Giuliani still in denial about Bush-era terror attacks
After falsely claiming on Good Morning America that "[w]e had no domestic attacks under Bush," Rudy Giuliani stated during CNN's The Situation Room, "I did omit the words 'since September 11th.' I apologize for that. I should have put it in." However, Giuliani continued to ignore several domestic attacks that took place under Bush after 9/11 -- including the 2002 attack at the Los Angeles International Airport, the 2002 DC-area sniper shootings, and the 2006 SUV attack at the University of North Carolina - and dismissed the 2001 anthrax attacks, which were characterized by John Ashcroft as "a terrorist act," because, Giuliani said, "as far as we know, that was not done in the name of Islamic terrorism."
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.
Giuliani now claiming "no major domestic attack under President Bush since September 11th"
Giuliani: "I usually say we had no domestic attacks, no major domestic attack under President Bush since September 11th." After falsely claiming on the January 8 edition of Good Morning America that "[w]e had no domestic attacks under Bush. We've had one under Obama," Giuliani stated during The Situation Room, "I did omit the words 'since September 11th.' I apologize for that. I should have put it in." Giuliani later agreed with Wolf Blitzer's statement that "you're saying in terms of terror attacks since 9/11, there have been no -- no terror attacks since 9/11 under President Bush, but one terror attack, Fort Hood, under President Obama," provided that only "Islamic terror attacks" are counted.
From the January 8 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: All right. As you know, the blogosphere is going crazy with that, the comment, we had no domestic attacks under Bush.
All right, you remember at least one, don't you?GIULIANI: No, here -- here's what I usually say when I said that -- and I did not put that -- those words in. I said -- I usually say we had no domestic attacks, no major domestic attack under President Bush since September 11th. And the reason I say it is, on September 11th and the days after September 11th, I received many briefings, many warnings, as the mayor of New York, that we were going to be attacked again, that we were going to be attacked frequently.
And I think many people are surprised, even those people who hate President Bush -- I think many people were surprised that we didn't have those major attacks and that at least some of the things that President Bush was warning was helping in making certain that we didn't have any kind of major terrorist attack.
I did omit the words "since September 11th." I apologize for that. I should have put it in. I do remember September 11th. In fact, Wolf, I remember it every single day and usually frequently during the day.[...]
BLITZER: So at -- at this point, given what you're -- what you're saying in terms of terror attacks since 9/11, there have been no -- no terror attacks since 9/11 under President Bush, but one terror attack, Fort Hood, under President Obama...
GIULIANI: Islamic...
BLITZER: ...President Obama. Islamic terror attacks...
GIULIANI: Islamic terror attacks.BLITZER: Is that what you're saying, zero to one, in effect?
GIULIANI: Correct. And the o -- the only reason I point that out is that the -- the president himself has finally now come to the conclusion that he can say war on terror. I wish he would also describe it as Islamic terrorism so that we clearly define our enemy. And I wish he would follow through on our being at war with -- with Islamic terrorism.
Giuliani doesn't count anthrax attacks, but State Department listed attacks among "Significant Terrorist Incidents"
Giuliani: "There's no -- no proof" that anthrax attacks were "terrorist attack." From the January 8 edition of The Situation Room:
BLITZER: There -- there was at least one terror attack on U.S. Soil that happened after 9/11. I'm referring to the anthrax attacks in New York and in elsewhere. What that a terror attack, do you believe?
GIULIANI: Well, as far as I know, the FBI has never been able to figure out who did it and has never designated it as a terror attack. I mean, I lived through that. I -- there was...
BLITZER: But whoever was trying to do it was trying to terrorize a lot of people.
GIULIANI: Yes, but that was not done in the name -- as far as we know, that was not done in the name of Islamic terrorism any more than, you know, serial killers who...
BLITZER: Right. It could have been a domestic terror attack, too, and we don't know, as you correctly point out, who was responsible...
GIULIANI: That's right. So you're -- so...
BLITZER: ...for that anthrax attack.
GIULIANI: ...so you can't -- you can't describe something as a terrorist attack if it hasn't been investigated and there's no -- no proof. And the best thinking on the part of the FBI is that it wasn't involved with Islamic terrorism.
But, again, that's pretty -- we're on pretty shaky grounds there because they've never been able to solve that.
Ashcroft said of anthrax mailings: "[I]t's a terrorist act." 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.
FBI: Anthrax attacks were "worst act of bioterrorism in U.S. history." On August 6, 2008, the FBI held a press conference about its investigation into the anthrax attacks, which U.S. Attorney Jeff Taylor characterized as "the worst act of bioterrorism in U.S. history."
Other domestic attacks took place under Bush
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. Muhammad's accomplice, Lee Malvo, reportedly testified that Muhammad had plans to "set up a camp to train children how to terrorize cities."
