ><

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just find it fascinating how the media has perpetuated this myth that Giuliani somehow was this amazing asset on 9/11 and the days following, while in reality his conduct was questionable, and his complacency toward the 9/11 commissions lies (half of New Yorkers believe the government had knowledge of the attacks before they happened, 66% believe there should be a new investigation) show that he has very little gumption or leadership potential.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everybody in New York will vote for him though...and there is almost no republicans there, they like him because he did a good job of cleaning up NYC...i would probably vote for him if i was old enough

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hahaha, even Barak Obama is ahead of Giulinai in the polls in New York.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://dailygotham.com/blog/paul/new_yo ... heart_rudy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also noted in the Crain's article is that Rudy also loses to Obama in the state, by 42%-31%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Yorkers evidently remember that Rudy Giuliani is a corrupt, authoritarian publicity hound, who was deeply unpopular by September 10, 2001.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And maybe they're even aware that the rest is mostly [cabbage], too.

[Tigra00]

Yea, Obama could win if Hilary would shut her mouth about him being a Muslim, or being one in the past, whatever. Sadly I think she has a much better chance of winning. I personally won't be voting for her just because of her stance on video games. Trying to pass laws to make M rated games unpurchasable to minors (they already can't) by punishing retailers could make problems in general.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm 99.99% sure a Republican will not win, and I'm only granting that extra .01% to them because I'm not a psychic. I don't even know who's running for Republican canidates, and I watch CNN *all day*. :lol:

[pault]

Yea, Obama could win if Hilary would shut her mouth about him being a Muslim, or being one in the past, whatever. Sadly I think she has a much better chance of winning. I personally won't be voting for her just because of her stance on video games. Trying to pass laws to make M rated games unperchasable to minors (they already can't) by punishing retailers could make problems in general.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama and Hilary are both useless in my opinion. Hilary voted for the war in Iraq, and Obama's stance on free trade and social issues screams "Big government". In fact, both candidates want to expand the governments role in individuals lives. I'm voting for Nader or whoever norml supports.

[1_man_army]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Too bad he fails to realize that in 2008, the chance of a Republican becoming President is exactly 0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

70% of the country hates George Bush. Therefore, 70% of the country will not trust his party to not screw up like he did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not impossible, even nowadays I can't see alot of the Southern States voting for a non-white President (Obama) especially considering all the idiotic allegations that are being hurled at him, such as him going to a "terrorist training school" which was just an Islamic school abroad (I think it was in Indonesia).

 

 

 

On top of that Hilary Clinton is hated by alot of people from what I see on TV, actually can anybody explain why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guiliani came out of 9/11 really well that will really be good for his campaign since terrorism and homeland security is so over-emphasised in American politics at the moment. His previous zero-tolerance to crime and particularly organised crime won't do him any harm. The guy is seen as a strong leader and personality and thats what alot of people look for when deciding how to vote......stranger things have happened.

[RebelAssassin]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On top of that Hilary Clinton is hated by alot of people from what I see on TV, actually can anybody explain why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

tried to ban Grand Theft Auto

 

 

 

:shame:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

im sure thats not the main reason though

[pault]

 

 

 

Guiliani came out of 9/11 really well that will really be good for his campaign since terrorism and homeland security is so over-emphasised in American politics at the moment. His previous zero-tolerance to crime and particularly organised crime won't do him any harm. The guy is seen as a strong leader and personality and thats what alot of people look for when deciding how to vote......stranger things have happened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The paradox is that none of this is based in reality. New Yorkers know that there are still many unanswered questions about 9/11, and that Giuliani failed them. He is a corrupt politician who preformed poorly under pressure and failed to confront the governments scandalous lies in the 9/11 Commission, probably because he felt so blessed by the Commissions lack of tough questioning in his own case.

[1_man_army]

 

 

 

 

Guiliani came out of 9/11 really well that will really be good for his campaign since terrorism and homeland security is so over-emphasised in American politics at the moment. His previous zero-tolerance to crime and particularly organised crime won't do him any harm. The guy is seen as a strong leader and personality and thats what alot of people look for when deciding how to vote......stranger things have happened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The paradox is that none of this is based in reality. New Yorkers know that there are still many unanswered questions about 9/11, and that Giuliani failed them. He is a corrupt politician who preformed poorly under pressure and failed to confront the governments scandalous lies in the 9/11 Commission, probably because he felt so blessed by the Commissions lack of tough questioning in his own case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't matter what really happened though, thats my point, as long as the myth is still perceived to be reality by enough people outside of NYC then it doesn't matter. Although to be fair in the glare of a Presidential campaign it would eventually come out anyway.

