Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2007 23:23:24 GMT -5
Giuliani slams Clinton on Iraq
Sep 14 05:32 PM US/Eastern
New Giuliani Ad Accuses Clinton of 'Turning Her Back' on the Troops
Republican 2008 White House front-runner Rudolph Giuliani Friday fired a first, biting attack at top Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton, accusing her "spewing venom" at America's commander in Iraq.
In a preview of a possible 2008 general election matchup, the former New York mayor took out a full page-advertisement in the New York Times rebuking Clinton over the unpopular war.
Then he debuted his first Internet advertisement of the campaign, accusing the former first lady of turning her back on US troops, after voting to authorize the war in Iraq in 2002, and now demanding an end to the conflict.
Giuliani took Clinton to task over an advertisement by liberal anti-war group MoveOn.org, which ran in the Times earlier this week with a headline of "General Petraeus, or General Betray US?"
"Just when our troops need all our support to finish the job, Hillary Clinton is turning her back on them," says a narrator in the web ad.
"General Petraeus and the brave men and women now serving under him deserve an apology. And our nation deserves better. Senator Clinton, do the right thing. Apologize for your comments and condemn the MoveOn.org ad."
The advertisement juxtaposed Clinton's arguments favoring the case against former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein during the debate over whether to go to war in late 2002, with her criticisms of Petraeus this week over Iraq.
Clinton said during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services committee on Tuesday that both Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker had been unfairly saddled with the job of being war spokesmen for Bush.
"The reports that you provided for us, really require the willing suspension of disbelief," she said, serving up a large helping of statistics to counter claims by the two men that the current troop surge plan was working.
Clinton has said if she knew in 2002 what she knows now about Saddam's lack of weapons of mass destruction, she would not have voted to authorize the war.
She has also argued that she expected Bush to use the authority he was given by Congress to bolster the US negotiating position and reach a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis, rather than driving quickly to war.
Her vote on Iraq had been seen as a threat to her White House aspirations, but she has escaped major political damage, and enjoys a wide lead in national polls of the Democratic race.
Giuliani, who heads national surveys for the Republican nomination, is running a campaign rooted in his leadership role in New York following the September 11 attacks in 2001.
He backs Bush's surge strategy, and accused Democrats of ignoring a mortal threat to US security from global Islamic radicalism.
His attack on Clinton will be seen an attempt to partly court conservative Republican voters who despise the New York Senator, and have yet to warm to his campaign.
***
GO GET HER RUDY, SHES A TRAITOR TO OUR BRAVE TROOPS AND TO THIS COUNTRY.
SURRENDER IS NEVER AN OPTION.!
|
|
|
|
Post by Fran Gyomory on Sept 15, 2007 6:41:15 GMT -5
She and her "husband" are pond scum!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2007 17:15:35 GMT -5
how come no one on this board had anything to say about larry craig ----------doesnt he fit in the pond scum catagory
giuliani is the brain who decided to keep the terrorist response offices in the trade center after the first attack instead of moving them elsewhere and putting the unit underground so it could be destroyed during the second attack - so much for his leadership in this regard
also isnt he the man who has affairs with women while still married and then gets divorced - marries the woman and then does it all over again
|
|
|
|
Post by Joan on Sept 15, 2007 17:50:34 GMT -5
I usually don't get into political discussions, but I can't stand the Clintons!!! At least Bush kept our country safe from terrorism since 9/11.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fran Gyomory on Sept 15, 2007 18:09:48 GMT -5
Lou, your off base once again. Aren't you one of those who said that Clinton's sexual behavior had nothing to do with his ability to be resident. Does Lou speak with forked tongue?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2007 18:17:22 GMT -5
[quote author=frangyomory
]Lou, your off base once again. Aren't you one of those who said that Clinton's sexual behavior had nothing to do with his ability to be resident. Does Lou speak with forked tongue?[/quote]
no im not off base - his sexual behavior had nothing to do with his ability to govern --- but you folks keep bring it up often enough but you didnt say a word about craig --- now isnt that speaking with a forked tongue
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2007 18:20:27 GMT -5
[quote author=bronxgirl942
]I usually don't get into political discussions, but I can't stand the Clintons!!! At least Bush kept our country safe from terrorism since 9/11.[/quote]
dislike whom ever you want --- but if you truly believe that we are safer here becuase we are fighting them there then there is a bridge i would like to sell you
the reason we have not been attacked since 9/11 is because the bad guys have chosen not to attack the usa but to blow up things in spain -england and elsewhere
do you really believe that its impossible for someone to walk into a mall anywhere in the usa with a bomb vest on and blow himself up because of dubyh
|
|
|
|
Post by CQuinn on Sept 15, 2007 20:23:36 GMT -5
Lou,
