Wanted: GOP demagogues; 4 month temp. position, pays well

So this is the kind of rabid, revolting talk that Americans are going to be subjected to for the next 4 1/2 months - fear mongering at its worst about a would-be Obama administration. What a surprise.

Here are a few despicable examples of the many that have been broadcast over the airwaves in recent weeks. Listen to the video clip above as conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt leaves no demagogic stone unturned when talking about an Obama victory in regard to the USC/Ohio State game on Sept. 13. (Too bad the game isn't on Sept. 11 - that would have been too perfect.) An excerpt:

And none of the USC people will give up their tickets to me. I'd pay fair price. They — they know Ohio State's gonna slaughter the Trojans. They know that they're gonna slaughter the Trojans, and therefore they do not want me there at the bloodbath, since it's probably the last football game we'll ever get to see before the United States gets blown up by the Islamists under Obama. I — I would like to see Ohio State slaughter USC. This is what I'm living for right now.

And they said that Jerry Falwell is dead.

But wait, there's more.

John Gibson of Faux News fame recently entertained former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton on his radio show. Wild comedy ensued when the two began fear mongering discussing a possible (probable) Obama Presidency. Take a listen to this claptrap...

GIBSON: The Obama team is going back to some of the old complaints about the war and the war on terror... that the left has been articulating for a long time now, and not really coming up with anything new.

BOLTON: Yeah I think honestly that's an optimistic view of it, that it will simply be a replay of the Clinton administration. It will simply have more embassy bombings, more bombings of our warships like the Cole, more World Trade Center attacks. That would be the best outcome from that perspective.

Does Bolton have any credibility at all? Did he ever as our ambassador to the UN? Many who look at his record would probably strongly conclude that he has none. My favorite Bolton bon mot - speaking about the UN in 1994, he is purported to have said, "There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States. [...] The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

Quite naturally, Bush nominated him to be our UN ambassador. And Bush wonders why he couldn't get Bolton confirmed in the Senate. In fact, Bush had to use a recess appointment to get him to the UN in the first place. That one ranks right up there with appointing Michael Brown as head of FEMA, a man who had as much experience at handling natural disasters as I do.

Someone needs to give Bolton a little history lesson...

• The September 11 attacks happened on Bush's watch

• The 1993 WTC attack happened a mere 36 days after President Clinton took office

• The attack on the USS Cole happened on Oct. 12, 2000, and the FBI's final report was issued on Jan. 19, 2001. Just imagine those headlines from the right-wingnuts in the media had Clinton responded in the waning hours of his presidency: Bill Clinton retaliates for Cole attack to deflect attention from presidential pardons!!! would have screamed Faux News, etc.

• The embassy bombings? Yes, they happened on President Clinton's watch, and when the U.S. military retaliated on Aug. 20, 1998, Repubes in Congress, who were busy impeaching him for a blow job, cried that he was trying to deflect attention away from the Lewinsky witch hunt scandal.

I'm not absolving President Clinton of all blame for the terrorism that rocked U.S. locations around the world in his second term (and the first WTC attack early in his first), but to blame him for these attacks is absurd, and in the case of 9-11, utterly laughable.

The myth that Clinton did nothing to combat terrorism in the 1990s has been thoroughly debunked, so I'm not going to waste a whole lot of time on it here. All I'll add is that it's been refuted by people who were there, such as Richard Clarke and George Tenet.

My point is that trying to blame Clinton for every bad terrorist attack is absurd, but we've seen these plays called by Republicans before, most recently before the 2006 election. Let's hope they keep trotting out this cliché time and again before November. I don't think a majority of voters could possibly be naïve enough to believe it.

Rudy's broken record: Dems still on defense on terrorism

If this Giuliani tripe in the video above sounds familiar, it's because it is - it's from the play book that Bush used in 2004 against John Kerry.

