Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Rudy Giuliani fails citizenship test


"Now is not the time for partisanship, it is the time for citizenship."
-- President Obama yesterday laying out his terror prevention plan.

"America's Mayor" Rudy Giuliani is not going along with the program. On "Morning Joe" today, the man who utters "9/11" with the uncomfortable frequency with which I use the word "like," said that President Bush was more successful at protecting the United States from terrorism than President Obama. That's low.

Obama can be criticized for his initial reaction to the potential downing of Northwest flight 253. He can be beaten up for appearing to put the war on terror on the backburner. But anyone who dabbles in the irresponsible chatter that Obama and his administration couldn't care less about protecting Americans is, like an al-Qaeda foot soldier, undermining the confidence of Americans that their nation can prevail. This is one citizenship test Giuliani failed.

By Jonathan Capehart  | January 8, 2010; 7:44 AM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Some campaign promises matter more than others
Next: Baltimore mayor's resignation is less than democratic

Comments

Were you objecting when Jimmah was kvetching GWB's decisions on dealing with the WOT? I don't seem to remember that.

Posted by: sold2u | January 8, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

The shoe bomber failed in his attack just like the underwear bomber failed in his. Bush took longer than Obama to talk about it.

Bush and Co. ignored warnings about 9/11, 3000 died and then he and his right wing extremists turned around and divided a united America by claiming unconstitutional powers, and started two wars. One he failed to prosecute properly, despite his 'dream team' of Republican Chicken Hawks with their decades of experience. The other he lied and bullied America into and cost additional unnecessary American deaths.

This is who Rudy G. wants Obama to emulate? America said NO a year ago and the cleaning up of the Republican mess has just started. Say goodnight Rudy, no one but the rightwing echo chamber cares.

Posted by: thebobbob | January 8, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Jonthan as you recall wasn't Rudy told not to put the 911 center in the world trade center. Also 911 happened under Rudy & Bush's watch. When I seen him on Morning Joe lying his butt off I said, why isn't the panel correcting Rudy. No one on the show challenged him on lying. How can anyone respect Rudy. Rudy was happy to prosecute the 911 people if you recall. He didn't object. So why is it that the media lets him get away with the crap. Jonathan you will have to realize this President has been on top of the terrorism situation. Where was Rudy during Richard Reid? Did he critize our ex-President Bush? No. Remember the republicans use to call democrats unpatrotic if they said anything about President Bush. So why isn't the media and others calling them unpatrotic. You have to realize that alot of people in this country can't get use to who the President actually is. Also, your friend Joe from morning Joe agreed with everything that Rudy said. Also did anyone in the Bush administration or Bush himself take responsiblity for anything. NO. A real man admits his faults. I never seen Bush or his administration admit any faults.

Posted by: vze39p8e | January 8, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

9/11 happened because Bush and his 'team' were too incompetent to fund and empower the FAA (which had had it's funds slashed for years by the Republican congress) and to bother to do their homework, which was sitting in front of them. Their reaction was incompetent as well. How Guiliani could claim that Bush - who allowed the 9/11 attack and others - has a better record than Obama - is beyond belief. He is simply a liar, several levels below the consideration of patriotism.

Posted by: jonthes | January 8, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Well, if remembering when 9/11 happened is a pre-requisite to passing the citizenship test then Rudy failed.

It is astonishing that the mayor of the city that was attacked and has used 911 to propel himself politically doesn't seem to remember such event.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 8, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

To be fair, Guiliani criticized Bush as well in that segment. And he said that he thinks (hopes) that Obama finally gets it. One can only hope.

Posted by: sold2u | January 8, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Why do people keep putting Rudy on as if he's an expert on terroism. He was the Mayor on 9/11 so obviously he is not an expert and his pal Bush was the Pres. Bush took longer to respond to Reid and he never ever took responsilbity for 9/11; Reid; Katrina; etc.; etc.

Morning Joe is a joke and whenever I see you or anyone from WaPo on the show I wonder why. However, I notice that WaPo reporters are not on nearly as often as they use to be. Perhaps you all realized he has no credibility.

