Giuliani falsely claims "[w]e had no domestic attacks under Bush"
On Good Morning America, Rudy Giuliani falsely claimed that "[w]e had no domestic attacks under Bush. We've had one under Obama." In fact, while Giuliani and other conservative media figures have recently downplayed the number of attacks on the United States under former President Bush, there were numerous terrorist attacks attempted during the Bush administration, including the September 11, 2001, attacks, the attempted detonation of an explosive device on an airplane by shoe bomber Richard Reid, and the anthrax attacks.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
From the January 8 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (co-host): But President Bush said he wanted to close [the detention center at Guantánamo Bay] as well.
RUDY GIULIANI: Well, he did because of the pressure. It isn't that President Bush did everything right. This whole thing is like -- they say, well, you know, President Bush sent people to Yemen. Well, he shouldn't have. He shouldn't have sent people to Yemen. Obviously, now, if he can do it again -- one in five people that have been released from Guantánamo have gotten involved in terrorist activities. At least -- that's what we can measure. Obviously it was a mistake. What he should be doing is following the right things that Bush did -- one of the right things he did was treat this as a war on terror. We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We've had one under Obama. Number two, he should correct the things that Bush didn't do right. Sending people to Yemen was wrong. Not connecting -- not getting this whole intelligence thing correct is both Bush's responsibility and Obama's.
Several domestic attacks took place under Bush, including 9-11 attacks
September 11, 2001 attacks. As CNN noted, "On September 11, 2001, four U.S. planes hijacked by terrorists crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people in a matter of hours."
2001 anthrax attacks. A March 2004 State Department report on "Significant Terrorist Incidents, 1961-2003" quotes then-Attorney General John Ashcroft saying of the letters containing anthrax mailed to various targets: "When people send anthrax through the mail to hurt people and invoke terror, it's a terrorist act." Five people were killed as a result of those letters in the autumn of 2001.
2001 shoe bomber attempted attack. In June 2008, then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff described Reid's December 2001 attempt "to blow up a trans-Atlantic plane with a shoe bomb" as an attempt to "carry out terrorist operations for Al-Qaeda."
2002 attack against El Al ticket counter at LAX. In July 2002, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet opened fire at an El Al Airlines ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport killing two people and wounding four others before being shot dead. A 2004 Justice Department report stated that Hadayet's case had been "officially designated as an act of international terrorism."
2002 DC-area sniper. The state of Virginia indicted Washington, D.C.-area sniper John Allen Muhammad -- along with his accomplice, a minor at the time -- on "an act of terrorism" for one of the murders he committed during a three-week shooting spree across Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. Muhammad was convicted, sentenced to death, and subsequently executed for the crime.
2006 UNC SUV attack. In March 2006, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill graduate Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar drove an SUV into an area of campus, striking nine pedestrians. According to reports, Taheri-azar said he acted because he wanted to "avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world." Taheri-azar also reportedly stated in a letter: "I was aiming to follow in the footsteps of one of my role models, Mohammad Atta, one of the 9/11/01 hijackers, who obtained a doctorate degree."
Giuliani latest conservative to downplay terrorist attacks under Bush
Frederick: All domestic terrorist attacks since 9-11 took place "on Obama's watch." As Media Matters for America documented, Las Vegas Review-Journal publisher Sherman Frederick wrote in a January 3 column:
If this is what it takes to wake up Obama to the evils of this world, then he learned an easy lesson. But tell that to the personnel who lost their lives to terrorism at Fort Hood.
Then, as now, the Obama administration fails to swiftly acknowledge the threat. They demur in describing our enemy as radical Muslims. They plan to close the offshore prison for terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and transfer the prisoners to the United States. They give the enemy combatants who killed more than 3,000 people on 9/11 the privilege of a civilian federal trial in New York City when a military tribunal is more appropriate. And for three days our president failed to address his people directly on Abdulmutallab's failed effort to blow up a commercial flight over Detroit on Christmas Day. All of this on top of President Obama's noticeable refusal to characterize our struggle as a "war" on "terror."
In the wake of fierce criticism, Obama now talks tough about keeping America safe. But in the two cases of domestic terrorism since 9/11 -- both on Obama's watch -- red flags flew aplenty.
Matalin downplays attacks under Bush, falsely claiming "Bush inherited" 9-11 attacks. On the December 27 edition of CNN's State of the Union, Republican strategist Mary Matalin falsely claimed that Bush "inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history." In fact, the September 11, 2001, attacks occurred eight months into Bush's presidency and more than a month after he had received a Presidential Daily Briefing titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."