Seriously, why is this man still opening up his mouth? What's more, I'd like to know how enduring 9-11 makes Rudy any sort of an expert on terrorism. His decisions prior to 9-11 were a disaster for New York City, from deciding to put the city's emergency response center at the World Trade Center (after the 1993 WTC bombing) to not addressing the the radio problems of the NYPD and FDNY, which certainly cost both departments lives on the morning of 9-11. He likes to rail on Obama's lack of foreign policy experience, but what experience did he have? Being a mayor of NYC doesn't qualify one to run the country any more (and I'd say maybe even less) than a U.S. Senator. No wonder voters overwhelmingly rejected him.

Pretty funny to hear Rudy talk about what we should have done to the people responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Or, should I say, try to talk about it. The men responsible for the '93 attack, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima, Ahmad Ajaj and Mohammed Jamal Khalifa were brought to justice. In 1994, Salameh, Ayyad, Abouhalima and Ajaj were all sentenced to life in prison. Mohammed Jamal Khalifa was deported in 1995 and was acquitted in Jordan of all charges.

Just another quick point - isn't our base in Guantanamo Bay considered U.S. territory? Just a thought I had after listening to Giuliani talk about extending rights to people abroad.

Anyway, I digress, but I'd like to know which country Giuliani thinks we should have invaded because of the '93 bombing? What's more, Rudy didn't open his mouth in the 1990s while he was mayor of NYC about the piss-poor job he thought our government was doing, did he? Funny how the Clinton administration wasn't doing a poor job of combating terrorism until he decided to run for the U.S. Senate in 2000 and for president earlier this year.

It's also pretty funny to hear a former U.S. Attorney having contempt for the law enforcement approach to combating terrorism.

And the USS Cole bombing that Giuliani and Republicans like to endlessly cite as an example of Democrats' weakness? It happened on October 12, 2000, and the Navy released its report on January 19, 2001, hours before George W. Bush assumed the presidency. Exactly what was President Clinton supposed to do, hours before he left office?

I guess Giuliani thinks that most Americans are stupid and don't read about this stuff.

Giuliani's mentioning what Hillary said about Obama (multiple times) also falls flat, but get used to that - it's what Republicans are going to try and use against Obama in the general election this fall. I don't think it's going to work. Why mention what Hillary said, Rudy? You can't come up with any criticisms of your own? It's a pathetic attempt to try and be clever, to use a Democrat's words against another Democrat. No wonder this guy didn't win one state during the primaries. Oh well, back to profiting from 9-11, Mr. Mayor.

Please, McCain, pick 9iu1iani - it would be a dream.

FDNY stokes Rudy ire fire

This is a pretty damning video by the national firefighters union, the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), about Rudy Giuliani and his "leadership" before, during and after 9-11. It's too early to tell whether it will have any political ramifications, but if anything, it must be pretty embarrassing to a man who could turn a Girl Scout cookie sale into a lesson about 9-11.

"The urban legend of America's Mayor need to be balanced by truth," a line uttered pretty early on in this video, is perhaps the best single sentence I've heard yet about Giuliani, who really has profited monetarily from 9-11 more than the any other individual, by far. (Of course, the award for who has profited politically the most from 9-11 is the most obvious of all - President Bush.)

It's pretty amazing that I hear Giuliani on television now never missing an opportunity to slam Democrats, particularly the Clinton administration, for the 1990s and how poorly prepared we were for 9-11. I've been writing for months that Giuliani's preparation in NYC for an attack following the 1993 WTC attack deserves closer scrutiny. I'm glad the firefighters union is stepping up efforts to inform an American public that has been snowed over by the mayor's slick, expensive PR effort to paint him as an American hero.

I find two allegations by the IAFF particularly disturbing: the pathetic radios that the Giuliani administration authorized the purchase and use of by FDNY without testing, and Giuliani's brilliant decision to locate his crisis command center at World Trade, despite the 1993 attack.

The radio controversy is particular damning - it's not like the city didn't have years to fix the problem -- 8 1/2 years elapsed between the World Trade Center attacks. And why a no-bid contract for the radios? Someone got paid, that's for sure. Why would I not be surprised if that someone is the mayor himself? It's not a stretch to say (and several firefighters do in the video above) that the pathetically inadequate radios the firefighters were equipped with cost dozens and dozens of firefighters their lives on 9-11.