You give Clinton more credit than he deserves saying his sexual behavior in the Whte House didn't hinder his ability to govern. I say walking around the White House with your zipper down shows a bit of preoccupation. And his wife is too forgiving if she can forgive him for that public humiliation...will she forgive Osama?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2007 20:30:03 GMT -5
[quote author=CQuin
. And his wife is too forgiving if she can forgive him for that public humiliation...? [/quote]
do you really want a list of wives that have stood by their husbands when their sexual shortcomings have made the paper-
all wives of public figure husbands stand by their men
|
|
|
|
Post by CQuinn on Sept 15, 2007 22:32:36 GMT -5
McGreevey's wife stood at his side when he resigned and was gone one minute later. Joan Kennedy stayed and became addicted. You show me who stayed and I'll show you someone with a problem. Hilliary has no pride just ambition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2007 0:07:50 GMT -5
craigs wife so far-----------------
jackie kennedy ---- mamie eisenhower---and who really knows how many more--- in the good old days affairs never made the news unless you were dancing in a washington fountain with a stripper
|
|
|
|
Post by pegleg on Sept 16, 2007 2:43:35 GMT -5
how come no one on this board had anything to say about larry craig ----------doesnt he fit in the pond scum catagory If we talked about Craig, we'd then have to bring up Dem Rep Gerry Studds (who actually had sex with an underage page, but not only kept his job, he was cheeered by the House Dems), or Barney Franks (who ran a house of prostitution- but not only kept his job, now chairs a key House Committee), or Ted Kennedy (who not only let a girl die in the car he drove off a bridge, but kept his job and is now The senior statesman of the Dem Party (hic)), or or Wee Willy Clinton (who not only used state troopers to line up females for him, also went on to be the best danged draft dodger in the WH), or Rep William Jefferson (who had $90K of cool cash in his freezer, but still is in the House), to say nothing of the millions in contracts Dianne Fienstein steered to her husbands companies (BTW, I always did sorta like Di Fi, while disagreeing with most of her politics), or Pelosi's culture of corruption on so many levels it is hard to fathom, or... gee I could go on... But you see Lou, if we were to talk about Craig here, it would just become political. Instead, we (us conservatives) worked to get him out of office quickly. He was clearly an embarrassment, as was Foley, and Duke Cunningham. All of whom are gone. But I have to admire the Dems... they sure know how to circle the wagons don't they (I'll bet you haven't even heard of Di Fi's or Pelosi's malfeasances)? giuliani is the brain who decided to keep the terrorist response offices in the trade center after the first attack instead of moving them elsewhere and putting the unit underground so it could be destroyed during the second attack - so much for his leadership in this regard Hmmm, MAYBE, you have a point there. He should have foreseen that 19 terrorists would knock down those buildings one day, just like everybody else. OTOH, the Clinton administration decimated the military (cut the Army by 8 (Eight!) Divisions, 20 AF Wings, etc,), chose to put up walls between the Intell and FBI so that the bad guys couldn't be tracked, chose to treat the first bombing of the WTC as a criminal activity rather than as an act of war, chose not to take out bin Laden on at least 3 occassions, took funds from the Chinese gov't, put his wife in charge of health care (a huge disaster, delaying any kind of reforms for decades), etc. So much for the leadership of the "two-for-the price-of-one" Clinton Admin some want to re-enthrone. So much for the brains behind that operation! also isnt he the man who has affairs with women while still married and then gets divorced - marries the woman and then does it all over again Are you talking about wjc here? He didn't get divorced, did he?? So you see Lou, tit-for-tat, Dems vs Reps, doesn't really play out too well. I tried, years ago, when I was a Dem stalwart. The more I dug the worse it got. Not political, just Current Events. What you need to debate are the policies you are for (or against). For instance, Hillary Health Care. Or Increased taxes. Or giving up on the war against terrorism. Those are your issues. Or even better, perhaps you can explain how we would be better off with the Dem Party, controlled by george Soros and Moveon.org? Or how Soros is really a good guy, misunderstood? |
|
|
|
Post by pegleg on Sept 16, 2007 3:05:06 GMT -5
- but if you truly believe that we are safer here becuase we are fighting them there then there is a bridge i would like to sell you the reason we have not been attacked since 9/11 is because the bad guys have chosen not to attack the usa but to blow up things in spain -england and elsewhere do you really believe that its impossible for someone to walk into a mall anywhere in the usa with a bomb vest on and blow himself up because of dubyh Sorry, Lou, but if you believe this, you've not been paying attention, and I may have some stock in Health Care I could sell ya. There have been over 20 attempts at terrorist attacks in the US thwarted in the last 6 years. But the sad fact is we have to be right 100% of the time, they have to be right only once. So, you think al-quaida has _chosen_ not to attack us? Why do you think that is? Trying to gain our good will? |
|
|
|
Post by Fran Gyomory on Sept 16, 2007 6:03:08 GMT -5
Pegleg, as always spoken with eloquence and done with facts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2007 10:06:26 GMT -5
HERE HERE, I SECOND WHAT FRAN SAID.
TREMENDOUS POST PEGLEG.
JIMMY
|
|