[Barihawk]

You realize that none of the prospective Republican candidates are anything like Bush?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, Hillary is practically pre-nominating herself. If she loses the Caucus and decides to run independant, the Republicans have a huge chance of winning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's see...strong GOP with fresh blood Candidates...or fragmented split ole' Democrats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the Democrats want to win, they are going to need some serious restructuring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Guiliani doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of getting elected to the GOP. My money's on Powell or this new guy from Colorado (name eludes me, but my parents told me to keep an eye on him). John McCain also has a good chance, but ya'll probably hate him because he hates videogames.

[harryp0tt3rules]

I can't see a republican winning at all in 2008 with all that has happened to them, look at what has happened in congress and the house recently.

[Barihawk]

I can't see a republican winning at all in 2008 with all that has happened to them, look at what has happened in congress and the house recently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That statement would make sense if it were something like 72-1-27 in the Senate. But it's 50-1-49. (the independant votes liberal) Hardly a major upset.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let us not forget that congress will change again in two years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If people vote purely on partisan reasons, we will have a bad 4 years. It doesn't matter who gets elected (except for Hillary), whoever sits in the chair is going to continue that war until Iraq stabilizes. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the Democrats pull the US out of Iraq right now, we'd be looking at the entire region erupting into a big war.

[Tigra00]

You realize that none of the prospective Republican candidates are anything like Bush?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, Hillary is practically pre-nominating herself. If she loses the Caucus and decides to run independant, the Republicans have a huge chance of winning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's see...strong GOP with fresh blood Candidates...or fragmented split ole' Democrats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the Democrats want to win, they are going to need some serious restructuring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Guiliani doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of getting elected to the GOP. My money's on Powell or this new guy from Colorado (name eludes me, but my parents told me to keep an eye on him). John McCain also has a good chance, but ya'll probably hate him because he hates videogames.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I realize they're different, but the thing is that won't matter to people at all. Bush has seriously given them a bad name. Apart from Republicans offering gold bars for citizens in return for votes, I can't see them winning. :P It works the exact same way the mid-term Congress elections worked. Republicans lost out DIRECTLY from George Bush giving them a bad name.

[Barihawk]

If that's the case, this country is going to Hell in a handbasket. If people misunderstand the Party system so much...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...ugh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sadly, if you are right, we are up for four years of awfulness. Geez, if we get Hillary maybe even a nifty war (with two nuclear parties! Israel and Pakistan!).

[aaron1120]

This has happened before. Two people are liked from the same party so they split the vote for that party, then the person who is running in the other party wins.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I bet in 2008 Obama and Hilary will split the Democratic vote giving Giuliani the edge in the election.

[Satenza]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If people vote purely on partisan reasons, we will have a bad 4 years. It doesn't matter who gets elected (except for Hillary), whoever sits in the chair is going to continue that war until Iraq stabilizes. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the Democrats pull the US out of Iraq right now, we'd be looking at the entire region erupting into a big war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, beating Bush's last four years won't be too tough a job. Anyone who tries to end the confict as soon as possible would leave the place in all out civil war. However even sorting everything properly will still cause rifts between the three groups and whoever gets the oil.

[Errdoth]

Though this is a bigger issue, what is it with you and 9/11? No offense, but it happened in the past and is a done deal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tigra00]

If that's the case, this country is going to Hell in a handbasket. If people misunderstand the Party system so much...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...ugh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sadly, if you are right, we are up for four years of awfulness. Geez, if we get Hillary maybe even a nifty war (with two nuclear parties! Israel and Pakistan!).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am right. There's really no "if" about it anymore, the people of America really are, and let's be honest here, they're just that stupid. They do not differentiate between people, they differentiate between parties...Which is why I don't even know why we HAVE parties, but meh. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And again, let's be honest, it doesn't matter WHO wins, it's going to be 4 years of awfulness either way. And 4 years after that, and then another. No matter who's in office, something is always goin' wrong and making everyone mad. War makes it all worse, but whatever. I suppose I was too young to really remember much, but when Clinton was in office, I don't remember people being so angry and stuff.