Locating the command center at the World Trade Center is so utterly idiotic of a decision that it almost defies description. Just imagine if Japan was discovered to have sabotaged the U.S. Navy's base at Pearl Harbor in 1939, and Roosevelt insisted that the entire Atlantic fleet should still be located at Pearl? Then, boom - December 7, 1941. That's pretty much what Giuliani did in New York City - he decided to locate his crisis command center at the one place in NYC with the biggest bulls eye - the World Trade Center. I suppose he deserves credit for not putting the command center at the top of the Empire State Building, or on the 101st floor of the North Tower.

With stupid, ill-advised decisions like these, perhaps Giuliani could be described as a bald George W. Bush. Yea, just what we need - four (or, GASP! EIGHT!) more years of decision making like we've had to endure since 1.20.01.

Some will inevitably ask: "What does all of this have to do with Giuliani running for president?" Plenty. If the mayor of America's largest city makes idiotic decisions like this, what would he do as president?

Another potential Repube counter-attack will predictably go something like this:

Democrats complained about the supposed Swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004, but now they are gleefully cheering the IAFF slamming Rudy Giuliani in this election season. What about this hypocrisy, Ann Coulter?

Wow, that was pretty good - I wonder if Karl Rove is hiring? Seriously though, how hard is it to envision Sean Insanity or Bill O'Lielly blabbering the above lines on their respective shows, and the sheeple who listen to them sopping it up on a plate with a biscuit?

This is not similar to Kerry's '04 Swiftboating, which was a despicable attack funded by far right financiers. This is the firefighters union, which Giuliani has pimped himself as being a champion of, slamming him for his decisions during 9-11 and for his lack of adequate preparation in the wake of the 1993 attacks.

The fallout from this will be the most interesting of all. Hopefully the 2008 Democratic candidates for president are storing this Giuliani stuff away; if the mayor receives the GOP nomination, fire away.

I still maintain my belief that Giuliani will not even receive the nomination, however. For once, I'm cheer leading the far fright right - he's moderate on a number of things that make him completely unacceptable to hardcore conservatives.

Bravo.

Rudy's oversimplifications & distortions are a tour de force following GOP debate

I've been meaning to get to this one, and before it's too after-the-fact, I have to mention it. After watching the Republican debate on Tuesday night, I left CNN on to listen to some of the post-debate interviews.

I was paying attention half-heartedly until Rudy Giuliani came on with Larry King. He immediately started dropping some whoppers. Here's an excerpt of his interview with King:

GIULIANI: If we have confusion about who is in the United States [referring to the immigration bill], then these situations like we've had in New Jersey, like the situation we had in Fort Dix with the attacks that take place - we're after September 11 now. And if this bill is going to be worth all the compromising that's necessary, it has to achieve a complete database of the people who are in this country.

KING: I think of all the candidates, you were the one attacking the Democrats the most, mentioning by name the debate of two nights ago.

Are you running already?

GIULIANI: Well, you know, I'm running against the...

KING: Have you got the nomination?

GIULIANI: I'm not running against the people on that stage. I mean we have some...

KING: Well, you are.

GIULIANI: Well, I'm not really. I have some disagreements with them, but largely, I hear things that I agree with. I mean, a lot of the things Senator McCain said, I agree with. Mitt Romney, at least three or four times, said, "I agree with Mayor Giuliani."

I probably disagreed with him most of the time.

My disagreements with are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and John Edwards. John Edwards saying that the war on terror was just a bumper sticker, and not even amending that after this plot in New York was uncovered to attack Kennedy Airport.

It's not a bumper sticker. It is a real war. And whatever you think about Iraq, it's bigger than Iraq.

These people want to come here and kill us...