Perino: "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term." Bush White House Press Secretary Dana Perino falsely claimed on the November 24, 2009, edition of Fox News' Hannity that "[w]e did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."
















"Isolated Extremist"
That is what Barack Obama calls an Al-Quaida operative who tries to blow up an airplane.
The quote ranks right up there with "great job Brownie" in terms of tone-deafness and stupidity.
What in God's name is wrong with you? Should Obama have said that "the extremist put up a good fight" or something? My what a sick puppy you are.
Now that would make a great Rap Song.
Mr. News
Yet you guys want to panic, trash the Constitution and human rights, engage in torture, and spend tens of billions of dollars we do not have.
You guys are corwards who live in irrational fear. Period.
We had two people die last night in my home town. Nobody cared. We had people die all around our country yesterday, and nobody panicked or did anything about it. We had tens of thousands of Americans die in 2009 because they did not have health care. Nobody panics about these things, yet we panic over one kid on a plane with a device that did not even detonate?
We have completely lost sight of what is important. We have lost the ability to put things in their proper perspective. Your side promotes this irrational fear for political gain.
Bin Laden's 2004 audiotape said the goal of al-Qeada was to drive the US into bankruptcy and force us to stop focusing on our own best national interest.
Could these fringe Repugs serve bin Laden any better?
i tried to type chen**...but my computer wouldn't let me..
Try READING sometime instead of listening and regurgitating the CRAP you are being fed on Fox and Hate Talk Radio.
You guys are COMPLETE LIARS as anyone who says "no attaks under Bush" means SINCE 9/11.
As for the others, other than Richard Reid you nutjobs on the LEFT would NEVER call these other ones "terror attacks." The left's reaction to El-Al ticket counter was "nothing to see here" and probably much glee that an Israeli airline would be targeted since U.S. support of Israel is part of the problem.
So if this shooting is a terror attack. What is Ft. Hood? Is that a terror attack? We're waiting for an answer liberals. Neither Obama or anyone in his Adm. will say that.
D.C. Sniper? He was just executed and none of you idiots would acknowledge that he was a radical muslim, not to mention his young accomplice.
So please LIBS, you have nothing to criticize on terrorism. Do all of us real Americans and STFU!!!!!
You're a liar and not a real American and I wouldn't do you with a foot of bubblewrap around you.
If you stick to reality, rather than what Rush has told Dick Jr., however, he doesn't really say anything at all.
GAWD BLESS AMERIKA.
Y-O-U-R means "your". Y-O-U-'-R-E means "you are". L-I-A-R-S.
What media are you talking about? Fox News? That's not media, that's propaganda.
Puppies? WTF? Country music? Seriously? Abortion? OMG, you have issues. Serious, serious issues.
Stop spouting all your ridiciousness on a website that has absolutely no relevance to what you are talking about.
Spare us from your ignorance, please.
Classy.
This is the best tactic of a left-wing that lacks a moral foundation for society, is bankrupt of any ideas, and which has not cared a bit that 95 percent of its public policy initiatives for the last century have FAILED.
So yes, it would be beneficial if liberals would just STFU. Because you have nothing of substance nor competence to add to the political or policy discussion.
I couldn't agree more, Cheney. Thank you for once again reaffirming my faith in your judgement of substance and competence.
Now would you please go crawl in a hole, so we can respond to some less-boring trolls?
you're not even a decent troll..
Anyway, I am liberal, and I identify with the Democratic party, but comments like this still upset me. We shouldn't get angry at someone because of their political party. If they deserve anger, it should be because of something they did, not something they believe. Everyone has a right to their own opinions, and we shouldn't be yelled at because of it.
No offense, guy with the stupid name, but I have NEVER seen you post anything here of substance or which indicates that you have any sort of competence in anything at all.
That's it! That is the exact definition of Dick Cheney. Thanks, Dick! Although, Dick's policies may have actually failed 100% of the time.
Things like the weekend, vacations, health care and education.
If the right-wing had it's way during the last century, most of us would have died before we were sixty. Many of us who lived to that ripe old age would have had our limbs mangled when we were children working in sweatshops.
You might also want to thank those left-wingers, who stood up to fight the Nazis in 1941 while many on the right did not want to anger their business partners in Germany.
Sorry but why does Bush get a pass for 9/11?
"So please LIBS, you have nothing to criticize on terrorism. Do all of us real Americans and STFU!!!!!"