[Tigra00]

This has happened before. Two people are liked from the same party so they split the vote for that party, then the person who is running in the other party wins.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I bet in 2008 Obama and Hilary will split the Democratic vote giving Giuliani the edge in the election.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're absolutely right. I forgot to address this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the only way the Republican party will get into office, too. And Hilary throwing attacks out ALREADY by pointing out that Obama went to Muslim school or something is already going to start splitting the vote. That was an OBVIOUS unneeded political attack, because really, what is the relevance of him going to Muslim school? It means nothing, especially since I believe he said he's a Christian. She's just attacking him to split America towards voting for her. If you look into that, the only way that would work is if the American people were stupid and went "OMG! MUSLIM!" and that she believes they will. Guess what? It would have worked brilliantly if she said it in 2008, but she said it in o6/07 and noone is even going to remember then. She believes the American people are stupid enough to be swayed by that, so I'm not voting for her just off principle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dunno' what all the canidates stand for yet, but I'm liking Obama personally. I've seen several times now when he was attacked and he basically said "Oh well?" rather than lashing back out. That's what we need...Someone who see's through the other person's political BS attacks and keeps goin' with his stuff.

[1_man_army]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If people vote purely on partisan reasons, we will have a bad 4 years. It doesn't matter who gets elected (except for Hillary), whoever sits in the chair is going to continue that war until Iraq stabilizes. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the Democrats pull the US out of Iraq right now, we'd be looking at the entire region erupting into a big war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, beating Bush's last four years won't be too tough a job. Anyone who tries to end the confict as soon as possible would leave the place in all out civil war. However even sorting everything properly will still cause rifts between the three groups and whoever gets the oil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be fair to Bush he did come into office at an incredibly difficult time first time & in this last term he's pretty much between a rock and a hard place. If he leaves Iraq he'll be seen as weak and if he stays the bodies will keep piling up - quite literally a case of "damned if you do & damned if you don't."

[Tigra00]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If people vote purely on partisan reasons, we will have a bad 4 years. It doesn't matter who gets elected (except for Hillary), whoever sits in the chair is going to continue that war until Iraq stabilizes. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the Democrats pull the US out of Iraq right now, we'd be looking at the entire region erupting into a big war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, beating Bush's last four years won't be too tough a job. Anyone who tries to end the confict as soon as possible would leave the place in all out civil war. However even sorting everything properly will still cause rifts between the three groups and whoever gets the oil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be fair to Bush he did come into office at an incredibly difficult time first time & in this last term he's pretty much between a rock and a hard place. If he leaves Iraq he'll be seen as weak and if he stays the bodies will keep piling up - quite literally a case of "damned if you do & damned if you don't."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm curious how he came into a "hard time"? The 9/11 attacks, or what? That wasn't a hard time, that was what started the hard time he created...

[Doughnut]

Though this is a bigger issue, what is it with you and 9/11? No offense, but it happened in the past and is a done deal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand why PaulT just doesn't move to the Middle East and have fun of making Americans. :roll:

[pault]

To be fair to Bush he did come into office at an incredibly difficult time first time & in this last term he's pretty much between a rock and a hard place. If he leaves Iraq he'll be seen as weak and if he stays the bodies will keep piling up - quite literally a case of "damned if you do & damned if you don't."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be fair to Bush, he's a liar and a war profiteer who manipulated the intelligence during the buildup to the Iraq war, lied to congress, and allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen. Bush is a rock.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If people vote purely on partisan reasons, we will have a bad 4 years. It doesn't matter who gets elected (except for Hillary), whoever sits in the chair is going to continue that war until Iraq stabilizes. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What constitutes stability in Iraq? Is there any evidence that those conditions can ever be achieved by a foreign occupying force?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the Democrats pull the US out of Iraq right now, we'd be looking at the entire region erupting into a big war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not our war to fight. Quite frankly, it isn't any of the United States business if the Sunnis and the Shi'ites want to kill eachother. Maybe the United States original strategy of installling a dictator and giving him chemical weapons wasn't so bad after all.