In an attempt to score political points, Guiliani forgets about 9/11 26 replies

Please wait...

Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100109/ap_on_en_tv/us_terrorism_giuliani_6

In an interview on Good Morning America, Giuliani took up the opportunity to score points with the Republican base and concerned Americans, criticizing the Obama Administration's handling of the War on Terror. He stated that Obama could stand to take notes from the Bush Administration's handling of the War on Terror, as he has made the country more vulnerable to terror attacks. To this end, he stated that under Obama one act of domestic terrorism has already occurred early into his term, while under Bush there were none.

Oops, seems Guiliani forgot about the very event that made him well-known. Surprising, concerning he wasn't able to go in his campaign without mentioning 9/11 all the time (noun verb 9/11). His statement received condemnation, saying he had already made a cheap shot even worse by making such a blatant mistake. Guiliani's team quickly went out to address the fallout by saying Guiliani misspoke and meant to point out attacks post-9/11, though this thought clearly Guiliani didn't seem to be phased when he initially made the statement.

I guess this doesn't help Guiliani's attempts to try and stave off criticism that he's an opportunist using the 9/11 banner to advance his own goals.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#2 11 years ago

He meant "Since 9/11." quite obviously.

Though I have no idea how much Bush's actions prevented another terrorist attack in the U.S. Were there no attacks because Bush as successful in that realm? Or was it just that no one bothered trying in that time. As much as I think the security methods put in place after 9/11 were based on fear and paranoia, and were a step back for a Western nation, they probably did help to keep people a little bit safer.

As for Guiliani, I never really saw him as being opportunistic with 9/11. It's more that his leadership for New York after 9/11 is the only thing he's really known for, in the same way that Bush will be permanently associated with the Iraq War, and most of his other actions will probably be forgotten to history.




Admiral Donutz Advanced Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago

Heh, sorry but I had to laugh. Sounds more like an scetch from some comedy (satire) program. Anyway, the "this president good/bad, previous one not" over the number of incidents (war, attacks, ..) is a bit silly to begin with. I kinda fail to see how the number of attempted and failed or succeeded assaults indicates how "good" a president (administration) does. Or if so, if the count of prevented and succesfull attacks would be better, does that mean he'd be a better president? Or worse if ti was the other way around.

It would probably be more fair to ask "how has this president been doing internationally?" , what do these foreigners, ranging from any goverment, business to individual think of us and how has it affected our position in the world in terms of the economy, international relations and so on.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago
Afterburner;5207132He meant "Since 9/11." quite obviously.

Then why didn't he say it? Quite a big error to misspeak on this, particularly something that he's built his entire career on. It's one thing to misspeak at a campaign rally, but on an interview where he's largely been coached as to what to say, it's a bad, bad error. But even then it's a weak, weak statement to build an argument on.

And even in that regard, he had been referring to the Ft. Hood shootings as an act of terrorism, though already both Bush and Obama's terms have had a number of foiled attacks. And the anthrax issues that came up under Bush too.

All-in-all, it's an idiotic argument. If Guiliani wanted to make a more convincing, or at least more stable cheap shot, he should have gone after the way Obama is handling affairs in the Middle-East. At least there is enough room for him to navigate and stave off potential criticism.

As for Guiliani, I never really saw him as being opportunistic with 9/11. It's more that his leadership for New York after 9/11 is the only thing he's really known for, in the same way that Bush will be permanently associated with the Iraq War, and most of his other actions will probably be forgotten to history.

Yea, but anytime he campaigns he has to bring up 9/11. Nearly everything was about 9/11. There were policemen and firemen who went into the towers that day, and those who came out don't go around bragging about it to the level that Giuliani does.

And Dontuz is right. This is another long trend of *insert* president being responsible for x calamity, and y politician taking the stand against his failure that is inherent to the z party.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#5 11 years ago
Commissar MercZ;5207159Then why didn't he say it? Quite a big error to misspeak on this, particularly something that he's built his entire career on. But even then it's a weak, weak statement to build an argument on.

OF course it's a weak argument, you won't get an argument from me on that. It's not that big of an error to make though. It's often the most obvious things that are forgotten, or go unstated, because they are just so bloody obvious.

And even in that regard, he had been referring to the Ft. Hood shootings as an act of terrorism, though already both Bush and Obama's terms have had a number of foiled attacks. And the anthrax issues.

Well Ft. Hood does seem to have been a major cock up, but you can hardly blame that on Obama. He didn't even really change much regarding domestic security policies. It was lower level investigators and bureaucrats that screwed the pooch on that one.

Yea, but anytime he campaigns he has to bring up 9/11. Nearly everything was about 9/11.

Yeah, I'm just saying the reason he does that is because he's got nothing else to campaign on.




SeinfeldisKindaOk

5.56 smoke Haji every day

55 XP

17th July 2008

0 Uploads

8,397 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago

Clearly he was referring to Bush Sr.'s presidency. Just kidding. Clearly he meant there were no attacks under Bush because Cheney was the actual president. Just kidding.

Even if he meant since 9/11 there were the anthrax attacks like Mercz said. Isn't the shoe bomber another one? That was similar to the kaboom shorts guy.

Yeah, Giulliani pretty much campaigns on his terror reputation and looks for any opportunity to use it as a political advantage. Seems here he was guilty of wishful thinking and believed his own spin (aka lies) or was just too liberal with it.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#7 11 years ago

Professor Dr. Scientist;5207234 Even if he meant since 9/11 there were the anthrax attacks like Mercz said. Isn't the shoe bomber another one? That was similar to the kaboom shorts guy.

Yeah, Giulliani pretty much campaigns on his terror reputation and looks for any opportunity to use it as a political advantage. Seems here he was guilty of wishful thinking and believed his own spin (aka lies) or was just too liberal with it.

I think what Guiliani was trying to do is cash in on the mood that Obama's being too weak with terrorism, which is an attitude you can gather from some segments of society. However in doing so he came out making himself sound like an idiot.




Rich19

Italicised no more

50 XP

14th August 2004

0 Uploads

4,058 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago
Afterburner;5207132He meant "Since 9/11." quite obviously.

"There were no terrorist attacks in Bush's presidency since the absolutely disasterously huge terrorist attack in Bush's presidency"?




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#9 11 years ago
Rich19;5207429"There were no terrorist attacks in Bush's presidency since the absolutely disasterously huge terrorist attack in Bush's presidency"?

*insert argument about homeland security and how it has made glorious country safe*




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#10 11 years ago
Rich19;5207429"There were no terrorist attacks in Bush's presidency since the absolutely disasterously huge terrorist attack in Bush's presidency"?

This would be witty if it didn't ignore the fact that Bush, for better or worse (and I'd argue worse, mind you) massivly overhauled domestic security in the U.S. following 9/11. Before 9/11 he was working with the exact same system that was in place in Clinton's presidency. It's like I said with the Fort Hood attack, you can't blame something like that on the current president really, as the security measures in place were put in place by the President before them (or even further back.)

If anything I'd say you could blame 9/11 on the administrations previous to Bush, and Fort Hood on Bush. Though even then it's not really the President's fault that Homeland Security fucked up. It is their fault that there was motive for the attack though, since they are more directly involved in foreign relations.