Gothamist: Dems Think Rudy is "9/11"-ing Too Much

will.xls

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:11:31 -0500

The election is over a year away. This whole country has gone bats__t crazy.

steve

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:49:37 -0500

Dude, do you want to know what's funny? I am probably more "conservative" than you are. However, I never let that get in the way of what is right or wrong. I strongly believe in the core democratic principles of this country, and it is awful to see politicians manipulate the system. I might agree with with the a#%hole scott about many issues otherwise, but I don't like when arguments are inflamatory, insulting and based on little more than assumptions. You can be liberal with an intelligent argument, and you can be conservative with intelligent argument. However, you cannot escape the fact that bad government, is bad government, and it is no more clear than now.

Elderta

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:35:34 -0500

Ah yes... those centrists. They always win in the end.

Elderta

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:29:38 -0500

Well, according to you it's nothing. According to me, it's about time the Administration was called on its corruption and cronyism. What's that "A" word that I heard so much about during the 90s? Oh right... accountability. So to me, they are doing what they are suppose to do according to the Constitution... checks and balances? Remember them? Or for that matter, remember the Constitution? Like it or not, Scott, this country is run by two parties representing (they say) the people who live here. It's not a Republican America or Democratic America, it's America. Sure, when one party wins over the other, their policies are favored, but at least in the not-to-distant-past the party in power did a little more than pretend that other people live in the country. And constant litigation... hmm... the memories of "you rightists" are just really really short, aren't they? Maybe you live in a Groundhog Day-like reality where only the Democrats prosecute Republicans over nothing? Hmmm... the 90s weren't that long ago. Scott, I know it's a slim majority. But what did Bush say in 2004... about political capital and he's gonna spend it? Well... I guess you always need an accountant in the end to make sure you've spent it properly.

Dude

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:25:53 -0500

Obviously nothing insightful will come out of either the liberal treehuggers nor the fear-monging good ole boys. Have fun with NASCAR and meth, scott and mario, and enjoy your Al Gore Tribeca tribute, steve and elderta! Centrist signing off.

scott

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:16:49 -0500

Elderta-"Hmm... I remember a change happened then. Uh... what was it? Oh yes, Dems took over the House and Senate. " Yes, they did take over the majority, a very slim one . Ands what pray tell have they done since?? Thats the joke. Not a freaking thing except constant litigation and investigations. For shame.

Elderta

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:51:44 -0500

According to Rasmussen, Giuliani leads nationally by only three points over Obama, while 33% of people say that if Obama wins the nomination, they will certainly vote for Obama over Giuliani's 29% of definites. Obama also enjoys a 14% lead over with independents over Giuliani. IRight now... over a year out from the actual election... that's a pretty tight race there. I'm sure that Rudy will get a bump with his fearmongering, cause fear rules the Republican Party. Fear and evil. I guess America's come a long way when those are the two things a candidate can rely on. BTW, I thought Republicans didn't rely on polls? And wasn't the last election for the Congress? Hmm... I remember a change happened then. Uh... what was it? Oh yes, Dems took over the House and Senate. See what happens when Karl Rove has *THE* numbers? Cheers, scott!

scott

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:21:21 -0500

Giuliani leads pack in swing states Politics on the Hudson, NY - 1 hour ago In Florida: Giuliani leads Clinton 49 percent to 41 percent, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama 49 to 38 percent, and Gore 47 to 43 percent. ... Giuliani leads all candidates in NJ Cherry Hill Courier Post, NJ - Apr 19, 2007 Giuliani leads New York Sen. Hillary Clinton 49 percent to 40 percent, the poll found. He leads Illinois Sen. Barack Obama 48 percent to 38 percent, ... Giuliani leads all potential challengers in New Jersey KOLD-TV, AZ - Apr 19, 2007 But a new poll out this morning shows former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani leading all presidential challengers in the Garden State. ... At least in my home stae of NJ, there are a mojority of people with some common sense. You libs like to think that most people beleive your lies, but the truth is just the opposite. The last two elections and the current polls prove that.

scott

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:16:36 -0500

Giuliani Leads Democrats in New Jersey Angus Reid Global Monitor, Canada - Apr 21, 2007 (Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Republican Rudy Giuliani is the most popular presidential contender in the Garden State, according to a poll by the Quinnipiac ...

jammer

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:22:47 -0500

New York City should just secede from the rest of th e country (or at least the parts that are seedbed for the likes of scott, etc.), because clearly, we feeble-minded, cowardly liberals are the only ones that read between the lines and have sense enough to know that the shit hit the fan, and has been hanging off of it for the last 6+ years. Better prepare for nuclear holocaust, folks, because that's what's going to happen on Rudy's watch, and he'll gladly let it happen, the rube.