Unbelievable - it was predictable as the day is long that as soon as Edwards said that the War on Terror is simply a bumper-sticker slogan, his statement would be distorted and maligned by hawkish Republicans (with a nod to Ron Paul).

Here is what John Edwards said during the June 3 Democratic Debate:

I reject this bumper sticker, Wolf. And that's exactly what it is. It's a bumper sticker.

As president of the United States, I will do absolutely everything to find terrorists where they are, to stop them before they can do harm to us, before they can do harm to America or to its allies.

Every tool available - military alliances, intelligence - I will use.

But what this global war on terror bumper sticker - political slogan, that's all it is, all it's ever been - was intended to do was for George Bush to use it to justify everything he does: the ongoing War in Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture.

None of those things are OK. They are not the United States of America.

But, people like Rudy Giuliani and Bill O'Reilly have done nothing but distort and take out of context what Edwards said. And Rudy was right on message on Tuesday night. I should point out that Giuliani has appeared on Billy's show on numerous occasions, so people who want to paint BOR as someone out of the Republican mainstream need a reality check. (More on O'Reilly's Edwards distortions in a later post. Back to the Giuliani/King interview:

GIULIANI: I think the Democrats want to put us in reverse to the 1990s. All I heard on that stage two nights ago was to go back to the 1990s. The 1990s - when our taxes were 24, 25 percent higher. [No Rudy, when YOUR taxes were 24-25 percent higher, and any other millionaire - PECAD] The 1990s - when we weren't recognizing the Islamic threat against us, when they attacked the USS Cole and we didn't retaliate. We didn't do anything about it.

They attacked us in 1993. We had a criminal justice response, not a response commensurate with a terrorist threat.

KING: But we only have a minute left.

You will agree Iraq is the gorilla in the room, though?

GIULIANI: Iraq is...

KING: You can't escape Iraq.

GIULIANI: Iraq is very, very important. But how you deal with it is going to say a lot about how we deal with this terrorist threat. And to give the enemy a timetable of our retreat - when in the history of war has any army ever been required to do that? And that's why I think the Democrats are in denial.

So, if Giuliani is elected president, we can expect more of the same in Iraq? I'm wondering how the American public feels about that. Recent polls show that more than 2/3 of America disagrees with his position.

I also got a kick out of Rudy saying he's not running against the people on the stage with him, his fellow GOP presidential hopefuls. That's pretty arrogant. Polls right now show him in the lead, but I've also read that his lead is shrinking. Right now, he IS running against other GOP candidates, whether he likes it or not. Of course, every GOP candidate has to state what how his views differ from Democrats as well as fellow GOP candidates, but Giuliani seems to be simply dismissing the other candidates. That's no surprise - the arrogant candidate acting arrogant.

What outraged me most about his King interview was his vast, Reagan-like oversimplification of terrorism.

First of all, history shows that it was the BUSH administration that did not retaliate for the USS Cole bombing, not the Clinton administration. I've done some reading on this - Giuliani acts like we immediately knew who attacked the Cole and that we had airtight proof. That's simply not true.

From the 9-11 Commission:

Evidence of al-Qaeda's involvement was inconclusive for months after the attack. The staff of the 9-11 Commission found that al-Qaeda's direction of the bombing was under investigation but "increasingly clear" on November 11, 2000. It was an "unproven assumption" in late November. By December 21 the CIA had made a "preliminary judgment" that "al-Qaeda appeared to have supported the attack," with no "definitive conclusion."

Giuliani's also way out of bounds for deriding the Clinton administration for its "criminal justice response, not a response commensurate with a terrorist threat."

That's flat-out b.s. First of all, we caught who was responsible for the 1993 attacks. Following the '93 World Trade Center attack, ATF bomb technicians found the axle in the bomb crater with the VIN of the Ryder truck that carried the explosives. The ATF discovered the vehicle had been rented by a Palestinian named Mohammad Salameh.

On March 4, 1993 authorities announced the capture of Salameh. In March 1994, Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima and Ahmad Ajaj were each convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the World Trade Center bombing.