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."
Other conservatives have downplayed 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 that "the two cases of domestic terrorism since 9/11" were "both on Obama's watch."
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."
Granted Wolf having the Facts in "ADVANCE" should have been a little more Prepared.
Poor Rudy Giuliani, "What Anthrax? i didn't see any Anthrax, Did you see any Anthrax"
"A Terrorist Attack? There were no Muslims involved, It's still under investigation, We don't have all the Facts"
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Exactly what he deserves.
Additionally, I don't believe either the Ft. hood shooter or the Beltway Sniper should really count as terrorist attacks, because spreading terror for a philosophical purpose didn't seem to be the goal in either case.
I'm going to take issue with the narrow definition of "terrorist attack" viz your exclusion of attacks based upon the philosophical impetus. I think anyone who employs the application of indiscriminate violence to further their aims is a terrorist. The phrase "Shock and Awe" comes to mind....
No one has yet come up with a definition of terrorism with which everyone agrees. I doubt if we will here. That said, I'm choosing to remain with one that has the perpetrators attempting to spread terror in an effort to further some broader goal or ideology.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin
Terrorists only aim is to disrupt lives. In the case of terrorism directed at the U.S. and its citizens, they hate us and all that they perceive us to stand for. They are frustrated, angry people who feel they have been systematically wronged and mistreated by the U.S. government while U.S. citizens have enjoyed a lifestyle they may well covet but one that conflicts with many of their beliefs. We are, to them, consummately evil. The acts of terrorism, therefore, do not seek to "further" any goal or ideology, the simply seek to instill terror in our citizens so we cannot continue to enjoy our way of life.
Terror is the goal, pure and simple. By perpetrating random acts of violence they hope to cause us to no longer be able to live the way we do or to enjoy life in our society because we are too terrified to go on with our normal lives not knowing what is going to happen next.
And guess what, they are being successful.
Look at the divisive and combative politicizing of the issue, they have us at each other's throats.
Look at the fact that we are already walking shoeless into the secured areas of airports, not able to kiss our loved ones goodbye just before boarding a plane. We think nothing about submitting to searches that 25 years ago would have been unthinkable. Now we are facing increased levels of security where we will have to do what? Remove our underwear? Submit to electronic strip searches?
Consider the fact that we no longer enjoy the freedoms that in the 50's and 60's were held up as the great differences between us and sad folks in Communist countries. Traveling freely around our country, not having to register with the government, having almost unlimited freedom as long as we did no harm to our fellow citizens. Those were all held up to us as children as defining differences between the good life in America and the sad life behind the Iron Curtain. Now those simple freedoms are all gone. We are all carrying picture IDs and catering to the changing dictates of the Department of Homeland Security and other government Agencies while they play an unwinnable game of trying to out-think mad-men and prevent the next thing the terrorists come up with to terrorize us. We all deal with these added security measures daily, measures which are reactions to terrorism in the (futile) name of "making us safe".
Screw them. The only way to defeat terrorism is to not let them terrorize us. Not let them erode the foundations of our way of life and our freedoms. Not let them make us all so scared that political discussion or even political dissent becomes the destructive and divisive thing that it has become today.
I'm not saying we need to drop all security and allow them to waltz around and do what they want, but this futile game of trying to anticipate the next threat and arguing about who did what and who allowed what to happen on whose watch while our personal freedoms disappear one by one in the name of National Security is simply playing directly into their hands.
According to CNN, Richard Reid attempted to blow up the bomb 90 minutes into the flight from Paris to Miami - it was later diverted to Boston after he was subdued. That means he was over the Atlantic Ocean when the attempt to blow up the plane happened. That makes it NOT domestic.
The guy on Christmas allegedly waited specifically until the plane was over US airspace to try to explode his bomb.
That makes it a domestic terrorist attack.
It seems like a distinction that doesn't need to be made - I don't think that just terrorism on our soil should count - all of our allies are being subjected to this terrorism arising from Al Qaeda, so I think it's a bogus distinction.
But that's why MMFA isn't including the shoe bomber, I believe, because it happened over the Atlantic Ocean and not in American airspace.
But the space within a plane doesn't become US territory. Any criminal conduct within that plane may be subject to US jurisdiction (or whatever nation the jet will land in), but until the plane's in US airspace, it's not domestic terrorism. It's the location of the incident when it happens that makes it domestic or not.
Where were the Pan-Am Flight 103 bombers tried? In Scotland, because the plane was over Scotland when it fell from the sky. It was flying from London to the USA, but the terrorists were tried in Scotland, and we here in the USA don't count THAT as domestic terrorism, right?
