Rudy Giuliani Not Prepared For 9/11
Rudy Giuliani knew that New York City firefighters had faulty emergency radios--and he did nothing.
Brave New Films has documented how more lives could have been saved on 9/11 if Giuliani had acted to provide firefighters with the equipment they needed. Watch the powerful new video:
Comments (39) «
It's bad enough how Rudy Giuliani flip flops all over the place on important issues but this takes the cake and soon the rest of American will learn that Giuliani is NOT fit to be President of the United States. If anything Rudy Giuliani is a national disgrace!
**************
Giuliani is a Disgusting Liar
by MissLaura
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/10/13347/3201
What a load of Bull Crap, If Mr. Clinton had taken Bin Laden when the Syrians offer him in 97, 9-11 would never have happened. That S.O.B has more than 3000 dead citizens on his conscious and blood on his hands.
Rudy showed real strength and courage on that awful day. By the way, where hell was Hillary? Was she down there when the planes hit, No. Was she down there at all when the choas was going on, Nope. When did she show up, oh a couple days later and whats to be our president, some leadership. Go ahead, vote her in and when the next 9-11 happens, maybe she will show up a few days after............
Vote for Rudy!!
What a load of Bull Crap, If Mr. Clinton had taken Bin Laden when the Syrians offer him in 97, 9-11 would never have happened. That S.O.B has more than 3000 dead citizens on his conscious and blood on his hands.
Rudy showed real strength and courage on that awful day.where hell was Hillary?
Posted by OldDemocrat1 on October 16, 2007 at 12:24 PM
*********
That's b.s. spin because the horrible events of 9/11 happened on President Bush's time watch, if he didn't ignore warnings and if he wasn't so obsessed with Iraq Osama Bin Laden would've been caught and brought to justice a long time ago. George W. Bush was the President when 9/11 happened not Bill, not Hillary. As far as Rudy Giuliani goes he showed no strength at all, in fact some people say he put lives in danger. Just look at what the 9/11 firefighters had to say.
Watch the video: Giuliani Gets Exposed As Fraud by Firefighters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaCYEEO-58I
Giuliani Is No 9/11 Hero
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/etan-thomas/giuliani-is-no-911-hero_b_60218.html
Clinton a hero, Giuliani
a no-show for firefighters
On a stage flanked by photos of the World Trade Center devastation, Clinton evoked memories of those days, telling the cheering International Association of Firefighters: "You were there when we needed you." Giuliani angered the 280,000-member union when he cut off efforts to recover the remains of September 11 victims before all had been found. Read more . . .
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1432033520070314
Rudy Giuliani was a 9/11 Failure
by davefromqueens
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/23/11431/2093
What Did Pelosi Know About NSA, and When Did She Know It?
by Ray McGovern
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has admitted knowing for several years about the Bush administration’s eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant. She was briefed on it when she was ranking Democrat the House Intelligence Committee when Bush and Cheney took office. But was she told that within days of their taking office, the National Security Agency’s electronic vacuum cleaner had already begun to suck up information on Americans-criminal law and the Constitution be damned?
In a Washington Post op-ed of Jan. 15, 2006, Pelosi, with a uniquely long tenure on the Intelligence Committee, acknowledged that she was one of the privileged handful of lawmakers who were briefed. Referring to her seniority as ranking member, she wrote in her Post apologia sans apology, “This is how I came to be informed of President Bush’s authorization for the NSA to conduct certain types of surveillance.” She then proceeded to demonstrate her remarkably-one might say unconstitutionally-subservient attitude toward the Executive Branch:
“But when the administration notifies Congress in this manner, it is not seeking approval. There is a clear expectation that the information will be shared by no one, including other members of the intelligence committees. As a result, only a few members of Congress were aware of the president’s surveillance program, and they were constrained from discussing it more widely.”
How did the American people react upon reading in the New York Times in Dec. 2005 of this glaring infringement on their Constitutional rights? Most responded as they have been conditioned to react-out of the old fear-factor shibboleth: “After 9/11/2001 everything changed.”
