Giuliani Flip-Flops Again, This Time on Israel and Gaza
Posted by Kombiz Lavasany on June 29, 2007 at 01:16 PMToo bad Giuliani didn't attend those Iraq Study Group meetings instead of making money on the speaking circuit. He might have known more about national security.
Today, in his latest flip-flop, Giuliani strained to justify his support for escalation in Iraq by saying it was a mistake for Israel to pull out of Gaza. Watch it below:
Having trouble? Download the file here.
But when Giuliani visited Israel in 2005, he praised Ariel Sharon for his plan to pull out of Gaza, saying "Sharon did things that were necessary, even when they hurt him politically or crossed his party’s ideological line." [New York Post, 9/23/05]
Comments - 13 »
Comments - 13 «
Glad he's caught actually on tape.
Posted by MichaelLink on June 29, 2007 at 02:06 PM
What we have here is Rudy attempting to avert Pat Robertson's temple of doom. He now recognizes, and attributes, his decline in the polls with his acceptance of Sharon's steps toward garnering peace in the Middle East.
One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist, and Rudy fits that bill, to understand how God smote Sharon at the seeming request of Robertson. Combine that with the presumed smiting of brother Falwell for his criticism of Robertson, and well, it's quite clear. If Rudy desires to improve his chances of becoming president, then, he needs to get behind Pat Robertson.
I don't know, but I think it's God's way of keeping all the nuts in one basket.
Posted by davidual on June 29, 2007 at 03:20 PM
this doesn't even make sense, hamas was democratically elected as the ruling party, we don't like it but thats how democracy works. as for pulling out of gaza and westbank, it was at the urging/threats of our current administration.
"The Bush administration is wholly supportive of the disengagement plan providing it's a step toward returning to the road-map for Middle East peace, which calls for a negotiated settlement to the conflict and an independent, democratic Palestinian state next to a secure state of Israel.
The U.S. view is that one of the keys to the success of disengagement is strengthening the ability of Abbas to wield authority in Gaza after the pullout. In the past year, Palestinian militant groups have launched attacks on the PA's police and security forces, raising the specter of a struggle for power after Israel leaves. To help increase the capability of the PA to exercise control after the disengagement, the U.S. has increased security assistance to Palestinian officials."
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Hamas_wins_Palestinian_election
its like the first amendment, we love it until someone says something we don't like. that is not loving the first amendment.
Posted by jimmyc451 on June 29, 2007 at 04:08 PM
The troubles in the Middle East were not caused by President Clinton, but by the patron saint of Republicans, and particularly former N.Y. Mayor Giuliani, President Ronald Regan. When the Marine base at the end of the aircraft runway in Lebanon was bombed with so many deaths President Regan left Lebanon without any retaliation. His rigidity,like the rigidity of this administration, places politics above the good of America. We now know "but through a glass darkley" how many hours were being spent in the White House doing party work while New Orleans flooded and N.Y burned.So much for the cowboys and Indians script. Also Mr. Giuliani could have issued an alert to New Yorkers about the toxic air in the city after 9/11. I lived on East 23rd St. in Manhattan. Dust was settling over the City weeks after the attack. EPA chair Christie Whitman could leave the City in her limo and dignitaries could have photo ops at the site,but New Yorkers had to breath the air that wasn't safe, and endure the curse of the irreligious right as to why God let this happen-perhaps because of, rather than in spite of a country held hostage by unscientific babble. So unscientific was it that Ms. Whitman didn't even know that the World Trade Center was in lower Manhattan. So much for faith-based politics.
Posted by Spartacus on June 30, 2007 at 01:18 AM
The troubles in the Middle East were not caused by President Clinton, but by the patron saint of Republicans, and particularly former N.Y. Mayor Giuliani, President Ronald Regan. When the Marine base at the end of the aircraft runway in Lebanon was bombed with so many deaths President Regan left Lebanon without any retaliation. His rigidity,like the rigidity of this administration, places politics above the good of America. We now know "but through a glass darkley" how many hours were being spent in the White House doing party work while New Orleans flooded and N.Y burned.So much for the cowboys and Indians script. Also Mr. Giuliani could have issued an alert to New Yorkers about the toxic air in the city after 9/11. I lived on East 23rd St. in Manhattan. Dust was settling over the City weeks after the attack. EPA chair Christie Whitman could leave the City in her limo and dignitaries could have photo ops at the site,but New Yorkers had to breath the air that wasn't safe, and endure the curse of the irreligious right as to why God let this happen-perhaps because of, rather than in spite of a country held hostage by unscientific babble. So unscientific was it that Ms. Whitman didn't even know that the World Trade Center was in lower Manhattan. So much for faith-based politics.
Posted by Spartacus on June 30, 2007 at 01:19 AM
So he changed his mind. Wouldn't we all be happy if Bush changed his mind and pulled all of our troops out of Iraq? And what if Bush closed Gitmo and allowed the so called "enemy combatants" their day in court?
Bush seems to take pride on never admitting a mistake or changing his mind, may God save us from that type of mind-set.
Posted by liberalsocialist on June 30, 2007 at 08:39 AM
All you idiots forget 9/11. I remember all of the Networks, ABC, NBC and CBS showing the celebrations in the streets of Gaza and West Bank when the planes hit the WTC.
Any hopes I had for palestine, went up in smoke that day, just like the WTC. Israel ought to just turn the dogs of war on the middle east and you will see how they handle the subject.
Posted by PoliticalBS on July 9, 2007 at 11:21 AM
First of that wasn't a flip flop. Every one including Kerry said that pulling out of Gaza was the right choice and we all saw how bad it turned out. Are all democrats flip flopper's for supporting the invasion of Iraq and then turning their backs on the troops. Well no they are traitors and they shouldn't be running for president. Joe Biden, Barack Hussein Obama, and Hillary Clinton come to mind
Posted by rudy08 on July 10, 2007 at 02:42 PM
I wish the combatants at Gitmo gave the people in the WTC that right. Those people have NO rights. I guess for a Liberal Socialist, Ted Bundy had em too. So, what town do you live in. Maybe we can let them have their day in court in your town?
Posted by Democratorpop on July 11, 2007 at 07:24 AM
Spartacus
You see you are not reading. No one is saying that Clinton starting it. We know he didn't start it. You don't have to be too intellegent to realise that. He didn't do anything for that matter. That is what is degrading. It was not started by Reagan either. You're memory of History is not very good. All of this crap starte in 1949, the year that the State of Israel intered the modern world. Who was in power then? I will answer it for you. Harry Truman. But it was not Trumans fault either. You see, if you wanna go back to the origin, I guess we have to blame god for making Adam and Eve and that is where it all got started.
The Arab issues, started in 49 with the British and the Americans assisting the Jews in Redeveloping I might add a Jewish state. From there it is History. The Olympics in 1972, TWA airline hijackings, Uganda with AirFrance, Algiers, Berlin bombings, Beirut etc. Alot of this stuff was happening before Reagan even entered politics, so this is not the Republican or the Democrats fault. But I will say this, if someone bombs my home and kills my family, yes they may as well execute me, because I am getting back at em. Call it revenge call it what you will. I WILL DEFEND MY HOME AND MY FAMILY. Some goofe balls seem to rather know why. I could care less.
Posted by Democratorpop on July 11, 2007 at 07:46 AM
Rudy, Rudy. You are making too much sense. You may be kicked off here like I have five time already. You need to be a wacko and support the Dems. You see, what everybody on the Dems are doing is using the Iraq war as a front. They talk to people and get them to vote Dem for the President. Then, they have the power to pass the socialist ideas of Kerry, Kennedy, Dean and most of all Clinton. Some may ask if I am afraid of Clinton. Hell yes I am afraid of that woman. She is one step closer to Socialist state. That is why i keep no money in the states. Got it all out earlier this year. Because she will most likely be the runner for the Dems. She will not take the Vice President Position. Hillary and Edwards. Bama will have a seat in her office too. That will get the majority of the AA vote, Some of the southern states, and you are guaranteed each year, 40% will vote Dem even if Chester the Molester was the candidate
Posted by Democratorpop on July 11, 2007 at 10:04 AM
And when I say money, I had the US money changed into foreign currency. Because the US dollar will continue to slide. There fore, I reduce my losses. Now the Dems will say, another rich boy protecting his money. And I will say "Another Rich Boy using his head"
Posted by Democratorpop on July 11, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Rudy, Rudy. You are making too much sense. You may be kicked off here like I have five time already. You need to be a wacko and support the Dems. You see, what everybody on the Dems are doing is using the Iraq war as a front. They talk to people and get them to vote Dem for the President. Then, they have the power to pass the socialist ideas of Kerry, Kennedy, Dean and most of all Clinton. Some may ask if I am afraid of Clinton. Hell yes I am afraid of that woman. She is one step closer to Socialist state. That is why i keep no money in the states. Got it all out earlier this year. Because she will most likely be the runner for the Dems. She will not take the Vice President Position. Hillary and Edwards. Bama will have a seat in her office too. That will get the majority of the AA vote, Some of the southern states, and you are guaranteed each year, 40% will vote Dem even if Chester the Molester was the candidate
Posted by Democratorpop on July 11, 2007 at 10:14 AM
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.