I agree...Reid and Umar are just alike. Reminds me of the BB King lyrics, "is you is or is you ain't my baby"...a real simple question that doesn't require a lot of gobbledegook to understand.
I also agree with your broader explanation about defining terrorist attacks. Attempts to "spread terror" go on every day...by lots of people for a variety of reasons.
As a society we've faced those issues for centuries. It makes no real sense to lump people like the unibomber, McVey, and the DC sniper into the same category as al-Qaeda...except as a distraction.
The loosely defined and used phrase, "the war on terror" is about fighting extremist Muslims who have "publicly" declared war against our country...not against deranged individuals.
For me, the difference is whether the violence was based on personal issues (Ft. Hood shooter and Beltway Sniper) or if societal or political change is the goal. I'll grant that in some cases it can be a bit murky as to what the actual motivating factor is, but that would be the case for any definition.
Not to mention the rightwing glee over it.
That glee was simply disgusting. These so-called christians who pray for the death of our president and even preach it, who take glee over the murder of a dr. doing a service for and saving the lives of countless women, the racist and sexist culture of the right, ect.,
this is another in the long line of attempts
Just like the contention that Bush came into office straddled with debt and terror to clean up after Clinton (funny how a surplus is suddenly turned into debt).
SUV attacks at UNC: The guy may have been born in Iran but he was naturalized in the US at the age of two. So I suppose now any murder or bank robbery or anything like that would be considered a terrorist attack?
The DC shootings: Some investigators reportedly said they had all but eliminated terrorist ties or political ideologies as a motive. They only claimed "jihad" at the end of the pre-trials. It's reasonable to say that they pulled the jihad excuse out of their rears. His original motive was to kill his wife and make it look like collateral damage from his rampage. Some "terrorist" attack.
LA Airport attack: Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn added: "It appears this was an isolated incident." A Bush administration source concurred with that statement, adding that nothing suggested it was anything other than a criminal act.
MMA once again destroys their credibility. I only come here anymore to laugh at these desperate liberals. The best part is: People actually believe what they report.
3/19/2002 - Tuscon, AZ - A 60-year-old man is gunned down by Muslim snipers on a golf course.
5/27/2002 - Denton, TX - Muslim snipers kill a man as he works in his yard.
7/4/2002 - Los Angeles, CA - Muslim man pulls out a gun at the counter of an Israeli airline and kills two people.
9/5/2002 - Clinton, MD - A 55-year-old pizzaria owner is shot six times in the back by Muslims at close range.
9/21/2002 - Montgomery, AL - Muslim snipers shoot two women, killing one.
9/23/2002 - Baton Rouge, LA - A Korean mother is shot in the back by Muslim snipers.
10/2/2002 - Wheaton, MD - Muslim snipers gun down a program analyst in a store parking lot.
10/3/2002 - Montgomery County, MD - Muslim snipers kill three men and two women in separate attacks over a 15-hour period.
10/9/2002 - Manassas, VA - A man is killed by Muslim snipers while pumping gas two days after a 13-year-old is wounded by the same team.
10/11/2002 - Fredericksburg, VA - Another man is killed by Muslim snipers while pumping gas.
10/14/2002 - Arlington, VA - A woman is killed by Muslim snipers in a Home Depot parking lot.
10/22/2002 - Aspen Hill, MD - A bus driver is killed by Muslim snipers.
8/6/2003 - Houston, TX - After undergoing a religious revival, a Saudi college student slashes the throat of a Jewish student with a 4" butterfly knife, nearly decapitating the young man.
4/13/2004 - Raleigh, NC - A Muslim man runs down five strangers with a car.
6/16/2006 - Baltimore, MD - A 62-year-old Jewish moviegoer is shot to death by a Muslim gunman in an unprovoked terror attack.
6/25/2006 - Denver, CO - Saying that it was 'Allah's choice', a Muslim shoots four of his co-workers and a police officer.
7/28/2006 - Seattle, WA - An 'angry' Muslim-American uses a young girl as hostage to enter a local Jewish center, where he shoots six women, one of whom dies.
2/13/2007 - Salt Lake City, UT - A Muslim immigrant goes on a shooting rampage at a mall, targeting people buying Valentine's Day cards at a gift shop and killing five.
How did Rudi miss all of these "acts of Islamic terrorism on US soil"? Hmmm?
All the families who lost a love one on 9/11 should be outrage. This proved former NY mayor Giuliani isn't the man he was porotrayed by the media after the attacks on the world trade towers.
If Giuliani was sincere and true to his "legacy" on 9/11 he would NEVER trivialize, forget or politicize the event.
Republicans has shown over and over again that there is no depth to low to smear, attack, undermine, criticize and demean this President.
Giuliani is an idiot!!! unworthy to represent anything other then Tea-baggers.