Tim N.

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:07:58 -0500

They say a whore is a whore because she's only got one thing to sell. So of course it was only a matter of time before the 9/11 Whore showed his oversold, painted face. And there's Scott and the rest of the scared shitless hoards who can't get their cash out of their soiled pants fast enough.

steve

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:40:10 -0500

actually I did not state any political opinions thus far, just asked you a question. Did I call you a name? I'm not liberal. You are the one sticking to labels which prevents real thought.

Anonymous

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:28:51 -0500

"Are job" this says it all

Mario

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:28:31 -0500

Steve, seems like your pointless statement "anything that fits your preconcived notions is what you are going to go with" can be applied to yourself as well so you lose. care to try again, have any other names to call us conservatives.

YODA

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:24:41 -0500

"Are job is to fight the good fight. To not give up. To do are best to stand up for good, truth and justice" Right you are Scott. Against the dark side of the force we must fight.

Scott

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:19:31 -0500

Here I go again with evil this evil that... I must be delusional, schizo something like that. Heck I don't even believe in Allah.

Scott

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:16:03 -0500

I must also apologize for voting over 232 times for the first choice thingy at the top. I thought it was funny... I know, lame of me.

steve

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:15:34 -0500

I see mario, so anything that fits your preconcived notions is what you are going to go with.

Mario

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:13:36 -0500

typical liberals, once you've lost the argument you resort to name calling and belittling the others. grow up boys (or should I say girls)... get a life if that is possible and stop forcing your views on others. crawl into your caves of wonders and drink koolaid with your buddies or just stroke each others egos until you get tired. some people have work to do, good bye folks.

scott

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:12:02 -0500

When confronted with the truth, you guys have no answer. Evilcan not be reasoned with and you know it. People that are willing to strap bombs around themselves and kill babies are Not desperate, they are Evil. Cho was evil, he killed all those students. To listen to you libs, you would think that there would have been a way to reason with him, "if we could just have found out why he hated them so much, then we could blame ourselves!" You poor misguided fools

Anonymous

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:02:42 -0500

unfortunately I done think Scott was a parody because none of it was really funny

Scott

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:02:40 -0500

Did I type all that last night? Meth and alcohol, not a good mix dudes. Sorry for all that paranoid shit. And "A being with omniscient power approaches you and gives you a choice"...? Did I say those words? What the heck does omniscient mean anyway? Well, as George would say, whatever.

Mario

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:02:31 -0500

hey Steve it is a circle.... I'll pull the old liberal thing with your comment. "the WTC 93 bombing was a conspiracy by the government (aka. Clinton admin), I think Bill was driving the truck". come on boys get real! sure it could have been planned during those years but we were not at war with the terrorists then so we were not on the offense so they had lots of time and places to plan no matter who was in charge at the time.

Mario

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:50:58 -0500

liberals are so easily brain washed that it scares me because they are going to take along a lot of other people with them that don't see what is going on. next thing you know with all this crap (pun intended) we will be taking dumps in a hole in the ground (to save water) and using re-usable brushes to wipe ourselves (to save trees) and do it in the dark (to save light bulbs) and in the cold (to save energy). after your done that try riding your bike to work about 30km away uphill in the snow (to save on pollution). that sounds comfortable, hey that would make a good comic strip...

steve

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:48:40 -0500

hey Mario, so then you would also have to say that the first World trade center bombing in 93 was all planned during Bush I and Reagan as well, right?

too many trolls

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:47:13 -0500

mario + scott = trolls. ignore them.

Guy

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:46:01 -0500

Jig is up, "Scott" has to be a parody. Had me going for a while there, but pulling out the "came here from a nascar site" thing blew the cover off. Good job!

scott

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:32:06 -0500

Gruven said "Do you not have any interest in knowing why or how the terrorists came to the point of 9/11 (or the '93 WTC/Africa bombings) beyond just finding those directly responsible? Do you not see any value in understanding the root causes and dynamics of this problem? Do you not care to know or understand their point of view--if only then to truly justify America's actions? " Yes gruven, I do understand why the terorists want us dead. It is you that does not. It is called Evil. They are Evil. if you do not understand that, or beleive that Evil exists, then you are extremely niave. And it is you that is in for major shock one day. There is no reasoning with evil, it simply is what it is. You do not bargain with it. You do not pacify it. You can not defeat it. It will exist alawys. Are job is to fight the good fight. To not give up. To do are best to stand up for good, truth and justice. To read your comments that some how we can live in harmony with evil if we just understand why they hate us is ridiculous. It is you sir that doesn't get it.

evan

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:20:09 -0500

Gruven: I hate to disagree, but I think that conservatives were "denying" global warming/climate change long before An Inconvenient Truth. This is a conversation/debate that is a lot older than that.

