Posted on 04/15/2007 2:57:29 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani defended Bill Clinton on Wednesday over the former president's counterterrorism efforts, saying recent criticism on preventing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is wrong.
Political bickering over which president _ Clinton or George W. Bush _ missed more opportunities to prevent the attacks has been escalating since Clinton gave a combative interview on"Fox News Sunday"in which he defended his efforts to kill Osama bin Laden.
"The idea of trying to cast blame on President Clinton is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don't think he deserves it,"Giuliani said in response to a question after an appearance with fellow Republican Charlie Crist, who is running for governor."I don't think President Bush deserves it. The people who deserve blame for Sept. 11, I think we should remind ourselves, are the terrorists _ the Islamic fanatics _ who came here and killed us and want to come here again and do it."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged Clinton's claim that he did more than many of his conservative critics to pursue bin Laden, and she accused the Democrat of leaving no comprehensive plan to fight al-Qaida.
Giuliani said he believed Clinton, like his successor, did everything he could with the information he was provided.
"Every American president I've known would have given his life to prevent an attack like that. That includes President Clinton, President Bush,"the former mayor said."They did the best they could with the information they had at the time."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Okay Rudy, I agree with you that the ultimate blame lies with the jihadists...but why in the world are you sticking up for Clinton and his do-nothing policy?!
Also, can I note something?
"The jihadists very much want a victory in Iraq. They feel that if they could defeat us in Iraq they will have a great victory for terrorism,"Giuliani said."What that should do is organize us to say if they want a big victory in Iraq then we have to deprive them of that victory."
This is different from what he's saying now.
Terrorists "are going to continue to be at war with us, no matter what the outcome in Iraq," Mr. Giuliani said recently in New Hampshire. The night before, he said that "there are no sure things, "and that if the United States fails in Iraq, "we have to be ready for that, too." In California a few days later, speaking of "the danger of focusing on Iraq too much," he said that complete success there would not win the fight against terrorism, and that failure there would not lose it.
So...just last September, that we should deny the jihadists victory in Iraq...but now he's saying that a potential loss in Iraq would not be bad?
That sounds like what he's saying...
I’m beginning to think we’ll need to replace Kerry in the old Eggo Waffle pictures soon...
Rudy who?
History just repeats itself only further to the left each and every time.
Nothing like Rudy giving a little “Monica” to Bill Clinton.
Come on Fred.
has Bush once ever made the claim that Clinton’s stewardship of this nation in the 8 years prior to 9-11, led to it happening? no, not once.
don’t get me wrong, I’d like to see Rudy go harder against the Clintons on this issue. But its not going to be easy when the sitting republican President undercuts the argument, and let’s people like Sandy Berger walk away scot free.
Rudy CANNOT be the nominee! He keeps stepping in it.
Jamie Gorelick. Sandy Berger. Bill Clinton. Inexcusable. Indefensible.
here’s an opening for all you Thompson supporters here. Do you think Thompson will run a presidential campaign where he blames the Clintons for 9-11?
Let me know when that happens, when Fred Thompson stands up and blames the Clintons for 9-11. I’m all ears.
Before we defend Clinton’s handling of jihadi threats pre-9/11, I’d like to see those documents that Sandy Burglar had hidden in his pants.
Rudy is getting on my nerves with his flapping gums. He would make a very poor GOP candidate. He’d probably end up endorsing Hillary somewhere along the way.
yes, email Bush to ask him why we weren’t able to get to the bottom of the Berger case. don’t lay that failure on Rudy.
Think it's going to take a lot of hard work to get our party back.
“The people who deserve blame for Sept. 11, I think we should remind ourselves, are the terrorists _ the Islamic fanatics _ who came here and killed us and want to come here again and do it.”
President Bush said the same thing and he never pointed a finger at Clinton either.
Statesmen don’t engage in counterproductive finger pointing, they look to the future and work to fix the problems.
Sure, Ted Olson and Steve Forbes are known to be flaming liberals. (/sarc)
Yep. I'll vote for a ham sandwich over the Beast, but I hope to hell we can nominate a true conservative so I don't have to.
Why is this retard leading in the polls? It’s not like he’s hiding his liberalism.
Giuliani has even made the statement that there is very little difference between his views and those of Bill Clinton. Giuliani is just another pandering fake conservative, as is McCain. Neither can be trusted.
Goodbye, Rudy.
Hello, Fred!
Go home, Rudy and put on your wife’s clothes.
Why would you expect one socialist not support another?
actually, that was a huge mistake by Bush. perhaps the single biggest of his “new tone” approach.
but we are stuck with it now - what he did letting Berger go, his failure to politicize the blame for 9-11, etc.
but what the hell - let’s blame Rudy for it and move on.
I agree.
I think Rudys trying to get the DumocRat nomination because he will never make to the primaries with his liberal B*llSh*t. Keep talking Rudy!
Even money Forbes joined because Rudy told him he supported a flat-tax, which of course Rudy later stated that he did not support any kind of flat-tax.
Their support was also before Rudy started opening his yap and spewing his Liberal crap.
Not blaming Rudy for Bush’s lack of spine. But considering his supposed “tough on terror” credentials, this is disappointing.
Rudy: Because Bill Clinton's policies are a lot like mine.