In a sweep the same day, Salameh's arrest led to the apartment of Abdul Rahman Yasin in Jersey City, New Jersey, which Yasin was sharing with his mother, in the same building as Ramzi Yousef's apartment. Yasin was taken to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) headquarters in Newark, New Jersey, and was then released. (Great, but that's Clinton's fault? Try the FBI.) The next day, he flew back to Iraq, via Amman, Jordan. Yasin was later indicted for the attack, and in 2001 he was placed on the initial list of the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, on which he remains a fugitive today. He disappeared prior to 2003's U.S. coalition invasion in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The capture of Salameh and Yasin led authorities to Ramzi Yousef's apartment, where they found bomb-making materials and a business card from Mohammed Jamal Khalifa. Khalifa was arrested in relation to the crime on December 14, 1994, and was deported to Jordan by the INS on May 5, 1995. He was acquitted by a Jordanian court and lives as a free man in Saudi Arabia. Yea, the same Saudi Arabia that has such a cozy relationship with the Bush administration. The same Saudi Arabia that is responsible for 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers. The same Bush administration that Rudy has functioned as a PR flak for since 9-11.

The 1990s also shows that the Clinton administration also prevented a number of intended attacks in the United States. Funny how those foiled plots never got very much press though. That's a 180 compared to today, when an FBI agent finding a scrap of paper on the street is heralded as "foiling a major terrorist plot." Anyone who needs great examples of that - the recent Fort Dix and JFK "terrorist plots."

Of course, since 9-11 is Rudy's "franchise" and because he's from New York, he's going to milk those two instances for all they are worth. Never mind the fact that he was mayor of New York City for almost all of the 1990s (and mayor during the entire time between the WTC terrorist attacks). I've read lots about how his arrogance and lack of preparation of the city made the immediate aftermath of 9-11 worse, not better. (I'm reading some books about this soon, and I'll blog more at length about it.)

Giuliani is beyond contempt - a man who has profited and made millions of of 9-11. Whoops - another inconvenient truth about American's Mayor that receives next to no press from our liberal media.

Olbermann's Special Comment on Rudy

I just found video of Keith Olbermann taking Giuliani's head off in response to the mayor's comments yesterday. (I've written at length about those comments in the post immediately below this one, so I won't repeat myself here.) Major kudos to Crooks and Liars for getting this footage up so quickly tonight. C&L is always on top of things, and along with HuffPo, is my favorite liberal site on the Internet.

I can't say it enough - I'm grateful for voices like Olbermann's. There are far too few of them in the media, but progressives and liberals are slowly but surely gaining precious ground.

As for Olbermann's Special Comment above, I really can't add anything to what he says in any sage way, but I found one particular passage interesting, and it's the first time I'm hearing it in this very young presidential campaign:

This is not the mere politicizing of Iraq, nor the vague mumbled epithets about Democratic "softness" from a delusional vice president.

This is casualties on a partisan basis — of the naked assertion that Mr. Giuliani's party knows all and will save those who have voted for it — and to hell with everybody else.

And that he, with no foreign policy experience whatsoever, is somehow the messiah-of-the-moment.

[...]

Which party held the presidency on Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party held the mayoralty of New York on that date, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party assured New Yorkers that the air was safe and the remains of the dead recovered and not being used to fill potholes, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party wanted what the terrorists wanted — the postponement of elections — and to whose personal advantage would that have redounded, Mr. Giuliani?

Which mayor of New York was elected eight months after the first attack on the World Trade Center, yet did not emphasize counter-terror in the same city for the next eight years, Mr. Giuliani? [Emphasis Mine]

It still amazes me, after almost six years, that President Bush, and now, Rudy Giuliani get NO heat for 9-11 happening on their watch. I freely admit there's plenty of blame to go around, Democrats included, but what about Rudy's planning (or lack thereof) in the wake of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing?