Mario

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:51:40 -0500

the terrorists don't care if you want to find out the root causes. for them it is a religion thing to go and kill anyone not like them, it's not that hard to understand. they want to kill all the liberals as well so unless all you guys want to convert to islam as they see it they want to kill you also, there is no "let's talk about it" or "poor terrorist how can I help you". just listen to what they say and do..

Mario

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:38:04 -0500

for every island that appeared there may be 2 that became covered in ice but the liberals (environmentalists/media) would never report those. by the way Iceland is also in the arctic circle and has always been green as far as we know but it may have been ice covered at some point thousands of years ago, what caused that island to become green? maybe cavemen with all those fires.... wake up and smell the roses, oh wait my roses are still frozen in place!

Mario

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:30:34 -0500

I can't afford a hummer or I would buy 2 just to try and get that temperature up here in the north a little warmer for my kids. I can take an increase of a few degrees when the average temerature year round allows me to keep meat and milk on my porch at night. also I maybe able to use my pool more then 3 weeks a year.. you liberals are so out of tune and brain washed it is alomost funny to watch america dismantle because of the liberal agenda.

anonymous

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:27:33 -0500

The War on Global Warming? Hmmm... Hey, did you hear about that island near Greenland that showed up for the first time in recorded history and reported on this past week? The one that normally is covered by snow and glaciers since Greenland's in the Artic Circle? It's been dubbed "Warming Island." Yeah... it's just called spring, summer, fall, and fall.

gruven

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:23:40 -0500

Mario--if informing the earth's population about their role in changing a planet's environment is to be considered fear mongering, then you're entirely missing the point. The aim is to educate the people and to motivate them to practice sensible energy production and consumption. Now what on earth is wrong with that? I wish Gore had never spearheaded this movement because party hacks like you can't or won't see past that. Whatever. The earth is flat--go ahead and buy that Hummer. Atta boy.

Mario

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:23:39 -0500

forgot to mention that yes 9/11 happened when a republican was president but all the planning and 95% of the preparations were done when a democrat was too busy trying to have his girlfriends dress dry cleaned, too bad he didn't have a wife like Lorraina Bobit or that NASA girl that went berserk. Hey liberals don't blame Bush for all your ill feelings on life. war is like arena football, you win with offense not defense unlike other sports. how come nothing has happened in the US for alomost 6 years? maybe because the terrorists are running and hiding from those F18's and tanks. they wanted to kill and did kill americans before Bush and 9/11.

Mario

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:09:24 -0500

it's funny how the liberals bring up the fear mongering tactic when it is about 9/11 but then say nothing when they use fear about global warming. we all saw 9/11 happen live on TV which is alot more real then some of the reports and doom about global warming (or should I call it climate change now since "warming" doesn't fit their theory when we have had the coldest March and April in decades), yes we have climate change, it's called summer,spring,fall and winter.

gruven

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:03:03 -0500

Scott, if you think hunting down and killing every terrorist on the planet is the only way to realistically succeed, then you're in for a major disappointment. Do you not have any interest in knowing why or how the terrorists came to the point of 9/11 (or the '93 WTC/Africa bombings) beyond just finding those directly responsible? Do you not see any value in understanding the root causes and dynamics of this problem? Do you not care to know or understand their point of view--if only then to truly justify America's actions? I've never understood this mindset of "shoot first and ask questions later". It's a very American way of interacting with the world, and it's [evidently] not very effective.

ryan

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 07:45:23 -0500

Scott, your posts demonstrate a categorical inability to understand the nature of terrorism. There's a legitemate conservative case to be made here, but you're so far out in the weeds you can't even see the tip of it. Gothamist commentors aren't all about ganging up on republicans, we're about goofing with trolls.

Ralph J. Pierro Jr.

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 07:44:56 -0500

Rudy and George. your so much alike. Both are phony, incompetent, photo-op clowns and always so quick to use the patriotism card. After all this time since 9/11, I am still trying to figure out just what Rudy did as mayor of New York that earned him any acclaim, other than his personal antics, lip service and flag waving photo-op-photo-op and more photo-ops. I pray that all Americans, to please look at each candidate's qualifications closely before voting next year. Please don"t give us another "Daly Show" headliner!

