home

Gary Hart Slams Rudy Giuliani Over His Terrorism Record

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 01:40:00 AM EST
Tags: Rudy Giuliani (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Former Senator Gary Hart lays into Rudy Giuliani in his new post at HuffPo.

He asks Rudy, "Where were you on terrorism between January 31, 2001, and September 11th?"

Hart then writes,

Before you qualify to criticize Democrats, Mr. Giuliani, you must account for your preparation of your city for these clearly predicted attacks. Tell us, please, what steps you took to make your city safer.

Until you do, then I strongly suggest you should keep your mouth shut about Democrats and terrorism. You have not qualified to criticize others, let alone be president of the United States.

< Gonzales Heckled at Harvard Law School Reunion | Crooked Talk on McCain From WaPo >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Gary Hart Slams Rudy Giuliani Over His Terrorism Record | 15 comments (15 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Jarober (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:44:53 AM EST
    Does that mean that if:

    -- a Democrat wins the Presidency in 2008
    -- and a terrorist attack takes place within the US 9 months after January 2009

    It'll be fully their fault, too?  

    Why would you think otherwise? Hell, they tried to blame WTC II on Clinton! What's your point?

    Standing in front of a smoking pile of rubble... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by rdandrea on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 10:18:11 AM EST
    ...and using the photo-op to try and postpone an upcoming mayoral election is hardly the same as being "tough on terrorism."

    Why did Giuliani push to stay on as mayor after 9/11?  Did he figure there was a big trash contract coming up that could be steered to one of his cronies?

    Altruism has never been one of Giuliani's virtues.

    So then... (none / 0) (#1)
    by jarober on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 01:25:35 AM EST
    By this line of reasoning, 9/11 was fully Bush's fault, even though his time in office was 9 months at the time.

    Does that mean that if:

    -- a Democrat wins the Presidency in 2008
    -- and a terrorist attack takes place within the US 9 months after January 2009

    It'll be fully their fault, too?  

    If they are briefed on a threat (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by lilybart on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:11:42 AM EST
    and ignore it like Bush did, then yes, they would be responsible.

    Parent
    Lilybart (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 01:23:16 PM EST
    Feel free to beat Bush all you wnat, but you should pick a subject in which subjective claims work. Read the following.

    At the special meeting on July 5 (2001) were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

    That is the President's NSA talking. Exactly 68 days before 9/11, all of these agencies were warned.

    How did Bush ignore it?

    Want more?

    QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?

    CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

    Link

    Parent

    Riiiight! (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Sailor on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:27:57 AM EST
    quoting faux news to confirm the admin's lies. Stay tuned and stay stupid. Rice has beeen an incompetent liar thru the whole debacle and when you keep cherrypicking one minor early statement and not the latest conclusions it's yet another example of your constant dishonesty.

    The French told the US that airplanes were going to be used. The cia told bush that OBL (BTW, where is OBL!?) was determined to attack the US. bush went on vacation and trashed the cia briefer when he tried to warn him of the danger.

    bush ignored warnings about 9/11 and then started an illegal war based on lies about WMDs and iraq/AQ connections.

    NATO members France and Germany, together with Russia, were opposed to a military intervention in Iraq, on the ground that it would be very risky, in terms of security, for the international community, and defended a diplomatic process of disarmament. [...]
    On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."[31]


    Parent
    None of the above (none / 0) (#11)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 12:43:03 PM EST
    It will be Clinton's fault, as are all things.

    Parent
    A little disingenuous (none / 0) (#2)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 02:18:50 AM EST
    While true that Hart's commission issued its warnings about terrorism on January 31, 2001, the report, and the commission's calls for attention to terrorist threats, focused on nothing that the Mayors of American cities--including Giuliani--could have done differently.

    Hart would like to take credit for anticipating the 9-11 attack, but the report missed the mark in terms of the threat we faced. For starters, the report confined itself almost entirely to discussion of nuclear, chemical, and biological proliferation which would lead to threats of "mass-casualty attacks."