I'd be really tired if I had to "do" all reall Americans. ;) All kidding aside though WTF? We aren't real Americans? Do I need to provide my birth certificate before I can call Guiliani on his lies?
I take it all back. You aren't a boring troll after all. This nugget is OUTSTANDING. I love that in your world, the press is dishonest if they take wingnuts' words at face value. Thank you for this fascinating peek into the right-wing "mind."
Pace yourself, dittozombies. There's 357 days left, and stoopid isn't an unlimited resource. Or is it?
Amazing how many of them are making the exact same mistake isn't it? Don't you think... oh nevermind, of course you don't.
Three letters and four words for you:
WMD
Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The following statements are false:
1. no attaks (sic) under Bush AT ALL
2. no attaks (sic) under Bush SINCE 9/11
3. no attaks (sic) under Bush" means SINCE 9/11, oh and Anthrax...
.
.
.
6. ... and the DC Sniper
The following is true
"We got attacked repeatedly by various terrorists under Bush"
It's called logic, try it sometime.
We "Real Americans" are right to be unhappy about the latest incident because so much effort has been put into making the system better, but it still does not work to it's full potential. This is a game of "whack-a-mole" ... the terrorist will continue to keep popping up and we will need to continue to attempt to "whack" them. The only way out of this is to kick the power cord out of the machine. The root cause of terrorism has not been addressed. The previous administration only saw a need to get bigger hammers to whack the moles ... that leads to a never ending escalation. We really need to find a way to stop playing.
My fault with Obama is that he understands that this is the game we are playing, but he states that we must always stay one step ahead. (You can't always know where the next "mole" will pop up.) There is not way to *always* be one step ahead. We can try, but the terrorist will continue to poke our defenses in hopes of slipping something through and they will eventually be successful. We need to find ways of convincing them that this method of operating will not achieve their goals.
We need to get away from the unthinking, gut reacting past and be smarter in how we handle things. Use the "brain" ...
I know you are getting paid to post here, and I am really trying to learn your techniques so I can get paid too (sort of like being your apprentice). Let me see if I got it right...
1. Using "doublespeak" is good because most of the posters here recognize Orwell. This won't work on teabagger sites.
2. Listing the standard RNC talking points is OK, but not real effective. People here have seen most of them on FOX.
3. Bring up the D.C. Sniper was really great!! This is not one of the standard RNC talking points this week (unless Dick Armey's FAX machine is busy working).
4. The Real Americans phrase is OK, but getting a little over-used. I would have used "Real God Fearing Americans" myself.
P.S. do they pay you for only the first post or for each reply? Frankly, I would cheat a little and just cut and past a set of standard replies so I don't have to type as much. Things like:
"Just what I expect from a Liberal Blowhard"
"You people are Liberal Losers" (my own phrase..Like it?)
"You are going to Lose big-time in 2012 - get over it"
This way, you can just cut and paste you responses.
"You people are Liberal Loosers"
statement: 9/11 happened under Bush's administration.
response: Nuh-uh.
OR
statement: Healthcare in the U.S. is needs to be fixed.
response: Nuh-uh.
Ft. Hood . . . not so much. Looks more like the work of a mentally disturbed individual who happened to be a Muslim.
What a fricking idiot!
So the D.C Sniper WAS, or WASN'T a terrorist? You say he WASN'T since there were no attacks under Bush after 9/11. Then you say he WAS a radical muslim who executed a terror attack.
BullCrap 101, you preach it well.
I'm not going to throw insults or anything and I suggest others would do left wing causes a service to not get angry and post "you guys do this..." and otherwise calling names and hurling insults etc etc
lets take this statement head on:
Out of everything that Cheney cited. Not one lie even comes close to the magnitude of "no attacks under Bush". Most of what you consider to be lies seem to me to be semantics, debate the depth if you wish, but they do not even approach the bald face deception of that statement. This is how revisionist history starts.
You leftists crack me up!
What a tool you always prove yourself to be.
You crack me up!
You are being too easy on yourself. Go learn some basic logic.
like most quick "band aid fixes' pushed by those with only political agenda's it's meant to work only with the "sound-bite mentality" crowd..
That's why we aren't going to start putting people around the world who buy tickets with cash on any watch list. And we aren't going to put people who don't have any carry-on luggage onto a watch list either. It would add a ton of people to those lists, which would really hinder the filtering process our intelligence people have to go through. And if we did start profiling people based upon their religion, or their lack of baggage or their purchasing with cash, they'd start changing the religion they say they are, and would start packing a bag to check, and they'd start using bogus credit cards to purchase their tickets. All we'd 'catch' would be useless extra work.
Profiling is too simplistic.
These liars get away with fibbing because of the people they are lying to (talking too).
We have a black President, but we get mostly white people talking about him. Therein lies (no pun intended) the problem. White folks, talking to other white folks, have a problem defending a black man.
We need diversity, particularly intelligent black analysts on TV and not uncle-toms or black people who just want to be accepted by white people.
Why can't we have more black people discussing this black president? This would be fair and balanced, correct?
Everyday, on TV, we witness white commentators allow white pundits get away with saying things that are untrue about this President. The few white people who stand up for Obama are weak and sorry.
I can't see an intelligent black man sit among a group of people, in an "honest discussion", and not say anything while someone outright lies.
Giuliani went on a few TV talk shows and told the same lie and no one stood up to him, or corrected him. Why is that?
We need diversity we need people who will engaged someone when they lie.
There is a common theme that allowed Giuliani to get away with lying to the American public; everyone on the panel was white. What eles can explain how Giuliani is able to tell a HUGE lie and walk away clean?
I repeat, "America harbors the greatest liars in the world" AND they are protected too.
Guiliani got away with what he said because he was on a network that is committed to dumping on Obama 24/7, not because of his race but because of the political party he belongs to.
Race has nothing to do with it.
Do you honestly have reading comprehension issues? Right On admitted he got the networks wrong, and it was his comments about race that were unchanged. That was pretty clear in his follow up post so I don't know why you think it's about ABC or MSNBC.
I have no idea why you can't, or won't, see that.
Please, don't waste your time with Victor. He is a couple shingles short and does this sort of thing with me all the time. :) If he enjoys it, let him have that.
Thanks for your explanations.
I think his point (whatever it is) would have to change from his mistake of not watching the clip before posting.
When you have a bunch of liars talking with other liars and the subject is a black man that is the making of a lynch mob. This is why they are so negative and irresponsible toward this president.
What is "ridiculous" is that you don't understand what you read or better yet, you can't accept the truth. You believe things are find just the way they are. There is no way in hell that is true.
Obama's race has EVERYTHING to done with the constant petty attacks and criticism, that's why you bastards can't be truthful. How can you be truthful about someone you hate?
If you don't agree with me that's find (that is expected), but I stand by what I said. There is no way that a REAL man of color would sit there and watch a bunch of deceivers tell lies and not say anything, because these same white folks could lie on their a*&..
The whole time Obama been on the scene you white people have trouble telling the truth and it is evident by these talk shows.
"What in god's name does Obama's race have to do with any of this? You want black people to discuss him and his policies and somehow that would make for more pertinent analysis?"
This comment demonstrates to me you don't understand what you read. I am NOT talking about discussing policies, you idiot, I'm talking about lying people, lying people who try to disguise falsehoods as some kind of analysis.
It isn't just Guiliani who gets away with lying on these talk shows, it is white people (not all) who have a problem with this black president, Guiliani is just the latest.
As long as mostly white folks talk about this black president they don't owe it to anyone to tell the truth (the racist mantality).
That's why the lying goes on and on.
These professional liars would not get away with lying or criticizing former President Bush constantly on TV (although Bush is the one they should have been more concerned about).
Folks would not stand for it. You would be labeled "unpatriotic" and "un-American".
I repeat, whether you like it or not, there is a need for diversity, and not just anybody, mature, acknowledgeable people of color who has nothing to gain from lying. It's a game to these white people on TV.
Again, we don't want any uncle-toms or kiss-a** black people, which i'm sure you and Fox News wouldn't have a problem with.
Until a broader cross of people are invited to join the discussing these liars will continue to lie and be protected by those who love things just the way they are; "unfair and unbalanced".
So you are free to believe that it's all racially motivated but if he were the first president to battle scurrilous, unwarranted attacks against him you'd have a point. But he isn't. And you know that.
His first trip to Kenya was when he was in his 20's.
Just because his father wasn't born in America doesn't mean he's not American.
If Bush's father had been born in a different country, would anybody freak out about it? If Clinton's father had been born in a different country, would anybody freak out? If Obama's father was white, would anybody freak out?
It is pure and blatant racism.
Did you know Clinton is considered the first black President of the united states? To hateful white people that makes him a "ni66er-lover".