Posted by: rlj1 | January 8, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse


Giuliani is right. Here's what he said:

"It seems to me we're going to be trying the most dangerous terrorists in the wrong place," former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said on "Good Morning America" today. Giuliani argued that if Abdulmutallab, 23, is tried in a military court the government would have more time to interrogate him. "It takes them a lot longer than 30 hours to debrief a terrorist with the kind of history that he appears to have... Why would you stop it?" he asked. "If you put someone in a civilian court, within a short period of time a lawyer is appointed and the person shuts up. If you have a person in the military system you can question him endlessly for as long as you have to make sure you have gotten the full scope of information," Giuliani said. The former Republican presidential candidate who presided over New York City during the 9/11 attacks said that Abdulmutallab's case has implications for how the government handles future terrorism cases. "This isn't about whether you convict them or not. It's about whether you get information or not," said Giuliani, who is a former federal prosecutor.
.

Posted by: Billw3 | January 8, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Well, I guess this is a step up.

Capehart only calls Rudy Giuliani partisan, anti-American and a terrorist.

At least (at last?) Capehart joins his liberal brethren in abandoning the insinuation of racism for all those who dare question or criticize The Obama.

Posted by: spamsux1 | January 8, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Seems to me the repugs are trying to rewrite history to show that 9-11 did not occur under their watch after they had been warned. What did that moron w say: you've covered your )&&&.

Posted by: davidsawh | January 8, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama has not engineered a false flag, inside job, to demolish 2 towers, killing thousands of innocent people. Bush, definitely has the edge on him in this regard.

Posted by: humanbeng | January 8, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Shut up Capehart...you lying, partisan, back-stabbing traitor. You couldn't find anything good to say for 8 years...you politicized everything and lied through your teeth while doing it, doing this country a great disservice.

Now you listen: I AM A FREE AMERICAN. I will criticize my government when I want to and when I think they are off base.

And this administration is totally off base and has been about Al Qa'ida since it took office. You want to see a joke...wait till your hero gives KSM a world stage to shout his propaganda. YOU WILL NOT SHUT ME Up by calling me Partisan or a racist. The pressure needs to be kept on these idiots otherwise they'll go back to calling Maj. Hassan "an alleged mentally ill disturber of the peace," and Mutalib and his ill "an alleged man-made malfunction."

Posted by: wjc1va | January 8, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Rudy Giuliani, on "Morning Joe"
today said that President Bush was more
successful at protecting the United States from terrorism than
President Obama...really Rudy?...3000 Americans in the World Trade center posthumously disagree...

Posted by: craigmichaelau | January 8, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

wjc1va: That's funny, when Bush was crticized we were traitors. Odd how things change.

Posted by: jckdoors | January 8, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Presumably what Giuliani meant (and maybe what he said) is that Bush's post-9/11 anti-terrorism measures were more successful than Obama's. Whether that is true or not is an appropriate subject for debate. Capehart's contention that to express that opinion is unpatriotic is an ad hominem attack -- a polemical dirty trick unworthy of a writer on the Post's payroll. It is also just plain stupid.

Posted by: wumhenry | January 8, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"anyone who dabbles in the irresponsible chatter that Obama and his administration couldn't care less about protecting Americans is, like an al-Qaeda foot soldier"

WOW!!!! Is this guy for real. America is in real danger. Patriots stay awake!! This administration has minions in the highest level of the MSM. The fool who wrote this peice will be deligated to obscurity after the 2010 elections. I predict a GOP sweep of the 10 senate elections and a Majority in the house. And the big one that the MSM wont talk about is the Mass special election on the 29th for Kennedy's seat, the Republican is within single digits!!

Posted by: CTLangis | January 8, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

But... But... Ya gotta admit, he's a heckofa good salesman. He could sell a used car to a homeless person, and make the guy think he got a good deal, either way.

Rush could sell TV advertising, sky hooks, or left-handed pliers, with ease. He should run for something, too, because anybody who can talk a good show can surely run a country, don't you think?

