"Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win"

[Prada]

http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle....07%2F3684.html

MANCHESTER, N.H. —- Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.

But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

“If any Republican is elected president —- and I think obviously I would be the best at this —- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said.

The former New York City mayor, currently leading in all national polls for the Republican nomination for president, said Tuesday night that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.

“But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?” Giuliani said. “If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer.”

“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”

He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”

After his speech to the Rockingham County Lincoln Day Dinner, I asked him about his statements and Giuliani said flatly: “America will safer with a Republican president.”

Giuliani, whose past positions on abortion, gun control and gay rights have made him anathema to some in his party, believes his tough stance on national defense and his post-Sept. 11 reputation as a fighter of terrorism will be his trump card with doubting Republicans.

“This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!” Giuliani said in his speech. “Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”

Giuliani said terrorists “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.”

Giuliani continued: “The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.” He said Americans would fight for “freedom for women, the freedom of elections, freedom of religion and the freedom of our economy.”

Addressing the terrorists directly, Giuliani said: “We are not giving that up, and you are not going to take it from us!”

The crowd thundered its approval.

Giuliani also said that America had been naive about terrorism in the past and had missed obvious signals.

“They were at war with us before we realized it, going back to ’90s with all the Americans killed by the PLO and Hezbollah and Hamas,” he said. “They came here and killed us in 1993 [with the first attack on New York’s World Trade Center, in which six people died], and we didn’t get it. We didn’t get it that this was a war. Then Sept. 11, 2001, happened, and we got it.”

[RamyGras]

I never understood what made Rudi Giuiliani a leader in our fight against terror. He was the mayor of New York City during September 11, 2001. Then, he went on a tour of the city, sympathizing with the victims. Don't get me wrong, it was admirable, but absolutely any mayor would've done the same thing. However, we link his face as a hero during that time. Otherwise, he is not more qualified than any other political figure to fight this war.

And, I must disagree with him on the fact that 9/11 had nothing to do with Israel/Palestine. I've stated this before, and I'll state it again. The root of 9/11 goes all the way back to the start of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And, he must recognize this in some part, because he goes out of his way to comment that it doesn't. He then brings up how we've been fighting this war ever since Americans have been killed by the PLO, Hezbollah, and Hamas. He's telling the truth, again, don't get me wrong. But, what do these three groups have in common?

The idea that a September 11th type massacre will happen again if a Democrat is elected president is a ridiculous comment to make, and is only the latest example of Republicans instilling fear into the American people's hearts and minds to achieve a goal. They are utilizing a stereotype that Democrats are scared little sissies who want to make peace with terrorists and halt all measures to stop terrorism. I'm not necessarily against Republicans, although this administration has really tainted my view on the party, however I just don't understand what is so appealing about this guy.

His big upsides is that New York City's economy improved while he was mayor of the city and the way he handled 9/11. Again, his handling of 9/11 was good. However, I still think that other political figures would have rose to the occasion in the same fashion as Giuiliani, no problem. And the improved economy? Well, didn't the entire nation see a major improvement in the economy in the 1990's? He's not the reason for the economic boom. Wall Street is. And some point out the reduced crime while he was in office. Well, the entire nation has seen crime reduce in the past twenty years. Almost all major cities had a decline in their crime rate from 1980-2000.

I just don't understand what makes this man qualified to be president. And, I don't understand why he's getting the majority of Republican support, when Republicans have a VERY qualified candidate in John McCain.

[Obs]

A-men. I agree 100%. I think that this election we are screwed 4 candidates. I don't know who I'm gonna vote 4.

[singern]

Rudy became a leading figure in the war on terror because he was in the right place at the right time. The people look up to him because he gave strength and leadership when it seemed we had none.
As to the obvious fear tactics used in politics, we see it everyday and this is nothing new. Democrats use it to exaggerate disastrous Global warming scenarios, making religion virtually all but illegal, or even simply pursuing fuzzy math in economic/employment statistics.
This is in fact no different then the "mudslinging" candidates use against each other, only this is directed at issues instead of candidates.
Don’t get me wrong, that doesn’t excuse the use of this tactic just to gain votes. Im just saying its nothing out of the ordinary, "business as usual".

[biglouie250]

i love rudy and all but should i should point out that he was mayor during the 93 WTC bombing and during 9/11. he is 0-2 in in that regard. he should trump his crime fighting card, not his terrorist fighting card.