scott

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 07:31:54 -0500

Dude said "Now I see Iraq as the new Al Queda base for years to come, and I am sure many insurgents are eager to join up with them, how's that for security for the American people!" And you did not know that it was already an AlQueda base? Did you think this is something new?? Get a clue Dude. Thats why it is so important that we remain there. If Saddam was left there then they probably would already have nukes, they would have free reign to operate inside his country. Now it is not free. Now they have to fight to be there. What part of that don't you get? As far wanting us out of there country to end this war. Are you people nuts? or just that stupid?? Do you not see who they are killing? Yes some US soldiers, but for the most part they kill their own people. Do you think for one minute that that would stop if we left?? Are you that dumb? They kill their own people with suicide bombers! Wake up! Open your eyes! That will not stop when we leave. They want to run that country so they can be free to grow and develope and plot ways to kill us. Thats it! plain and simple! They want to destroy the USA. They are never going to stop. There is no diplomacy with them.. There is no reasoning with them. They are Evil. They want to kill you and your Mother and your children. Wake up you fools.

scott

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 07:22:07 -0500

Gruven said "How about this for a change of pace: a rational, considered, EDUCATED, multilateral approach to dealing with extremism and terrorism instead of words and weapons?" Hers why kid, Because that doesn't work. The only way to deal with terrorists is to kill them. If you can't even grasp that simple truth, then maybe you should go live with them for a while to see what they are all about. For you to even suggest diplomacy with terrorists is ludicrous and dangerous. I muslim freak would come and kill you and your family because, and for no other reason then because you are not a muslim, and you would try to talk your way out of it. They don,t want to talk to us sir, they want to kill us.

scott

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 07:08:27 -0500

Bod said-"So have you based your opinions only on second-hand word-of-mouth or what you read on the internet?" Bob, you read what I posted , but you missed the point. Poor chap. I said I base my opinions on Truth. The truth that is in my heart. the part of every person that tells them right from wrong, good from evil. I know what is right and just because it is the truth. I know that the libs are wrong and full of lies and deceit. I know that the democrats are unethical and corrupt. They are dishonest and power hungry. Everybody that has any truth in them knows that without having to be told.

gruven

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 06:55:30 -0500

We don't need any more fear mongering. If you want to get elected, you had better have more than "The Dems will suck" to get the votes. How about this for a change of pace: a rational, considered, EDUCATED, multilateral approach to dealing with extremism and terrorism instead of words and weapons?

Dude

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:33:02 -0500

Looks like a bunch of NY liberals ganging up on a lone poor conservative from some red NASCAR state, but I have no sympathy for you scott for posting in a freakin' Liberal NYC blog, so you get what you deserve, buddy! As for Bush, I was in the beginning actually rooting for him to get in Afganistan and get Bin Laden and Al Queda...then all of a sudden he stopped!? Maybe it wasn't going as well as he wanted, or the chance of catching Bin Laden was getting slim, so he of course picked the most convenient target in Iraq, with only flimsy justifications of possible WMDs and Iraq/Al Queda ties. So it turned out now to be currently a disaster, because Bush NEVER had a plan for after Saddam is gone from Iraq, of course most Democrats back then didn't have the backbones to oppose the "War on Terror" either. I think this Iraq war is lost from the beginning anyway, so no matter how united the country is for it, people still forget the fact that it's in ANOTHER nation you're conducting the war, and the Iraqis don't want a foreign power over them. Even though Saddam was a ruthless tyrant, he was their tyrant. It would have been better served us to have him contained and underminded rather than overthrown. Now I see Iraq as the new Al Queda base for years to come, and I am sure many insurgents are eager to join up with them, how's that for security for the American people!

rtd2101

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:29:53 -0500

I'm calling it: scott you MUST a Colbert-like paradoy. Your arguments are so misguided and nonsensical there really can't be any explanation. Plus, what's a republican doing on Gothamist? Everyone knows it is a webpage for all us heathen, homosexual sympathizing, eco-nazi, femi-nazi New York intellectual rabble. Stay away from us scott, we're baaad people. We hate America, hate the troops, hate white middle class males, and love, just LOOOOVE terrorists. Oh we love them!

Bob

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:00:57 -0500

Scott: I do not watch TV. Or read the news papers. Or talk radio So have you based your opinions only on second-hand word-of-mouth or what you read on the internet? No wonder you are so misguided. It's best to be fully informed about issues before making opinions. Obviously, you missed this life lesson. I agree with you on one point...people would still criticize Bush if WMD's were found. You know why? Because he and his advisers have run this war extremely poorly. If this is the war of our generation, why hasn't everyone commenting on this blog been drafted for service? Where is the commitment? 20,000 more troops? Yawn. There should have been 10 times as many on the initial invasion to stabilize the country. If you think Bush has all the answers to the world, you are wrong. He has actually done everything Osama Bin Laden wanted - and predicted - the 9/11 attacks would do. Our country is in very dangerous territory by this horrid administration.

Elderta

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:00:34 -0500

Maybe. But it's fun to play with them.