And for those of you who think that link of inquiry is unfair, scroll down and read what Giuliani said yesterday (or watch the video above, again). If he's going to cavort around the country, arrogantly claiming that he can keep the country safer than any other presidential candidate, his record as mayor of New York is going to come under a whole lot closer scrutiny, and rightfully so.

In the end, I think Giuliani will have desperately overplayed his hand, if he hasn't already.

Rudy's in. McCain's twin?

Add another hat to the '08 race - Rudy's in. "America's Mayor" has officially thrown his hat into the wide-open 2008 presidential race. This announcement really didn't come as much of a surprise to many, and certainly not to me.

In many ways, Rudolph William Louis Giuliani III's candidacy will be good for the political discourse over the next 18 or so months. At first glance, Rudy brings a buffet of good things to the table to launch a presidential campaign.

For starters, I love his roots - he made his bones as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Cigar Aficionado did a piece on Rudy following 9-11, and the piece sums up his legal résumé in part much more eloquently and succinctly than I can:

Giuliani's convictions read like a lawyer's dream come true. He successfully prosecuted and won 100-year sentences against the heads of the major Mafia crime families in New York, including "Fat Tony" Salerno, of the Genovese family, "Tony Ducks" Corallo, of the Lucchese family, and Carmine "The Snake" Persico, of the Colombo organization; the Bonnano family boss, Rusty Rastelli, was indicted but actually sentenced for another crime and Paul Castellano, of the Gambino family, was assassinated before the sentencing hearing. Giuliani also helped break up the Pizza Connection, a $1 billion heroin drug smuggling ring. The investigation led to the arrests of more than a dozen people around the country. He prosecuted very-high profile corruption charges against top politicians in New York. He sent Stanley Friedman, a former deputy mayor and head of the Bronx Democratic Party, to prison for 12 years for acting as a middleman in a bribery scheme. And, he convicted Mario Biaggi, a U.S. congressman from the Bronx, on bribery charges.

He also had other victories, too; most notably launching the investigation that eventually put Michael Milkin in the slammer and winning a conviction against Wall Street financier Ivan Boesky.

Pretty impressive.

His two terms as mayor are a study in contrasts. Putting 9-11 aside for a moment, he had many other victories - most notably cleaning up the sex and sleaze in Times Square and dramatically lowering crime in the city. For instance, according to the Cigar Aficionado piece, felony crimes declined 57 percent during his term as mayor, and the murder rate during the same period declined by 68 percent. Some say he doesn't deserve all of the credit for those statistics, but they occurred while he was mayor, so he deserves at least part of but not all of the credit.

But, as with all candidates, he's not without his warts, either.

He has a Bill Clinton-like reputation for adultery. (And, as a Clinton supporter, I don't mean to soft-shoe either man's indescretions - both are inexcusable.) My favorite example of Rudy in deep doody is when he called a press conference to announce his intentions to separate from his second wife, Donna Hanover, before Hanover knew of his plans. This all happened because the press in New York broke the story that Rudy was having an affair with Judith Giuliani neé Nathan (now his third wife). That's classy. Hey, at least Democrats didn't try to impeach him for the offense.

Other controversies during his mayoral reign include: his 1999 attempt to censor the Brooklyn Museum if the museum did not remove a number of works in an exhibit entitled "Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection." (a battle his administration later lost in court); his defense of the NYPD over a number of brutal assaults and scandals during his administration (and in every case, he always rushed to the defense of the NYPD, critics be damned); his attempt end-run around New York City's charter limiting its mayor to two terms, by trying to stay beyond his mayoral term in the wake of 9-11, a proposal sharply rejected by the mayoral candidates, most notably future Mayor Michael Bloomberg; his handling of the air quality issue at Ground Zero and surrounding areas following 9-11; and New York City's lack of preparedness prior to 9-11.

That last criticism I'd like to take a moment to elaborate on. By writing that I believe Rudy has to shoulder some of the blame for NYC's lack of preparedness for 9-11, I don't mean that the city under his leadership could have prevented 9-11. What I am saying is that the city, specifically the World Trade Center, was attacked in 1993. It's amazing to me that eight years later, the city still had basic communication difficulties during the chaotic moments following the towers' being attacked, and the aftermath of the collapse.