[Lexed]

if your part of it dosnt mean you know how to handle it

[RA]

If I was a terrorist, I would be rooting for the Democrats to win.

[BgMc31]

If I was a terrorist, I would be rooting for the Democrats to win.

Thats a ridiculous statement!!! We are in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. The majority of the cats we are battling aren't Al Quaida, we are fighting militia and insurgents. This statement by Guiliani is him doing what all republicans do, playing the politics of fear.

[RA]

Thats a ridiculous statement!!! We are in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. The majority of the cats we are battling aren't Al Quaida, we are fighting militia and insurgents. This statement by Guiliani is him doing what all republicans do, playing the politics of fear.

Its not ridiculous at all. Who would you want in office. Someone who is going to fight terror or the one thats going to run like a coward. Im surprised theres not a website called "Terrorists for Democrats. org"

[BgMc31]

Its not ridiculous at all. Who would you want in office. Someone who is going to fight terror or the one thats going to run like a coward. Im surprised theres not a website called "Terrorists for Democrats. org"

Stop trying to equate the war in Iraq with the war on Terror. Iraq has never been a terror state and what/who we are fighting in Iraq aren't terrorists. That cut and run rhetoric is bullshit to justify an unjustifiable war. A military victory in Iraq is not possible. The longer we are there the more the insurgents and militia are incensensed and putting our troops in further danger. The only solution in Iraq in political and diplomatic. We are fighting a country where 70% of the population believes that its ok to attack American forces. They view us as occupiers. Are you telling me that these 70% are all terrorists and if we leave Iraq all these Iraqi's will venture to the US to continue their war? That's assinine.

[RA]

Political and diplomatic. Yeah that works..lol. Tell that to Israel. Its always the same with Democrats, they dont have any real plan, they just rag on Republicans. Its sad.

Stop trying to equate the war in Iraq with the war on Terror. Iraq has never been a terror state and what/who we are fighting in Iraq aren't terrorists. That cut and run rhetoric is bullshit to justify an unjustifiable war. A military victory in Iraq is not possible. The longer we are there the more the insurgents and militia are incensensed and putting our troops in further danger. The only solution in Iraq in political and diplomatic. We are fighting a country where 70% of the population believes that its ok to attack American forces. They view us as occupiers. Are you telling me that these 70% are all terrorists and if we leave Iraq all these Iraqi's will venture to the US to continue their war? That's assinine.

[BgMc31]

Political and diplomatic. Yeah that works..lol. Tell that to Israel. Its always the same with Democrats, they dont have any real plan, they just rag on Republicans. Its sad.

Your response makes no sense. Provide proof that the war in Iraq is the war on terrorism. It's the republicans who constantly rag on Dems, calling them cowards and defeatists, all the while attempting to scare people into believing that Iraq is the forefront on the war on terrorism. The solution in Iraq is attempting to incorporate all the ethnic and sectarian groups, equally, into the political process and sharing of the oil revenues.

What is the point of us staying, militarily? Who do we need to kill? This supposed 'War on Terror' is simply political propaganda. All the terrorists that wish to do us harm aren't in Iraq. As a matter of fact, Al-Quaida has very little prescense in Iraq. Terrorists aren't all in one country. Us being in Iraq actually makes it more difficult for us to fight this war on terror. It limits our forces availability to respond elsewhere in the world.

[singern]

What is the point of us staying, militarily? Who do we need to kill? This supposed 'War on Terror' is simply political propaganda. All the terrorists that wish to do us harm aren't in Iraq. As a matter of fact, Al-Quaida has very little prescense in Iraq. Terrorists aren't all in one country. Us being in Iraq actually makes it more difficult for us to fight this war on terror. It limits our forces availability to respond elsewhere in the world.

Your post has valid points among some that are not so,
I am curious what do you think will happen in Iraq if we pick up and run. I will respond in kind after I hear your views.

[RA]

What dont you understand? You said we could use diplomacy and I called Thats NOT a plan. Its just the opposite of Republicans, period.

I think we've had this convo before. You pullout and Iran is running it in six months and you think Iranians are not Terrorists?

Time for Dems to put down the bong and look at the big picture instead of just attacking Republicans for political gain.

Your response makes no sense. Provide proof that the war in Iraq is the war on terrorism. It's the republicans who constantly rag on Dems, calling them cowards and defeatists, all the while attempting to scare people into believing that Iraq is the forefront on the war on terrorism. The solution in Iraq is attempting to incorporate all the ethnic and sectarian groups, equally, into the political process and sharing of the oil revenues.