There are many sincere and issue oriented commentators of all colors in our media discussing Obama with intelligence and respect. Their race is wholly and completely irrelevant. You won't find any of them highlighted on this website because what you see here is the bottom of the barrel in talk show political analysis. So you unfaily extrapolate that onto all criticism of Obama and try and paint all his critics with one broad brush.
You are the one demanding race be an element, not the other way around.
I speak of those who are guilty of this practice.
"The sincere and issue oriented commentators of all colors" you talk about are drowned out by the overwhelming number of liars that I speak of. They can not compete with the majority. Those majority of pundits do a disservice to their profession because they do nothing to educate or enlighten the public, instead their "opinions" (lies) are guided by their dislike for the President.
So they don't give a damn what they say. Look at the ridiculous things they say.
You could have "fair and balanced" commentary if pundits was mature, professional and held accountable for what they say. The problem is they are not held accountable; the question becomes, why?
I do not need anyone to tell me why. History and common sense is all that is needed.
I think you're totally off base when you say that this white panel let Guiliani get away with it because they're white.
It would be refreshing to see more young voices, esp. people of color, who have a pro-labor, pro-peace point of view. Where are they??
I think that panels made up as you suggest WOULD BE a great idea. I'm not black, so maybe I don't see what you see as a black woman.
Would you feel better if I said birds of feather lie together?
You don't have to believe race has nothing to do with a lynch mob or lynch mob mantality.
These people are displaying their hate for all to see and people refused to accept reality. Such negative talk usually lead to assasination (attempts).
You think these professional liars don't know that?
I speak truth to power you want to believe it "partisanship". Hog wash.
Thanks for that confession, retired. That was a very open, very contrite, very honest moment for you. There may be hope for you yet. You have recognized your own hate, which has been obvious to the rest of us for as long as you have been posting. You feel sorry for yourself and you seem determined to take control of your destiny and stop blaming others in your ill-conceived conspiracy theories of "leftists" and "liberals" and stop making yourself out to be a victim. Good for y-....what?...he's talking about someone else? Damn. Never mind, retired, carry on with your usual craziness.
Are y'all really THAT intellectually bankrupt?
"Wolf!" cried the boy.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911240056
Martin
Yep we had no domestic terrorist attacks under Bush!
You know what the spirit of his comments were. Your just so ideologically blind that it doesn't matter.
Wake up. Conservatives aren't the racist bigoted Klansmen you make them out to be. We believe in helping our fellow man we just know that the government is not the way to do it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3023391
Could the War on Terrorism possibly be managed worse. We are in danger, "grave danger" ["is there any other kind"?], and now only God can help, because the clowns in Washington DC don't get it. I pray no Islamic terrorist is successful.
How have the past eight years calmed the WAR ON TERROR? The 3 for O as you mentioned, after a long period of no attacks is not quite accurate...but according to the Right, they only use attacks which they feel are "TERROR ATTACKS" and throw aside the others due to partisan politics..see Dick Cheney.
Your suggestion of "IMAGINE letting the guy go if he tells all" is a ridiculous statement. It would be as stupid as me saying that "I know that Saddam Hussien has WMD's". And for those on the right to suggest that torture, sorry, but I am using the correct terminology, has proven nothing in getting info. We do know for a fact that KSM lied to stop the torture.
The blame game being sponsored by the right is only based on the WAR ON TERROR starting 1/20/2009.
And the left is not permitted to recall the past eight years when the damage to the world was done. Nice game the right plays but the rules are changing.
I do really like the "grave danger" routine. It was sooo grave that Bush/Cheney decided to leave everything for the next guy.
Personally, I am looking for the person who will sign the surrender papers when we defeat the enemy during this WAR ON TERROR. Will the representative be from the country of TERRORISTAN.
Cut the crap..you probably sleep well at night. Or are you willing to go fight those terrorists in their backyard???
Another nutjob bedwetter with no faith in his government nor his fellow man. Must suck to be you.
Bin Laden stated his goal was to launch a large attack that would lead to such an overwhelming response from the USA that they would bankrupt their country and remove many of their freedoms. It was a way to destroy us from within. They also stated that was the exact same way the mujahadeen forces defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and led to the total economic collapse of the Soviet empire.
You irrational chicken little's are doing exactly what Bin Laden wants you to do. You are playing right into his hands. You are too filled with idiotic anti-terror political slogans to see it.
Also, to claim we were not hit by a terror attack post 9-11 is a complete distortion of history. It shows how completely naive you are on this topic, and how you simply believe whatever right-wing talking points you are fed.