Elderta

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:54:56 -0500

Heres why-- We are in the state of the union that we are in because that what the politicians wanted. We are exactly where we are supposed to be. They wouldn't have changed a thing. And you're proud of that? HAHA.

Anonymous

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:52:11 -0500

you sir said goodbye to reasonable debate when you started by labeleing everyone who argues with you "libs" Enjoy Nascar

adam

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:50:05 -0500

You all take this guy Scott too seriously, when he is problably (based on the way he speaks) a 14 or 15 year old boy.

scott

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:46:30 -0500

Just a bit of info for you anonymous. I do not watch TV. Or read the news papers. Or talk radio. I have a lot better things to do then waste my time on pointless politics. I feel sorry for you if you are so caught up in this crap that it is actually a part of your life. Go outside, smell the roses kid. I am here tonight on a fluke link from a nascar site I was looking through. All that I have said is not from any pundints. Thats funny, because its just common sense, who needs a pundit to state the obvious? Its only you in your hatred(which is really starting to show through) that you think everybody thinks like you or needs a pundint to spew talking points. Hers a clue kid--if the talking points are truth, then everyone knows it in his heart. If the talking points are lies(like with you libs) then you need a note pad to write them down and remember them. You poor misguided man

scott

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:38:49 -0500

Hers another little bit of clarity for you libs. You fall all over the whole WMDs thing and Bush lied and blah, blah, blah, heard it a hundred times.... Get this--If we HAD found WMDs there and all that crap, do you think that it would have made a bit of difference??? We would still be there, we still be in a war and you libs and democrats would still hate Bush and still find a way to blame him for everything. Today wouldn't be any different. Heres why-- We are in the state of the union that we are in because that what the politicians wanted. We are exactly where we are supposed to be. They wouldn't have changed a thing. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. HAHA

kofi anon

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:38:04 -0500

you all should have watched or tivo'ed Bill Moyers Journal on PBS tonight. If You have the opportunity, try to catch a rerun or recorded version

Anonymous

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:33:33 -0500

Keep watching bill o'reilly with your notepad. I wish you had not dropped out of the tenth grade, but hey, less thought, less worries , right Scott? Bush has done NOTHING to unite this country. From the beginning.. when they were debating going INTO war, the Bush Admin. questioned patriotism. You are TERRIBLY mistinformed with a dsitortion of reality fed to you by virtiolic pundits. You are Dangerous, and you relentless bigotry towards those with differnt opinions is showing through. You are the opposite of objective and reasonable in this debate.

scott

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:29:35 -0500

So heres the rub, You take the President and he is going to try to unify the people. Then you have a party that makes up their mind to not allow that to happen. The when the countries not unified, they blame him. Theres your twisted irony.

Elderta

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:28:06 -0500

No, I actually know we went to get the land and the oil and the base. And that dude, bin Laden. Oh wait a minute. Different country, different megalomaniac. D'oh. Swimming to irony...later.

scott

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:26:50 -0500

Hey anonymous, maybe somebody would listen to you if you had the guts to type your name. loser

scott

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:23:00 -0500

The democrats would own the defeat of the USA in this war. Had they been unified with the rest of the country, and especially our military then our current situation would not be what it is today. Heres their logic. They accused Bush today of not keeping the country unified after 911. Yet since 911 they have done everything they could to divide this country. I am aware that people have different views. However, for in the best interest and unification of the country we should be loyal to out leader. The democrats lost the election, yet they did not concede defeat by their actions. Over the past 7 years they have strove to go against the president in every decision. The damage they have wrought on our country is terrible and far reaching. We will be suffering for generations because of what the democrats have done to divide and tear apart this country. It is truly a shame. I feel bad my children have to grow up with such hatred and division brought on by a liberal political party that is more interested in power then what is best for this country. It is unconscionable to me that a leader would go in front of the world while men are fighting for their lives and declare the war is lost. Can you think of a better way to boost the morale of the enemy????? Imagine what that did for them!!! Then imagine how that hurt our troops.... And you libs praise him???? You must be insane.

Anonymous

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:17:45 -0500

I'm drowning in the irony coming off of Scott

scott

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:13:20 -0500

Do you really think that we went to war in Iraq over WMDS? Are you truly that naive?? Sometimes we say things to a child to have the child respond in a certain way. Everyone else in the room knows whats really going on, they see the bigger picture. Only the child takes it at face value. you are like that child. The rest of the country and the world for that matter read between the lines. We seen the greater good in a necessary evil and the ways in this instance justified the means. I just find it hard to believe that there are some, like you libs, that still don't get it.

Anonymous

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:07:27 -0500

...more than any terrorist could have ever hoped for

Anonymous

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:05:15 -0500

The evidence is endless and the jury is in; The incompetence and lies of the Bush Adminstration has irrevocably damaged this country in ways that we will feel for the next century.