What is the point of us staying, militarily? Who do we need to kill? This supposed 'War on Terror' is simply political propaganda. All the terrorists that wish to do us harm aren't in Iraq. As a matter of fact, Al-Quaida has very little prescense in Iraq. Terrorists aren't all in one country. Us being in Iraq actually makes it more difficult for us to fight this war on terror. It limits our forces availability to respond elsewhere in the world.

[Snrf]

I think its a pretty cheap tactic though...vote for us or the terrorists will get you! booga booga! ya know?

And I don't like liberals btw

[BgMc31]

What dont you understand? You said we could use diplomacy and I called Thats NOT a plan. Its just the opposite of Republicans, period.

I think we've had this convo before. You pullout and Iran is running it in six months and you think Iranians are not Terrorists?

Time for Dems to put down the bong and look at the big picture instead of just attacking Republicans for political gain.

I don't think Iranians are terrorists. I think Ahmedinajad (sp?) and the muslim clerics who run Iran are off their rockers, but I don't consider them terrorists. Al-Quaida is a terrorists organization, Hamas and others are admitted terrorists organizations. Iran is in the same boat as North Korea. Are you saying North Koreans are terrorists too?

You argument that if we pull out of Iraq Iran would be running it has not basis in proof. Similar to the argument that Iraq is a terrorists state with weapons of mass destruction. The international community would not let Iran invade Iraq. Won't happen no matter how much republicans want us to believe that.

[singern]

I don't think Iranians are terrorists. I think Ahmedinajad (sp?) and the muslim clerics who run Iran are off their rockers, but I don't consider them terrorists. Al-Quaida is a terrorists organization, Hamas and others are admitted terrorists organizations. Iran is in the same boat as North Korea. Are you saying North Koreans are terrorists too?
.

But Iran and Syria are proud and outspoken supporters of international as well as local terror organizations. They refuse to stop arming and training of Hezbola, they refuse to stop financing, arming Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.
Now Iran has been caught red handed arming and training insurgent terrorists in Iraq.

And all this aside from the Nuke intention to erase Israel Ahmenajad has made clear.

[BgMc31]

Your post has valid points among some that are not so,
I am curious what do you think will happen in Iraq if we pick up and run. I will respond in kind after I hear your views.

Iraq will continue to plundge further into civil war whether we stay or not. That is because there is no military solution. Unless we get these parties to the same table, it doesn't matter if stay or go. Iraq has never been stable, going back 5 thousand years ago. It has never been a country of one people but rather a cross roads of Kurds, Arabs, and Turks. And now not to mention the secular divides.

Here's the issue I have. The war in Iraq isn't the war on terrorism. Plain and simple. It's been proven over and over again. The Republicans will only admit now that mistakes were made, but won't mention what the mistakes were. Their only reasoning for us to be there now is... "Well we are there now...". That's a load of crap. So it is unfair to say that a vote for presevation of our troops is a vote for the terrorists. Logic would dictate that the longer we are there, the more troops we commit, will only lead to more US casualties. Why should we stay? The majorities of Iraqi's don't want us there and neither does the majority of the US public. So why stay? The surge isn't working, it also defies logic. Secure Baghdad? Not only has that not work (granted the total forces of the surge aren't in place yet), but past war experience would tell us that if we concentrate our forces in one area, insurgents will simply move to other parts of Iraq and take over there. And that is exactly what they are doing.

Staying proves what? If we secure Baghdad (and that's a big if), do we move those forces to the outlying areas and risk leaving Baghdad vulnerable again? Again, I have no problem with a contingent force staying to help train Iraqi forces (as most dems have maintained), but this is not our war. When we toppled Saddam we opened pandoras box in Iraq.

I just want the bullshit rhetoric to stop!! And that rhetoric is always that Iraq is front lines on the war on terror (not true) and also a vote for troop withdrawls is a vote for the terrorists (again not true).

[BgMc31]

But Iran and Syria are proud and outspoken supporters of international as well as local terror organizations. They refuse to stop arming and training of Hezbola, they refuse to stop financing, arming Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.
Now Iran has been caught red handed arming and training insurgent terrorists in Iraq.

