This bugs me. Giuliani had some attraction as a competent, successful administrator and leader. But this tears it. There is plenty of room for difference of opinion about strategies for fighting terrorism, but with blunder after blunder the Republicans have not demonstrated that they have a superior understanding of the terrorist threat and how to successfully fight it. And Israel/Palestine has nothing to do with it? Please. From an article of the same title by Roger Simon on politico.com (via Drudge):
Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001. But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.
"If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer." "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."
Giuliani said terrorists "hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world."
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer
Comments
re: Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win
I like your Republican blunder after blunder comment - you conveniently forget Democrat blunders made while Clinton was in office. They totally ignored the terrorist attacks made on the United States via the World Trade Center in 1993, the bomb attack on the USS Cole and US embassies around the world. If Democrats follow up on the policy changes they want to make we will be at risk. Like it our not the changes that President Bush put into place have prevented further attacks here and the Brits have done the same and prevented attacks there.
re: Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win
With my comment "not demonstrated that they have a superior understanding" I tried to indicate that I don't think the Democrats really have any great answers either. My objection is to the claim that the Republicans are obviously superior and that a Democrat in office will make us more vulnerable.Clinton didn't totally ignore the attacks you mentioned, but certainly he didn't sufficiently understand the danger to protect us before 9/11. Did Bush totally ignore the warnings from the CIA about bin Laden, terrorists hijacking airplanes, etc. in the months before 9/11?Yes, the changes Bush has put in place have prevented more attacks. In my opinion, those relevant changes are the ones that any government would make in reaction to the attack. Many other actions have, in my opinion, increased the danger and/or made the job more difficult: squandering the good will and support of the rest of the world, invading and occupying Iraq and getting bogged down in a morass that stretches our military way too thin and isn't sustainable, giving up the moral high ground on torture, etc.