In addition to a prepared statement that resurrects the antiquated “pre-9/11 mindset” talking point from the 2004 Bush campaign, Vlad Rudy participated in a conference call today in which he made the forthcoming remark—a comment so misguided in its inaccuracy and so cynical in its exploitative reasoning that it ought to be etched into a cement tablet and placed in a gutter in lower Manhattan, allowing future generations of Americans to spit upon it.
Before we reveal the offending quote, Vlad Rudy’s remarks in the conference call began with the usual repetitious fear mongering:
“The reality is there seems to be more concern about the rights of terrorists, or alleged terrorists, than the rights that the American people have to safety and security,” Rudy said. “I do not understand why, at a time we’re facing this terrorist threat, we want to create new rights that didn’t exist before for people alleged to be involved in terrorist activities or alleged to be enemy combatants.”
For those of you keeping score, he said the word “terrorist(s)” four times in just two short sentences which I think is a record—even for him. Huzzah, Rudy! (Using the same word four times in two back-to-back sentences is really difficult without sounding moronic and awkward. Try it now with the word “pants.” It’s hard, isn’t it?) So this first section was ridiculous, but not necessarily over-the-top offensive. The truly offensive words and implications were reserved for this line:
“It is fair to say that Osama Bin Laden would be given new rights that nobody ever had before.”
Oh would he, Mr. Giuliani? To somehow imply—to merely speculate in form of two logical fallacies within a single sentence (a straw-man argument and an appeal to fear)—that the U.S. Supreme Court, the Democratic Party and Senator Obama would afford the world’s most wanted man special human rights manages to entirely overlook the very real fact that the party you, Vlad, support, and the elected officials you, Vlad, endorse have utterly failed to capture Bin Laden in the first place. And the way Bin Laden’s name is so callously and easily invoked as a means of scoring far-right political points makes his on-going freedom appear way too suspiciously convenient.
Bin Laden’s freedom.
That bit of truth speaks volumes about the failed policies of Vlad Rudy’s Republican Party. Since the beginning of time, one of the most precious rights any living creature can possess is simply the right to be… free. And free Bin Laden remains; recording new tapes and massaging hair dye into his beard while lurking in various safe houses along the western border of Pakistan. Free.
And as long as he’s out there—free—he might as well be exploited as a spokesperson for the Republican Party and Senator McCain, mainly because their chief executive is too unpopular to fulfill that basic political duty. During the 2006 midterms, for example, “it’s fair to say” (and also true) that Bin Laden’s face appeared in more GOP ads than did President Bush’s face. “It’s fair to say” that the forthcoming general election will reflect the same backwards branding.
Three trillion for Iraq over 30 years, oil soaring on the weak dollar due to defecit spending on the Iraq boondoggle, and this P.o.S. is still at large…
Senator Obama and the Democrats offer an alternative to the Bush Republican endless war and “the domination of the few.” And, for that, they’re conflated with Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists by fear mongers like Vlad Rudy Giuliani. More laughable is the fact that Senator Obama is being unfairly demonized for his lack of foreign policy experience by a man whose most recently held public office was that of mayor—a mayor whose only connection with the war on terrorism (besides his political exploitation of it) is the fact that he ran around in the streets while the towers burned. ("It’s only fair” to repeat specifically why was he running around like that. He mistakenly put his command center inside the World Trade Center—after the towers had already been attacked once.)
This shockingly apocryphal outrage from Vlad Rudy and Senator McCain only serves to underscore the desperation of the Republican Party. After all, how will they win in November without using their best fear mongering tactics in the face of more sensible views… like this one:
“Try them or release them. I think the key to this is to move the judicial process forward so that these individuals will be brought to trial for any crime that they are accused of, rather than residing in [the] Guantanamo facility in perpetuity.”
That was Senator McCain from June, 2005. Seriously. “Try them or release them,” he said. Of course this version of Senator McCain has long since vanished. Now, the basic notion of a detainee finding out why he’s been detained is an unacceptable freedom warranting outraged statements like, “The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” This from a man who, only three years ago, demanded that either they be tried or be summarily freed.
You are right about no Afghanis being part of 9/11, but bin Laden was a guest of the government of Afghanistan at the time, which explains why we went there.
There was no more to fear from Saddam Hussein in 2001 than there was in 1991, 1992, 1993...1999 or 2000. The “entire world” though we were rushing into a blunder-in-the-making, which is why, with the exception of Britain and a handful of members of the “coalition of the willing” (remember that idiotic term?), we went at this mission alone without world support.
That’s right Leon! If you can get everyone to completely disregard the other 34 countries that sent troops into Iraq, Bush pushed us into Iraq totally ALONE!!!!
BUSH LIED!!! HATE BUSH!!!!