Two different fighters, insurgents and terrorists. Also this isn't about Isreal and Iran and Syria support of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad is in conjunction with the long standing issues Islam has with Isreal. That is a seperate issue, IMO. I agree Iran would want nothing more than further instability in Iraq. But that doesn't mean Iraq is the forefront on the war on terror.

[singern]

Two different fighters, insurgents and terrorists. Also this isn't about Isreal and Iran and Syria support of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad is in conjunction with the long standing issues Islam has with Isreal. That is a seperate issue, IMO. I agree Iran would want nothing more than further instability in Iraq. But that doesn't mean .

I have to disagree on this particular point regarding Iran, when the target is civilians it is terror, when the explosives are aimed at civilian locations it is terror, and when that country supports, finances, and arms terrorists......Well you get the point.
Absolutely without a doubt Iran has replaced Afghanistan as the worlds number 1 supporter of terrorism.

But Is Iraq at the forefront on the war on terror, no, but it definitely will be if/when we leave. Who do you think will fill the void, who do you believe will become the major player when we pack up and run?

[BgMc31]

I have to disagree on this particular point regarding Iran, when the target is civilians it is terror, when the explosives are aimed at civilian locations it is terror, and when that country supports, finances, and arms terrorists......Well you get the point.
Absolutely without a doubt Iran has replaced Afghanistan as the worlds number 1 supporter of terrorism.

But Is Iraq at the forefront on the war on terror, no, but it definitely will be if/when we leave. Who do you think will fill the void, who do you believe will become the major player when we pack up and run?

We are going to have to agree to disagree. Because what you state of Iran, could be said for the us (the US), Isreal, Russia, etc.

I don't believe Iraq will ever be the forefront of Terrorism, there are just too many factions involved. Who will become the major player? To be honest, I don't know, but I do know that because of the many divides in Iraq, I don't think it will become the haven the republicans claim it to be.

[singern]

We are going to have to agree to disagree. .

Fair enough....

[RamyGras]

Its not ridiculous at all. Who would you want in office. Someone who is going to fight terror or the one thats going to run like a coward. Im surprised theres not a website called "Terrorists for Democrats. org"

Somebody has been "Clockwork Oranged"!!!!

[singern]

I dont think the idea that "terrorists prefer Democrats" is so far fetched. Recent history (the last 20 years) shows us that Republicans took action, while Democrats merely turned the other cheek.

[RamyGras]

Political and diplomatic. Yeah that works..lol. Tell that to Israel. Its always the same with Democrats, they dont have any real plan, they just rag on Republicans. Its sad.

I don't know if the Republicans had much of a plan either. However, they will forever use the stereotype that "at least we act". Well, I wouldn't brag about horrible decision making. The Republican plan (and I take this from what Donald Rumsfeld said, himself) was that we were supposed to be done fighting within six months, TOPS! It's been over four years, and we are getting NOWHERE! I don't care if it is the Republicans in power, try something new. It took our president four years to admit things are not going well.

And, blaming the Democrats for not having a plan to get out of a war that was justified by the idea that WMD were there, when they weren't, isn't the point. Diplomacy. If that is what the Democrats are smoking out of their bongs, I'd like to try a hit. Just to see if it's for me.

[RamyGras]

I dont think the idea that "terrorists prefer Democrats" is so far fetched. Recent history (the last 20 years) shows us that Republicans took action, while Democrats merely turned the other cheek.

September 11th was different in that it gave terrorists a reason to believe that they could get things done at a much larger magnitude. I would imagine most terrorists would have loved to be in on those planes and have their names live on in history. So, in that respect, something HAD to be done. I truly believe, and there is no way to prove this, that Democrats would've acted had Gore been elected and allowed to serve as president. However, during the Clinton administration, there was no 9/11 type of attack, of that magnitude

President Reagan didn't really respond to the Beirut barracks bombings that killed over 200 Americans. He was afraid that it would cause friction with our Arab allies. Reagan's presidency is looked back in a very positive light, and diplomacy was his strength.

And, I don't know what terroist act you are referring to during President Bush Sr.'s days in office. However, his defense of Kuwait wasn't a fight against terrorism. He was helping an invaded country.

[singern]

And, I don't know what terroist act you are referring to during President Bush Sr.'s days in office. However, his defense of Kuwait wasn't a fight against terrorism. He was helping an invaded country.