For instance, why in the world did Giuliani maintain the city's Office of Emergency Management headquarters (believed by many to be a terrorist target) inside the World Trade Center? Many accounts have the Giuliani Administration more interested in fighting turf wars than taking much-needed steps to protect the city.

I certainly give Giuliani much deserved credit for his handling of 9-11 in the hours, days and weeks following the attacks. It's not a stretch to say that she displayed a lot more courage and derring-do than President Bush did in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. But, and this is probably politically incorrect to write (and I couldn't possibly care less), but didn't Rudy do what any mayor would do who had even mediocre leadership skills? Rudy did what any good and decent American would do as mayor in that position - he rallied the city, attended the funerals, and went to the extra mile to reassure, revive and restore America's largest city. For that he deserves credit, but I dunno about all of the praise that's unquestionably heaped on him. He also mishandled a lot of things in the aftermath of the attacks, but that's gets short shrift in the media. To be fair, any mayor would have made mistakes in that mayhem, but he's constantly being portrayed as the mayor on the white horse following 9-11. Puh-lease.

Anyway, it's a question I know that won't get asked in the mainstream media, which is already sharpening its skills at routinely giving Rudy a tongue bath.

Besides 9-11, one of the most recent Rudy-love fests the press have given Rudy since 9-11 was at the 2004 Republican National Convention, where he gave a well-publicized speech. In it, he let fly a few whoppers about his reaction immediately following the attacks. Take a read:

At the time, we believed that we would be attacked many more times that day and in the days that followed. Without really thinking, based on just emotion, spontaneous, I grabbed the arm of then Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, and I said to him, "Bernie, thank God George Bush is our president."

I say it again tonight. I say it again tonight: Thank God that George Bush is our president, and thank God...

And thank God that Dick Cheney, a man with his experience and his knowledge and his strength and his background is our vice president.

Al Franken, on the floor of Madison Square Garden during Giuliani's speech, grabbed the arm of an acquaintence and said, "He just made that up." Spot on as usual, Al. Funny how there was no mention of Giuliani's having said that in his bestselling book, Leadership, according to Franken. I freely admit I haven't read the book, but I'll take Franken's word on it, since he has read the book.

And honestly, does anyone really believe that Giuliani's first thought after two jumbo jets slammed into the World Trade Center towers was "Bernie, thank God George Bush is our president"?!? What a steaming, smelly load. Of course, we'll never have any way in knowing, because only Giuliani, Kerik and God know of Rudy made up the quote for the GOP sychophants at the convention, and the first two aren't talking.

Anyway, so far, what I know about his political views says to me that he's a study of contrasts. He's for abortion and stem cell research, but against civil unions and a hard line on immigration. He's also pro gun control.

These stances, when viewed as a whole, would paint him as a moderate Republican, and one I'd faintly consider voting for if the Democratic Nominee were to be a disaster (with the field of strong candidates, I rate the chances of that happening at next to zero).

However, therein lies the drawback - Rudy the moderate can't possibly hope to get the nomination from a religiously hijacked Republican Party. As politically astute as he is, surely he realizes this.

As of late, some cracks are starting to appear in the foundation of Rudy the Moderate.

Above, Giuliani appears on college drop-out Sean Insanity's show, kissing up to the Fox State TV crowd. Note to Rudy: This is NOT the way to court the moderates you are going to need if you hope not only to secure your party's nomination, but also the presidency.

Predictably, Rudy's historical stance on abortion is also changing. Recently on Insanity's show, he was quoted as saying, "I hate [abortion] ... However, I believe in a woman's right to choose." Regarding Roe v. Wade, "That's up to the court to decide," he said.

Rudy will be a formidable candidate, no doubt, but, like every other candidate in the field, he has some obstacles to overcome.

Hopefully, he won't veer far to the right to try and win his party's nomination. I fear that any candidate with any hopes of capturing the GOP nomination will have to do just that. I just hope he doesn't sell out to do it, thereby becoming John McCain's twin.