Yes, just as after 2/27/1933, the night of the burning of the German Parliament (Reichstag) in Berlin, everything changed.
As Sebastian Haffner, a young German lawyer and insider wrote from Berlin at the time:
“What one can blame them [German politicians and populace] for, and what shows their terrible collective weakness of character, is that this settled the matter. With sheepish submissiveness the German people accepted that, as a result of the fire, each one of them lost what little personal freedom and dignity was guaranteed by the Constitution; as though it followed as a necessary consequence. If the Communists burned down the Reichstag, it was perfectly in order that the government took “decisive measures.”
“Defying Hitler, a Memoir,” p. 121
And if the terrorists attacked on 9/11, it was perfectly in order that the Bush administration took “decisive measures” of similar kind. Shamefully, far too many American politicians exhibited sheepish submissiveness, when the White House PR machine pulled out all stops to exploit the trauma brought on by the attacks of 9/11.
Now we have learned that it is even worse. The eavesdropping abuses began as soon as the Bush administration came into office - well before 9/11.
In recent days, thanks to an enterprising reporter for the Rocky Mountain News, we find that the president, vice president, and CIA director-not to mention the credulous crowd around Nancy Pelosi-have all been regurgitating a king-sized whopper aimed at providing “justification” for the NSA program. Administration PR consultants made this easy by inventing a clever-if retroactive-label to the program: The “Terrorist Surveillance Program.” Nothing to fear, folks, unless you’re telephoning or emailing Osama bin-Laden.
Whopper? Well yes. It turns out that seven months before the threat of terrorism garnered much White House attention (despite the best efforts of then-counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke to install it on everyone’s screen-saver, so to speak), the administration instructed NSA to suborn American telecommunications companies to spy illegally on Americans.
Qt [at] the time, the general counsel of Qwest Communications advised management that what NSA was suggesting was illegal. And to his credit, the then-head of the company stuck to a firm “No,” unless some way were found to perform legally what NSA wanted done. Qwest’s rivals, though, took their cue from the White House, adopted a flexible attitude toward the law, and got the business. They are now being sued. Lawsuit filings claim that, seven months before 9/11, AT&T “began development of a center for monitoring long distance calls and Internet transmissions and other digital information for the exclusive use of the NSA.”
Adding insult to injury, draft legislation now being pushed by the White House would hold AT&T and other collaborators harmless for playing fast and loose with our right to privacy in order to enhance their bottom line. For its principled but, in government eyes, recalcitrant attitude, Qwest apparently lost out on lucrative government contracts.
Yes, Before 9/11
These illegal operations, including those prior to 9/11, were enabled by Michael Hayden, then head of NSA and now director of CIA. Hayden has been out in front “justifying” illegal eavesdropping by what happened on 9/11. Did he know the illegal activities started before then? Of course; he was ordered to orchestrate them.
Did he know they were illegal? Another no-brainer. While director of NSA, Hayden had emphasized what had long been known as NSA’s First Commandment: “Thou Shalt Not Eavesdrop on Americans.”
But in testimony at his confirmation hearings, Hayden said that in the wake of 9/11 he “could not not do” what the president wanted him to do with the “Terrorist Surveillance Program.” The hypocrisy is well nigh unbearable.
Martinet
When the program was revealed in the press in late 2005, Hayden agreed to play point man with smoke and mirrors. (Small wonder that the White House later deemed him the perfect man to head the CIA.)
Nevertheless, a whiff of conscience showed through his nomination hearing, though, when he flubbed the answer to a soft-pitch from administration loyalist, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri:
“Did you believe that your primary responsibility as director of NSA was to execute a program that your NSA lawyers, the Justice Department lawyers, and White House officials all told you was legal and that you were ordered to carry it out by the president of the United States?”
Instead of the simple “Yes” that was in the script, Hayden paused and spoke rather poignantly-and revealingly: “I had to make this personal decision in early October 2001, and it was a personal decision…I could not not do this.”
Why should it be such an enormous personal decision whether or not to obey a White House order? No one asked Hayden, but it requires no particular acuity to figure it out. This is a military officer who, like the rest of us, had sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; a military man well aware of the strictures against obeying an unlawful order.
President George W. Bush assured us on Jan. 23, 2006, “I had all kinds of lawyers review the process.” Right. The same ones, no doubt, who were busy devising ways to “legalize” torture and indefinite detention without due process.
No American, save perhaps retired Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, who as NSA director was present at the creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (and who has said the Hayden-approved activities are illegal), knew FISA better than Hayden. Nonetheless, Hayden conceded that he did not even require a written legal opinion to satisfy himself that the surveillance program, to be implemented without warrant and without adequate consultation in Congress, could pass the smell test.
Small wonder that one of Hayden’s predecessors as NSA director, upon learning what Hayden had agreed to do, said angrily, “He ought to be court-martialed.”
And who was the NSA general counsel at the time? Robert L. Deitz, who is now a “trusted aide” to CIA Director Hayden. Deitz, we learn from recent news reports, has just been launched on an investigation of the CIA Inspector General-yes, that’s right, an investigation of CIA’s statutory Inspector General John Helgerson, who apparently does not fit in with the elastic ethos Hayden and his immediate predecessors brought to the agency.
It appears Helgerson is not a “team player,” resisting, as he has, the reintroduction of the Nixonian dictum “It’s legal if the president says it’s legal.” He has been taking his job too seriously for Hayden’s taste-conducting honest investigations into abuses like torture. Fortunately for Helgerson and the rest of us, Hayden cannot fire him, which is handy proof of the wisdom of having statutory inspectors general.
Congress’ Role; and Pelosi’s
What was Pelosi doing all this time?
When the illegal eavesdropping was exposed, many asked why the administration did not simply go to Congress to secure changes in the already flexible FISA law, if such were needed. In an unguarded moment at a press conference on Dec. 19, 2005, Alberto Gonzales let slip that the administration did take soundings in Congress:
“This is not a backdoor approach. We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance. We have had discussions with Congress in the past - certain members of Congress - as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible.”
Dear Madam Speaker
Were you one of those with whom Gonzales had discussions? Whether you were or you weren’t. In either case it appears you were derelict in your duty.
It is time to fish or cut bait. If the Bush administration did not inform you regarding eavesdropping on Americans before 9/11, you need to reflect now on what such disregard for the laws and Constitution on matters of this importance means for future of our Republic, and cease covering up for the White House. Familiarize yourself with the orderly process the Founders wrote into the Constitution to address this kind of abuse of power. It is called impeachment; there is no reason to be afraid. You may wish to locate a copy of the Constitution and read Article II, Section 4:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
I cannot believe that, with your pedigree and schooling, you now forget the difference between the indicative and the subjunctive mood. The Founders did not. The Constitution does not say the president “may be” impeached, unless the speaker of the House decides for some reason to keep impeachment off the table. Given the long train of abuses and usurpations of this administration, you have no choice but to begin impeachment proceedings, Madame Speaker, if protecting our rights under constitutional government means anything to you.
If the Bush administration did keep you fully informed and, out of obeisance to the executive branch you acquiesced and said nothing, you should lay down your duties as House leader forthwith and consider resigning from the House before you further endanger our freedoms.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer from 1962-64, and then a CIA analyst for 27 years. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
Stop Rudy Giuliani :
Sign the petition to investigate pre-9/11 failure
by mgris
Grand Illusion:
The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani
Another Giuliani flip-flop
By: Steve Benen
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/13/another-giuliani-flip-flop
(I don't think anyone knows what Rudy's positions really are as he flip flops so much)
Rudy Giuliani repeatedly contributed to
Planned Parenthood yet he claims to hate abortion?
Rudy Giuliani's Five Big Lies About 9/11
On the stump, Rudy can't help spreading smoke and ashes about his lousy record
by Wayne Barrett
with special research assistance
by Alexandra Kahan
You guys and your internet websites. I suppose we are to believe everything we read on the internet? You know what happens when you believe everything you see on t.v. and read on the internet? You become brainwashed into whatever the mainstream media wants you to be.
As for Rudy, it's a disgrace to the Democrat party to put something like this on their website. Rudy was heralded as the hero of 9/11 until he decided to run for President. Now the Dems are trying to distort the public's view of Rudy. Why? Because Hillary can't hold a match to Rudy's leadership and the Dems know it, she doesn't have any experience leading people.
Good luck taking away the public's admiration for Rudy using a YouTube video about radios. How pathetic.
What's wrong does the truth about Rudy Giuliani hurt? These websites are backing up what public opinion has to say. Even the Catholic church wants to deny Rudy Holy Communion because even they know he stands for nothing.
s,rudy ia a x mayor,how much experience does that give him? how can you boast of someones leadership when they have only been a mayor? give it up.
olddemocrat1,so you are a rightwingnut,troll, i knew it all along.
If I had to guess, even you thought of Rudy as a hero until he ran for office. Does it hurt that he was a hero to you, and now you'll attack anyone to promote the Dems agenda?
Maybe you can enlighten us as to what public opinion says about Rudy's job on 9/11? I didn't see anything on any of these websites about what public opinion has to say about it. Oh, and good luck to everyone getting unbiased, truthful information from websites like therealrudy.org
im not attacking anyone im taling about EXPERIENCE! 9/11 ,thats what bush ran on and look what we get, a bafoon and he had some experienc.
how do you get unbiased information from his website. take off you blinders.
Well, peaceman, first off I was replying to democratkickingass. Secondly, olddemocrat1 didn't post any websites, biased or unbiased.
Who's wearing the blinders?
Therealrudy.org is where the video above comes from.
The people interviewed in the video is a small group of individuals that apparently didn't feel like they got enough money for losing family members in 9/11. They sued over these faulty radios and lost. They sued NYC, not Rudy because it wasn't Rudy's fault. It's not the mayors job to make sure the police and firefighters radios are working properly. That's the job of the Chief of Police and the Chief Fireman. Anyone using a bit of common sense would understand that.
While the pictures of a soot-covered Giuliani making his way through the streets became very much a part of his personal mythology, they were also a symbol of one of his greatest failures. The mayor's performance, though marked by personal courage and grace under fire, followed two terms in office pursuing an utterly wrongheaded approach to the city's security against terrorism. Turning the mythology on its head, Grand Illusion reveals how Giuliani has revised his own history, casting himself as prescient terror hawk when in fact he ran his administration as if terrorist threats simply did not exist, too distracted by pet projects and turf wars to attend to vital precautions.
Well, somewhere in the Dungeons and Dragons lingo I guess you're stating that it was Rudy's job to prevent 9/11? With what military? Go ahead and blame Bush for the 8 months he had to stop 9/11, then blame Clinton for the 8 years he had after the first bombing, but it doesn't make much sense to blame Rudy.
s,im wasting my time,you already have you mind made up.you probably still support bush even after all the things he has done to screw up this country. you have blinders on, cant see the truth.
Nope, not a Bush fan, nor is Rudy my favorite candidate.
It's just very disappointing to watch people buy into this garbage without considering the source, without researching a bit on their own, and without using common sense to draw there own conclusions. Don't allow yourself to be brainwashed by everything you see on t.v. and the internet.
j, if you cant believe what you see on the internet, or hear on tv or what comes out of the candidates mouth, then you use common sence? that would be listing to you? please.
If Rudy Guliani couldn't prepare New York Firefigthers for 9/11, how is he going to prepare America for situations in the future if he's elected President. This should be a MAJOR concern for all Americans.
If Rudy Giuliani couldn't prepare New York Firefigthers for 9/11, how is he going to prepare America for situations in the future if he's elected President. This should be a MAJOR concern for all Americans.
Rudy Giuliani Isn't Fit To Be President
by LiberalKickingAss
UNITED STATES PRIMARY & GENERAL ELECTION VOTING CONTACT INFORMATION
Find Out When YOUR Primary Election Will Be Held
50 States of the United States
Secretaries of States ELECTION Phone Numbers & Web Addresses
Alabama (334)242-7210; 1-(800)274-8683 http://www.sos.alabama.gov/
Alaska (907)465-4611; 1-(888)383-8683 http://www.elections.state.ak.us/
Arizona (602)542-8683;1-(877)843-8683 http://www.az.sos.gov/
Arkansas (501)682-5070;1-(800)482-1127 http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/
California (916)657-2166;1-(800)345-8683 http://www.sos.ca.gov/
Colorado (303)894-2200; http://www.state.co.us
Connecticut (860)509-6100; http://www.sots.ct.gov/
Delaware (302)739-4277; 1-(800)273-9500 http://www.elections.delaware.gov/
Florida (850)245-6200; 1(866)308-6739; 1-(850)245-6290 http://election.dos.state.fl.us
Georgia (404)656-2871; http://www.sos.state.ga.us
Hawaii (808)453-8683; 1-(800)442-8683 http://www.hawaii.gov/elections/
Idaho (208)334-2852; http://www.sos.idaho.gov/
Illinois (217)782-4141 Springfield; (312)814-6440 Chicago; 1-(800)527-8683;1-(800)923-8683 http://www.elections.il.gov/
Indiana (317)232-3939; 1-(800)622-4941 http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/
Iowa (515)281-5781; 1-(888)767-8683 http://www.sos.state.ia.us/
Kansas (785)296-4561; 1-(800)262-8683 http://www.voteks.org/
Kentucky (502)573-7100; 1-(800)246-1399 http://www.sos.ky.gov/
Louisiana (225)922-0900; 1-(800)883-2805 http://www.sos.louisiana.gov/elections/elections-index.htm
Maine (207)624-7736; http://www.maine.gov/sos/
Maryland (410)269-2840; 1(800)222-8683 http://www.elections.state.md.us/
Massachusetts (617)727-2828; 1-(800)462-8683 http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/
Michigan (517)373-2540; http://www.michigan.gov/sos
Minnesota (651)215-1440; 1-(877)600-8683 http://www.sos.state.mn.us
Mississippi (601)359-1350; 1-(800)829-6786 http://www.sos.state.ms.us/
Missouri (573)751-2301; 1-(800)669-8683 http://www.sos.mo.gov/
Montana (406)444-4732; 1-(888)884-8683 http://www.sos.mt.gov/
Nebraska (402)471-2555; http://www.sos.state.ne.us/
Nevada (775)684-5705; http://sos.state.nv.us/elections/
New Hampshire (603)271-3242; http://www.sos.nh.gov/
New Jersey (609)292-3760; 1-(877)658-6837 http://www.state.nj.us/lps/elections/electionshome.html
New Mexico (505)827-3600; 1-(800)477-3632 http://www.sos.state.nm.us/
New York (518)474-6220; 1-(800)367-8683 http://www.elections.state.ny.us/
North Carolina (919)733-7173; http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/
North Dakota (701)328-7900; 1-(800)352-0867 http://www.nd.gov/sos/
Ohio (614)466-2585; 1-(877)767-6446 http://www.sos.state.oh.us/
Oklahoma (405)521-2391; http://www.elections.state.ok.us/
Oregon (503)986-1518; 1-(866)673-8683 http://www.oregonvotes.org
Pennsylvania (717)787-5280; 1-(800)552-8683 http://www.dos.state.pa.us/bcel/site/default.asp
Rhode Island (401)222-2345; 1-(877)462-8683 http://www.elections.ri.gov/
South Carolina (803)734-9060; http://www.scvotes.org/
South Dakota (605)773-3537; http://www.sdsos.gov
Tennessee (615)741-7956; http://www.state.tn.us/sos/
Texas (512)463-5650; 1-(800)252-8683 http://www.sos.state.tx.us
Utah (801)538-1041; 1-(800)995-8683 http://www.elections.utah.gov/voterinformation.html
Vermont (802)828-2464; 1(800)439-8683 http://vermont-elections.org/soshome.htm
Virginia (804)864-8901; 1-(800)552-9745 http://www.sbe.state.va.us
Washington (360)902-4180; 1-(800)448-4881 http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/
West Virginia (304)558-6000; 1-(866)767-8683 http://www.wvsos.com/
Wisconsin (608)266-8005; 1-(866)868-3947 http://elections.wi.gov
Wyoming (307)777-7186; http://soswy.state.wy.us
As ALL Primary Elections are on different dates, use the above voting contact information to check with YOUR state to find out the dates of YOUR presidential primaries, state primaries, general elections and run offs, etc. in your area.
It is of utmost importance that the DLC be voted out of the Congress of the United States and all state governments at all levels.
Vote out ALL DLC.
i honestly thought Guliani knew what the hell he was doing as mayor of NYC. I thought he cared about the city. I thought wrong and that he would be a horrendous president
Mayor Giuliani tells a good tale. He said that he was with the workers clearing the rubble after 9/11. Not so. That he lowered taxes in New York. Not so. That he showed his leadership by having Yassar Arafat escorted from a Lincoln Center concert, and that he refused a check for millions of dollars hurt in 9/11 in New York. The Saudi Prince said that this check was cashed. I was in New York on 9/11. Will Rudy's nose grow larger during this campaign?
I never really used to be so into politics as I have been lately. I never knew whether to be considered a democrat or a republican..but I've learned on my own and through many resources that I'm a democrat.
But about Guliani I think it's ridiculous that he didn't do anything about the radios. If he knew about the failure of the radios he should have immediately done something. Cities and towns are supposed to be able to depend on the fire department when disasters happen. How are they to do that if the mayor can't even provide the Fire department with properly working radios?? And shouldn't that be one of the major things for a mayor is to protect your city? He wasn't doing a very good job with that in my opinion.
And S, when you said that the people in the video are a small group of people who apparently didn't feel that they got enough money how in the world can you say something like that?? I'm not being disrespectful in any manner..but if your son or someone you loved died in 9/11 and you did an interview and someone said that about you...how would you feel? I think that's pretty low to say something like that when you don't even know them.
And just like someone else said...if you can't believe everything you hear on the tv and the internet...how are you supposed to believe everything coming out of the candidates mouth too?
Just htought I would share my opinions with everyone
Brooke,
First off, as I mentioned earlier, it's not the Mayor's responsibility to make sure radios work. One more time, THAT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FIRE COMMISSIONER!!! The Mayor cannot be held accountable for everything. Should Rudy have been changing leaky faucets in government buildings also? Look, the Dems know that the radios wasn't Rudy's responsibility and you should too. The Dems just want everybody to accept it without really thinking about it. They're playing off of your gullibility. If this was a legitimate argument then you'd see it in the news and the Democrat candidates would be talking about it, but it's not. It's nothing more than a YouTube video created to tarnish the public's opinion on Rudy's leadership because Hillary can't compete. Funny how Rudy was a hero to everyone in the nation until he entered the race. Now the Dems have to attack his reputation for leadership? Pathetic.
Secondly, those people being interviewed tried to sue NYC and Motorola, but they lost in court and they lost the appeal. Why? Because no one was to blame. Both NYC and Motorola identified the problem and they were working to fix it when 9/11 occurred.
Finally, Brooke if you go to places like Democrats.org and therealrudy.org to help you decide your politics then you are only seeing what the left wants you to see. Try reading a book, listen to the radio, watch unbiased news channels and make up your own mind. Don't let bloggers and the television dictate the "truth" to you.
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.
