1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Rudy's Campaign Hits Another Bump

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Fenian_Bastard, Jun 25, 2007.

  1. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    FB, I know your style is to choose your side and then blame everything on the "other" side, even if means convoluted and contradictory arguments.

    But most people don't really have to strain their reasoning powers to come to the conclusion that Bill Clinton wasn't responsible for 9/11. Neither was George Bush. Reasonable people know this. I can't believe you actually think what you posted is an indictment of Giuliani. He said something a child can understand.

    Oh my lord. The words of a madman!
  2. No, the words of someone who specifically blamed Bill Clinton in a speech to a public loon's toy university two days ago. Please read the whole thread. This is embarrassing.
  3. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    He didn't blame Clinton for 9/11.

    He said, 1) 9/11 wasn't the first time we were attacked and 2) the 1993 attack of the WTC was treated like a criminal act, not a terrorist act.
  4. Clap harder.
    Tinkerbell will live again.
    Did you watch the speech? Are you telling me that he wasn't pinning the 9/11 attacks on Clinton because he didn't specifically say, "Clinton is to blame for 9/11"? Are you seriously arguing that that wasn't the message he was pitching to that specific audience?
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I didn't watch the speech. I read the transcript afterward. 1) Yes, it was a "tough on terror" speech, designed specifically for that audience. That still doesn't put the words you'd like in his mouth. 2) He didn't say what you are suggesting.

    To paraphrase (correctly, unlike what you are reading into his words), he said, "We had our heads in the sand prior to 9/11. We didn't understand the threat, including after the WTC bombing in 1993, which (Giuliani believes) emboldened terrorists to strike again, including the Khobar Towers attack. The Demcrats would like to return to that state. Giuliani is different. He will be vigilant when it comes to terrorism because he understands it is not going away, even if it is quiet right now."

    I have no problem debating whether he's right or has the right ideas about what is needed. But he never suggested that Bill Clinton was responsible for 9/11. Never. In fact, he has always taken pains to say it is easier to understand what happened in 1993 with the hindsight of what came later The reason he had to go back two days later and pointedly say that of course Bill Clinton didn't cause 9/11--terrorists did--was people like you falsely attributing that idea to him.
  6. Right. That is exactly what he meant to say at Pat Robertson's university, to a hard right audience. That "we" didn't understand the threat. (We know HE didn't, from his actions subsequent to the 1993 attacks.)
    Keep clapping, Ragu.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page