MrsClinton

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:05:00 -0500

Rudy's an ugly man, isn't he - why would we want an ugly President??

Elderta

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:58:21 -0500

Scott, I'm to believe that you can see and correctly predict the future but I can't see or understand what's happened in the past that is affecting us now? Sweet. Who knew, eh? Thanks! Scott.. by your same logic on opinions, then it's just your opinion that he's done everything right. However, I look and see and read and understand that something very wrong going on. We don't have enough troops there. We don't have any support from the world, you really think that in the shape we're in right now, we can attack Iran? Come on, I know you want it. Scott, thanks for at least being a little bit real. You're one of the few I've ever known to completely state what the Bush Administration clearly will not state: that we are there to establish a base, establish our oil and impose our will, though I think you forgot the part about colonizing, didn't you? You really think nobody here has heard that line of thought? Or thought abouts the pros and cons of it? Really? Interesting. It's not ours. Not ours. We don't have a right to the land, to the oil or to the people. I will admit that I'm not attracted to the religion or politics and I will never understand the culture, but it's their land. We have to contain the religious fervor that's threatening to turn into nationalism everywhere. I know that people will die if we leave. But people are dying right now just the same. I'm all for the democracy, Scott. I'm just not sure if we can bomb anyone into a democratic society. The policy we're following is not working. There is no diplomacy. Do you think these people are children who should bow down to your superior thought? Scott, seriously, God ain't got nothing to do with this, no matter what his name. Reality is the best way to go here. sigh. i wish you were a parody. would have been funny. oh well.

Anonymous

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:53:18 -0500

I love when these dolts mention that there has been no large scale attack since 911. Let me remind them, there was no such attack after the 1993 world trade center bombing! for 9 years! For 7 of those years Clinton was President.

SP

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:44:40 -0500

"You have no idea what may have happened had he not made the decisions he had. For all you know or anybody knows we may have had nukes dropped on us by now. We have not had a single terrorist attack in the borders of this country since 911, That is not luck. That is thanks to the right decisions made by Bush." We haven't been invaded by space aliens either, and thats all thanks to Bush. And Giuliani.

nice

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:38:32 -0500

> He's right - Democrats aren't as terror-savvy as Republicans That's for sure! If anyone can take credit for inducing terror among the public, it's fear-mongering Republicans. Bravo!

Anonymous

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:31:15 -0500

rdo I would go with #2 do you remember that presentation that colin powell was made to give to the UN providing "evidence" of WMD's in Iraq? Do you remember that it was little more than a bunch of trucks transporting who knows what to a building? You would think that this evidence was the best public friendly evidence they would have had, and it was totally inconclusive. Even if the more concise evidence that they could not show publicly was relatively better, it would not have been that much better.

rdo

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:20:09 -0500

Hey Scott: You REALLY don't think before you type do you? For your own sake, I hope you're a leftist parodying a republic. Oh God, for your own sake, otherwise, wow...the level of stupidity is itself stupefying. You need to go back to your old school district and slap your superintendent, b/c that whole systems tragically failed you. -ok. So let's look at your little argument: "The main reason we went to war was to get rid of Saddam. Period." Why did we want to get rid of him? We had to have justification right? Otherwise Bush would topple Chavez, Fidel, the Ayatollah etc. The justification put forth for toppling a sovereign leader (dictator or not) was b/c this guy was an IMINANT threat b/c he HAD WMDs. There were no WMD's, therefore, there are 3 options to what happened: 1) Bush knew this off the bat and straight up lied 2)Bush, knowing information was shaky, nevertheless went before congress and the nation and made it seem absolutely certain that Saddam could attack us tomorrow and used this as justification for preemptive strike. 3) Bush did not know that the critical information he used to justify a tremendous breach of international conventions -- attack a country without direct provocation -- was faulty and shaky. Which means he is unbelievably incompetent. WMD's were the justification, the justification was false, which means, HE LIED. (I don't believe he and his administration are THAT incompetent.)_ Logic, Scott, logic. It helps to use it when you are making an argument.

scott

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:17:03 -0500

Elderta, "Bush had every opportunity to get this right and guess what? He didn't. Not enough troops, not enough planning, not enough anything." First that is not fact, only your opinion. And second you are very short sighted and close minded. You have no idea what may have happened had he not made the decisions he had. For all you know or anybody knows we may have had nukes dropped on us by now. We have not had a single terrorist attack in the borders of this country since 911, That is not luck. That is thanks to the right decisions made by Bush. "A much greater cause? Which cause would that be?" As I said, you do not see the depth of the reasons for us being in Iraq. You see the rain drop and not the storm. A democracy in Iraq, A place to have a military base, a say over the oil reserves there is vital to our stability and our security. If you do not have the clarity of thought to comprehend that, then maybe you should keep quiet. If leaders with your short sightedness and vengeful hatred ever come to full power, God help us all.