Clinton tops Bush in poll

"The man below is this much more popular than I am!"

A recent CNN poll finds that former President Bill Clinton still hasn't lost his mojo; his popularity endures. Like that's a difficult thing to do, considering this administration would screw up a two-car funeral. The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. You can get the whole story Here.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm not at all surprised by this poll. I'd have given my left arm for Clinton to have been able to run against Bush - he would have mopped the floor with Dubya's snide little smirk. The bumbling W would have been for no match for Clinton the master politician. Anyway, I laugh at what many Republicans will probably say that this is a "liberal network [CNN]" poll. Not so fast. Fox News recently reported that Bush's approval rating is hovering around 33%, and that was a few weeks ago, and it's even lower now. A few days ago, I heard 29% on TV, but I don't remember where I heard it.

Anyway, a few thoughts:

Clinton got a 2-to-1 margin in handling the economy: 63% to Bush's 26%. In foreign affairs, Clinton enjoyed a 56% to 32% edge; and in the handling of natural disasters, Clinton had a 51% to 30% advantage. (I question that last one - where the hell was that 30% during Hurricane Katrina? but I digress.)

I wish there would have been a question about terrorism. Clinton did more to combat terrorism than probably any other president, and I'm including Dubya here. I've been doing lots of political reading about terrorism lately, and my favorite misnomer about Clinton was that he "didn't do anything about terrorism," courtesy of right-wing hacks. Yea, right. Probably my favorite goes something like this, and I've read and heard people say some form of this about Clinton:

"The first World Trade Center attack happened on Clinton's watch, and 9-11 happened only 8 months after Bush took office."

Yah! Well, Clinton's administration only captured those responsible for the '93 bombing - Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah. They were convicted and are behind bars, serving life in prison. I wonder how tough they think Clinton was on terrorism? The person responsible for 9-11 was Osama bin Laden, and the prison where he's incarcerated is in... oh wait, he's still at large, almost five years later. But we got Saddam!

The '93 attack happened 38 days after Clinton took office, and 9-11 happened nearly 8 months after he left office, yet he gets blamed for both by myopic Republicans who refuse to acknowlege the facts. Amazing. It's well documented that the new Bush administration, leading up to the inauguration in January '01, thought that Clinton's team was "obsessed" with terrorism. I've read numerous accounts of this, most notably from Richard Clarke, who worked for both Clinton and Dubya. But, GOP amnesia quickly set in after 9-11.

One more quick example - some people to this day believe we did not retaliate following the August 1998 al Queda attacks on U.S. embassies in Nariobi and Tanzania in Africa. Clinton did all he could with a Republican Congress. He ordered a missile attack on one of bin Laden's compounds, and we just missed him by hours. However, when this missile retaliation occurred, it was right around the time he was testifying about oral sex, and virtually every Republican leader in Congress questioned the timing of the attack. Would this be the same thing as Reagan invading Grenada two days after the bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983, when 241 Americans died? Reagan's response to the scum who killed the Marines? Cut and run from Lebanon.

Clinton attacked when the CIA told him they knew of bin Laden's whereabouts, period. The operation, called Infinite Reach, tried to get bin Laden, and it just missed. In addition, seven people have been jailed or remain in custody in relation to the embassy bombings. Others are still at large, but to say we did nothing is GOP-grade bullshit.

I actually feel less safe under Bush than I did under Clinton. The issue is a lot more complicated than I'm willing to get into here (my blog entries have been way too long lately!), but I feel our borders are wide open. This has gone largely underreported since 9-11, but the press is starting to take wake up and take notice (thankfully).

Something that enraged me on the actual day of 9-11 and in the days immediately after was when I heard some Republicans actually say out loud, "Thank God Gore isn't in there."

I wonder if they still feel that way now? I suspect even the most ardent of Bush supporters would hesitate to answer yes, and recent Bush opinion/popularity polls bear this out.