There you go again with the Ted Olson baloney. As I posted to you before with the actual numbers, over the years Ted Olson has contributed money to DEMOCRATS. He was also extremly free with his money for Rooty-tooty when he was mayor and supporting liberals 24/7.
Anyway, who died and made him 'Conservative in Chief'?
So stop with the Ted Olson crap. Ted Olson is nobody special. He's just another lawyer.
This is a case where Rudy would have handled it a lot like Clinton. He has compared himself to Clinton regarding his policy.
The way Rudy can flip and flop while singing a different tune out both sides of his mouth, his talents seem suited to the entertainment business (circus?).
"Most of [President] Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine"--Rudolph Giuliani, New York Post, Jun 8, 1999"I don't think tonight's result is tragic, I guess because I'm not that partisan a person ...
(restating RWG quote from 1996)
I think President Clinton is a good man, he's a very decent man, and the country has run pretty well."--Rudolph Giuliani, commenting on Bob Dole's loss in the 1996 presidential election.
New York Times, Nov 7, 1996
They get into the name dropping thing.
They repeat them over and over ad nauseum.
You are supposed to be impressed, and vote for Rudy because Ted says he is voting for Rudy. LOL
One step right... two steps left... for the past 55 years.
Didn’t Rummy even say the stories of Able Danger are not real?
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?SpeakerId=3996
check out the video to the right, where Fred talks about Terrorism pre-9/11, and how we are not prepared, because of millitary budget cuts, that where heavily due to the Clinton administration.
Tell that to the Treasoncrats who regularly blame the US and Israel, as if the terrorists had a right to fly them planes into the buildings.
He's right. The ones responsible for the attacks were the Islamofacists. Clinton was/is a piece of trash, but to blame him for the attacks would be ridiculous. He most certainly could have done more to prevent it but let's lay the blame squarely where it belongs. How would blaming him for the attacks be any different from the demented scumbags who to this day say we deserved it, or were asking for it? I don't see this as Rudy sticking up for clinton, I see it as focusing on the perpertrators and staying away from finger waving.
"The jihadists very much want a victory in Iraq. They feel that if they could defeat us in Iraq they will have a great victory for terrorism,"Giuliani said."What that should do is organize us to say if they want a big victory in Iraq then we have to deprive them of that victory."
This is different from what he's saying now.
Terrorists "are going to continue to be at war with us, no matter what the outcome in Iraq," Mr. Giuliani said recently in New Hampshire. The night before, he said that "there are no sure things, "and that if the United States fails in Iraq, "we have to be ready for that, too." In California a few days later, speaking of "the danger of focusing on Iraq too much," he said that complete success there would not win the fight against terrorism, and that failure there would not lose it.
Again, what is the problem with this? We are going to continue to be at war regardless of what happens in Iraq. President Bush has said many times that this will be a long war and that Iraq is just one front in the overall picture. I don't think that anyone can honestly say that our success in Iraq would mean that our enemies will give up fighting, and likewise I don't think anyone can honestly say that failure there would mean that we have lost this generational war. Rudy is right when he says that complete success there would not win the war and that failure would not lose it. It would be a severe blow to our chances of ultimately defeating the Islamofacist threat but it would by no means be the end, not for the US.
Now....flame away
“Terrorists “are going to continue to be at war with us, no matter what the outcome in Iraq,” Mr. Giuliani said recently in New Hampshire. The night before, he said that “there are no sure things, “and that if the United States fails in Iraq, “we have to be ready for that, too.” In California a few days later, speaking of “the danger of focusing on Iraq too much,” he said that complete success there would not win the fight against terrorism, and that failure there would not lose it.”
Tough on the WOT? This guy is a wimp!!!!
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. If you can’t say something useful, keep your mouth shut, Rudy.
Clinton sold us out to the Communist Chinese, he sold us out to North Korea, and he sold us out to the Muslim terrorists.
If you don’t want to get into all of that, then just shut up. Don’t lie in defense of the worst president in US history.
I think Fred gets terror even before 9/11, and I would like to see if you or any Rudy supporter can produce a Rudy speech or a Rudy statement about Terrorism Pre-9/11, it probably shouldn’t be that hard, since Rudy was a mayor of a town that had a terrorist attack happen pre-9/11.
The Media has forever been nagging Bush about his speech patterns and “lack of intellect” (he doesn’t read The NY Times).
But what can one say about Rudy? He wants to deny the the Clintons and Associates are “honorable Americans”. These same people who would destroy in a way different from the Jihadists, but destroy us just the same.
Doesn’t this fool understand we are fighting for our Cultural and Political Life?
Barry Goldwater, we need your kind again and now!
“The idea of trying to cast blame on President Clinton is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don’t think he deserves it,”Giuliani said..
Scary.
Hillary was a partner in crime in these misadvantures, and electing her would be a total disaster. I hoped that we might get a better policy from Juliani, whose main campaign theme is that he is tough on jihadists.
You can't be surprised that liberal New Yorkers stick together, can you?
I don't know about wimp, but he certainly has no vision as to what needs to be done. Given that, combined with his authoritarian character, he might just get us into a full-blown WW. I think he would be a horrific CIC.
Sending odd quasi-defeatist messages like this is what I would expect from Carl Levin, not a republican candidate.
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.