President Ronald Reagan coined the "war on terrorism" after he ordered the strike on Libya on April 14. Eighteen F-111F strike aircraft of the 48th Tactical Fighter Wing, and four EF-111A Ravens of the 20th Tactical Fighter Wing, , in conjunction with twenty-seven A-6, A-7, and F/A-18 attack aircraft from the aircraft carriers USS America, USS Coral Sea and USS Saratoga on station in the Gulf of Sidra struck five strategic targets in the stated objective that their destruction would send a message and reduce Libya's ability to support and train terrorists.

Bush sr. with his actions in Panama, and Kuwait speaks volumes , and although not terror related has my respect.

President Bill Clinton - Got a blow Job, Got Impeached, Got Disbarment, Got Administrative controversy, And finished off with Sexual Assault and Rape allegations.

President Carter - cut the defense budget by $6 Billion,
1979 he announced the existence of the Rapid ***loyment Forces (RDF), a mobile fighting force capable of responding to worldwide trouble spots, but was never used.
And the big prise winner is: Carter started a $40 billion covert program of training Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan and Afghanistan as a part of the efforts to foil the Soviets' " Carter made BinLaden"


So although you can take this with a grain of salt, I stand by my position that Republicans take decisive action while Democrats....not so much.

[Logan13]

I don't think Iranians are terrorists. I think Ahmedinajad (sp?) and the muslim clerics who run Iran are off their rockers, but I don't consider them terrorists. Al-Quaida is a terrorists organization, Hamas and others are admitted terrorists organizations. Iran is in the same boat as North Korea. Are you saying North Koreans are terrorists too?

You argument that if we pull out of Iraq Iran would be running it has not basis in proof. Similar to the argument that Iraq is a terrorists state with weapons of mass destruction. The international community would not let Iran invade Iraq. Won't happen no matter how much republicans want us to believe that.

Iran funds the insurgency (terrorists), Hezbollah(terrorists), Hamas (terrorists), and recently they have been in discussions with the Taliban(terrorists). These facts alone make them terrorists. North Korea is not funding such groups. As for the international community, come on, they are not going to do shit. Darfur - nothing, 17 sanction against Iraq - nothing, Iran trying to get nukes -nothing, North Korea - still nothing, I haven't heard from any country in the EU about this at all.

[RamyGras]

Iran funds the insurgency (terrorists), Hezbollah(terrorists), Hamas (terrorists), and recently they have been in discussions with the Taliban(terrorists). These facts alone make them terrorists. North Korea is not funding such groups. As for the international community, come on, they are not going to do shit. Darfur - nothing, 17 sanction against Iraq - nothing, Iran trying to get nukes -nothing, North Korea - still nothing, I haven't heard from any country in the EU about this at all.

I like coming to this board, because I learn a few things. However, sometimes I still like to have a media source. Do you mind giving me something on the Taliban/Iran connection? I know, I'm lazy.

[Logan13]

Here's the issue I have. The war in Iraq isn't the war on terrorism. Plain and simple. It's been proven over and over again. I just want the bullshit rhetoric to stop!! And that rhetoric is always that Iraq is front lines on the war on terror (not true) and also a vote for troop withdrawls is a vote for the terrorists (again not true).

Really?
Taliban:Bin Laden overseeing Iraq, Afghanistan ops
04/25/07
DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden is orchestrating militants' operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a senior commander of Afghan Islamist group Taliban said in remarks broadcast on Wednesday.

Bin Laden has not made any video statements for many months raising speculation that he might have died.

"He is drawing plans in Iraq and Afghanistan ... Praise God he is alive," Mullah Dadullah told Al Jazeera television.

In September, a French newspaper quoted French foreign intelligence service as saying the Saudi intelligence were convinced bin Laden had died of typhoid in Pakistan in August.

Dadullah said bin Laden ordered the attack on February 27 at the U.S. Bagram base during a visit by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney to Afghanistan.

"Do you remember the martyrdom operation inside the Bagram base which targeted a senior American official ... this operation was the result of blessed plans put by him," Dadullah said. Jazeera said the U.S. official Dadullah was referring to was Cheney.

"He (bin Laden) guided us through it," he said, adding that no Afghan would have been able to penetrate the base if it was not for the world's most wanted militant.

About 14 people were killed, including one American and one South Korean soldier in the suicide bombing which militants said targeted Cheney. A U.S. official then said Cheney was about half a mile away on the base and was not in danger.

The Taliban were toppled in 2001 by a U.S.-led coalition for refusing to hand over leaders of al Qaeda after the group's September 11 attacks on U.S. cities.