    It also limited itself to making suggestions for Congressional and Executive action, again, not something Giuliani could have done differently.

    It was also filled with ideas which made it difficult to take seriously. For example, in order to combat terrorism, Hart's Commission suggested:

    The President should direct the Department of Education to work with the states to
    devise a comprehensive plan to avert a looming shortage of quality teachers.

    Yes, indeed, it's hard to imagine why no one jumped to impliment Hart's suggestions.

    Guiliani has no terrorism record. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by lilybart on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:14:27 AM EST
    I think that is what this is about. Giuliani was a failed mayor on Sept 10th. The next day terrorists hit the WTC. He lived in NYC and was the mayor and that is all he actually DID.

    He tried to cancel the election so he could stay mayor. Not sure what else he did above and beyond his actual job description.

    Maybe doing your job is enough to brag, as a republican?

    Parent

    Addendum (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 10:54:32 AM EST
    The above is not a way of saying that Hart should get no credit. But calling for education reform as a means of combatting terrorism just reveals the pre-9/11 mindset.

    As far as Giuliani and no terrorism record, I'm sure his terrorism record would have been better if liberal New Yorkers hadn't derided his crisis planning as "paranoid." Along those lines...I'm sure your remember his crisis control-center which was re-branded "Giuliani's Bunker" by a psychologically unprepared New York media.

    Parent

    His bunker (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by lilybart on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 02:51:12 PM EST
    in the WTC you mean? The one that should have been built in Briooklyn, but Rudy wanted it in the WTC.

    I live in NYC.
    What Crisis planning did we pooh pooh?

    Parent

    9/11.... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:43:18 AM EST
    the ultimate political football....I wonder when the politicians on both sides will cut the crap.  I realize Hart's comments are in response to Rudy's...but enough is enough.

    Lets get real...If you wanna get to the root causes of 9/11, you need to go way back to the day Ford decided to power his car with gasoline, the formation of Israel, and to when America decided to play empire after ww2.  On the muslim world side, look to when "explosions for allah" starting becoming popular again, the lack of opportunities in their economies, and tyranny in general.  These problems are 30-100 years old...if we wanna criticize lets criticize for ignoring the root problems.

    Our politicians blow hot air about what Bush did 8 months beforehand, what Clinton did 4 years beforehand...to me its kind of irrelevant.  When the whackjob has the motivation and the weapon at his disposal its too late...know what I'm saying?  Rudy says he can protect us, but I don't hear him talking about the root problems...so I say he's full of sh*t like the rest of them.

    Well (1.00 / 1) (#10)
    by HeadScratcher on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 12:17:14 PM EST
    You're half right...

    Muslim exteremism in India, Nigeria, Egypt, Pakistan, Phillipines, Thailand, Chechnya, Spain (Andalucia), Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, France, Indonesia have little to do with US "imperialism" since WWII, Gerald Ford putting gas in his car, and the creation of Israel. I mean, what in the world does Israel have to do with Thailand...

    This is simply about some extremists who refuse to evolve and blame others for their problems. It's akin to the KKK who blame blacks for their own problems.

    Grow up and fix your own problems. Stop treating women like crap, stop treating anything Western like a disease (blowing up Buddhist statues), and clean your own home before deriding others for having nicer houses.

    You want to be sorry that they lost their empire then go ahead. I'm not.

    Parent

    I think its you.... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 04:21:21 PM EST
    who is half right.

    We've got our own problems to solve as well.  We need to find a way to function without military bases in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and elsewhere.  To deny the part US foreign policy has played in the rise of worldwide terrorism is living in denial.

    Yes, we need to grow up and fix our problems as does the muslim world.


    Parent

    finally (none / 0) (#9)
    by orionATL on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 11:11:55 AM EST
    democrats are learning to talk straight and tough.

    about time.

    Gary Hart Slams Rudy Giuliani Over His Terrorism Record | 15 comments (15 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment