Politico's Martin touted Giuliani's "halo of Sept. 11 and the celebrity that comes with the heroics"
SUMMARY: In an article on Republican candidates, the Politico's Jonathan Martin claimed that the reason Rudy Giuliani has not "stopped being 'America's Mayor' " and become "just another presidential candidate" is "in part ... because he still enjoys the halo of Sept. 11 and the celebrity that comes with the heroics." However, Giuliani's performance before, during, and after 9-11 has been questioned and criticized.
In a September 3 Politico article, senior political writer Jonathan Martin, who covers the Republican candidates for the Politico, wrote that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) "still enjoys the halo of Sept. 11 and the celebrity that comes with the heroics" -- which Martin said explains "in part" why Giuliani has not "stopped being 'America's Mayor' " and become "just another presidential candidate." But in touting Giuliani's "halo of Sept. 11" and his alleged "heroics," Martin offered no indication that, as Media Matters for America has noted, Giuliani's performance before, during, and after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks has been questioned and criticized.
In the article, Martin and senior political writer Ben Smith purported to offer "the 10 key questions you need to focus on in order to get back up to speed quickly" regarding the 2008 presidential campaign. In a September 4 blog entry, Martin acknowledged that the five questions pertaining to the Republican candidates were "[m]y analysis of the GOP side." Martin wrote:
Will Rudy's lead hold when he comes under attack? Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani enjoys a lead in every national poll taken in the GOP race and is also strong in surveys taken in such key primary states as Florida and South Carolina.
The long-anticipated swoon that Giuliani was expected to suffer when he stopped being "America's Mayor" and became just another presidential candidate simply hasn't happened. In part, this is because he still enjoys the halo of Sept. 11 and the celebrity that comes with the heroics.
But can he maintain his strong position when the attacks come not in the form of whispered background quotes, but rather frontal assaults on the television and radio airwaves? And they are sure to come.
As Media Matters documented (here and here), New York City's firefighters have been critical of Giuliani for what they see as his failure to ensure that the New York police and fire departments had interoperable radios -- a problem that had been highlighted during the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and during a 1995 sarin-gas drill conducted by New York City officials.
Giuliani has also been criticized for selecting The 7 World Trade Center building as the site of his emergency command center, reportedly because the location was within walking distance from City Hall. An August 7 Village Voice article reported that, prior to establishing the command center, Giuliani was warned that the World Trade Center would likely be the prime target for future terrorist attacks. 7 World Trade Center was destroyed during the 9-11 attacks.
On August 9, Giuliani claimed that he "was at Ground Zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers" participating in the hazardous clean-up. Giuliani later attempted to clarify his remarks, saying, "I think I could have said it better. ... You know, what I was saying was, 'I'm there with you.' " The New York Times reported on August 17 that "for the period of Sept. 17 to Dec. 16, 2001," Giuliani spent "a total of 29 hours" at the WTC ruins "often for short periods or to visit locations adjacent to the rubble." The Times added that, "[i]n that same period, many rescue and recovery workers put in daily 12-hour shifts."
A hero and now a saint!
What's next will he be multiplying the tuna fish and twinkies and raising Reagan from the dead?
Once again MMFA inserts a misleading word in it's title to suggest a different meaning than the actual article itself - "touted".
The few sentences where Giuliani is mentioned in this articles says he "enjoys the halo of 9/11", the author does not "tout" or talk up Giuliani's 9/11 performance, it merely states the obvious, that he still enjoys the celebrity surrounding that day. Where is the "touting"? It's not there.
A fair article unworthy of mention here.
Stating that he has a "halo" and performed 'heriocs" isn't "touting" anything?
Do you deny that Giuliani still "enjoys the halo of 9/11 and the celebrity" that goes with it?
I am denying he has any halo or that he comitted ANY heroics. I am also saying that claiming he has a celebrity that comes from heroics obviously IS touting.
And you misinterpreted the article too.....just because you don't think so, doesn't mean that many people share your feelings.....which is the point of the article, so there is no touting here.
Tout (3). To promote or praise energetically; publicize:
"The long-anticipated swoon that Giuliani was expected to suffer when he stopped being “America’s Mayor” and became just another presidential candidate simply hasn’t happened. In part, this is because he still enjoys the halo of Sept. 11 and the celebrity that comes with the heroics."
"Halo", "celebrity", and "heroics" are all pretty even-handed terms that do nothing to promote the Rudy mythology?
The article does not say this "halo" is justified or even earned, all it says is that he still enjoys the celebrity of 9/11. You, nor I, may agree he does not deserve it, but to deny it doesn't still exist in many people's minds is inaccurate. That is what the author is saying.
Yeah according to you but HE chose those words. He could have just said he enjoys the aura of being ASSOCIATED with the heroics of 9/11 instead he chose to say he had the HALO and celebrity that COMES with heroics phrasing it as if Guiliani himself had run into a burning WTC and rescued downed firefighters. OK it is subjective but it IS subjective dont pretend that MMFA and the liberals here are WRONG and you are right. It is a matter of interpretation and I am pretty comfortable with mine.
You can see it anyway you want too, knock your lights out. But this MMFA headline misleads in its attempt to paint the author as promoting, or touting, the "halo" for Giuliani with regards to 9/11.......and you know as well as I do that this article does not do that, not by any stretch.
YOU can continue to repeat your original assertion as if repitition will somehow magically make it true. It wont and wishing wont make it so either. HE CHOSE TO PHRASE IT THAT WAY. It certainly looks like touting to me so NO MMFAs headline is NOT misleading. It is descriptive of what was said. You dont thing so and I dont care. You are not the decider. It isnt so just because you say it is. YOU are not the final arbiter of what constitutes touting and if it is a judgement call then it is reasonable and therefore NOT misleading.
I am always curious as to why you are so defensive with your patented "just because you say so blah blah....." and "you are not the decider blah blah......" stock responses.
When have I ever said I am the decider on anything? It is my own opinion, Mr. Intolerant.....if you don't agree, fine, just say so - but there is no need to slap everyone else's opinion that does not agree with you and MMFA as invalid, sorry - you are not THAT decider.
YOU said I misinterpreted the article. YOU didnt say that you interpreted it differently. You SAID it the article was misleading you DIDNT say you saw it differently. Your take that it is a difference of opinion does NOT constitute the article being misleading only that YOU see it differently. IT is NOT misleading if it is a mere difference of opinion. In THAT case it is just a difference of opinion. This is pretty straight forward.
Oh poor Tommy getting pushed around for having an honest opinion. You're really too much buddy. Do you realize that your entire persona here is a lie? What does it really say about the Right that you essentially have to lie non-stop to defend their baloney? You should really be ashamed.
Solon, you have hereby been granted special Tommy dispensation to Think What You Want. Congratulations! Use it in good health!
"The article does not say this "halo" is justified or even earned..."- tommy
Right, there's no comment on that. It's matter-of-factly stated that a halo and heroics exist.Can somebody have an unearned halo? Is Giuliani's heroism accepted as fact?
This article is not commenting on the deservedness of Giuliani's "halo", but rather the perception that some have that there is one at all......which by the polling suggests there certainly is.
Nobody has yet to dispute it here, except by their own personal opinion of Giuliani.
'This article is not commenting on the deservedness of Giuliani's "halo"...'
Precisely, Tommy. You do get it.Rather than examine the facts, the lazy reporter based his words on public opinion according to polls.
Unless you approve of reporters and commentators accepting public opinion as fact without any scrutiny, then everything else you've posted here is willfully ignorant hogwash.
You too , Jeter, regardless of your "clustering" defense. ;0)
Also, your quotes are prefaced by stating that he enjoys leads in most of the polls, and in Florida and SC........followed by the author's explanation as he sees it, as to why. Makes sense.
So you are saying the guy WASNT touting him just explaining why he keeps leading the polls. OK a reasonable interpretation but not the ONLY one. HE chose the words about halos and heroics he didnt get them from any POLL. So MAYBE I am misinterpreting and maybe not. I feel fairly comfortable that HIM, not the polls, describing the reasons Guiliani is doing so well having to do with halos and heroics is touting.
In my opinion, halos and heroics are just poetic flowery words - for descriptive purposes. He wasn't touting Giuliani's "halo", he was merely opining that is the most likely reason for his lead in all the polls.....MMFA doesn't agree, hence it's here.
Tommy, the objection now seems to be that writers must never use certain descriptive words. Using "halo" in place of something more pedestrian was simply a writer attempting to be a bit creative.
Guess some folks would be happier with Dick & Jane kind of writing.
See Dick run. Run Dick run. See Jane run. Run Jane run.
Very well said....."pedestrian", the perfect word.
Exactly, MMFA doesn't see the halo, obviously the liberals here don't see it, so therefore nobody has the right to opine on the fact that there still may be one. apparently.
No one is telling the writer of the this article what adjectives can be used to describe G$. Your could use the very same argument that your using to defend "halo" against you in your attack on "touting". Just because you don't want to see the review of G$ and his alleged 9/11 "heroics" as "touting" doesn't mean that it isn't the case.
Better question in my mind is what exactly did G$ do during 9/11 that would make him heroic in the first place? This is written as if it's a forgone conclusion, not as something that "some people think"
MHK,
I don't think Rudy deserves the "hero" label some have hung on him...but it's there.
The way I read Martin's article is simply that he's explaining why Giuliani still enjoys his lead in the race due to the perception of his actions on 9/11. I don't think Martin was "touting" Rudy, just repeating the myth [using some creative wording] that some still believe.
It's like JFK & Camelot. Pure myth, but it persists.
Jeter, did it ever occur to you that the job of a journalist isn't to perpetuate myths, but to find the facts?
True, Giuliani has a heroic image from 9/11. But this heroic image is an illusion. The facts tell a different story.
Giuliani is running for President of the United States, the most powerful office in the world. The choice of who should fill that office is a very serious one and should be based on all the available information.
Are the people well served in this by a press which unquestioningly repeats things without bothering to find out if they're true?
I also think you're being disingenuous when you compare JFK/"Camelot" with the "hero of 9/11".
To my knowledge, JFK never campaigned on the basis of the Camelot story. It was a label the press gave him, and not an issue he ran on, nor something he touted openly. It may have been good press, but it was a harmless story; I doubt anybody was induced to vote for him on that basis alone.
The "hero of 9/11" myth, by contrast, is the central issue of Rudy's campaign. Without it he would be nothing. His sole claim to the presidency rests on his being some kind of expert on terrorism--and that is manifestly, demonstrably false.
Therefore it is a much more serious problem that the press continues to promote the idea that Giuliani is some kind of genius in counterterrorism, when he is in fact nothing of the sort.
Hi Jeter
I get what your saying the only problem I have is that Martin didn't clarify that some people believe this myth. He stated that G$ was a hero, hence the touting moniker form MMFA. Poor phrasing by Martin in my opinion, making a mountain out of a mole hill by MMFA.
Your far more tactful then someone I know.... I think part of the reason people go after T is the fact that he repeats the same thing over and over as if everyone else has a comprehension problem (and the dismissive attitude doesn't help either)
Really? Did someone say this guy should be arrested for what he said? No I didnt see that so he can be as effusive as he wants but its ludicrous to pretend the guy isnt TOUTING when he does so. IF he wanst to BE objective then using such clearly UNOBJECTIVE phrasology is not the way to go. If he doesnt want to be objective then he and YOU GUYS ought not to object to us calling him on his TOUTING of the guy.
"in part ... because he still enjoys the halo of Sept. 11 and the celebrity that comes with the heroics."
Tommy, the objection now seems to be that writers must never use certain descriptive words. Using "halo" in place of something more pedestrian was simply a writer attempting to be a bit creative. Jeter
Jeter we need honest reporting, not bias reporting. He could have simply said" Because to some Rudy still enjoys the halo of Sept 11 and the celebrity that's comes with the heroics". Pretty simple to change if you took the time. To assume that to all Rudy has this status is incorrect. Just because when polling Republicans or because MSM decides they find Rudy acceptable cause he MIGHT beat Hillary is not true or factual reporting. Just because MSM has given Rudy the state of "hero" does not mean that all of America has. I'm sure there are many Americans, especially New Yorkers who don't lover Rudy period! While you and Tommy don't look for un-opinionated reporting some do.
Good point Pearlene.
The use of the word "Some" was clearly needed in this case.
As you know I prefer it when a Liberal/Democrat goes off on Republican/Conservatives to qualify it by saying Some Republican/Conservatives ;-)
SUUURE and by that logic if I used the flowery words that Bush is an ignoramus whose lack of decency is motivated by Straussian delusions it wouldnt be criticising him just using flowery language to explain what others think. You have GOT to be kidding me.
Wrong Tommy, Wrong, they are touting it. Stop playing word games. Only a bonehead would play these types of games.
He has no "halo", why even mention it? Because they give him a pass.
No one is touting anything.
The author of this article is simply explaining there is still a perception of Giuliani out there of being a 9/11 hero & it's this perception that has kept Rudy in the lead. Martin then goes on to question whether Giuliani can maintain his position once he comes under further scrutiny & attacks.
In part, this is because he still enjoys the halo of Sept. 11 and the celebrity that comes with the heroics.
But can he maintain his strong position when the attacks come not in the form of whispered background quotes, but rather frontal assaults on the television and radio airwaves? And they are sure to come.
Baloney. IF that was his point he could have made it without breaking out the images of saints and Hercules. Saying he still enjoyed the aura of being associated with 9/11 gives that information. His CHOSEN language makes it look like Guiliani was HIMSELF a hero and a Saint by what HE did on 9/11. That is touting anyway you look at it.
However he never used the word "Tout". Why does MMFA have to place that in the headline of this thread. That is the part I feel is misleading. Good catch Tommy and Jeter!!
And I can not stand Rudy but it is an unfair piece.
Because MMFA does not like Politico. Because in order to promote the agenda that they are partisan towards Republicans, they use inaccurate and misleading words like "tout" when they are clearly inappropriate in this instant.
This is a fair opinion article on the current state of all the candidates, yet reading this piece looks they are out campaigning for Giuliani.......silly.
"In part, this is because he still enjoys the halo of Sept. 11 and the celebrity that comes with the heroics."
How can you read this as anything other then it's a forgone conclusion that Rudy G is a hero?
If you read the entire article in context, it's evident as to the author's meaning and it has been argued here thoroughly by Jeter and myself, among others........if you disagree, fine.
We don't agree that you argued it thoroughly. Certainly not to the point of convincing anyone but those who arrived convinced. You and Sueeld can go pat each other on the back.
Tommy,
I've come to the conclusion that even if some here finally realized we were correct they'd still argue till midnight rather than admit it ;-)
I've got work to do.
I'm done with this topic. Catch ya later on another thread.
Kind of an odd position to take with Tommy, given that he's the one who has to get the last word in all the time. He's the one who "proves" his point by merely repeating it over and over.
Why exactly should the seven of us who disagree with the two of you be convinced by Tommy repeatedly saying he's right, we're wrong, and we're permitted to disagree? (Okay, there might be three of you, though I'm not sure why you'd want to include SueEld's bizarre rantings as one of your number.)
T
I read the entire article and you and I draw different meanings.
If the author meant that G$ enjoys a heroic, godlike imagine with some American's hence his front runner status then he should have wrote the article in that fashion.
--------> he didn't.
hence the touting moniker given by MMFA.
Thats BS. It is a reasonable interpretation that using that kind of effusive praise raising the image of a saint and of a hero in his explanation IS touting if it is a reasonable interpretation it is NOT misleading.
Um... MMFA used the word because it accurately describes the situation?
Are articles and/or analysis now limited to using words that are in the article being reviewed? What an idiotic position to take.
Because by using those terms he IS touting Guiliani. He didnt just say the aura of 9/11 was still with him or some other neutral language to describe the phenomenon he used the imagry of a saint and of heroics. I dont see any way that ISNT touting and it is certainly a reasonable take on it. NO that is NOT misleading.
YOU are not the decider of TOUTING!!! Neither you nor MMFA, just because you say it is so, does NOT make it SO!!!
(does that idiotic defense look familiar to you?)
Yeah, sounds a lot like you.
You, too, are not the final arbiter of what "touting" means, or if this article and title are accurate. You're credibility is in the gutter around here. Just repeating yourself endlessly doesn't make anything you write more correct. Sorry.
Just for the record, my credibility with you is of as much interest to me as your opinions. That should tell you all you need to know.
Tommy! You're talking to me again! Oh, how I missed you.
Actually, others have commented on your lack of credibility. I'm just repeating such claims.
Nonetheless, you don't get the final say on what is or isn't accurate around here. I know you WANT to have that, but sorry.
And in this case, not only do you not get final say, you're also wrong.
You certainly waste precious time trying to shoot down someone who has no credibility? Why?
And the reason I answer you on occasion is strictly for sport. Or because you end up saying something so ridiculous you can't help yourself, which explains the bitterness.
And Poodle, when I want a valued opinion or input, then I ignore you.
Just so you know the difference.
For someone who doesn't care what I think, you sure do seem to care what I think. I appreciate that. It gives me so much meaning to know that a troll like you thinks so highly of me.
Get a dictionary and read about the word "tout" and then you'll see why you're wrong again. Then, when you put that together in your mind with all the other times you've been wrong, you'll see why your credibility is in the toilet.
Oh, and nice bit of name-calling. THAT you're good at.
Come on Marv, Tommy may be stuborn, but he isn't a troll.
MHK, you are correct, Tommy is not a troll. Calling people we disagree with "trolls" is weak and wrong.
What do you think of calling people you disagree with "poodle" and constantly referring to them as bitter? That's your beloved Tommy just a few posts above.
And Poodle, when I want a valued opinion or input, then I ignore you. Tommy
While I appreciate Tommy's input he has from time to time acted like a horses a**. For Tommy to call Marve a "poodle" is no difference than Marv calling Tommy a troll.
Doris, Tommy can be just a big of an a** as the rest of us. He deserves no special "get out of jail" card and in this case he was "trolling".
I appreciate Tommy but when he's wrong he's wrong, period!
Except that I think Tommy actually demonstrates troll-like behavior. I guess I could tone it down by just saying he's an attention whoring repeatathon in ASCII, but troll is easier to type.
Marv your correct and T should not have called you a poodle.
He's always harping on others for "personal" attacks so I'm not sure where that is coming from.
I respectfully disagree. If his intent is otherwise, then his behavior is that of someone who wants to make every conversation about him or to revolve around him, rather than the topic at hand. And when he's finally beat, he turns to name calling ("poodle"? "Bitterness?") instead of just admitting it or shutting the hell up. And while he has himself forbidden himself to (mostly) ignore my posts, he mostly gets the last word just by repeating the same crap he's said a million times.
The difference is they are not CLAIMING to be and YOU are. THEY are using a reasonable interpretation to describe the article YOU are saying it is misinformation. NOT that you see it differently but that it is misleading. That is stated as fact. It is NOT a fact it is YOUR take. Saying you disagree is one thing making an accusation based on YOUR intepretation can only be taken seriously if YOU are the one empowered to decide what the word means and if it is used correctly. Say you see it differently we have no argument I said right away yours could be seen as a reasonable interpretation that DOES NOT rise to the level of you saying they were misleading. THAT accusation would only be accurate if there were no OTHER reasonable intepretations and YOU had decided ONLY yours mattered.
The difference is they are not CLAIMING to be and YOU are. THEY are using a reasonable interpretation to describe the article YOU are saying it is misinformation. NOT that you see it differently but that it is misleading. That is stated as fact. It is NOT a fact it is YOUR take. Saying you disagree is one thing making an accusation based on YOUR intepretation can only be taken seriously if YOU are the one empowered to decide what the word means and if it is used correctly. Say you see it differently we have no argument I said right away yours could be seen as a reasonable interpretation that DOES NOT rise to the level of you saying they were misleading. THAT accusation would only be accurate if there were no OTHER reasonable intepretations and YOU had decided ONLY yours mattered.
So no it is NOT an idiotic defense just because you are incapable of understanding the simple logic
I dont know how that happened I only posted once. I must have hit the wrong button at some point.
The author of this article is simply explaining there is still a perception of Giuliani out there of being a 9/11 hero & it's this perception that has kept Rudy in the lead. Martin then goes on to question whether Giuliani can maintain his position once he comes under further scrutiny & attacks Jeter
Simply, BULL! If he wanted to explain that to some Rudy wears a "halo" because of 9/11 he should have said SOME not make the assumption that Rudy wears a "halo" to all Americans. Reporters have become lazy. If reporters had been on the job, there would have been many more questions asked BEFORE we invaded Iraq. Reporters are suppose to report FACTS. The fact that not all Americans give Rudy this "halo" is a FACT!
Whoa Pearlene :-O
Check out my other post to you.[pg 2 I think]
I agree the word Some should have been used. Though to be honest, I knew he didn't mean All.
Jeter, sorry you got the backlash of my anger from posting somewhere else. Sorry for the bold and the tone. I am now going to enjoy a glass of wine and and as my grandson loves to tell me "chill".
Jeter, I should also add that Tommy is not the only one who can make an a** of him/herself. ;-)
I see your point.This article is giving an explanation as to why Giuliani is the front-runner Republican Polls and is written in context to GOP voters' perception of him as a hero.But there are criticisms of his actions on 9/11. The question then is if that criticism is appropriate in this context.
Not to mention his actions BEFORE 9/11. Such as placing the emergency response center (or whatever it was called) in the twin towers, even though the '93 attack demonstrated them to be a significant target. Is that the kind of "decider" we want?
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Tommy, you must wear a wet-suit, and nose plugs when carrying the pail for these guys!
The only thing this Mayor could be credited with doing is looking for a command center that he insisted be located in the most likely terrorist target and thinking he was going to find it!
The rationale that Rudy is a hero needs to require a "barf bag" attached!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I'm ok with touted. Ass kissing might be just too bald for all of our more sensitve posters.
MMFA is wrong here. To me this is more Anti Giuliani propaganda. It is so disgusting that some want to make this man the reason for 9/11. Lets not blame al -qeida but lets blame a Mayor of New York City.
Yeah, poor Giulianni. All he wants is for the tragedy of 9/11 to stand on its own and be mourned by everyone affected in the way they see fit. But, darn those liberals, they just keep bringing it up and won't let it go! Don't they have any respect for the fallen?
Wrong!!! It is not the liberals who let bin Laden kill americans on 9/11 it was Bushie and Guiliani. Only a partisan bonehead would blame Liberals.
What about the "halo" of David Dinkins the 93 Mayor ? Or is he not responsible for any of the failures of that day? My point is why is a Mayor a hero or a goat for an attack by terrorists? Why the partisan hate that grinds America to this day. WHY????
http://wcbstv.com/classic/local_story_054105904.html
Because Rudy did NOTHING on 9/11 and yes his party is responisble so yes he is responsible. Keep playing the al qeida card.
Ya know, pointing out that someone failed to do the job they were tasked with isn't necessarily partisan. It might just be factual.
Wrong!!! It is not the liberals who let bin Laden kill americans on 9/11 it was Bushie and Guiliani. Only a partisan bonehead would blame Liberals.
BushLies,
I'm no Giuliani fan, BUT could you please explain how he let bin Laden kill Americans on 9/11?
Bush deserves blame, but Rudy? How the hell was he involved?
Exactly Jeter, that is my whole point. Bush is leaving so lets now blame Rudy Guiliani the Mayor of NYC. Its disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.
Exactly Jeter, that is my whole point. Bush is leaving so lets now blame Rudy Guiliani the Mayor of NYC. Its disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.
Because the Republicans let bin laden attack on 9/11 so yes Rudy is reponsible.
Because the Republicans let bin laden attack on 9/11 so yes Rudy is reponsible.
Huh? Sorry fella but that statement wins the Stupidest Post In The World award.
It DID happen on a Republican's watch. It was Bush's job to defend us from attack, and he failed. Sorry.
But how was it Rudy's??
THAT is the charge BushLies is making.
Yeah, I don't agree with the charge that Rudy was responsible. But he wasn't a hero. His actions leading up to the horrible event may have made the situation worse.
1) Put the command center in one of the primary targets in the city, the only target to have already been hit
2) Knew that there was a problem with the radios and other communications in advance (because of that previous attack, don't you know) and didn't correct the problem.
Those are the two off the top of my head. He had almost a decade to work on those, and blew it.
No YOU are wrong. In fact so delusionally wrong your post is a virtual non sequitur. No one ANYWHERE blamed Guiliani for 9/11 nor gave al Queda any passes. Bizarre.
Pointing out Giuliani's shortcomings (and they are legion) is not the same as blaming him for 9/11, and you know it.
I'm sick of this right-wing crap that equates legitimate criticism with treason. Every decent person blames al-Qaeda for the attacks. That does not mean we have to give a free pass to a hack like Giuliani who saw a national tragedy as an opportunity to get rich and powerful.
If you want to know more about Rudy's cluelessness when it comes to terrorism, I suggest Grand Illusion, by Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins. "America's mayor" doesn't look nearly so good once you know the facts.
It is so disgusting that some want to make this man the reason for 9/11. Lets not blame al -qeida but lets blame a Mayor of New York City.
Ya know, until you said that, I'd never put two and two together. It's so OBVIOUS! Why didn't I see it before? Rudy IS bin Laden! He's been right under our noses ALL THIS TIME!
You may be onto something, Marv. A turban can look a lot like a halo to eyes filled with tears of terror.
And Gyros are from the Middle East
Oh, puhleeeeze. Nobody is touting Rudy's turban. =)
Beach,
I believe Gyros are Greek.
Doooohd, he called you "Beeyatch."
Oh... wait...
Close enough !
That was in response to Greece being in the middle East, not the Bee-yatch- calling.
Not really.
That's a D in Geography ;-)
Defining "Middle East" is not easy. As a termit really didn't become common until the mid 19th century when it was probably coined by the British India Office. American naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan later used the term in a 1902 article in the now defunct British journal, National Review (not to be confused with the current font of American Conservative thought). The term is vague and contentious (despite a few attempts to standardize the definition) and the countries included or excluded vary with time and opinion. It is not unheard of to designate the Levant (a collective name for the countries on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean) as a region of the Middle East. In travel literature of the 19th century this was common and the term Levant incorporated eastern regions under then contemporary governance of the Ottoman empire, which did include Greece. Obscure to be sure (at least for those unfamiliar with this snippet of history) but not unheard of. The origin of "the Gyro" (which started all of this) is also quite interesting; but I have gone on long enough. This term (not the food) may actually have originated in New York. Good night to all.
The only problem with the rats and smear merchants who work for Media Matters is that they neglect that the CIA also had an office in the same World Trade Center building and that the World Trade Center. This site should be shut down immediately for its continual use of libel to help DemocRATS get elected.
"and that the World Trade Center" should be omitted from my above comment.
Are you comments always this dumb?
Nevermind I already know that answer.
Yeah, IO, once that line is omitted, it's practically perfect. :>O
With it in there, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Of course, with it removed, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Once the pestilence that is the Repugnant Party, and its alliance with the Corporate Media Oligopoly that the Repugnant Party brought into being, is completely exposed, and consequently eradicated, there will be no further need for MMFA. Maybe rather than seeking a new mission for this site, we could shut it down, then.
IO, crawl back under your bed, THE TERRORIST are coming, THE TERRORIST ARE FOLLOWING YOU HOME!
We may have to pry some pretty dammed determined never give up hardcases from their keyboards though.
OH! The Humanity!