Dadullah did not give further details about the role bin Laden was playing in operations in the two countries where the United States ***loys troops.

[RamyGras]

Yeah, I'm sure terrorists are flocking there now to fight. However, when we went to Iraq to begin with, there wasn't an Al-Qaeda threat. We went for other reasons. We went b/c Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And, soon we will find them.

Anyway, an article on the Dem response to Giuliani's comments:

Dems rebuke Giuliani over attack comment By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidates on Wednesday rebuked Republican rival Rudy Giuliani for suggesting that the United States could face another major terrorist attack if a Democrat is elected in 2008. The former New York mayor did not back down.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) said Giuliani, who was in office on Sept. 11, 2001, should not be making the terrorist threat into "the punchline of another political attack."

"Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics," Obama said in a statement.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said Giuliani knows better than to suggest there is a "superior Republican way to fight terrorism." Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said protecting the country from terrorism "shouldn't be a political football."

"It should be a solemn responsibility that all of us pledge to fulfill regardless of what party we're in," she said when asked about her fellow New Yorker's comment at a Capitol Hill news conference.

Giuliani stood by his comments Wednesday, saying Democrats don't understand the threat posed by terrorists.

"They do not seem to get the fact that there are people, terrorists in this world, really dangerous people that want to come here and kill us," Giuliani said on "The Sean Hannity Show," according to a transcript distributed by his campaign. "They want to take us back to not being as alert which to me will just extend this war much, much longer."

He was defending his remark Tuesday in New Hampshire, where he echoed sentiments expressed by other Republicans in election time. The former mayor said if a Democrat is elected, "it sounds to me like we're going on defense. We're going to wave the white flag there."

But, he said, if a Republican wins, "we will remain on offense" trying to anticipate what the terrorists are going to do and "trying to stop them before they do it."

GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney told reporters in Salem, N.H., Wednesday night that he agrees with Giuliani. "There's no question in my mind that Republican values ... keep America safer," Romney said.

In 2004, President Bush was re-elected after claiming that Democratic Sen. John Kerry would waver in the face of terrorist threats. Vice President Dick Cheney suggested a vote for Kerry would risk another terrorist attack.

In the 2006 election, Bush political strategist Karl Rove accused Democrats of clinging to a pre-Sept. 11 mind-set — but Democrats came out on top in the majority of midterm races.

"America's mayor should know that when it comes to 9-11 and fighting terrorists, America is united," Obama said. "We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure."

Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee making a second run for the White House, said it's wrong to suggest Republicans are better at fighting terror.

"The current Republican administration led us into a war in Iraq that has made us less safe and undermined the fight against al-Qaida," Edwards said in a statement. "If that's the Republican way to fight terror, Giuliani should know that the American people are looking for a better plan."

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a Democratic presidential candidate, said Republican candidates are continuing "the smear tactics and fearmongering of the current administration."

"Americans want real solutions to the many problems our nation faces, not divisive and false rhetoric," Dodd said in a statement. "We need a president who has the experience and ability to unite America, move us forward and make us safer together, and that means leading with hope, not fear."

The Democratic National Committee accused Giuliani of failing to prepare for the World Trade Center attacks, among other criticisms of his record.

"So far Rudy's rhetoric sounds like more of the same failed policies, incompetence and arrogance we've had to suffer for the past six years," said DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney.

Another Republican presidential candidate, Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), wouldn't say whether he agreed with Giuliani's suggestion. "I can't judge whether somebody else would cause an attack on America," McCain told reporters aboard his campaign bus in New Hampshire.

New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who succeeded Giuliani and also is a potential presidential candidate, said he doesn't see terrorism as a partisan issue.

"There are some people I think who would do a better job fighting terrorism than others, but I don't think there's any party affiliations, no partisanship in that," Bloomberg said.

___

[Logan13]

I like coming to this board, because I learn a few things. However, sometimes I still like to have a media source. Do you mind giving me something on the Taliban/Iran connection? I know, I'm lazy.

Iranian Weapons Intended for Taliban Intercepted in Afghanistan
04/17/07
AP
WASHINGTON — U.S. forces recently intercepted Iranian-made weapons intended for Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, the Pentagon's top general said Tuesday, suggesting wider Iranian war involvement in the region.

It appeared to be the first publicly disclosed instance of Iranian arms entering Afghanistan, although it was not immediately clear whether the weapons came directly from Iran or were shipped through a third party.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that unlike in Iraq, where U.S. officials say they are certain that arms are being supplied to insurgents by Iran's secretive Quds Force, the Iranian link in Afghanistan is murky.

"It is not as clear in Afghanistan which Iranian entity is responsible, but we have intercepted weapons in Afghanistan headed for the Taliban that were made in Iran," Pace told a group of reporters over breakfast.

He said the weapons, including mortars and C-4 plastic explosives, were intercepted in Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan within the past month. He did not describe the quantity of intercepted materials or say whether it was the first time American forces had found Iranian-made arms in that country.
Asked about Pace's remarks, a Pentagon spokesman, Army Col. Gary Keck, said he had not heard of previous instances of Iranian weaponry being found in Afghanistan but he was not certain this was the first time.

Iran has had an uneven relationship with Afghanistan over the years. During the wars of the past quarter-century — the 1979-89 Soviet occupation, the subsequent civil war, Taliban rule starting in 1996 and the 2001 U.S.-led invasion — millions of Afghans, particularly from the western provinces, took refuge in Iran.

In recent years Iran has contributed to numerous economic improvements in western Afghanistan, including roadways, schools and several clinics. But Michael Rubin, an Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute, sees reason for concern about Iran's efforts to increase its influence inside Afghanistan.

"Iran's leadership often strikes pragmatic relationships to further their influence at our expense," he said Tuesday. "A lot of testimonials about Iranian assistance in Afghanistan are based more on wishful thinking than reality."

In a statement issued in response to Pace's comments, the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran, a coalition of Iranian opposition groups, said Iran's Quds Force has been active in Afghanistan for several years.

Mohammad Mohaddessin, chairman of the Iranian group's foreign affairs committee, said: "Export of fundamentalism and terrorism to neighboring and Islamic countries has been one of the pillars of the clerical regime's foreign policy — something that the Iranian resistance has warned about for the past two decades."

The United States has about 25,000 troops in Afghanistan, mostly in the eastern area. The main focus of U.S. and Afghan government concern about arms and training for the Taliban is the largely ungoverned tribal area of Pakistan along the Afghan border, where the Taliban have found sanctuary.

With regard to Iranian activities in Iraq, Pace said it is clear that Quds Force members are involved in the network that supplies materials to make roadside bombs, which are a leading killer of U.S. troops in Iraq.

"We know that there are munitions that were made in Iran that are in Iraq and in Afghanistan," he said, adding that it also is clear that the Quds Force reports to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, which reports directly to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"We surmise from that one of two things: Either the leadership of the country knows what their armed forces are doing, or they don't know. In either case, that's a problem," Pace said.

He was asked what the U.S. government intended to do about Iranian military aid to forces opposing U.S. troops.

"We will continue to be very aggressive inside of Iran — I'm sorry, excuse me, inside of Iraq — and inside of Afghanistan against any elements that are posing a threat to our own forces," he replied, adding that military action against Iran was not the first choice.

"There is a lot more diplomacy, not only between the United States and Iran but between all the nations of the world and Iran, that can still be brought to bear to change Iran's attitude," he said.

"Military force is your last tool, not your first tool," he said. "There are still many international tools available to address Iranian interference."

[Dude-Man]

If I was a terrorist, I would be rooting for the Democrats to win.

If i were a terrorist, i would be rooting for the republicans to win. They give terrorists a reason to exist, a cause to fight.

[Logan13]

I like coming to this board, because I learn a few things. However, sometimes I still like to have a media source. Do you mind giving me something on the Taliban/Iran connection? I know, I'm lazy.

US warns of growing Iranian support for Taliban
04/17/07
dpa German Press Agency
http://rawstory.com/news/dpa/US_warn..._04182007.html

Brussels- A leading US official on Wednesday warned of
"unhealthy" Iranian involvement in Afghanistan, saying Tehran was
meddling in the country's political affairs and providing weapons to
a resurgent Taliban.
Richard Boucher, US Assistant Secretary of State for Central and
South Asian Affairs, also said Washington was not aiming to "wipe
out" the Taliban but wanted to stop the insurgents from disrupting
the political development of Afghanistan.

Boucher, who met EU officials in Brussels, said Iran was a
"developing issue of concern."

His comments come only a day after Pentagon's top general Peter
Pace said coalition forces in Afghanistan had intercepted
Iranian-made mortars and explosives destined for the Taliban.

