Skip to comments.Rudy Giuliani Says Obama’s Handling of Gulf Oil Spill “Couldn’t be Worse” – Video
Posted on 06/02/2010 8:27:56 PM PDT by Federalist Patriot
Here is video of Rudy Giuliani talking with Sean Hannity about a crisis of competence in the White House. Giuliani said both the Sestak Job Offer and the offer of jobs to Democrat Andrew Romanoff in Colorado to get him to drop a primary bid against incumbent Democrat Sen. Michael Bennett, should be investigated.
On Obamas handling of the Gulf Crisis, Giuliani said, It couldnt be worse. This would be an example if you taught Leadership 101 of exactly what not to do: Minimize it at first; then a few days after it happens go on vacation .He gives the sense that hes very nonchalant and lackadaisical about it. Giuliani made the point that if the leader at the top sets that tone, the rest of bureaucracy will follow suit.
Giuliani said Obama has tried to handle this like a political problem, not like a real crisis.
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomslighthouse.net ...
I disagree. I think it actually could be worse. With Obama, I never underestimate how bad he can get.
That is what Rudy was saying.
Am glad Rudy was in charge of New York City on 9/11
Am glad Rudy was in charge of New York City on 9/11
Boma thought being Pres. would be just like a neighborhood organizer just a little larger neighborhood.
Something interesting I read in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals-—
Alinsky specifically differentiates an ORGANIZER and a LEADER.
He explicitly says that an organizer is an agitator, an outsider, who
has to gain the trust of his “community” he is organizing. But once
he gets them all worked up to “strike” and demonstrate and ACORN
like stuff, after that they have to leave it up to LEADER.
Alinsky says an ORGANIZER is NOT a LEADER.
You can’t keep agitating and dredging up pain forever. You gotta move
on like all other organizers.
And that my dear countrymen is why Obama is just using the BP spill
to promote his energy legislation today at CMU. How he thinks if he
can get the public angry at BP enough then all will be well.
He can only organize and not lead.
And he is now embroiled in real Chicago way politics. 3 Strikes you are out!
Sestak, now Romanoff and tomorrow Blago’s trial starts.
Good luck Rahm testifying! Pay to Play! Rezko, Ayers, Chicago Alinksy Daley!
Flush (sound of Obama’s presidency)
Rudy hits it right on the head.
Great catch on the Organizer vs. Leader.
I must go back over the Rules for Rads, it is like a road map to this Marxist Pres.
sic ‘em Rudy!
I know there are not a lot of Rudy fans here, but I’d sure feel a hell of a lot better with him in the White House than with what we have now.
True. Better indeed. But worse at the same time. The Tea party movement would not have coalesced. The GOP leaders led by Rudy would have Cap and Tax already in the books, they’d have amnesty already in the books with lots more of Rudy’s virtual fences that don’t work. They’d have be passing “sensible” gun controls, and worst of all, they wouldn’t be forcefed the rediscovery of the Constitution as they are being forcefed now.
I don’t see Rudy that way. Rudy knew he had to be more socially liberal to even become mayor of NYC, so he plays the hand with which he’s dealt.
I think as POTUS he would have been much more conservative, because he would have been forced to be by the GOP. He’s a bit of a political chameleon, but he sure wouldn’t kiss Rat butt, like most of today’s Republicans do.
have been forced to be by the GOP....
That’s the mistake. They did a crappy job of forcing Bush to be conservative, and they did an even worse job of forcing themselves.
Truer words were never spoken. That's why my dirty little secret is I agree with you about Sarah Palin & the bots.
I thought Rudy would have made a great president. I stand by that. Disagree with him on abortion-but that’s about it.
I AGREE—OTHUGA AND BOSSES CAN MAKE THINGS LOTS WORSE AND ARE WORKING HARD TO DO JUST THAT.
More proof of the Constitution FREEDOM SHREDDING power elite’s goals and efforts. This is not my idea of Constitutional sovereignty. It DOES fit their communist/globalist/socialist aims quite hand in glove.
Contributed by CanadaFirst (Reporter)
Wednesday, July 07, 2010 9:36
View: Reporter’s biography | More storiesThis story has
been viewed 112 times
(112 times in the past 24 hours, 110 times in the past hour)
5 people on this page right now2400 Canadian Soldiers and the 1 Combat Engineer Regiment based in Edmonton Alberta are on a 72 Hour notice for deployment to the U.S. Gulf Coast.
The 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group (1 CMBG) frequently train with U.S. Army units including up to a 3 year secondment in the U.S. Military for Career Officers. The Canadian Engineer Regiment is often associated with the British SAS and their role in recent conflicts such as Bosnia and Afghanistan has seen them doing less reconstruction work and more urban pacification and counter insurgency operations.
Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other’s borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.
Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.
Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation in a civil emergency.
The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.
There is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. Also underway is a plan for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines.
If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military.
News of the deal, and the allegation it was kept secret in Canada, is already making the rounds on left-wing blogs and Internet sites as an example of the dangers of the growing integration between the two militaries.
On right-wing blogs in the U.S. it is being used as evidence of a plan for a “North American union” where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities.
“Co-operative militaries on Home Soil!” notes one website. “The next time your town has a ‘national emergency,’ don’t be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond.”
Thanks for the ping!
Tried to view the reporter’s bio 3 times. Got a fatal error each time. I put little stock in this. 2400 Canadians don’t want to bring their arms to the Gulf Coast, not THIS Gulf Coast anyway.
“ .He gives the sense that hes very nonchalant and lackadaisical about it.
Puppets are like that, very little emo.
Time will tell.
Over the last 10+ years, have read probably 75-150 reports of foreign troops on US soil—or going to be.
I don’t think 100% of those reports are disinformation, lies, etc.
We shall see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.