Whatever happened to Hillary’s and Kerry’s prediction that the manipulating W Bush was going to have bin Laden found just before the last Presidential election?
dan, I do feel sorry for you sometimes. I know you have a tough job of being the resident rightwinger “secretary of Republican defense” on this board with all these pesky facts getting in the way of what you wish was reality.
Let’s examine the 34 number that you assert to be shouldering the burden in Iraq along with our troops and shouldering the taxpayer burden on the home front.
With Britain having well less than five thousand troops in theater, it appears currently that the United States is the only current member of the “coalition of the willing.” This, of course, excludes those numerous countries, such as the Solomon Islands, Eritrea, and Georgia, who do continue to provide “moral” support (big shout out to these brave countries).
Now if you included non sovereign entities, such as KBR and Halliburton, as part of the “coalition of the willing,” it may still be said that we have important “allies” contributing military and other personnel alongside our 150,000 current troop presence, but I don’t think even you would consider such multinationals as members of the “coalition of the willing.”
Don’t feel too sorry for me Leon. Arguing against dullards such as you is really quite a simple task. Hell, I consider it fun.
(You don’t think that 250,000 US soldiers are currently in Iraq do you?)
So in your little liberal dullard mind, the number of troops sent is much more important than the FACT that these 34 countries participated in defeating Iraq?
Let’s see...You point out Romania. Romania has a population of roughly 22 million citizens and an armed forces numbering about 45,000 soldiers and an entire defense buget of less than $3 billion. How many soldiers should they have sent to have the Leon “seal of approval”?
Do you realize that the Soloman Islands was good enough to send their police officers?
Why do you think that the Solomon Islands, Eritrea, and Georgia are insignificant? Are those people less worthy to fight tyranny than the US? Please give us your idiot viewpoint.
You are right about no Afghanis being part of 9/11, but bin Laden was a guest of the government of Afghanistan at the time, which explains why we went there.
There was no more to fear from Saddam Hussein in 2001 than there was in 1991, 1992, 1993...1999 or 2000. The “entire world” though we were rushing into a blunder-in-the-making, which is why, with the exception of Britain and a handful of members of the “coalition of the willing” (remember that idiotic term?), we went at this mission alone without world support.
That’s right Leon! If you can get everyone to completely disregard the other 34 countries that sent troops into Iraq, Bush pushed us into Iraq totally ALONE!!!!
BUSH LIED!!! HATE BUSH!!!!
Whatever happened to Hillary’s and Kerry’s prediction that the manipulating W Bush was going to have bin Laden found just before the last Presidential election?
dan, I do feel sorry for you sometimes. I know you have a tough job of being the resident rightwinger “secretary of Republican defense” on this board with all these pesky facts getting in the way of what you wish was reality.
Let’s examine the 34 number that you assert to be shouldering the burden in Iraq along with our troops and shouldering the taxpayer burden on the home front.
With Britain having well less than five thousand troops in theater, it appears currently that the United States is the only current member of the “coalition of the willing.” This, of course, excludes those numerous countries, such as the Solomon Islands, Eritrea, and Georgia, who do continue to provide “moral” support (big shout out to these brave countries).
Now if you included non sovereign entities, such as KBR and Halliburton, as part of the “coalition of the willing,” it may still be said that we have important “allies” contributing military and other personnel alongside our 150,000 current troop presence, but I don’t think even you would consider such multinationals as members of the “coalition of the willing.”
Don’t feel too sorry for me Leon. Arguing against dullards such as you is really quite a simple task. Hell, I consider it fun.
(You don’t think that 250,000 US soldiers are currently in Iraq do you?)
So in your little liberal dullard mind, the number of troops sent is much more important than the FACT that these 34 countries participated in defeating Iraq?
Let’s see...You point out Romania. Romania has a population of roughly 22 million citizens and an armed forces numbering about 45,000 soldiers and an entire defense buget of less than $3 billion. How many soldiers should they have sent to have the Leon “seal of approval”?
Do you realize that the Soloman Islands was good enough to send their police officers?
Why do you think that the Solomon Islands, Eritrea, and Georgia are insignificant? Are those people less worthy to fight tyranny than the US? Please give us your idiot viewpoint.
I do feel sorry for you because for something you believe to be a simple task, you cosistently fail miserably.
Of the “thirty-four,” only five sent troops; the majority merely voiced their “support” (big help there!). It may make you feel good to think we had a massive coalition rivaling the 1991 coalition, but beyond a mere number on paper, we had a coalition of one pseudo-equal partner (I stress had because the British have wised up and realized Bush’s war was a mistake and is pointless).
To answer your querry, I don’t think the countries listed are significant because they contributed nothing of significance. Like you and countless other bigmouth rightwingers, all they contributed was vocal support. The real question is why do you think they are significant?
You already do a great job on here as the incumbent supplier of idiot viewpoints on this and a range of topics. Despite my best efforts, I doubt I can rival your skill and expertise in this regard.
You are right about no Afghanis being part of 9/11, but bin Laden was a guest of the government of Afghanistan at the time, which explains why we went there.
There was no more to fear from Saddam Hussein in 2001 than there was in 1991, 1992, 1993...1999 or 2000. The “entire world” though we were rushing into a blunder-in-the-making, which is why, with the exception of Britain and a handful of members of the “coalition of the willing” (remember that idiotic term?), we went at this mission alone without world support.
That’s right Leon! If you can get everyone to completely disregard the other 34 countries that sent troops into Iraq, Bush pushed us into Iraq totally ALONE!!!!
BUSH LIED!!! HATE BUSH!!!!
Whatever happened to Hillary’s and Kerry’s prediction that the manipulating W Bush was going to have bin Laden found just before the last Presidential election?
dan, I do feel sorry for you sometimes. I know you have a tough job of being the resident rightwinger “secretary of Republican defense” on this board with all these pesky facts getting in the way of what you wish was reality.
Let’s examine the 34 number that you assert to be shouldering the burden in Iraq along with our troops and shouldering the taxpayer burden on the home front.
With Britain having well less than five thousand troops in theater, it appears currently that the United States is the only current member of the “coalition of the willing.” This, of course, excludes those numerous countries, such as the Solomon Islands, Eritrea, and Georgia, who do continue to provide “moral” support (big shout out to these brave countries).
Now if you included non sovereign entities, such as KBR and Halliburton, as part of the “coalition of the willing,” it may still be said that we have important “allies” contributing military and other personnel alongside our 150,000 current troop presence, but I don’t think even you would consider such multinationals as members of the “coalition of the willing.”
Don’t feel too sorry for me Leon. Arguing against dullards such as you is really quite a simple task. Hell, I consider it fun.
(You don’t think that 250,000 US soldiers are currently in Iraq do you?)
So in your little liberal dullard mind, the number of troops sent is much more important than the FACT that these 34 countries participated in defeating Iraq?
Let’s see...You point out Romania. Romania has a population of roughly 22 million citizens and an armed forces numbering about 45,000 soldiers and an entire defense buget of less than $3 billion. How many soldiers should they have sent to have the Leon “seal of approval”?
Do you realize that the Soloman Islands was good enough to send their police officers?
Why do you think that the Solomon Islands, Eritrea, and Georgia are insignificant? Are those people less worthy to fight tyranny than the US? Please give us your idiot viewpoint.
I do feel sorry for you because for something you believe to be a simple task, you cosistently fail miserably.
Of the “thirty-four,” only five sent troops; the majority merely voiced their “support” (big help there!). It may make you feel good to think we had a massive coalition rivaling the 1991 coalition, but beyond a mere number on paper, we had a coalition of one pseudo-equal partner (I stress had because the British have wised up and realized Bush’s war was a mistake and is pointless).
To answer your querry, I don’t think the countries listed are significant because they contributed nothing of significance. Like you and countless other bigmouth rightwingers, all they contributed was vocal support. The real question is why do you think they are significant?
You already do a great job on here as the incumbent supplier of idiot viewpoints on this and a range of topics. Despite my best efforts, I doubt I can rival your skill and expertise in this regard.
Only five sent troops huh?
...However, in the August 23, 2006 Iraq Weekly Status Report (Slide 27) the State Department listed 27 foreign countries as contributing troops to the Coalition in Iraq. The additional four countries were Japan, Portugal, Singapore and the Ukraine…
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
But I’m sure we should belive your dumb azz over those lying right-wing baztards at the State Department!!!!
Wasn’t that “softie” Fred Thompson the favorite candidate of the lunatic fringe rightwingers on this site?
Republicans’ Bizarre Rediscovery of Osama bin Laden
For quite a while, it looked as if the Republican Party had just about given up on taking Osama bin Laden seriously. During his presidential campaign, Mitt Romney took a surprisingly passive attitude towards the terrorist responsible for 9/11, saying, “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.” Fred Thomson dismissed bin Laden’s significance as mere “symbolism.” The president, of course, famously said of bin Laden, “I truly am not that concerned about him.” But that was then. Now that it’s time for the general election, and the right is desperate to smear Barack Obama, the GOP has rediscovered OBL.
***
I can understand, on a certain level, why Obama’s remarks have sparked Republican attacks. After all, when Obama said “we’ve got due process to go through’’ once we’ve found bin Laden, it was bound to get the right’s attention.
Look, I know why McCain and his cohorts are trying to scare people. I realize that they’ve given up on facts and decency, and hope that the same old “soft on terror” smears can overcome a weak campaign, unimpressive candidate, and ridiculous policy agenda.