Then there's Sarah. If she's too big for Tupperware parties and too old for beauty pageants, then she can sell politics, even if they're phony. (Death panels, anybody?)

We've gotta give these guys credit for their gift of gab. They can make a stream of ideas run by your head faster'n you can say Paul Harvey.

Posted by: genedoug | January 8, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse


Bottom line is that civilian trial gives terrorists advantages over military trials, and we get less helpful information. This is not in America's best interest and neither is Obama's allegiance in the matter. The man is a muslim sympathizer. He apologized to them and apologizing doesn't occur without a degree of sympathy.
.

Posted by: Billw3 | January 8, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse


"He's a heckofa good salesman." & "Anybody who can talk a good show can surely run a country, don't you think?"

Abraham Lincoln said "To win the election, impress the ignorant" It' works as you can see.
.

Posted by: Billw3 | January 8, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Real Americans are long past caring how traitors like Capehart project on to us.

Posted by: pcannady | January 8, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I can understand partisan morons like Giulliani uttering political nonsense - and I thought he looked very statesmanlike in the days following 9/11 compared to President Bush who scampered around the country like a hounded rat - but what's with journalists like Stephenopolous giving them a free pass on that statement ?

Posted by: thinkagain | January 8, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Real Americans are long past caring how traitors like Capehart project on to us.

Posted by: pcannady
______________________

So explain, pcannady, what the litmus test for being a real American is--inquiring minds really do want to know. And please explain precisely what Capehart's traitorous deed was. Treason is a serious charge, you know.

You see, if you want me to consider thoughtfully what you have to say, it would be helpful to have some facts and logic in your comment, not just impassioned assertions. Perhaps you can supply some. I'm listening . . .

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | January 8, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

In November 5, there was the Fort Hood incident. Obama and the mainstream news media could not immediately identify it as a terrorist attack by the islamic extremist. In Dec. 25, there was the failed underwear bomber incident. In both cases, the mastermind of terrorist attack against United States and its people was in one Arab nation Yemen. What will happen in January, who knows.

Posted by: ypcchiu | January 8, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

what's with journalists like Stephenopolous giving them [i.e., "partisan morons like Giuliani"] a free pass on that statement?

posted by thinkagain
______________________________

I assume you're referring to what Capehart calls "the irresponsible chatter that Obama and his administration couldn't care less about protecting Americans." Are you sure that's precisely what Giuliani said to Stephanopoulos? Note that Capehart doesn't use quotation marks or name the person(s) who allegedly made the remark.

Posted by: wumhenry | January 8, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

How dare Guiliani deny the existence of "My Pet Goat"

Posted by: JRM2 | January 8, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

wjc1va: That's funny, when Bush was crticized we were traitors. Odd how things change.

me, too.

Posted by: edismae | January 8, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

wjc1va:

Wow. When Bush was being criticized about the "War on Terror" it was considered bad because it was criticizing the Commander in Chief, while we were at war. Terrible. Just Terrible. Were you willing to defend them?

The problem with Guiliani's remarks is that he seems to have forgotten shoe bombers and other threats that occurred while Bush was in office which also were not successful.

I throughly disliked Bush but if such a strike had been successful on Bush's watch I would not have blamed him. And, if such a strike happens on Obama's watch, I will not blame Obama, either. Both Presidents keep their eyes on national security and learn from the missteps that happen. Security gets better. Those at fault are the $#&**&^ terrorists!

The thing Bush should have done is prosecute the war in Afghanistan and get bin Laden. That is where he dropped the ball. That is why terrorists everywhere are emboldened to keep on trying - we were ineffective at getting them when they do, we get distracted, we loose focus. The war in Iraq has given terrorists and malcontents all kinds of excuses to hate America - it has fed the fire of extremists. What a mistake - if the goal was to fight terrorism and not to just get back at the man who threatened his daddy.

Posted by: amelia45 | January 8, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Instead of writing nonsense spouting from the mouth of Mr. 911, you should have written about the Negroponte and Ridge interview where the intelligence apparatus put in place by Bush is a good system that people did not use as intended. How a good analyst follow up is the best defense. Had the State Dept. employee checked further he would have made the connections instead of a quick stamping of file for future visa scrutiny. The trip to Yemen and dad's warning should have been a red flag to any sensible analyst. So is checking someone with no bags, a 1 way ticket paid in cash and coming from one of the 14, not to mention missing passport/visa.

Posted by: jameschirico | January 8, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Lets take on this "needless war in Iraq business" because its become a left-wing urban legend.

1) When Al Qa'ida declared war against us in 1998, what was their main reason? US troops were present in Arabia.

2) Why were US troops in Arabia? To protect Saudi Arabia from, guess who, Saddam.

3) How many toops did we have in the area and for how long? 75-100 thousand for 12 years from 1991 til 2003.

4) Why were they there? See above. And to enforce the UN Sanctions.

5) Why were there UN sanctions on Iraq? Because...he didn't turn over the WMD he was forced to declare after 1991.

6) Did Bill Clinton, Hillary, and every Democrat notable warn about Saddam's intentions? Yes they did. I can post the quotes if you'd like and Hillary voted for the 2003 war.

7) Did Bill Clinton attack Iraq? Yes he did..twice, first time because Saddam tried to kill Bush 41; Second time because Saddam kicked out the UN weapons inspectors.

8) What were the weapons inspectors doing there? See 5 above.

9) Were we going to have to reckon with Saddam sooner or later? Yes we were. He was funding the suicide bombers in Palestine; he continually moved troops towards Kuwait making us hurry troops our there. He had caused two wars causing millions of casualties including 900 Americans in Desert Storm.

10) Was the war "legal?" yes it was. Congress debated it and authorized it. The UN authorized it.

11) Did this affect Al Qaida...they poured in men there...they lost and lost big. That war was won by "Betray us" (beloved of the left and Daily Kos) and dubya and Iraq has a chance for a bright future now.

12) Will the fact that we're leaving Iraq change AQ? Nope...not unless you believe in the tooth fairy or you're Mr. Obama

Not that the above will mean squat to the looneys ranting about Cheney and Bush. At least when Mr. Bush was briefed on an operation to "capture or kill" and Al Qaida, he always said, change that to "kill or capture." Mr. Obama does not have the stomach for that...but he can organized "training sessions" for team spirit building. That'll show em.

Posted by: wjc1va | January 8, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

America's Mayor, Mr. 9/11 has a credibility problem. One thing you have to say about the Republicans - they lie and misrepresent in unison, with one voice. Guiliani is asking Obama to follow the good things his president did - trouble is, from the invasion of Iraq to violations of our constitution to Afghanistan to the handling of Katrina to allowing torture of prisoners to secret prisons to disgracing the reputation of America to the financial crisis - what else? - How about any good things Bush did that stands out? The problem is, the GOP wants to change the subject and change history, but that's not going to happen. It really is pathetic.

Posted by: jbleenyc | January 8, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

So Mayor Rudi criticizes the president. Big deal. Consider the source. Big mouth, big ego, no morals, no scruples. Once a GOP hopeful for prez. Charter member of the GOP "I want to be president crowd of 2008" AKA "Is this the best they can offer?"

So funny it makes me want to cry. So sad it makes me want to laugh. So pitiful it makes me want to puke. So predictable it makes me want to go to sleep...night now.

Posted by: wilsonjmichael | January 8, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

I wish everyone would stop political grandstanding with such a serious issue.

Posted by: pjsilva | January 8, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani received a lot of praise for his handling of the 9/11 attack after the fact and attempted to ride that praise to a Presidential nomination. Obama has taken a slightly different tack in the war on terror but is fully aware that we are at war and will implement stricter security measures, as well as ensuring better cooperation between intelligence agencies. This is something that our government should have done a better job on already but I'm not here to bash either Bush or Obama. Combating terrorism should not be a partisan issue.
The question is what are the best security measures to take? What we have done so far is grossly inadequate (Look at our porous borders and all but nonexistent seaport security) and serves chiefly to harass innocent travelers. There is no guarantee that terrorists will use only airliners for attacks, and the chances are we will experience something very different in the near future if we do not take the necessary steps to prevent it.

Posted by: meand2 | January 9, 2010 12:38 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps those "who dabbled in the irresponsible chatter that"...the war was lost, the surge wouldn't work, Bush lied, our troops were slaughtering civilians, yadda yadda....were also "undermining the confidence of Americans that their nation can prevail."
Did Capeheart accuse Senators Reid, Obama, Durbin, et al, of acting "like al-Qaeda foot soldiers?" Don't seem to remember that column. Of course, that was then.
It's only a question of "citizenship" when one disagrees with Mr. Capeheart and his darling Obama.
Pathetic.

Posted by: parkbench | January 9, 2010 1:29 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Capehart,

In one paragraph you wrote that Guiliani said that President Bush was more successful at protecting the United States from terrorism than President Obama. Then, in the very next paragraph, you wrote: “(A)nyone who dabbles in the irresponsible chatter that Obama and his administration couldn't care less about protecting Americans is, like an al-Qaeda foot soldier, undermining the confidence of Americans that their nation can prevail.”

Sounds like you think saying “Bush was better than Obama at protecting Americans” is the same as saying “Obama couldn’t care less about protecting Americans.”

It's not even close.

Posted by: jpbill1 | January 9, 2010 4:15 AM | Report abuse

Yonkers, New York
09 January 2010

Rudy Giuliani misses no chance to fault President Barack Obama, never mind if he is cavalier with his facts, and never mind if he appears to be recklessly disrespectful of a person who happens to be the President of these United States of America.

He obviously needs to be reminded that if his idol, then-President George W. Bush, had heeded clear warnings of an impending attack by al-Qaeda, by air, long before September 11, over-3,000 innocent Americans would surely have not died unnecessarily.

And if as then-Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani had only made sure that the radios he provided New York City's policemen and firemen actually worked, many of New York City's "finest" and "bravest" would surely have survived the destruction of the Twin Towers on September 11.

Mariano Patalinjug

Posted by: MPatalinjug | January 9, 2010 6:35 AM | Report abuse

Yonkers, New York
09 January 2010

Rudy Giuliani misses no chance to fault President Barack Obama, never mind if he is cavalier with his facts, and never mind if he appears to be recklessly disrespectful of a person who happens to be the President of these United States of America.

He obviously needs to be reminded that if his idol, then-President George W. Bush, had heeded clear warnings of an impending attack by al-Qaeda, by air, long before September 11, over-3,000 innocent Americans would surely have not died unnecessarily.

And if as then-Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani had only made sure that the radios he provided New York City's policemen and firemen actually worked, many of New York City's "finest" and "bravest" would surely have survived the destruction of the Twin Towers on September 11.

Mariano Patalinjug

Posted by: MPatalinjug | January 9, 2010 6:35 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Capehart, why are you objecting to what Giuliani said? You just said the same thing, essentially agreeing with Giuliani. You quote Ruday as saying that "President Bush was more successful at protecting the United States from terrorism than President Obama." You then follow with, "Obama can be criticized for his initial reaction to the potential downing of Northwest flight 253. He can be beaten up for appearing to put the war on terror on the backburner."

Giuliani never said that "Obama and his administration couldn't care less about protecting Americans is, like an al-Qaeda foot soldier, undermining the confidence of Americans that their nation can prevail." That's your erroneous take on it.

The fact is, Giuliani is right, just as Dick Cheney is right. Obama is simply mouthing politically correct, boiler-plate platitudes or outright lies ("systemic failure," "failure to connect the dots", "the buck stops here", or "we're at war", etc., etc., etc. He plays at being President. He isn't all that bright -- he's simply glib.

Unfortunately for him (and probably for us since, barring a coup, we're stuck with him as President), he is on a collision course with reality. And all his proper pronunciations and fluffy, glib articulations that he thinks impress people won't make the slightest bit of difference. Millions of us saw through this empty suit since he first appeared as a candidate and exhibited such classless behavior as slying scratching his face with his middle finger when mentioning Hillary or McCain in campaign speeches or saying that a pig with lipstick was still a pig, in an adolescent reference to Palin. Hopefully, all of those who were overcome with Bush-hatred or unwarranted white guilt are starting to come around to this sham artist posing as POTUS.

Posted by: RedderThanEver | January 9, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Well said Mr. Capehart.

Publicly, baselessly and irrationally disparaging the presidents actions is akin to the terrorist tactcs. Inciting fear in those foolish enough to listen to people like Cheney and Guiliani who were responsible for not reacting to the warnings of the worst terrorist attack on the United States. They failed, they failed miserably at keeping us safe when it mattered most. Now they're criticizing the actions of the current president while the echos of their claims that anyone that criticized the war was unAmerican - anyone that spoke out against the actions of the bush admin were labeled traitors. Nothing is more traitorous or unAmerican than criticizing the actions of our President simply to incite fear and score cheap political points.

Some may believe the re-writing of history that Dick Cheney, Rudy Guiliani (there were no domestic terror attacks while bush was president) and republicans like Hoekstra are trying to peddle - those cowards are reacting in the exact manner that terrorists hope to elicit. They're tactics are no different than the terrorists - using fear to intimidate. With their brand of nonsense, terrorism succeed not once, but twice - terrorist actions scare some, and the actions of Americans like Cheney and Guilisni stoke the fires with their empty and basesless claims.

It's really quite pathetic, but it's to be expected from Cheney. Dick Cheney is a failed man trying to repair his legacy, but factual history will prevent that from happening. The US is a strong and brave nation - not a nation of sniveling cowards.

Posted by: NotFooledTX | January 9, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Typical liberal double standard. I am sure you were condemning those calling Bush a liar, a loser, a drunk, a drug addict, baby killer and the list goes on and on. No you and the rest of the hopium drinkers will merrily follow Obama right over the cliff.

Posted by: Pilot1 | January 9, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

The thing Bush should have done is prosecute the war in Afghanistan and get bin Laden. That is where he dropped the ball. That is why terrorists everywhere are emboldened to keep on trying - we were ineffective at getting them when they do, we get distracted, we loose focus. The war in Iraq has given terrorists and malcontents all kinds of excuses to hate America - it has fed the fire of extremists. What a mistake - if the goal was to fight terrorism and not to just get back at the man who threatened his daddy.

Posted by: amelia45 | January 8, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

me, too. Except, I think Bush going into Iraq was real repudiation of his father's more rational policies. Obviously, Cheney and Rumsfeld did not agree with Sr. They wanted to show Saddam who was boss. They only showed they were almost as bad.

Posted by: edismae | January 9, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Some of You should [Shut Up]

The Law Of The Land is the Law Of The Land, Military Or U.S. Law.

I Guarantee He'll Get The Death Penalty Or Life Without Parole.

So what Difference Does it Make, where the Devil will be Tried and Convicted. He can get all the Best Lawyers and all the Best Legal Angles, His A!! is [[DONE]]

Republican Hacks Always Make Following the Law of the Land a Political Talking Point, To No Avail.

Abdulmultalab's A!! is Mown Over & Mown Down Grass.

If you THINK his A!! being Tried in U.S.Federal Courts will Get Him Off The Hook, You're ..

[[CRAZY !!]]
___________

Posted by: omaarsblade | January 9, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

___________

Under Bush:

1. 911, Over 3,000 Americans Killed

2. 3 Weeks Later Anthrax Attacks on the U.S.Post Office & U.S. Congress

3. 3 Months Later, Richard "The Shoe Bomber"

Note: Richard Reid was Tried and Convicted To Life Without Parole, He's doing Life in a Super Maximum Prison in Florida.

4. 6 Months before Bush's Exit from Office, a U.S. Soldier in Iraq Killed, His Fellow Soldiers During a Military Psyche Evaluation, Very similar to Fort Hood Texas.

Rudy Giuliani is a Paid To Play Tool or Worse, he has Convenient Amnesia or Early Signs Of AlzHeimers Or Dementia.

Posted by: omaarsblade | January 9, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

"The problem with Guiliani's remarks is that he seems to have forgotten shoe bombers and other threats that occurred while Bush was in office which also were not successful."

More precisely, he seems to think that the bulk of the American Electorate has forgotten the abject incompetence of Bush at Cie, of Giuliani and pals, Of the coop full of chickenhawks responsible for Iraq.

We haven't, and we intend to remind the middle of that, just in case.

Posted by: ceflynline | January 9, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

"So what Difference Does it Make, where the Devil will be Tried and Convicted. He can get all the Best Lawyers and all the Best Legal Angles, His A!! is [[DONE]] Posted by: omaarsblade"

What difference does it make?

WHEN, with the best lawyering anyone could get under the most favorable conditions he could arrange, Captain underpants gets convicted and sentenced to the maximum sentence possible, there won't be much chance that it was a doctored verdict, will there?

He goes in Federal Court, and the jury declares that he is just a bumbling felon in way over his head. He gets sentenced to forever locked away from any chance that he can try again to bumble his way to martyrdom. In a few years he becomes a triviality like Sirhan Sirhan, festering in a supermax in solitary for his own protection, and even his mother forgets he ever existed.

What difference does it make?

Real satisfaction seeing scum float off to irrelevance.

Posted by: ceflynline | January 9, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

So Bush didn't keep us safe?

At the end of 2009 we had on average about an attack a month from jihadists.

Iran is muscling up for nukes; Pakistan is needling our diplomats while snuggling up to the Taliban and Al-Queda; Afghanistan wonders if we're leaving this year or the next, and Mullah Omar's favorite call is now "Obama Akbar!"

Obama says we are at war and turns over the PantyBomber to court and he lawyers up.

I could go on. But after this stellar first year, it doesn't take an unmedicated ADD kid to imagine what will happen in the next three years.

And Rudy? He gets the grade, and if people thought and talked about 9/11 more often, perhaps the world would be better off.

Posted by: AlongTheWatchTowers | January 9, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Source: tinyurl[dot]com/y854s4k . Since the black bloomer bomber's [botched|staged] bombing attempt on [Delta|Northwest] flight 253 over Christmas, 9/11 widows judge Team Obama as no different than Team Bush/Cheney, and see the finger-pointing between party politicos for the bogus blame game that it is. Multiple sources declare UCL-educated Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab a patsy, engaged to provide the pretext for expanding America's global war for profit and peak oil into Yemen in search of "al-Qaeda", the CIA-fabricated global network of boogeymen whose "terrorist cells" conveniently pop up wherever and whenever "they"--the consortium of Wall Street Banksters, Peak Oil Gangsters, and Military-Industrial Profiteers who rule America--need an excuse to take the rights or lives of more innocent people, or plunder the resources of yet another sovereign nation. And to save our corrupt and crumbling republic, a growing number of Americans now see that we must (1) remove Cloudmark Authority from all email servers, to restore our freedom of speech; (2) repeal the Patriot Act, to rescue our Constitution and Bill of Rights; and (3) re-elect Nobody, to rid ourselves of all bought-and-paid-for [Democratic|Republican|Liberal|Conservative|YourEmptyLabelHere] political puppets and expose their masters.

Posted by: ironboltbruce | January 9, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

No one sets the tone, but the President. If President Obama takes his time to respond to the Christmas attack because he wanted to project his calm on the people and his new tone toward terrorism, then the buck stops with President Obama. If the language and attitude toward terrorism creates a lapse in security then the buck stops with President Obama. If the language of President Obama influences others around the world and in this country to view terrorism as being overdone, then the buck stops with President Obama. President Obama even said the buck stops with him, because he knows his attitude and language has forced him to admit the buck stops with him. Finally he accepts responsibility for something.

Posted by: houstonian | January 10, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company