"We don't know exactly who is doing this and why, but we know that
these have been Iranian origin weapons that have shown up in the
hands of the Taliban," Boucher said.

"We have been seeing a series of indicators that Iran is getting
more involved in an unhealthy way in Afghanistan," the US official
warned.

Boucher insisted that the "military defeat of the Taliban was not
the "key task." The focus was on building Afghan democracy and
strengthening the outreach of the government.

"This is where terrorism originally came from," said Boucher
referring to Al-Qaeda's use of Afghan territory. He said a
democratic Afghanistan would therefore play a vital role in
stabilizing the region.

"There is an historic opportunity to change the dynamic in this
region and create an area of stability between Asia and the Middle
East," he said.

[biglouie250]

umm the taliban now has regained control of a lot of afghanistan. they are the terrorists not the 30,000 iraqi civilians that have died. we have created new generations of arabs that hate us. there will be no shortage of terrorists in the future. the bush admin has done NOTHING to stop terrorism. the ***t of homeland defense is an absolute joke. Yea, retards making 10 bucks an hour defending our country lovely. the govt doesnt have the resources or know how to do anything because anyone with any semblance of intelligence goes into private industry where you can make a ton of money.

[RA]

I don't think Iranians are terrorists. I think Ahmedinajad (sp?) and the muslim clerics who run Iran are off their rockers, but I don't consider them terrorists. Al-Quaida is a terrorists organization, Hamas and others are admitted terrorists organizations. Iran is in the same boat as North Korea. Are you saying North Koreans are terrorists too?

You argument that if we pull out of Iraq Iran would be running it has not basis in proof. Similar to the argument that Iraq is a terrorists state with weapons of mass destruction. The international community would not let Iran invade Iraq. Won't happen no matter how much republicans want us to believe that.

Again, ask Israel if they think the Iranians are not terrorists....

The international community???? You mean the U.N.? What are they good for? Writing a strongly worded letter. Which doesnt mean a pile of spit.

[RA]

If i were a terrorist, i would be rooting for the republicans to win. They give terrorists a reason to exist, a cause to fight.

So there were no terrorists when Clinton was president.

[Prada]

umm the taliban now has regained control of a lot of afghanistan. they are the terrorists not the 30,000 iraqi civilians that have died. we have created new generations of arabs that hate us. there will be no shortage of terrorists in the future. the bush admin has done NOTHING to stop terrorism. the ***t of homeland defense is an absolute joke. Yea, retards making 10 bucks an hour defending our country lovely. the govt doesnt have the resources or know how to do anything because anyone with any semblance of intelligence goes into private industry where you can make a ton of money.

Yes, I would have to agree with what is said. That is the unfortunate truth.

I think many are using the word terrorist in the wrong context. It seems that we have been pounded with that word so heavily that if you label anything "terrorist" any action is justified. Which is wrong. Occupying a country under false pretense is what? If one it to occupy our country and we are to fight back, that makes us terrorists? Their is an acute need to distinguish "freedom fighter" fighting occupation from "terrorist" who is an alqaeeda operative whose intent was to inflict and instill terror in the minds of US citizens.

[biglouie250]

Yes, I would have to agree with what is said. That is the unfortunate truth.

I think many are using the word terrorist in the wrong context. It seems that we have been pounded with that word so heavily that if you label anything "terrorist" any action is justified. Which is wrong. Occupying a country under false pretense is what? If one it to occupy our country and we are to fight back, that makes us terrorists? Their is an acute need to distinguish "freedom fighter" fighting occupation from "terrorist" who is an alqaeeda operative whose intent was to inflict and instill terror in the minds of US citizens.

Edited. Check your PMs.

[RamyGras]

Edited. Check your PMs.

I know you meant no harm by these comments, with the exception of the blatant disregard of these people, which you admit to. However it's key terms like this that make Arabs and, in this case, Asians feel like 2nd class citizens. I'm going to assume you are a caucasian male. However, these comments draw a line and it's comments like these that cause dissention between our own citizens.

A big reason that there haven't been any attacks on the U.S. since 9/11 has to do with Arabs foiling these plans. For the most part, it's Arabs that find out what's happening and report these people to the authorities. I'm sure you would care less about their feelings, and I'm sure you think you do have a good idea. But, I'm also sure you're not Asian and you're not Arab.