Elderta

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:02:05 -0500

I choose the one which says your point is pointless. What is this? A Choose-Your-Own-Adventure? Allegiance I take it you're talking about? You may be great in algebra, but not so great with the intricacies, eh? Allegiance to what? A failed policy? Protecting people like you who pretend to be so patriotic? Who pretend to know everything, even in the face of facts? Bush had every opportunity to get this right and guess what? He didn't. Not enough troops, not enough planning, not enough anything. Hatred? We can't fight but we can hate? Hmm, which pundit did you get that line of crap from? A much greater cause? Which cause would that be? Oil, peace, land, Christ? Iraqis will never create any type of peace or government until we leave. It's not going to happen. The British couldn't do it, we can't do it. Destroyed the country how? By getting out of Vietnam? By the Civil Rights movement? Not enough guns, glory, grenades for you? HOW? Don't throw out your arbitrary propaganda and expect no one to throw it back into your face. Those days are over. You guys are incompetent and corrupt and liars on top of that, and if that's a part of your "greater cause" that you believe in, you need to really check yourself. Not our oil. Not our land. I don't want to be part of your Rapture, your corruption or your destruction. You can have some of my peace once we start using a bit more damnned diplomacy. Cause guess what? I like my bombs with a bit of common sense. You have none.

scott

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:56:25 -0500

To illustrate the point that Democrats own the defeat in Iraq- That they have to have us lose for their own sake. Here is a situation and you make the call. A being with omniscient power approaches you and gives you a choice- You can choose to have us win in Iraq, hands down, 100 percent complete and total victory. The only thing is that Bush would get all the credit. Every bit of it. Or you can choose to have us lose and Bush gets all the blame. What do you choose????

steve (anonymous)

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:55:44 -0500

Scott, I'm showing my name on this one, because, as you point out, it takes enormous balls to show your first name under a comment on a blog, and I want to make it clear how big they are. I'm actually not a democrat. I don't associate with either party. I am certainly not "liberal." It is rather ironic that you would assume so, but simple minds create simple assumptions. If you look at the posts above you will notice the difference between you and me. Notice how I made a point to insult you due to your comments which make silly accusations towards democrats. You on the other hand, spend almost your entire post trying to similarly insult me mainly due to the fact that you feel slighted. I won't even bother trying to refute any "points" that you try to make, because a productive discussion with someone like you simply does not work. But I will address on e thing: War is certinly an intricate thing, and a very serious thing. Maybe this is why it should be very seriously considered, and only a last resort. Maybe that is why I feel that someone who did not know the difference between sunni and shiite should never have been involved in declaring a war in the middle east in the first place.

R Lee Emery board

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:53:53 -0500

The True axis of evil USA Britain Israel

sgt numbnutz

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:50:10 -0500

War War War, kill, kill, kill WMD=Israel

scott

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:43:06 -0500

As far as "Bush lied to get us into war". He most certainly did not lie. We went to war after a cumulation of factors. WMD was one of many and not the most viable one. The main reason we went to war was to get rid of Saddam. Period. If you think it was for WMD, then you are a fool.

scott

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:30:36 -0500

Anonymous, That you won't post your name pretty much says it all champ! To get into the intracisies of going to war with you would be like trying to teach a 1st grader algebra. You obviously are close minded,short sighted and not very intellectuial. There was and is a much greater cause for this war and in winning a democracy in such a strategic area as Iraq. I wouldn't expect you to see the depth of the wisdom for having a democracy there and the direct efect it will have for our countries cecurity for future generations. If you had your way we would still have communisim and a cold war. You are blinded by hatred so much that you will say and do anything to bash Bush. You don't even care or maybe you just aren't smart enought to realize how much the democrats have destroyed this country and hurt our military. I think it is both. Hatred + Lack of iIlegence = Liberal democrat.

Elderta

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:28:03 -0500

Everybody "knows that?" Do you even think before you type?

beware

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:22:02 -0500

whether or not he gets the most votes , giuliani will be "elected" the next president (even if it takes another "9/11").

