Giuliani falsely claims Obama never said "war" in State of the Union
In a Fox & Friends appearance, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani falsely claimed that President Obama "didn't mention the word 'war' " in his State of the Union address. In fact, Obama made at least seven mentions of the word "war," including calling for the U.S. military to "have the resources they need in war," adding that "we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home."
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 falsely claims Obama "didn't mention the word war last night"
From the January 28 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
GIULIANI: The reality is he spent something like a page and a half -- on what with a 14-, 15-page speech -- on national security, as if it's an afterthought. It was a footnote to the speech. It was in the -- when the speech was running over an hour and people were starting to yawn, part of the speech. National security is a lot more important than that. Part of the problem this president has had is he hasn't made national security important enough. He began with not wanting to call it a war, didn't mention the word "war" last night, didn't mention the word "Islamic terrorism" last night. This would be like Franklin Roosevelt giving a State of the Union speech during the Second World War and not mentioning Nazism and not mentioning the war.
BRIAN KILMEADE (Fox & Friends co-host): Right. Even when it comes to the budget, too, that should have been factored in.
Obama mentioned "war" at least seven times
Obama: Military "must have the resources they need in war." Obama repeatedly mentioned the word "war" in his State of the Union address. For example, Obama stated: "Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around the world -- they have to know that we -- that they have our respect, our gratitude, our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home." [Obama's State of the Union address, 01/27/10]
Obama mentioned war when citing budget deficit. Contrary to Kilmeade's claim that "even when it comes to the budget, too, [war] should have been factored in," Obama stated: "At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget." [Obama's State of the Union address, 01/27/10]
Media previously claimed Obama "finally noticed" we are "at war" with terrorists
"War" word fixation is not new. Following Obama's January 7 remarks on the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight -- remarks during which Obama stated, "We are at war. We are at war with al Qaeda" -- numerous conservative media figures falsely suggested that prior to that speech, Obama had not characterized the fight against terrorists as a war. In fact, in his inaugural address, Obama stated that "[o]ur nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred," and he has repeatedly discussed terrorism as the rationale for U.S. military action abroad.
A Noun, a Verb & i don't know?
If you want to talk National Security talk to Giuliani's former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, if you can stand that awful Jail Smell.
Foghornleghorn: Ghouliani as in Ghoul a Grave Robber? Sweet.
Mr. News
MMA will be busy for a loooong time.
As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.) We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.
It's Giuliani's belief that national security has to be the overarching focus of Obama.
Too bad that Bush didn't belief that national security had to be his overarching focus between January 20th and September 11th. Obama has clearly made national security a much larger part of his administration than Bush did. And even after 9/11, Bush messed up so many times.... Obama's had many more drone Estimates say that Obama's cooperative efforts in one year have killed about 8000 terrorists - Bush killed about 4000.
Now Sue, hold out your left hand, take your right hand and give those knuckles two swift quick slaps. One for going off topic, and one for hypocrisy.
I directly addressed what Giuliani did. I then addressed the hypocrisy of Giuliani and most Republicans who praised Bush's behavior. I then gave examples of how Bush failed and Obama has been succeeding, since Giuliani's point was to denigrate Obama's efforts.
But what YOU love to do is to let your personal animus show through when you reply to me.
There's a significant difference between addressing the topic DIRECTLY and then relating it to something else that's directly relevant in that same post and making a troll post that has nothing to do with the article that MMFA posted, with the intent to derail a thread.
But you know this. And because you try to derail threads any way you can, you made THIS post, trying to derail the thread.
Please don't feed this troll any more.
Giuliani has *never* been a moderate guy. He's always been a hustler, in it for himself and nobody else. Back when he was the mayor, he ran the city as if he was a mob boss, and it made him deeply unpopular. He was just "lucky" enough to have a disaster happen while he was there, and was able to carefully modulate his image while the nation's TV cameras were on him.
New Yorkers have always known the truth about him. And the truth is this: the selfish hyper-partisan we see today is the only Giuliani that has ever existed.
BTW, I know you weren't trying to create an excuse for Giuliani - your description of the 'troglodytes' was the tip-off.
Spending to much time using viagra, and wondering why that blue pill doesn't help him
The proper response is "this sick freak thinks that you measure the quality of a speech by counting the incidences of the word 'war?' Whyis this clueless moron in my newspaper?"
The Right pulls this stunt all the time.
1. Accuse Democrats of not joining in Idiotic Republican Behavior X.
2. Watch and laugh as spineless, clueless Dems uncritically accept your frame, and insist that they are in fact strongly in favor of Idiotic Republican Behavior X.
3. Profit!
As long as FOX is going to allow people like Rudy to present nonsense "analysis" of this speech, why stop at "not using the word War"?
I am sure they could find someone to blast the President for not using a lot of words ("rhinoceros", "artichoke", "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious").
Perhaps Glenn Beck is up to this task, as long as he has room on his little blackboard.
Randy
They can't win having a fair debate on the issues. The only way they can win is by poisoning our national discourse with lies, distortions, and omissions of relevant information to form a toxic stew that no one can muddle their way through.
That's why they do it.
They also do it because they want to stoke the fear factor - that was a winning strategy for them in a couple of elections. War scares people, ya know.
(hehe I am using the deaths of thousands to make me rich hehehe)