Anonymous

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:17:39 -0500

There is a difference between pacifism and the consideration of war as a last resort. It's clear that our recent foray into violence to try and end a conflict has been the opposite of productive. Scott you are perhaps the best of example of a incurious, immature, brainwashed fool. Whenever everyone mentions the lowest common denominator, and you try and imagine who that might be, do not look any furthur than the mirror in your bathroom, because you are that person, and your lack of coherent, intelligent thought is the biggest hurdle to overcome before this world can improve.

anonymous

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:17:16 -0500

Love the Republicans. I can't believe those idiots still follow a president who not only lied them into a war, he lost it.

scott

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:03:41 -0500

Wow, talk about a lib blog site! You guys crack me up. We all know that the worst thing for this country would be a democrat President. Thats so obvious that it goes without saying. Libs and Democrats are pacifists for the most part. Rudi is right. A democrat would put the USA on defense. They own defeat. Bought it and now the worst thing that could happen for the Democrats would be to win. So of course they are going to do everything they can to make sure we lose. They only care about political power, they do not care about our country. Everybody knows that.

Toby

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:37:12 -0500

Basically, you go out of the tri-state area and Rudy is just known for 9/11. In the tri-state area, we know the real Rudy since we have dealt with him for much longer.

anonymous

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:56:10 -0500

We've been fighting the war in Iraq longer than we fought WWII. Afghanistan is still a total disaster, and a place of harbor for terror groups. The Taliban is resurgent. Oh, and Iraq is a recruiter's dream, now filled with millions of people who didn't used to give a damn about America who are now full of red-hot rage at the US. And it's been 2,052 days that Bin Laden has been wanted "Dead or Alive." Yeah, what I'd love to see is another idiot Republican in the White House.

Anonymous

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:52:50 -0500

uh yeah because the politcal climate everywhere else is smooth sailing. get real

BODY GUARDS

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:32:24 -0500

It would really be best for our nation for both parties to cooperate and come together on fighting terrorism - Imagine how this infighting and public divisiveness makes America appear to the rest of the world

u

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:23:10 -0500

Chuck Schumer isn't running for president. That's one big reason people aren't calling him out on stuff. Rudy Giuliani is the Monday morning quarterback who accidentally caught the ball in the stands and thinks he can win the Super Bowl.

Anonymous

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:18:59 -0500

Oh, I almost forgot. the effect of gaining control of Afganistan is fading day by day. The Taliban is taking back the country because of our exhausted military and budget

anyone but Hillary

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:17:37 -0500

Part of me thought, early on in his campaign, that were finally moving away from this pointless fear mongering I guess the definition of fear mongering all depends on what side of the fence you're sitting on. Funny how the mostly liberal Gothamist crowd never comments on Sen. Schumer for his weekly commentary about how unsafe we are whether he's talking about port security or airports. As long htere is a TV camera nearby, there's Chuck. And how many knee-jerk responses do we sit through here about how the Iraq war made us more unsafe? Not that it isn't true but it's always whiny posters with a political agenda. Four months into the Democratic Congress and have we seen any action on anything other than political payback, most of it completely missing the target? The Dems are going to have the shortest honeymoon ever.

Anonymous

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:16:55 -0500

two questions for people who think republicans fight the terrorist threat better: Where is Bin Laden? (Bush said dead or alive they wil catch him) What has Iraq done for terrorists other than help their cause? There is more anti-US sentiment, and more land in the middle east where they can recruit and train. Saddam and terrorism where separate issues.

RudyTudy

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:07:10 -0500

“America will be safer with a Republican president.” That's interesting since 9/11 happened with a Republican president. Doesn't anyone remember the 2004 Republican convention? It was "9/11!", "9/11!", "9/11!"!! The fear-mongering rhetoric hasn't changed. It's time we stand up for ourselves and vote against anyone who uses this tactic. And no, this is not an invitation to the "woe-is-me" crowd that was treated to such "unfair treatment" while protesting the Repub. Convention to whine about it more. Move on.

hold my hand

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:46:35 -0500

What do you mean you don't know what he did? what he did was trample on our constitutional rights. Oh, and he used his arm to make sure a reporter watched where he's going on the way to inspect Ground Zero, after the fact. I believe what he said was, "hey, watch where you're going". Rudy, My HERO.

Charles

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:38:01 -0500

The only thing he has to run on is 9/11-basically he's saying "If/when it happens again, I am the man you need to comfort you, so elect me president. If you dont vote for me, you will die in a 9/11 style catastrophe." But the president's job should be to make sure it doesnt happen again. In general I am getting sick of hearing about 9/11 at all. It's just something for politicians and various interests groups to wield as a weapon.

Anonymous

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:33:51 -0500

5+ years after 9/11 I'm still trying to figure out what Giuliani did that any other remotely competant elected official wouldn't have done. He can take credit for putting more cops on the streets and the crime rate dropping if he'd like, but the suggestion that he somehow held the city together following the attack is offensive to me as NYer.

Anonymous

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:10:04 -0500

Part of me thought, early on in his campaign, that were finally moving away from this pointless fear mongering. He choose not to start talking in real terms, and he will face a loss in 2008 because of it.